back to top

Commentary: Poor Mountain Wind Turbines Poor Idea for Roanoke

This is to refute the recent propagandized information provided to our area citizens from a “green” money- motivated industry, posing as a “green” energy hero.  A Chicago-based corporation, “Invenergy”, proposes to lay claim to our area mountain winds, beginning with 18 industrial-sized wind turbines on Roanoke County’s Poor Mountain.

Wind energy is best captured with the latest technology that uses battery storage for this sporadic energy source—residential-sized  wind generators — not the 443’ industrial-sized turbines proposed for Roanoke County.  This 443’ height is much taller than most turbines in other locations.  The industrial turbines can only operate at 25%  maximum of the industry’s claimed efficiency rate due to our area being in the lowest acceptable wind classification.  AEP was recently denied their  request to accept  inefficient and uneven  wind energy, which would  have necessitated  increased customer bills (RT 6/04/10).  Industrial scale turbines require highly efficient and stable energy, such as coal or natural gas, to maintain the “on demand” availability of our electrical power.  This requires our current  coal power be turned up and down  since wind is variable in presence and strength.  Fluctuation in the coal powered operation increases pollution.  Furthermore, this project does not have a capacity for wind energy storage.

The citizens of our area and S.W. Virginia need to research scientific sources that are not connected with the industrial wind turbine industry.  In my research, I have found that mountainous areas have a greater diameter of area affected by industrial scale turbines than flat land. Large quantities of low frequency sound and vibrations, measured  on a “C” scale in decibels, are emitted from the industrial wind turbines.  These sounds and vibrations, cause insomnia, headaches,  seizures, and nausea, and eventually take a heavy  toll on  general human health and work productivity.  The specifics of this are most recently presented in “Audiology Today.”  This negatively influenced area in the mountainous terrain extends to a 4 mile diameter from each turbine tower.  Other health related problems such as shadow flicker (turbine lights and sunlight “chopped” by the rotating blades) can cause headaches, nausea, and vertigo.  Also, ice and snow thrown from blades travel over ¼ mile (3 city blocks) from the great turbine heights.

The presently proposed site locations, on Poor Mountain, the tallest mountain in the area (3928’), has its own set of unusual characteristics.  Transmitter towers for radio, television, and safety communications occupy a small portion of this mountain.  The chopping effect of  turbine blades can affect the transmitting waves of these communication towers.  Increased flight path height for aviation may also be required , due to the very tall rotating blades proposed, and would be another potential hazard for planes landing at Roanoke’s airport.   Environmental  threats include  concentrated kills of migratory birds and insect-eating bats from turbine blades and air pressure,  high erosion potential of unique, fragile, and  shallow mountain soils,  and also water reduction (spring destruction).  The latter two pose significant problems  downstream for “tier-three” Bottom Creek, stemming  from the construction, anchoring, and clearing  methods used for three acres per turbine (1 acre = 1 entire football field area).  There are only 30 tier-three described streams in the entire state of Virginia.

The similar area of major impact proposed is described for familiar locations in Roanoke.  The presently proposed perimeter of this area of the18 industrial-sized towers,  and its low-frequency noise-vibration influenced area, would include the following locations: Round Hill School, Valley View; the New Yorker Deli, Williamson Road;  Gus Nicks Blvd. at Orange Avenue;  Mt. Pleasant at the Blue Ridge Parkway;  Roanoke Mountain; Tanglewood Mall;  beyond Patrick Henry High School; Fairview Cemetery, Melrose; and back to Round Hill . The height of each  turbine would be 5 times as tall as the Roanoke Star.   A turbine placed at  Crystal Spring near Roanoke Memorial Hospital would be over half the height of  Mill Mountain itself.

Many homes and property would be devalued in this sized area’s proposed location with its negative impact.  Since real estate values decline and residents’ health problems increase, the industry can use taxpayers’ money to encroach on more lands to increase turbine locations, devaluating more homeowners’ investments and lives.

Roanoke County invested millions of dollars in a new recreation/ aquatic center to draw people to relocate here.  The industrial wind turbines will deter potential new residents and make current residents move away.

Don’t let the winds of this fad blow away your common sense.  The “green” that the turbine industry is after is  taxpayers’ money for their own pockets.  Roanokers need to research the effects for themselves.

Karen Scott, Bent Mountain


Latest Articles

5 COMMENTS

  1. Thanks, Karen, for countering the popular notion that windmills provide “free” energy. And yes, the promoters of this scam are the contractors who will take the taxpayers’ money. If you’ve ever heard of Tehachapi, California, you can see a glimpse of Roanoke County’s future. I grew up there, and the wind farms have severely impacted the lifestyles of the area’s residents. And the wind energy promoters–they are a bunch of rascals, pure and simple. Once one wind farm comes in, the rest of the industry will follow, secretly buying up one parcel after another. They are great at moving “under the covers.” We don’t want these things here. Fine article.

  2. Thanks for your input, i love it when anything anyone tries to do anything to change the way we do things now, there is always somebody to knock it. Only a moron would think a company was trying to do this with out making money. So would you be alright with a oil fired generation plant, no sound wave or chopped air?

  3. R Graybill: I understand your argument, but it’s predicated on a false choice. You are implying that there are only two alternatives: wind turbines or oil/coal-fired plants. This is precisely the way the wind energy companies want you to think about this issue. They want you to feel as though you are “doing your part” to support earth-friendly energy production. We all want earth-friendly energy production. But wind turbines are wrong for so many reasons. I’ve lived among them. I’ve done enough research of the technology and the politics behind them, and they are a scam. Stay tuned to the upcoming debates in Roanoke and Botetourt counties, and please keep an open mind. There is no shame in being wrong simply because you were uninformed. It’s how we grow in life. The tragedy is when one doesn’t change his/her opinion even when confronted with the facts.

  4. So Bill, tell us where is the “scam”? I see nothing in graybills comment that suggested he is only considering two alternatives. Your fundamental opposition seems to be rooted in the notion that “the rest of the industry will follow” or “they secretly buy up one parcel after another” and “they move under the covers”. All these sounds like characteristics of a growing profitable enterprise. Well paying construction jobs and maintenance system jobs might be a welcome addition to this, or any community. Bring them on….just don’t put them where they impact MY view!

  5. Oh, it’s a growing, profitable enterprise, all right–2/3 of which is on the backs of the American taxpayer. When “Big Oil” does this, most everybody thinks it’s wrong and want to climb all over them. Fine. But somehow, when the wind energy industry does the same thing, it gets a pass.

    Jobs…Talk to the Spanish and Danish governments about jobs. After 20 years, they are singing a different tune. Two years ago, Spain was bragging about wind energy providing 11% of their total energy needs. Now they are moving away from wind power as fast as their blades will take them, seeing that for every job created in wind energy, three jobs are lost in the rest of their economy due to the ever-increasing level of taxation needed to subsidize wind power interests. The Danish government, even more in the tank with wind power, have come to the same conclusion; they just aren’t quite sure yet how to pull the plug. And when you pin down the advocates of wind power to job sustainability, even they have to come clean on the transient nature of the jobs associated with this activity. They depend upon a never-ending wave of new wind turbine construction to keep people employed, while those employed after the turbines are installed is so small as to be barely noticeable. The truth of the matter is that the wind power industry cannot survive on it’s own without two out of every three dollars “invested” being confiscated from you, me, and 180 million of our best friends.

    And “lessening our dependency on carbon-based fuels?” Oh, please. Because of the high unpredictability of wind power-generated electrical current, coal-fired plants have to throttle up and down to make up the difference in total demand. When these plants do this, they don’t burn as clean as if they are kept at the same load all the time. The net effect is an increase in air pollution. So how’s that for “clean wind?” It’s a scam. We’re paying for it. American technology can do better than this, and it will. And when it does, who is going to take down all those rusting, broken down, useless hulks? I suppose the taxpayer will foot the bill for that, too.

Latest Articles

Related Articles