Why not allow backyard windmills?
Why should we allow windmills here in Harvard? Because of global warming or peak oil? These are complex issues and many people debate them every day. There are arguments both supporting and refuting these theories. People used to argue about whether the earth was flat or round but that discussion settled out over time.
OK, so you don’t believe in global warming or peak oil. What about really expensive energy?
“Life is Good” here in Harvard, why should we change it? This is a great place and we have a good life. We flip a lever and the house warms up or cools down. We push a button and our clothes are cleaned and dried. We turn a key and we can drive 30 miles to work. Or drop the kids off at soccer games or school. We can easily forget how much or our lifestyle is built on a foundation of energy. There is a lot of value to us in this energy but until recently it hasn’t cost that much. We take it for granted; we even think of it as something we are entitled to.
What if the cost of energy doubled? Tripled? How would that affect our town and our way of life? Does anyone remember the ’70s with gas lines and outrageous gas prices?
I was working in India for several months a couple of years ago. There were oxcarts delivering cargo in the city. People were walking, riding bicycles, or maybe riding a motor scooter. Apartments are generally not air-conditioned. We were designing microprocessors; others in Bangalore were creating websites, programming databases, originating loans, performing financial analysis, and running call centers. These are very smart, very hard-working people, and they want to cool off, clean their clothes, and drive cars just like we want to. There are billions of people in India, and even more in China who have similar wants and needs.
The cost of oil more than doubled over the last year, and consumption is still rising globally. All energy costs have risen in unison: natural gas, propane, and coal have increased in cost, as well as oil. Even the cost of firewood has increased.
OK, so you don’t think the cost of energy will rise too much for your budget, what about personal choice?
If someone wants to drive a Hummer, that’s OK. Or a Prius, that’s OK. Build a new house in Harvard, that’s OK too.
One family may want to spend the equivalent of a new car for a system that can provide all the electricity for their family for years to come. Why not let them? If they want to buy an insurance policy against rising energy costs, why not let them?
Global warming, peak oil, expensive energy, personal choice. There are many reasons people could want a windmill.
Modern residential windmills are quiet and small. Yes they are on a tall tower, so there will be a change in the view. People accept power lines all over town already; is a windmill really going to impact the view that much more? We already allow ham radio towers that are roughly the same height and structure; do they bother folks that much?
Compare building a new house to installing a windmill. People build new houses all around town and they are allowed “by right,” but windmills are currently prohibited. How much did the view shed change while four houses were built or expanded on Prospect Hill Road recently? How much would it change if four people put up windmills? I don’t think that a windmill looks that bad, but others may disagree.
During the process of researching the bylaws from other towns, and canvassing Harvard residents, the Wind Energy Conversion Systems Task Force identified a number of areas of concern people would have and addressed them in the bylaw that we proposed. Commercial turbines are prohibited; only residential accessory-use windmills are allowed. The proposed bylaw specifically limits the noise, regulates many aspects of safety, does not allow any lights on the towers and defines setback distances from property lines. It also encourages the minimization of view impact.
There are many opinions on this issue, and I recognize it is emotionally charged. I urge residents to come to the Harvard town meeting on March 29 to debate and vote on it.
Wind energy is on the verge of cost equivalence to traditional energy, so let’s give it a chance.
John Sweeney is a resident of Madigan Lane.
Turbines won’t help
On March 3 the Harvard Planning Board held a meeting to discuss the Wind Turbine bylaw proposed by a group of citizens in a Town Meeting warrant article. Joe Sudol, a member of the Planning Board opined that turbine power makes no sense for Harvard. The contribution to the environment would be negligible, he said, and view sheds would be compromised.
Proponents of the bylaw asked the board and citizens to look beyond view shed for the sake of the next generation.
“Harvard’s quaint look is irrelevant if we continue to burn carbon heedlessly.’”
And, “The last natural resource we have are the school children. We must be able to look the children of this town in the eye and say, ‘We tried’.”
Finally, one proponent said, “Planners who are focused only on the ‘view’ need to go back to science class.”
I have empathy for the people who express such strong, deeply held feelings. For them, climate change has become a core belief that has strong meaning in their everyday lives. Such expressions are reminiscent of those you might expect to hear from religious zealots. And, for many people, that is what global warming/climate change has turned into—a religious movement.
For those who are able to keep an open mind about the science, there are a vast number of serious scientists who do not accept the hypothesis that the observed changes in global temperature are caused by man. For example, many scientists believe that the activity of the sun has a much stronger influence on the earth’s climate than “greenhouse” gases. Research Groups in Canada, Russia, and Britain have presented historic data which shows just such links.
The Danish Meteorological Institute produced a study in 1991 showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlated very closely with solar cycles. They theorized on the process involved.
“The key factor isn’t changes in solar output, but rather changes in the sun’s magnetosphere. A stronger field shields the earth more from cosmic rays, which act as ‘seeds’ for cloud formation. The result is less cloud cover, and a warming planet. When the field weakens, clouds increase, reflecting more light back to space, and the earth cools off.” (For more information visit www.dmi.dk/eng/index.)
Just this January, meteorologist Anthony Watts, founder of SurfaceStations.org, compiled the temperature data for 2007 from the world’s four major temperature tracking outlets. There was a surprisingly high level of cooling of the earth over the last year. It ranged from 0.65C up to 0.75C. For comparative purposes, this is about the same order of magnitude as the total global warming observed over the last hundred years. The result represents, according to Watts, the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Note that a single year of data doesn’t make a trend and certainly does not prove that the earth is now entering a cooling period. However, the significant drop in temperature in 2007 is an “inconvenient truth” that is a very difficult fact to explain away by those who believe that man-made greenhouse gases are the major cause of climate change.
So what does this all mean with regard to the wind turbine bylaw in Harvard? While installing wind turbines may provide some solace to those who believe that man is causing harm to the planet, there is significant scientific evidence that disputes that view. Personally, I come down in favor of those planners who want to preserve Harvard’s historic view shed and would not be in favor of the proposed bylaw.
Wind turbine proponents who believe that the scientific debate on global warming is over won’t accept this view. They would, however, benefit from a study of the climate change literature that indicates otherwise.
Anthony Marolda is a resident of Jacob Gates Road.
