Back in late winter, when a volunteer committee picked a documentary about the dark side of wind energy for Evanston's Talking Pictures Festival, no one was expecting the issue to blow up just in time for the screening this Friday. But it has. Last week Interior Secretary Ken Salazar gave his blessing to Cape Wind, a 130-turbine wind farm to be built in the ocean off Cape Cod—the first such project to win approval in the U.S.—and opponents (including the Kennedys and the Wampanoag Indians) who fear it'll mar views and harm fishing, wildlife, and sacred areas promised a court fight.
And much closer to home, on April 13, the Evanston City Council issued an RFI—a request for information—on constructing what may turn out to be 40 400-foot-tall turbines in Lake Michigan.
The documentary, Laura Israel's Windfall, tells the story of what happened when developers offered folks in Meredith, New York, sign-up bonuses for the right to put a wind turbine on their property. Meredith's residents are a mix of retirees and part-timers from Manhattan and struggling longtime farmers, and the money combined with the carbon-cutting benefits proved to be a powerful double-green incentive. The town board—including members with apparent conflicts of interest—ignored the recommendation of its own planning group and enacted regulations favorable to the developers. When residents started to get a sense of the turbines' mammoth scale, strobe-like shadows, and unrelenting noise (seven-ton blades described as "thumping or ripping" the air at up to 200 miles per hour), some began to organize. The issue created rifts among the townspeople, but they unseated the board at the next election and ultimately kept the turbines out.
Of course the situation is different in Evanston, where the turbines would be four to nine miles out in the lake. Seen from the Evanston shore on the clearest of days, they"d appear to be "less than half the height of your pinky fingernail turned sideways and held at arm's length," according to Nathan Kipnis, a local architect and task-force cochair for Citizens for a Greener Evanston, which is promoting the idea (and has assembled a list of more than 200 other initiatives for reducing the city's carbon footprint 13 percent by 2012). Compared to Meredith's exposure, Kipnis says, it's the difference between "being right next to a big building or four suburbs away."
Evanston is a promising location for turbines, Kipnis says, because it has shallow water offshore and what the CGE folks believe to be "excellent wind." It's better than Chicago because there's no big skyscraper cluster to create turbulence. Exactly how excellent Evanston's wind is, however, is still a matter of speculation, since it's never been tested. The closest measurement was taken at the Carter H. Harrison water intake crib, 80 feet above lake level and two miles off Oak Street Beach, where breezes average about 15 miles per hour. "Higher up and way further out, without any tall buildings in the area, it'll be much better," Kipnis says. The power generated by a turbine goes "to the cube of wind speed," he adds. "Double the wind speed and you get eight times the power. We're looking for 18 miles per hour or more. If we can hit 20, that would be great."
Forty turbines could theoretically produce enough energy to power all the residences—though not all of the businesses—in Evanston, Kipnis says. But they're more expensive to build in the water than on land and, even with hefty average breezes, it's likely that the energy produced by them would cost more, at least initially, than energy from traditional sources. CGE estimates that it'll take $400 million to get a 40-turbine project up and running—which is why a developer and not the city would be the probable owner. And, because the wind is notoriously changeable, it's not like Evanston could simply abandon its old, bad energy sources. Neal Blair—a professor in Northwestern University's civil and environmental engineering department who lives in Evanston, supports the proposal, and thinks the turbines are "beautiful"—says we wouldn't be able to store excess wind energy, so something like coal or gas would still have to be available to take up the slack.