Ingrid Nielsen: Nature must survive wind turbines

Wind farms should first and foremost be located where their energy can be used locally and where consumers already exist for the electricity produced, writes Ingrid Nielsen.
When Estonia set the goal two years ago to transition to renewable energy, there was a strong sense of hope that things would finally start to move forward — that by the end of this decade, we would be able to give up oil shale energy, which harms both health and nature, and that in the following decade we could meet all of our energy needs with wind and solar power.
Unfortunately, the transition has not gone as expected. Over the past year, wind energy development has encountered loud opposition, which has hindered meaningful discussion about where and how wind farms should be built. As a result, the opportunity to seek balanced solutions has been missed and the silent majority has remained voiceless in the decision-making process.
Looking at the "Estonia 2050" vision, life in Estonia should, in a couple of decades, revolve around two major hubs, supported by several cities acting as regional centers where local life is sustainably served. This would give rural areas their own engines of vitality to keep life going.
But if we overlay the current wind farm development plans onto this vision, it raises the question: how does the emerging landscape of energy production support that future, especially when the designated planning areas lie far from population centers, where energy production could help boost the local labor market?
The farther wind turbines are placed from people, the greater the conflict becomes between renewable energy development and nature. Space for new types of industrial infrastructure near settlements is limited: turbines are typically not placed within one to one and a half kilometers of homes or within two kilometers of densely populated areas. And yet, these are often the most suitable locations — close to consumers, where the noise from turbines blends with traffic noise, where animals and birds already keep their distance and where many surfaces exist that could be built on without disturbing the natural balance.
So, what makes a good location for a wind farm? First and foremost, it should be where the energy produced can be used locally — where there are already consumers for the electricity generated.
The European Union's Renewable Energy Directive provides clear guidance for site selection: developments should not fragment natural landscapes and should primarily favor areas already heavily influenced by human activity.
Good examples include turbines located in industrial zones, former mining landscapes or on depleted peatlands. In Estonia, a strong example is the turbines built on former oil shale-related land, such as the ash plateau in Narva. Or the large agricultural landscapes on the Pandivere Upland, or the Sopi-Tootsi wind farm on a former peat deposit, where wetland farming could also be developed. Multifunctional land use can help ease pressure on natural areas.
Conversely, a poor location is one where energy production would interfere with the rights of other species to exist — disrupting bird migration routes or feeding paths between nesting areas, bat habitats or the functioning of ecosystems as a whole.
It is especially regrettable when, at the start of a wind farm pre-selection process, clear-cutting permits are quickly issued for forests within the proposed area. If it is later decided that the location is unsuitable, then both the forest and the wind farm are lost.
Preserving the green network depends on maintaining the functioning of supporting landscapes. If we install large technical structures in these areas, we undermine their core purpose: to help our natural support zones function well, which in turn helps keep our managed landscapes richer in biodiversity. For example, this was the reason wind area planning was abandoned in Kose Municipality.
The maritime spatial plan serves as a good example of how to prevent conflicts before they arise. No such approach has yet been applied on land. The marine planning process was lengthy, but it involved studies, selected the most suitable areas for different activities and included stakeholder consultations.
If the spatial agreements reached through that process are respected — and there's no attempt to break the trust built through legal loopholes, such as Enefit Green's application to split the Hiiumaa offshore wind farm area into three separate parks to avoid going through the national special planning procedure — then that's the kind of approach we should emulate on land as well.
Good plans usually begin by identifying a need. We need to generate energy for ourselves, which means we want this energy production to support local life, the economy and spatial planning — but without harming the environment or the functioning of nature.
The space for discussion around wind farm development is narrowing and there is a growing risk that the transition to renewable energy will override our shared interests. There is certainly room for renewable energy infrastructure. Now, the state must sit down — together with local governments, communities, developers and experts — and identify the best areas for wind turbines, keeping in mind Estonia's long-term vision and the sustainable coexistence of people and nature.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook, Bluesky and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Marcus Turovski