Thar she blows! Wind farms may surface off our coast

Which would you rather see: (a) Offshore oil platforms or (b) Offshore windmills?

OK, the question isn’t fair, because, given the choice, most people would probably pick (c) None of the above.

While nobody (yet) is proposing drilling offshore for oil anywhere near New England, a trio of proposals announced earlier this week could bring wind farms 65 miles off the coast of Connecticut.

Those of us who support so-called green power are conflicted. Sure, generating electricity from wind-driven turbines sounds far more eco-friendly than operating coal-fired, oil-burning or nuclear power plants, but there are downsides to giant windmills.

For one thing, they’re ugly. Maybe at first they seem mesmerizing, but it doesn’t take long for the fascination to wear off and the realization to set in that these are enormous intrusions on the seascape and landscape. That’s how I reacted not long ago when I initially viewed new windmills built on a formerly pristine mountain ridge in Maine. Now every time I pass them I grit my teeth.

If you believe tourism authorities on Block Island, though, where the nation’s first offshore wind farm has been supplying electricity since December 2016, visitors and residents alike love gazing at the spinning blades. I don’t know, sounds like a fish story to me.

Of course, the 200-megawatt projects now under consideration off Connecticut would be built far out of sight, but having them so distant from land creates another problem: Laying miles of underwater cables, along with a maze of new, above-

ground transmission lines.

Windmills also are notorious bird shredders.

The Audubon Society reported in 2016 that wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, “making it the most threatening form of green energy.”

I would feel a lot better about wind farms if I thought for one minute that they would accomplish what they're purportedly designed to do: reduce greenhouse gases. This is an admirable goal, but — call me cynical — I doubt it would ever be met.

In recent years, numerous advances have been made in energy conservation: LED lights have been gradually replacing incandescent and fluorescent bulbs; hybrid and electric cars now run as far as 100 miles on a single gallon of gas; homes are better insulated; and Energy Star appliances operate much more efficiently than older models.

Yet we're using more power than ever.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that, despite all these advances, the nation's energy consumption actually rose in 2016, the most recent year for which information is available.

That's because our lives are increasingly filled with so much useless junk powered by electricity, lithium batteries and internal combustion engines. I'm not talking about light bulbs, furnaces, cars or other necessities, but all the robotic vacuum cleaners, leaf blowers, electric can openers ... I've beaten this drum before so there's no point belaboring the issue.

I fear the availability of cheap electricity will be just as effective at cutting energy consumption as diet soda has been in weight reduction.

I guess we just can't help ourselves, whether it's consuming electricity or calories.