‘They wreck the sight lines’ -UCP

Industry Canada requires that the installation of a wind turbine requires a “fall“ radius around the tower equal to the height of the device installed. So putting them by the highway would be a risk to critical infrastructure, which any highway is, let alone highway 2 which is a special industrial corridor in Alberta. There is no way that wind towers would be built within falling range of that roadway. 

Also wind power is a private business concern and not a provincial government concern, so even if a power company wanted to put them there they would have to lease the sites. And then there is the transmission lines that carry the power away to consider, they need space and fall zones and so much more access for maintenance. Seems like a good idea until the engineers look at it and collectively sat “nah bruh”. 

Also I think any usage of that corridor space should be looking at high speed rail…. So I guess special interests have a role to play too. 

There are a bunch of factors that go into siting a windmill project. Some have been mentioned already, like fall radius, proximity to buildings, future development of towns/cities, etc.

Another couple are higher ground/ridges to install the turbines on, as this maximizes the wind, as well as good ground for the turbines to be installed on. I'm not exactly sure how they do it (screw pilings maybe?), but for such talk, heavy structures, I know there are constraints as to where they can be installed with maximum stability.

Proximity to transition lines is another factor.

And along Highway 2 is some of the most productive farmland in the province. Land can almost always be leased, but the price it would command would be a lot higher than, say, cattle grazing country near Drumheller. (For the non-agriculturally-minded, if large areas are used for cattle grazing, it means the land isn't suited to crop for one or more reasons- too dry/uncertain precipitation, saline (higher salt content), too hilly, etc.)

The United Conservative Party (UCP) government in Alberta did not cancel all green projects, but its policies, including a seven-month moratorium on new renewable energy project approvals in 2023-2024 and subsequent regulations, have led to the cancellation or delay of dozens of projects. 

Key impacts include:

• Cancelled Projects: According to reports from the Pembina Institute and Business Renewables Centre (BRC-Canada), approximately 53 wind, solar, and battery storage projects have been cancelled since the moratorium was announced in August 2023. These cancelled projects represent a generating capacity of over 8,600 megawatts, which is more than enough power for all homes in Alberta.
• Investment and Revenue Loss: The cancellations have reportedly stripped an estimated C$91 million annually in municipal tax revenues from rural communities and resulted in billions in lost economic opportunities and investment.
• New Regulations: The moratorium was put in place to allow the government to develop new regulations concerning land use, "pristine viewscapes," and reclamation security. New rules were released in late 2024, imposing restrictions and "no-go zones" in certain agricultural and scenic areas, which critics argue create an uncertain investment climate and put renewables at a disadvantage compared to the fossil fuel industry.
• Ongoing Projects: Some projects that were already in advanced stages of development or construction prior to the moratorium have proceeded, and a few new projects have been proposed since the pause was lifted, but the overall volume of new applications has slowed significantly. 

The UCP government has defended its actions, with officials stating the pause was necessary to ensure responsible land use and grid reliability, and that the reports of cancellations are misinformation because not all proposed projects are expected to be built. However, the general consensus among industry watchers and clean energy organizations is that the policy changes have created significant political and regulatory uncertainty, causing investors to look to other jurisdictions. 

or in simpler terms, people with billions to invest in major energy projects, dont waste their money on unstable ideologically driven governments.

Because the oil and gas industry see them a challenge to their business of burning fossil fuels for profit. They own Alberta and their puppet government.

Drive Highway 3 from Fort McCloud to the Crowsnest Pass.

Windmills are anti-albertan activities

/s

I don't know about wind turbines, but solar fences might be interesting. If you need a fence anyway, they take up no space. While they do produce less power on average than horizontal solar panels, they do better in times when traditional solar struggles the most, such as the morning and evening, as well as in the winter.

UCP hates anything that upsets oil and gas 

Sigh… it does have a couple of considerations.

You need the land.

You need the access to getting power to the grid.

I know that it's unpopular among Green types due to all the fearmongering and such, but nuclear would be so much more space efficient and it's emissions free. The oil lobby hates it, though, since it's something that could potentially make them obsolete if widely adopted enough. Even the oil rich Gulf states are transitioning to nuclear. The UAE recently opened up its first reactor.

For now, though, the real answer to why we don't install more wind turbines is because the UCP doesn't like them. They upset the oil and gas lobbies, which is who Smith actually supports. Plus they're "woke" or something, idk.

I wouldn't put up windmills. I'd start covering the roads with solar panels that can be hinged straight up to dump snow and clear over height loads. Probably help road life as well keeping the sun off them.

yeah, there's lots of wind on the 2. but there's even more wind further south, and they haven't run out of space to build windmills down there yet.

I love driving down highway three and seeing all the wind turbines spinning.

UCP thinks you can't be pro oil AND pro renewables because reasons

Given the gnarly weather between Airdrie and Red Deer I wouldn't want to build anything in that corridor. I'd imagine tennis ball sized hail isn't great for the blades.

Highway 2 is pretty long, kind of a tough question. The wind turbines are built where it is windy, down south and out east. I assume the companies that built them determined that the wind along highway 2 is not windy enough

Highway 2 isn’t really that bad for wind. Go east of Stettler, there is more wind and a lot of wind turbines around there. SE Alberta is a good spot for them.

If you're talking about the actual highway right of way, that's probably not practical given how enormous wind turbines are. The blades would pass over neighbouring fields, and they could pose a road hazard...there's a reason we keep the rights of way clear of obstacles.

If you're talking about the surrounding fields, it's because Alberta severely restricts where such things can be placed, even if a landowner wants them. ALL HAIL YOUR LORD AND SAVIOUR, EXXON MOBIL.

There's the practical reasons - safety, mentioned elsewhere the in comments here - but also the simple fact that all our energy generation is privately-owned.

I’m sorry have you not enjoyed the glorious views of the Rockies offered by traversing highway 2?

As someone else said, they'd be too close to the highway if they were to fall. However, the UCP cancelled all renewable energy projects so we can't even explore other options. Im all for it, it brings in money, creates jobs for Albertans and props our grid up when there's large energy spikes. Plus it props us up when oil and gas ain't doing so well. I'm pro oil and gas, but I'm also pro renewable energy in the fact that it creates jobs and bolsters our grid and economy. There is zero reason we can't have both other than "renewables must be a liberal thing, let's not have it".

Renewables are illegal in Alberta, we are permanently stuck in 1953. Just waiting for them to put the lead back in the gasoline and a little polio treat. Enjoy

It seems that the cities are mostly expanding along hiway 2. Building windmills would restrict their growth due to restrictions to how close houses can be there.

Big oil does not approve.

They would be a navigation hazard for the drones birds.

Initial costs are expensive for wind turbines so producers place them based on prevailing wind patterns. Highway 16 had a turbine along a curve in the highway to test winds generated from highway traffic but it was taken down after a few years, I assume that it didn’t prove to be economically feasible

The other drawback is the noise a line of turbines produces would make travelling along the highway very unpleasant

They already have them in max wind areas.

The only way possible and most efficient and effective is a vertical wind turbine that can go around light posts

I have seen a bunch around alix/coronation - somewhere near to stettler. Not sure about the exact location

People would crash into them.

Highway 2 is good, but there's better spots in Alberta for windmills, and companies want to maximize profit (read wind) when building new projects.

Global Wind Atlas https://share.google/GOU0HvmRuwLm4KRAT if you're curious.

Thank the UCP

We’re capitalists. The government would never.

Because that's not want our O&G overlords want for us.

Private entities own the land along the QE2 and most of it is agricultural. You'd need to convince them to allow it and jump through the new regulatory framework.

Because oil lobby says wind is bad.

Because we are stupid in this province.

Because they don't provide benefits to oil companies.

You can’t own the libs with visible renewable energy on the side of the highway.

This isn't SimCity, you don't just plop wind turbines wherever you feel like it. You don't think somebody has studied it in the last hundred years? A few windy days a year when you're driving does not make it viable. 

That would be too green, cause they like making electricity by burning natural gas.

OP you are way too WOKE to be living in Oilberta under Smith and her UCP.

Because of the ucp

Because we don’t want to trigger the right wing conservative oil and gas people.

They take away from the burning of fossil fuel for electricity and that is a no no for the UCP.