Yesterday, at the National Climate Energy Summit, Mayor Bloomberg proposed putting wind turbines on the city’s buildings, bridges, and waterfront, “with the aim of weaning it off the nation’s overtaxed power grid.”

There are several very valid criticisms of the plan — it would take many years, dollars, and negotiations with annoyed residents, who may go all Ted Kennedy on us, and the Feds, who control the waters around the city.

These are all manageable; one block may prove insurmountable.  Charles Blow points out that the city’s plan is to build much smaller wind turbines than those in, for example, upstate New York.

But if the turbines are too small, they’ll end up using more energy than they create.

Blow cites a study by Britain’s Carbon Trust which found that:

“domestic windmills in urban locations are actually net carbon emitters, as more energy goes into their production, shipping, and maintenance than is saved by their use.”

There are improvements that need to be made to New York’s existing buildings which do not grab headlines like King Kong windmills, but will, by the city’s reckoning, reduce associated carbon emissions by up to 20%.  In fact, Bloomberg has already promised to make these changes.  

Like Blow, I’m all for wind turbines, if the plan is approached rationally (I think they will find that putting them in the water and upstate — not on city structures — will be the best option).  But I would urge the Bloomberg administration to use its final 18 months to push harder on the commitments of PlaNYC, ensuring they do not crumble with the next mayor, and leave the windmills for our next Don Quijote.

Image courtesy of brianvan, who says:

Headline FAIL.