The first reaction to the idea of putting a wind energy plant in a national forest is something of a jolt. The new proposal to erect tall turbines on a ridgeline in the George Washington National Forest, which straddles Virginia's border with West Virginia, is bound to be controversial. But it's worth a look.

If carefully chosen, a national forest site may offer the ideal conditions of altitude and geographic isolation — and a way to serve a part of the country that's hungry for power. Commercial uses of national forests are hardly new; their timber and oil have been harvested for years. Within limitations, it's probably time to harness their wind, too.
A discussion of wind energy has to begin with this: It should be encouraged. More reliance on such nonpolluting, nonimported, nonfossil fuel sources has to be part of our nation's effort to secure an adequate supply of energy. Increasing and diversifying supply has to be joined with more aggressive efforts to control the demand side, too, through conservation.

Europe has found in wind power a beneficial way to meet a portion of its energy needs, though the economic equation still relies on subsidies there. In this country, a federal tax credit subsidizes wind energy today, but greater technological efficiency, a coming market in pollution credits, and the record high price of oil may erase the need for such a taxpayer-paid incentive.

Wherever the market, as the price of other fuels continues to rise, the economics of wind power improve. Start-up costs are very high, but future fuel costs are very, very low. Especially if it offsets higher-cost, higher-polluting sources, renewable wind power looks more and more like a smart and marketable investment.

But scenery, not subsidy, is more immediately at the heart of the debate.

It's all a matter of where wind farms are sited. Wind-swept plains, open water, shoreline areas and high-altitude ridgelines offer the necessities: steady and abundant air, few obstructions, connections to transmission capacity.

But it's unfair to assume that the urban and suburban hunger for power has to follow the traditional path of tapping rural resources, regardless of impact. To the landowners and residents who choose to make their homes in such places, having their skyline interrupted by giant propellers on 400-foot-tall stands has about as much appeal as clear-cutting a mountainside for timber, or blast-leveling a mountaintop and choking mountain streams for coal.

The challenge lies in finding locations where wind turbines won't bring a new environmental blight. The towering structures, with their rotating blades and blinking lights, surely break up the beauty of a Piedmont skyline. The sound adds another form of pollution, especially in places where quiet is part of the appeal. And the turbine propellers kill birds and bats.

These issues are why residents geared up, without success, to fight a project that is now set to install wind turbines on a pristine mountain ridge in Virginia's beautiful Highland County. They're why Virginians were aghast at now-dormant plans to put hundreds of wind turbines off a wildlife refuge at the tip of the Eastern Shore. And why heavy hitters in New England banded together to fight an offshore wind farm that would compromise the beautiful views of Nantucket Sound.

But some communities welcome wind turbines. They bring income and, in some cases, a way to pay the municipal power bill for pennies. Depending on where they are and what surrounds them, they offer a significant upside with no real downside.

Because the Appalachian Mountains are about the only place in the Southeastern United States with the conditions necessary for wind power, the new proposal is worth a look.

Of course, there are questions to be answered: What will it do to the view? How will wildlife be affected? What about noise? What will construction involve? What income can be realized, and how can it be used to support the nation's forests and wilderness areas? What subsidies will be asked, or required? What will wind power add to the grid? What effect will it have on energy prices? What polluting plants might be unnecessary if nonpolluting, renewable plants succeed?

Let's get the answers by exploring the idea, not by running from it.