John Beling

So your argument is “we’re not as bad open pit mining”, so it’s OK?

Perhaps you should dial it back a bit.

November 23rd, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Avram took the words right out of my mouth. As a state of only 600,000 people and a relatively small area of land, with the exception of maple syrup and Cabot cheese, we are barely a blip on any national scale. Untill people want to discuss the subject of population control or even population decrease -and at some undetermined time in the future they will, we need to produce energy with methods that have the least impact to the environment. I understand the argument that our ridge lines are precious. I’m a born and raised Vermonter that has spent countless days afield in the woods and hiking trails of our beautiful state. Not all sites that have a good wind resource are likely to meet all of the conditions that good impact studies reveal. Some environmental issues will not be midigateable (I don’t know about that word). Some however, will pass muster. Between the pro-wind and the anti-wind folks, we’ll end up with responsible siting of just the right amount of wind farm sites on our ridge lines. Maybe around 10 for the whole state. Will it make dent in the national consumption of energy? Barely. We will however be producing electricity closer to home and taking responsibility for where it comes from. Are we offended by church steeples? Are we offended by farm silos? Are we offended by the smell of cow manure as we drive down an old country road? (Well, maybe a little). The point here is that these elements in our surroundings are symbols of where we are and who we are. Wind turbines can also be a symbol of forward looking, independent people who choose energy sources that minimize negative impacts to their natural environment. Clean air and water are essential elements of life and must be protected. Our children and their children and all of the generations to follow are doomed without them. Wind power is just one more energy source to add to a porfolio of other low impact, renewable energy sources that will help insure healthy populations in the fast approching future. We are good stewards of our state and good examples for the rest of the country. 10 widely scattered, well sited wind farms along our ridge lines will not diminish it’s beauty. It will impress upon visitors our independence and concern for our future.

What you need to do, Vermont News Guy, is learn the difference between a kilowatt and a kilowatt-hour. You are pitching around nonsense phrases such as “Electricity consumption nationwide is equivalent to about 450 GW annually.” Consumption would be in GWh. GW is a notation for instantaneous power output.

You write (concerning the 2.9 GW figure for VT ridgelines), “That sounds like a lot of power, but these are estimates of “gross capacity…not adjusted for losses.” That’s official jargon meaning the estimate assumes the wind would be blowing at about 6.5 m/s all the time. ” No, it doesn’t. The figure is a nameplate rating. It has nothing to do with energy output over time. It is like an engine horsepower rating.

2.9 GW of wind power in a mediocre site would produce around 6,350 GWh annually. Note the “h” on the end for hours. According to the VT Department of Public Service, in 2003 Vermonters consumed a total of 6,009 GWh. So, a full build out of our ridgelines would essentially offset our entire electrical energy consumption. Sometimes we would be exporting to the New England ISO, and sometimes we would be importing, but on an annual basis it would basically take Vermont to net zero outside demand.

I’m not suggesting that we have to do a full build out, or that we should try to run the grid on 100% wind power. Implementing a renewable grid will be complex. We will need a variety of energy sources, along with extensive energy efficiency efforts and intelligent grid control. Nevertheless, dismissing local wind power as insignificant is ignoring physical reality.

Vermont’s a small state. To say that the amount of industrial wind that might be generated here is not enough to make a difference nationally or globally so pointless that it is astounding that a responsible person could post this. The same could be said for any generation source in Vermont. We can’t make a numerical difference for the planet by anything we do here in Vermont, so let’s just give up, OK? Tell Hydro Quebec to build a few hundred more miles of 200-ft steel transmission towers because we don’t want to look at a handful of 400-ft towers where we live. While we”re at it, let stop this foolishness about eating local, because what difference will THAT make in the national agricultural picture, “numerically speaking”, really?

When Washington Electric Co-op says that the Coventry landfill gas project provides two-thirds of the power our 10,500 members use, we didn’t make that up. Our members are also expected to get 10% of the output of the Sheffield project when it comes on line. No matter what, we have a long-standing legal obligation to assure that they get power from somewhere. We’re pretty good at power planning, and that wind project is a measurable resource in our long-term portfolio, which you can find in various public records or on our website. Wind energy is real kilowatt hours, based on sound estimating methodology, just as we apply to any other energy source we consider.

So stop just making things up, please.

moreover, compared to actual mountaintop removal by the coal industry, site preparation for a wind project is a blemish (to say nothing of the transmission line corridors that criss cross the state; like the one in the photo)

Losing small businesses and post offices is part and parcel of long-term (sub)urbanization and burgeoning cars in every garage and driveway. Now there are few cracker barrels in fewer general stores where one can set a spell and chew the fat. Village and town centers (and incorporated villages themselves) are replaced by malls. Town meetings give way to Australian and absentee ballots. Face-to-face becomes Facebook. Edited newsprint fades to electronic notions. Vermont is slow to embrace change, but “progress” is relentless.