Lukas Snelling, executive director of Energize Vermont, warned a packed room at the Statehouse on Thursday that the environmental impacts of industrial scale wind are already apparent in Vermont.
“The blasting on Lowell Mountain is happening,” Snelling said. “The blades above the houses in Sheffield are spinning. We have the ability to investigate the impacts of this industrial development on our ridges and take the time to determine if we should let this continue throughout the state.”
Energize Vermont called for a moratorium on the further development of wind farms in Vermont at a press conference on Feb. 2.
Members of the organization argued that expanding industrial scale wind farms in Vermont will negatively affect mountain and forest habitats, water quality, and the health of communities near wind farms. Snelling talked about problems with Green Mountain Power’s Lowell Mountain wind project. Last fall road construction for the 21 turbine wind farm was found in violation of the Clean Water Act and also prompted citizens to camp on Lowell Mountain in protest.
VPIRG executive director Paul Burns was skeptical of some of the arguments made by Snelling about wind power. VPIRG, a nonprofit consumer and environmental advocacy organization, also campaigns for renewable energy and it supports the construction of large-scale wind farms.
“Certainly the legislature isn’t going to enact a moratorium on wind in the state,” Burns said. “Vermont probably has the toughest regulations in the country with respect to wind development – it’s already very hard to build wind [installations] here.”
Burns’ prediction mirrored comments made by Sen. Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden, who indicated that it is unlikely Vermont will drop wind farms from its renewable energy portfolio.
“The primary thing we can do in our state is to provide an efficient use of whatever kind of energy we have,” Lyons said. “And that energy should be renewable. Wind is in the mix, it’s not going away. But certainly we need to inform our regulatory process, and inform the discussion about the very issues that you bring to us.”
As part of its call for a moratorium, Energize Vermont proposes offsetting the expansion of wind farms with smaller-scale community based renewable energy projects, like solar panel installations.
Snelling said Vermont could purchase “renewable” energy from Hydro-Quebec and ISO-New England in the interim, as the state searches for solutions to nuclear power or fossil fuels. Hydropower is considered a form of “renewable energy” in Vermont, though this label is contested in other states including Connecticut.
Burns questioned the idea that wind power could be swapped for solar power. In a handout distributed by VPIRG at the event, the organization noted that one wind turbine at the Lowell wind farm produces as much power as 1,428 residential 5kW solar instillations or 62 community 100kW turbines.
“We think we should do small solar projects for sure, but it’s not an alternative,” Burns said. “I’m in lock step with these guys in the concept that we need to maximize small, but that’s not going to be the complete answer to our energy needs. They’re either being disingenuous or either misrepresenting the truth if they’re saying that’s a real alternative.”
Snelling was unfazed by VPIRG’s criticism, arguing that in VPIRG’s bid to shut down the Vermont Yankee, the organization would support any solution.
“Our stance is we want to build renewable energy projects in the right places and right ways,” Snelling said. “So our approach is more nuanced but it’s about caring and protecting the things that we all love – that’s our high quality water, unfragmented habitats, and our united and healthy communities.”
Permalink |
Lucas,
Vermont already has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita and per $ of State Gross Product.
Vermont is unsuitable for wind and solar energy. The only reason these projects exist is subsidies. They benefit vendors, project developers and financial-types selling tax shelter LLCs to the top 1% of households and leave households and businesses with higher electric bills.
The alternative to renewables is increased energy efficiency.
France, Germany and China have buildings that use less than 10,000 Btu/sq ft/yr for heating cooling and electricity. The average of the state office buildings is more than 110,000 Btu/sq ft/yr.
Vermont should have a major program for subsidized zero-energy housing, instead of renewables that produce energy that is 3-5 times more expensive than grid prices.
A much more economically-viable and environmentally-beneficial measure to reduce CO2 would be increased energy efficiency. A 60% reduction in Btu/$ of GDP is entirely possible with existing technologies. Such a reduction would merely place the US on par with most European nations.
It would be much wiser, and more economical, to shift subsidies away from expensive renewables, that produce just a little of expensive, variable, intermittent energy, towards increased EE. Those renewables would not be needed, if we use those funds for increased EE.
EE is the low-hanging fruit, has not scratched the surface, is by far the best approach, because it provides the quickest and biggest “bang for the buck”, AND it is invisible, AND it does not make noise, AND it does not destroy pristine ridge lines/upset mountain water runoffs, AND it would reduce CO2, NOx, SOx and particulates more effectively than renewables, AND it would not require any distribution network buildouts, AND it would slow electric rate increases, AND it would slow fuel cost increases, AND it would slow depletion of fuel resources, AND it would create 3 times the jobs and reduce 3-5 times the Btus and CO2 per invested dollar than renewables, AND all the technologies are fully developed, AND it would end the subsidizing of renewables tax-shelters at the expense of rate payers, AND it would be more democratic/equitable, AND it would do all this without public resistance and controversy.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61774/wind-energy-expensive
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent
Permalink |
As a citizen over whom the Lowell wind turbines will loom large, I am very encouraged by Mr. Post’s figures. Since everything done by government appears to be the result of lobbying, one has to wonder why subsidies for energy efficient buildings aren’t higher on the priority list. One would think that the building trades lobby is at least as well funded as the renewable energy lobby.
Permalink |
It’s not often that I find myself in agreement with Mr. Post, but this is one of those rare times. He is correct that energy efficiency is the least expensive action(s) that we can take in regards to energy use.
Of course, even a totally energy efficient building still needs some power and I presume that he would prefer to see that power come from nuclear, which the most highly subsidized (and hence most expensive) energy source we have.
Renewables may be expensive now, but over time they will prove much less costly than what we’re doing.
Permalink |
Mr. Stannard,
Your statement of “power come from nuclear, which the most highly subsidized (and hence most expensive) energy source we have” is incorrect.
According to a DOE report, titled “Direct Federal Financial Intervention and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010”, subsidies to Nuclear was $2,499 million, where as subsidies to Renewables was $6,560 million. So in 2010 Renewables received 2.63x more $ than Nuclear.
Even more interesting from this report and with a little calculating, is a comparison of subsidies $ received per amount of power generated. For Nuclear the figure is $3.10M/billion kwh of power generated. For Renewables this numbers is, $15.44M/billion kwh of power generated. It gets better, for Solar this numbers $968.00M/billion kwh and Wind is $52.48/billion kwh. If it wasn’t for Hydropower, the numbers for Renewables would be even worse.
Second, how you come to the conclusion that “Renewables may be expensive now, but over time they will prove much less costly than what we’re doing”. You will need a whole new level of technology to be invented to have this happen. The existing technologies for Wind and Solar Renewables are never going to be competitive in generation cost.
Permalink |
Mr. Hagen, you only look at 2010. How long have we been subsidizing nuclear power? Since the very beginning 60 years ago. Perhaps you might like to spend some time calculating the annual cost of the Price-Anderson act, and/or the cost to the taxpayers of dealing with the waste for the next 200,000-500,000 years.
On so many levels we cannot afford nuclear power. Sorry, but that’s the reality.
Permalink |
I’ll calculate it:
The Price Anderson Act has cost the Tax Payers $0.00 since inception. A linear extrapolation of that trend over the next 500,000 years provides for a total cost of $0.00.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires nuclear utilities, not tax payers, to pay $0.001/kWh electric sold by nuclear plants. Extrapolating a tax payer cost of $0.00 over the next 500,000 years provides for a total cost of $0.00.
I’m not sure what you mean by “so many levels,” but another way of paraphrasing the sum of $0.00 + $0.00 would be to say “it costs the tax payers nothing.”
Permalink |
Thank you, Mr. Stannard, for your very concise and fundamental rebuttal to the “either/or” dichotomy Mr. Post keeps insisting on, despite reality.
Permalink |
Renewables sound nice, but wind and solar are not “base loaded” sources of energy. It is not windy every day, and there is no sun at night. Windmills not only disturb the mountains, but also require new transmission lines to where the power is needed.
The solution is Saranac Power natural gas cogen plant in Plattsburgh. Sufficient transmission exists into Vermont to meet the current and future needs.
Permalink |
Those who are concerned about what is happening to our mountains are advised to watch “The Last Mountain”, available on Netflix.
The courageous opposition to mountaintop removal by WV community members is highlighted by their plea for wind development on their ridge lines as one way to save their mountains from the truly horrible devastation wrought by highly mechanized coal extraction. There is truly no comparison.
Permalink |
Mr. Post, why are you telling us that solar is not suitable for Vermont?
Vermont is perfect for solar and I know first hand. Germany makes more solar energy than any other country and is further North than Vermont. Our cold weather and clearer skies actually make solar more efficient. The reflection off the snow also helps make it more efficient.
Please just because you are pro nuclear do NOT lie about solar.
Permalink |
Why is it not obvious that the simplest and only long lasting solution to our ever always increasing overconsumption is the least technological answer; stop being such power gluttons, about all kinds of power consumption, from electricity to oil to wood to nuclear to gasoline to jet fuel. We are trashing ourselves out of the Garden of Eden, telling ourselves that our need is not greed. Why do we hold power obesity as a God driven obligation, like manifest destiny?
Permalink |
Bob and Avram,
Rational people, such as Vermont farmers, put the horse before the cart, i.e., do energy efficiency first and renewables after; there is no money to do both.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later
The renewables systems would be partially paid for by the EE savings; their capacities and capital costs would be less.
Individual and multi-family, zero-energy housing is a major effort in Germany and various northern European nations with similar climate as Vermont.
Such energy-sipping housing usually requires small capacity, say 3 kW, PV solar systems, with or without battery storage, and thermal-solar domestic water heating and geothermal systems.
My cousin lives on the 9th floor of a modern, architect-engineer-designed, 15-year-old, 12-story condo in the Netherlands that is entirely heated and cooled with geothermal systems under the parking lot; water circulated through the floors and ceiling.
It requires minimal electricity, because all building systems, appliances, lighting, etc., are among the most efficient.
This building is part of a 20-building complex, all of the same design.
Vermont has a long way to go before catching up.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/74847/pv-solar-energy-still-success-story-germany
Permalink |
Mike Kerin,
PV solar energy is near-perfect in the US Southwest, but it is far from perfect in Vermont.
Solar energy is minimal in the morning, maximal around noon about 3-4 hours before the peak demand, minimal in the evening and zero at night. On variable cloudy days, as in New England, solar energy is highly unpredictable and variable.
When I get up, it is often cloudy and there is no wind, sometimes several days in a row. Where would the energy come from to run my computer during such days, or a Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center?
Please read the articles, as they contain the answers to your questions.
If you do not have the technical background to understand them, ask an engineer friend to explain them to you.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46142/impact-pv-solar-feed-tariffs-germany
Leading officials in Merkel’s government have serious reservations about PV solar in Germany.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/74847/pv-solar-energy-still-success-story-germany
Permalink |
Mike,
Regarding solar’s “unsuitability” for Vermont,
How do you account for all of the happily off-grid folks living all around us? A lot of them chose this path long before any incentives were offered. Solar is getting cheaper by the day.
Getting back to a moratorium on industrial wind:
As someone else here said recently, I refuse to believe we have to destroy Vermont in order to save it! We have precious little intact habitat for what I consider to be Vermont’s most responsible residents – those creatures living without electricity in their dens and trees and streams.
Permalink |
Mr. Kerin, I am in favor of nuclear, wind, AND solar. Solar panels should be installed anywhere and everywhere. Including Vermont.
But don’t call Mr. Post a liar just because he correctly points out that solar is relatively inefficient in Vermont. It’s true. Vermont is in the bottom 5 states in terms of the amount of sunshine, and Burlington is one of the lowest ranked cities in the US for “sun days.” Plus, solar requires huge subsidies.
More fundamentally, no amount of wind turbines or solar panels will replace the need for large-scale, always-on, baseload generating stations.
Permalink |
I am very much looking forward to splashing around in the water in the dead of winter at the Jay Peak waterpark. We are long past the bad old days of swimming only when it’s warm out in Vermont. But that freedom doesn’t come free: a hefty electric bill comes along with it.
Without the electricity from Lowell Mountain wind industrial complex, how else would I be able to enjoy a waterslide in February?
The blow must go on!
Take Back Nature!
Permalink |
A common sense person in the real world of power distribution, conservation, load management and supply would not and from a public service perspective cannot do just one without doing the other. Let’s just do conservation and energy efficiency without lining up supply as existing resources phase out or as load actually grows? No I don’t think so.
I have no doubt that Willem’s cousin in a modern 12 story condo is living in an energy efficient home, although the ground source heat pump does increase electric demand. Vermont has among the oldest housing stock in the country, mostly not multi-family buildings in 20 building complexes last I looked. When that condo complex was being built, it appears that someone else in the Netherlands was also figuring out where its power supply was going to be coming from 15 years later.
After Vermont has done even much more than it is currently doing in residential efficiency (both existing and new construction), after energy efficiency codes and thermal efficiency incentives are strengthened above those we already have today,we will still need electricity, a lot of it, to run our homes. And our energy efficient businesses, and our energy efficient revenue generating job creating ski resorts. And when electric vehicles become more viable in the reasonably foreseeable future, each one of those will use as much as an energy efficient house. Where will that power come from?
So it is not one or the other. It is both at the same time. Maybe an engineer can only work on one at a time, in which case we need to put 2 different kinds of engineers to work side by side in order to make real change happen. There is no one simple answer, no panacea.
Permalink |
Sorry, Mike, I meant to address my comments to W. Post.
Permalink |
Avram,
“Let’s just do conservation and energy efficiency without lining up supply as existing resources phase out or as load actually grows?”
The ISO-NE grid is awash in energy, grid prices have been stagnant at an average of 5.5 c/kWh for the past few years, as a result of households and businesses replacing light bulbs, buying more efficient appliances, etc.
In your service area it may increase, but on average, Vermont’s consumption, kWh/yr, will trend to about 5,500 GWh/yr or less in the near future.
For the past 60 years, the Netherlands has produced its own natural gas, exported some to nearby nations, used the rest in highly-efficient, up to 60%, CCGTs.
Recently, it REDUCED, its renewables subsidies from 4.5 billion euros to 1.5 billion, with onshore and offshore turbines being placed at the bottom of the list of priorities, i.e., other renewables have preference. If there is money left over, doubtful, it will go to wind turbines; a clever, nuanced approach.
Europe has an old housing stock, but incentives are generous to ensure it being energy efficient. Last year, I as in Paris and noticed new windows on many older buildings. Some years ago, the city had made it a requirement and if a household or business did not have enough income or assets, there was a subsidy; windows made in France, many local jobs, a holistic approach.
BTW, France, 80% nuclear, has the lowest electric rates in Europe, 0.16 eurocent/kWh; Denmark (lots of wind) the highest, 30.1 eurocent/kWh; Germany (lots of wind with low capacity factor), 26.5 eurocent/kWh.
By proper design of time-of-day rates, electric vehicles will be charged mostly at night when normal daily demand is low; i.e., existing 24/7/365 generators will be adequate, more fully utilized, more economical, less need for rate increases. Opting for destroying more ridge lines now to produce wind energy at about 2-3 times grid prices for eventual EVs is irrational, to say the least.
Without the overly-generous subsidies, none of these ridge line projects would exist.
More than adequate CO2-free energy is available from Hydro-Quebec at about 6c/kWh and from Vermont Yankee. Vermont merely needs to sign on the dotted line.
Vermont utilities owe it to their rate payers to get the best deal for energy, instead of aiding and abetting Vermont’s overly-subsidized renewables oligarchy.
Here are Lance’s subsidy numbers again:
Nuclear $3.10M/billion kWh of power generated
All renewables average $15.44M/billion kWh
Solar $968.00M/billion kWh and
Wind $52.48M/billion kWh.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses
Permalink |
Vermont has, in fact, a SOLAR resource that is hundreds of times greater than it’s WIND resource, according to Dr. Ben Luce, Professor of Physics and Sustainability, JSC, Vermont.
YES, Energy Efficiency in homes, schools, businesses and hospitals comes first. EE is happening all around us and should be continued. Vermonter’s should be offered decent tax incentives to make their buildings energy efficient.
YES, SOLAR technology CAN power the whole state of Vermont, in fact.
Vermont’s mountains are more that 350 million years old. How crazy is it to blow up miles and miles of our ridge lines to put up INEFFICIENT 460 foot tall industrial scale wind turbines and, in the process, sacrifice the health and property values of Vermonter’s who live, work and study up up 4 miles away, sacrifice wildlife habitat and wildlife, our streams and ground water (got a well?), our wetlands and our state’s natural beauty?
Industrial Scale Wind on Vermont’s Ridge Lines is a Scam. The more you learn about it the more disgusted you become. SOLAR, a rapidly evolving technology, CAN power the whole state.
Thank you Energize Vermont and Vermonter’s For A Clean Environment. VPIRG plainly are not aware of all the detriments of industrial Scale Wind Turbines on Vermont’s Ridge Lines. Energize Vermont and Vermonters for A Clean Environment do their homework tirelessly and in depth. Thank you Luke Snelling and Annette Smith.
Permalink |
Susan,
Wind and solar in Vermont would not exist without the overly generous subsidies. Here is an example:
Nuclear $3.10M/billion kWh of power generated
All renewables average $15.44M/billion kWh
Solar $968.00M/billion kWh and
Wind $52.48M/billion kWh.
It would take at least a decade and about $1.6 billion to build 10 Lowell Mountains for Vermont to produce 1,770 GWh/yr of its energy needs from wind.
Lowell Mountain, $160 million, will produce about 63 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x capacity factor 0.32 = 177 GWh/yr
It would take at least a decade and about 1,770/(8,760x 0.143) = 1,413 MW of solar panels at $5,000/kW, or $7.06 billion, to produce 1,770 GWh/yr.
Note: Wind and solar energy is useless to households and businesses, unless it is backed up by almost all the existing conventional sources (coal, oil, gas nuclear, hydro) because there will be numerous hours of the year with too little wind speed (less than 7.5 mph) to turn the rotors (at those times wind turbines draw energy FROM the grid), and there is no sun at night.
Vermont Yankee produces about 4,800 GWh/yr of steady, near-air-pollution-free, near-CO2-free, low-cost (5.5-6.0 c/kWh) energy, 24/7/365, regardless of the weather; Vermont uses about 5,600 GWh/yr.
Hydro-Quebec has plentiful steady, air-pollution-free, CO2-free, low-cost
(6c/kWh) energy, 24/7/365, regardless of the weather.
All of Vermont’s energy can be available at about 6c/kWh to Vermont at ZERO capital cost from the grid and Hydro Quebec.
Opting for destroying more ridge lines to produce wind energy at about 2-3 times grid prices is economically irrational, to say the least.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later
Permalink |
Please not, Mr. Hudson, that the comment you quote only looks at 2010. Go back 60 years and calculate the subsidies for nuclear.
This is one of “pesky facts” that you mentioned.
Permalink |
Susan,
“Vermont has, in fact, a SOLAR resource that is hundreds of times greater than it’s WIND resource, according to Dr. Ben Luce, Professor of Physics and Sustainability, JSC, Vermont.” The statement is correct, but misleading to lay people. It would be better to consult with professional energy systems analysts.
New England CAN produce wind and solar energy but only at high capital cost, because of the generally poor-to-fair solar and wind conditions. Other areas of the US are much better suited for wind and solar energy.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/74847/pv-solar-energy-still-success-story-germany
It would take at least a decade and about 1,770/(8,760x 0.143) = 1,413 MW of roof-mounted solar panels at $5,000/kW, or $7.06 billion, to produce 1,770 GWh/yr, about 32% of Vermont’s annual use.
Panel area = {1,770,000,000 W/(12.5 W/sq ft)} x (I/27,880,000 sq ft/sq mile) = 5.08 sq miles.
Variable, intermittent wind and solar energy is useless to households and businesses, unless it is backed up by almost all the existing conventional sources; coal, oil, gas nuclear, hydro, because:
- wind energy is near-zero about 10-15 percent of the hours of a year that have too little wind speed (less than 7.5 mph) to turn the rotors and when wind speeds are too high; during those hours, wind turbines draw energy FROM the grid.
- solar energy is minimal in the morning, maximal at noon about 3-4 hours before the peak demand, minimal in the evening, minimal on cloudy, foggy, snowy days, and zero at night.
http://www.coalitionforenergysolutions.org/vpirg_rev_wp.pdf
Permalink |
At a time of over supply of generation, and low wholesale prices for electricity, Washington Electric Coop, mismanaged by Avram Patt. and their elitist board, is buying expensive, intermittent wind power and asking for rate increases because the price of RECs is down.
We don’t need to be destroying our mountains to build monstrous monuments to stupidity, gullibility and greed.
Watch this vdo to see the reality of environmentally destructive wind development: vermontenergyoptions.org
Use Less