Senators say three year wind moratorium is “urgent”

Two senators — a Democrat and a Republican — are pushing for a three-year moratorium on large-scale wind development in Vermont, and Republican House leaders support similar legislation. But the measure may be stopped fast in its tracks when it slams into House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morrisville, and the wall of Democrats at his back.

Sens. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, and Bob Hartwell, D-Bennington, are spearheading a bill that they and other legislators hope to present to the Senate at the beginning of the session. Some of Benning’s constituents in the Northeast Kingdom are up in arms about the Sheffield wind project, a proposed wind farm in Newark and surrounding towns, and Green Mountain Power’s 21-turbine farm in Lowell. Hartwell is concerned about the lack of public input and current government practices surrounding such projects.

Last year, the Senate shot down Benning’s proposal for a two-year moratorium on large wind. Since then, opposition to industrial wind projects has mounted, with a recent Montpelier demonstration drawing nearly 200 protesters.

Gov. Peter Shumlin has acknowledged local opposition to some of these projects, and he created an energy siting commission in early October to analyze how electricity generating projects are permitted in Vermont. Smith said he would prefer to wait until this report is complete before deciding on whether a moratorium is appropriate. The commission, however, isn’t slated to finish its work until the end of the legislative session, and Benning and Hartwell said time is of the essence.

“I think it’s an urgent problem and should be vetted as soon as possible,” Hartwell said.

The new proposal would up the ante from last year, not only increasing the length of the moratorium but also decreasing the size of projects considered “large scale.” Last year, Benning’s proposal for a moratorium pertained to projects that were 2.2 megawatts or greater. This year, the proposal would pertain to projects of a “considerably” smaller size, but he said that personal small-scale wind production should not be affected. He and his fellow legislators haven’t ironed out the exact size that would define large-scale projects.

“The reason for the three years is that the Northeastern Vermont Development Association up here pushed for a longer moratorium,” said Benning. “The idea behind a moratorium is not to stop everything forever. It’s to sit back and take notice of what we have through an analysis and look at how (these projects are) actually performing and decide whether this is the direction we want to go.”

The proposed bill, which Aaron Adler a lawyer with the Legislative Council is drafting, would require large wind projects to obtain an Act 250 permit, said Benning and Hartwell. Act 250 is the state’s governing land-use law, which pertains to a range of commercial developments in Vermont and varies in its execution depending on a project’s nature and locality.

Industrial wind proposals don’t trigger review by an Act 250 commission because they are energy projects. They fall under Section 248 and require a certificate of public good from the Public Service Board, the quasi-judicial body charged with permitting energy generating projects.

Sarah Hofmann, deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Service, said including language about Act 250 was unnecessary in this proposed bill, pointing to (b)(5) of that law.

“I think it’s superfluous,” she said. “The separate legislation makes sense because the way Section 248 is written, it encompasses the Act 250 criteria.”

Benning and Hartwell said that the bill may include a “setback” requirement that would prohibit large wind projects within a certain distance of residential zones, and the bill might also include language about developing such projects on public lands.

The two senators are lining up support from colleagues around the state.

“I can safely say that all of the Northeast Kingdom state Senate candidates are in favor of a moratorium, and I believe the Rutland contingent will be coming on shortly,” Benning said. “So, you’ve got bipartisan support, and you’ve got different pockets of the state that are affected.”

On the House side of the legislature, Republican Minority Leader Don Turner, R-Milton, said he and his deputy Brian Savage, R-Swanton, are working on a bill that would call for a two-year moratorium on large wind development. The two Republican leaders, who have just begun drawing up the details, will likely contend with opposition from Democratic leadership.

Speaker Smith, whose party holds 96 of the House’s 150 seats, is not in favor of such action.

“My view is that we have a siting commission,” he said. “We ought to wait for their report. And if we think there’s a concern about energy development, then perhaps what we need to do is put a moratorium on all energy generation projects and figure out what the mix needs to be.”

Follow Andrew on Twitter @andrewcstein

Andrew SteinAndrew Stein

Comments

  1. Richard Sedano :

    So many words but no evidence supporting the claim of lack of public input in siting. What happened in both certificate processes is public so it will just take some reporting to find out. Is is possible that the sponsors’ complaint is about the outcome, not the process?

    • Richard, I appreciate your comment regarding process versus outcome. My motivation for change stems from witnessing the process as it has been exercised here in the Kingdom. Take Newark, which is facing a proposal that would lead to 35 new towers in the area. The town voted overwhelmingly to halt the process. The Northeastern Vermont Development Association has called for a moratorium. Nevertheless, the Public Service Board marches on in a direction we have every reason to believe will ignore that public input. If the town and the regional development association statements aren’t indicative of “the public” will, then what is? Take Sheffield, where you can’t see those 16 towers from the middle of the village or most of the town. But they dominate the view of Crystal Lake, which is in the town of Barton. This is why I’d respond that it is indeed the process that needs attention.

      • Avram Patt :

        As part of the PSB’s voluminous and lengthy review of the Sheffield project, an entire day was spent viewing not just the project site but the viewscape from all vantage points near and far. This was a public site visit that anyone could participate in. The 3 Board members, their staff, Department of Public Service staff, the developers, all the opposing intervenors, local officials and anyone else who wanted to drove through the entire area in a caravan, stopping at key vantage pounts including along I 91, where large photo simulations were viewed on location, the developers witnesses were questioned by opponents and by the Board. I participated in that. Among other locations, we stood on the beach at Crystal Lake for at least a half hour looking at photo simulations of the project in the distance under different lighting and weather conditions, cloudy, clear blue sky, etc. I also attended a public meeting with local officials in Barton during that time. This was about as open and public a regulatory process as you will find anywhere in this country, and the environmental conditions agreed to by the developer and included in the PSB’s order are far more rigorous than in other states in our region or the rest of the country.

        It is unfair to the public servants who devoted so much time and effort in their rigorous and tough review, to simply ignore what actually occurred in the process, which is all on the record, and it’s unfair to all the other participants in that process including the project’s opponents. I agree with Rich Sedano– if the complaint is about the outcome, fair enough. I do not think compaints about the process are fair or accurate.

        • Avram,
          Thousands of people living near this expensive, 459-ft tall, industrial wind turbine facility have been dreading their “participating and hosting” for more than 2 years. Construction of more of such useless systems will increase their numbers to tens of thousands; votes, votes.

          Now that they are EXPERIENCING the adverse environmental, noise, visual, health, property value, quality-of-life, tourist-damaging impacts 24/7/365, they will be “participating” in a different way and state leaders will finally be responding in a different way, as have Senators Benning and Hartwell.

          The infrasound and low frequency noise, LFN, is harmful to humans. Humans should reside, work, study, play, etc., at least 1.5 mile from 3 MW wind turbines (based on Lowell Mountain experience), especially households with pregnant mothers, babies, infants and school-age children to avoid genetic damage impacts, and people with heart disease to avoid aggravating their condition.

          In New England, about 30% of the hours of a year, there is not enough winds speed on ridge lines to turn the rotors. During these hours wind turbines draw energy FROM the grid. Without MAJOR subsidies, IWTs are not economically viable.

          In New England, about 70% of the hours of a year, solar energy is minimal, and yet Vermont’s utilities are mandated by the state to pay 27 c/kWh for 20 years to out-of-state, multi-millionaire owners of 2.2 MW PV solar facilities. They could have bought STEADY, 24/7/365 energy from Hydro-Quebec at about 6 c/kWh, or from the grid at about 5 c/kWh. The utilities just roll their extra costs into the rate schedules of already-stressed households and businesses. Do legislators and the governor not know household REAL incomes have DECLINED since 2007, except for public employees?

          The higher electric rates will increase the prices of goods and services, lower living standards, reduce business profits, reduce job creation, except in the RE sector, all while, on average, REAL household incomes have DECLINED since 2007. A sound economic development policy?

          The diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars of capital into inefficient ways of making wind energy will deprive other, UNSUBSIDIZED economic sectors of the capital THEY need to create jobs and become more productive, which ultimately lowers prices, increases household incomes, increases business incomes and raises tax revenues, per
          Economics 101.

          During the 2012 campaign for governor, Brock stated Shumlin added 400 new state workers in 2 years. Shumlin’s answered the cost of most of these jobs was paid for by the federal government. A lame and cynical excuse, as it increased Vermont being a dependency of the federal government, which already has trillion dollar deficits.

          Have we forgotten how economies are supposed to operate? Have we become too committed coddling subsidized government/business “partnerships”, i.e., subsidized wind energy projects which breeds crony-capitalism benefitting Vermont top 1% at the expense of all others.

          http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses
          http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61309/lowell-mountain-wind-turbine-facility-vermont
          http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later
          http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses

        • Kathy Leonard :

          Avram Patt: “I do not think compaints (sic) about the process are fair or accurate.”
          ___

          I’ve just finished reading Annette Smith’s comments submitted to the Energy Siting Committee, below.
          Have you read them yet Avram?
          It appears your view of this topic is real for you, but you may be forgetting the viewpoints of others.

          I’d love to see those who are interested in this issue, pro OR con, take the time to read this thoughtful document before posting further on this topic.

          http://vermontersforacleanenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/vces-comments-and-observations-on-vermonts-psb-anr-and-act-250-permitting-process/

          • Avram Patt :

            My experience is as a very interested and affected observer of the Shefffield project and it’s approval process, and Annette Smith’s comments about that are hightly selective and skewed to support her predetermined position that a wind project cannot be built on a Vermont ridgeline, under any circumstances, no matter what, period. The process was not expedited, but rather lengthy and extended. The changes in the developer’s plans which she complains about were in fact primarily to accomodate environmental and other siting concerns expressed by parties in the case, including ANR and communities and other affected parties. This case was the opposite of a rushed process. Regulators bent over backwards to allow parties including opponents not familiar with PSB proceedings to participate, even when in some cases, opponents arguments were really and truly ultimately discredited by evidence, aka facts. There really is a lengthy public record on the Sheffield project and it is discouraging to see it misrepresented.

          • Michael Colby :

            Let’s not forget that Avram Patt supported efforts to ban development of his ridgelines in Worcester. Why? To protect his view and peace and quiet. Too bad he doesn’t have the same concern for Sheffield and Lowell.

    • Annette Smith :

      Sorry to say, but yes, the complaints about the process are warranted. VCE submitted these comments to the Energy Siting Commission
      http://vermontersforacleanenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/vces-comments-and-observations-on-vermonts-psb-anr-and-act-250-permitting-process/ which contain specific examples.

      VCE has been receiving complaints about wind projects. We have received three complaints about the blinking red lights from people living in Barton. Barton voted unanimously to to oppose the wind project. We have not received any noise complaints from Barton. Noise complaints have come from Sheffield and Sutton, from 3/4 to 2 1/2 miles.

      There is plenty of real estate to purchase around the three wind project mountains, so I hope everyone who loves them so much is planning to move next to them.

      I get calls from people now asking where it is safe to move in Vermont where they will not be threatened with wind turbines. Instead of carving off areas open to development, we should at least carve off areas safe from wind turbines. It has been my experience over the last 3 1/2 years working on this issue that given the choice, people do not choose to live near these enormous industrial machines. And they would never choose to be forced into a PSB process.

  2. The problem I see is that of scalability. What use is a large project if one half the size is not half as good? It would have been one thing if GMP had built a one lane “toll road” up to the top of Lowell and began building a few small turbines, then a few larger ones, then added a couple of the monsters that are now in place. Instead, it was a race against the clock to build this Rube Goldberg machine before January 2013, leaving very little time for public input and many with the feeling that Vermont officials have pulled the wool over many eyes.

    I have yet to visit the site in question, but it is there for anyone to examine.

    For those who have been to the mountain, honestly, is this good for the Green Mountains and the life that always been here?

    Is this the legacy we really want to leave?

  3. Sarah,

    “I think it’s superfluous,” she said. “The separate legislation makes sense because the way Act 248 is written, it encompasses the Act 250 criteria.”

    YOU MUST BE JOKING. This is Vermont, not California with its 12-lane divided highways and multi-story clover leafs.

    It is not the law, but the fact the UNELECTED, lapdog VT- PSB ADMINISTERING the law that is the problem, and doing it, ad hoc, without a proper noise and setback code.

    This is behind-the-scenes-oligarchs disenfranchising Vermonters. Honorable, expert professionals shaking their heads after testifying before the PSB.

    The sooner this expensive, SOCIALLY-DIVISIVE, health-damaging, environment-damaging farce ends, the better.

    http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses
    http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61309/lowell-mountain-wind-turbine-facility-vermont

  4. Rob Pforzheimer :

    Shap Smith is right in saying, “perhaps what we need to do is put a moratorium on all energy generation projects.”
    This is an excellent idea considering there is currently, and for the foreseeable future an over supply of generation in New England. Energy efficiency and conservation will accomplish far more than divisive, environmentally destructive, property devaluing, rate increasing, inefficient wind projects that do nothing to lower emissions.
    PSB board member Coen told me, “You people need to take your complaints across the street to the legislature.” That’s what these senators are doing. The legislature is where the wind insanity began and where it must end.

  5. Rob,
    Shumlin used to be the leader of the Senate. He promoted Chap, the windman,, et al, as allies while he rose to become Governor, opportunistically using Vermont Yankee as a pole vault.

    Most of the rest of the legislators are yes persons. They look at the smoke direction and vote accordingly, without asking why there IS smoke.

    You are absolutely right, the last thing New England needs is even more generating capacity, MW. There already is more than enough capacity in generation AND transmission.

    We should be concentrating on investing EE so the generating capacity AND transmission will be more than sufficient for decades. That would be the rational way, not the subsidy-driven way forward, which benefits mostly the top 1%, at the expense of all others.

    Doing energy efficiency first and renewables later is the most economical way to go; especially important when funds are scarce. Governments providing huge subsidies for renewables BEFORE doing a great deal more in energy efficiency may be politically expedient, but it is costly and unwise; akin to putting the cart BEFORE the horse. 

    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 the funds are used 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 expensive, highly-visible build-outs of transmission systems, 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 benefitting mostly for the top 1% at the expense of the other 99%, 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
    http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later

  6. Luann Therrien :

    FOR SALE – WIND SUPPORTERS WELCOME!

    50 acres of PRIME SUGAR BUSH in the N.E.K.  Only $250,000 and it’s yours today.

    Come and buy our beautiful piece of property and you can enjoy living 5.2 miles from Barton on Sheffield Heights.

    Wind Supportes will not mind the 16 turbine Industrial Wind Project with the 16 turbines all located from just under 3/4 of a mile to not quite 2 miles from your new home.

    You can enjoy the Whoosh, Whoosh, Whoosh of the turbine blades, along with the mechanical sounds produced from the wind gereration.

    When the wind is comming from the S/S.E. you’ll LOVE when all 16 turbines combine forces and along with the Whoosh, you’ll get to enjoy the lovely jet sound that we enjoyed for 5 days straight, day and night when Hurricane Sandy blew through.

    Suffer from low blood pressure? No problem, buy our land and your blood pressure is sure to rise.

    Not a fan of getting regular sleep? Not an issue. Be repeatedly awoken through the night by the sounds being produced by the turbines. Then there is also the infrasound you cannot hear-but it’s there 24/7.

    Do not enjoy silence even in your own head? You too can have constant ringing in your ears.

    Have kids?  You will not have to fight them to move out. They will most likely  leave before you are ready for them to go.

    Do not miss out on this wonderful deal. With all this land and the neighboring Industrial Wind Project have to offer, it will not stay on the market long!

    • Luann,
      You may soon get an offer from the wind turbine owners.. I think they are Spanish. Shumlin, et al, is defending THEIR interests, instead of Vermonters.

      • Luann Therrien :

          We are hopeful but not holding our breath. First Wind has already proven themselves to be less than honest.
          One would think Shumlin would be more supportive of the people in his State, and not of OUT OF STATE Industrial Wind Companies that are only looking to benefit from Tax Credits paid by Vermont tax payers.
        Those tax credits could have been better spent in Vermont by home and business owners to set up their own alternative power sources. There are local companies here in the state for such installation, so much for ‘buy local’.
          Shumlin seems to be too busy acting like a schoolyard bully, insulting people by name calling when people do not agree with him- ‘woodchucks’- ‘C.A.V.E.’ and claiming ‘his hair is on fire’.  Well our hair is on fire and being fanned by the wind turbines.
          Something needs to be done before more Vermont tax payers are ‘sacrificed’ (Shumlin’s word) to support someone elses agenda.

  7. Craig Kneeland :

    The employment and economic activity associated with wind development and construction should be considered. These are skilled construction workers involved in the heroic act of saving our planet from global warming.
    We should keep them employed, doing what very few people can do. Kicking a can down the road, simply because we don’t have 100% agreement about wind development now will not solve anything. Waiting two or three years will probably result in no one changing their mind on this issue. Meanwhile, greenhouse gases heat our planet and species disappear. Let’s keep this productive, worthy, process going. A majority of Vermonters want to put the wind to work and keep our workers employed. Full speed ahead with the regulatory and environmental processes we have in place!

    • Craig,
      “Waiting two or three years will probably result in no one changing their mind on this issue”

      Support among Vermonters for wind energy has declined from 90% to 65% in one year.

      Have you heard about energy efficiency? It is much less costly, than wind energy AND it does not make noise, is not socially-divisive.

      See my above comment.

      • Rob Macgregor :

        Mr. Post – kindly provide the details of the surveys that show this decline -I’ve followed the statewide surveys since 2003, and I’ve never seen a survey that put support above the low 70% range which would mean that the level of support is actually still quite broad, and not much changed over roughly a decade.

        • Craig,

          As you have sources since 2003, please cite the URLs.

          Sources before 2010 are irrelevant, as people were ignorant and caught up in starry-eyed, wind energy rah-rah.

          What really counts is now that the Lowell IWTs are mostly up and running, people, even in bribed Lowell, residing near the wind turbines, say within a few miles, have changed their minds, because they are now EXPERIENCING the adverse noise, health, environmental, property value, visible, and quality of life impacts.

          They profess to be totally shocked. They were lied to, deceived, bamboozled, scammed.

          It is somewhat of a blessing Vermont has only moderately-good winds on ridge lines. About 30% of the hours of a year, the wind speeds are below 7.5 mph, too low to turn the 373-ft rotors (a football field is 300 ft long).

          The lack of rotation of the Lowell IWTs is highly visible, and people are logging the hours of rotation to prove wind energy on Vermont ridge lines is a expensive farce.

          GMP will likely NOT rue the day it spent $160 million to put 63 MW of these IWTs on the Lowell ridge line.

          GMP has an out. It will charge ALL of its additional costs to its rate payers, 70% of Vermont households and businesses, that are already stressed-out, because of the Great Recession and a near-zero-growth economy, and financing RE follies.

          Whereas, GMP was grossly misled and engaged in self-deception, it had the resources to determine the facts BEFORE proceeding, unlike lay-people.

          Independent energy systems analysts, with decades of experience, had advised against it, but were shoved aside, ignored, even belittled.

          GMP COULD have started with one 3 MW turbine to see how it would perform, but that was not impressive enough, as Shumlin wanted to proceed as quickly as possible, build as many IWTs as possible, to get as much state and federal subsidies as possible, for Vermont’s wind oligarchy, which consists mostly of multi-millionaires in the top 1%.

          • Rob Macgregor :

            That was a pretty long winded non-answer to my request, which I’ll not dignify with a response. How about that survey source? Usually you’re so eager to link to your own articles….

        • Rob,
          69.4% of Vermonters voted in favor of ridge line wind in May 2012. I stated it was 65%.
          http://www.wcax.com/story/18604822/poll-where-vt-voters-stand-on-energy-issues

          As you know, adverse developments to wind turbines took place since then.

          There were large demonstrations in Montpelier and hundreds of people near wind turbines are signing petitions to have a 3-year moratorium.

          The pro-view percentage would likely be less now that people near wind turbines are being adversely impacted.

  8. Sally Shaw :

    If the anti-wind people are so concerned about “being forced to live near these enormous industrial machines” and about ” pregnant mothers, babies, infants and school-age children’s… genetic damage impacts, ” where have they been vis a vis the leaking, radioactive carcinogen spewing Vermont Yankee reactor, forced on us in 1972, and operating now in violation of the public will and official permits? Two wrongs don’t make a right. But VT needs to figure out what constitutes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness vis a vis our energy needs– how much do we need, how can we supply it, what sort of a world do we want to leave for our children and on to the next 25 generations? We need to work together on this.

    • Sally,
      My take on global warming is that it is here to stay, no matter what we do. The Sun’s energy intercepted by the earth each day is about 12,000 times what mankind uses each day. The Sun is king.

      At least 2 C in world average temperature increase is already baked into existing conditions. CO2 ppMv will be increasing for at least the next 4-5 decades, likely longer, due to developing nations burning coal in a dirty manner.

      Any actions, if started to-day, will take decades to implement and will cost tens of trillions of dollars. Their CO2 emission diminishing effects would have to stop the CO2 ppMv rise and reverse its course, which COULD happen at about the end of this century, if it can be done at all. Rebuilding the world’s economies would have its own CO2 emissions.

      In the meantime, during Summer, the Arctic ice will be mostly gone sometime this decade, which will accelerate climate change in the Northern Hemisphere.

      And in the meantime, by about 2050, we will be celebrating a 10 billion population.

      It should be abundantly clear by now, mankind made a wrong turn around 1900, or earlier, around 1865, by embracing fossil fuels (the forbidden fruit?), and building economies that cannot do without them, and allowing the population to increase beyond 1.5 billion.

      Eventually, Germany will cry uncle, will significantly water down its religious zeal for its ENERGIEWENDE, will declare it a success to save face; a pyrrhic victory?

      Whereas, increased energy efficiency will not save our manmade world, it will make us feel good, keep us busy, and prolong the agony.

      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/83704/reduce-co2-and-slow-global-warming

      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated

      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/107316/global-warming-coal-combustion-and-sea-level-ris

      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later

      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/69710/will-germany-make-global-warming-difference

    • Sally,
      “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

      You are right, adding wind turbines to VY would be a double wrong, but VY produces CO2-free, low-cost (about 5c/kWh), STEADY, energy, 24/7/365, even during Irene and Sandy, whereas heavily-subsidized wind turbines produce variable, intermittent junk energy at 10 c/kWh (per GMP), 15 c/kWh unsubsidized, per US-DOE.

      In Vermont at least 30% of the hours of the year, there is not enough wind to turn the rotors, and about 70% of the hours of the year, there is no or minimal solar energy. Not good for a modern society that needs 24/7/365 energy.

    • Sally,

      New England annual average grid prices are about 5 c/kWh, nearly unchanged for the past 3 years, and likely to stay that way, because of a LONG-TERM, abundant supply of natural gas.

      Hydro-Quebec hydro energy is available at about 6 c/kWh. It is STEADY, CO2-free, available 24/7/365, rain or shine, windy or not windy.

      Vermont Yankee’s nuclear energy is available at about 6 c/kWh. It is STEADY, CO2-free, available 24/7/365, rain or shine, windy or not windy.

      Lowell Mountain wind energy, heavily-subsidized with state and federal subsidies, is available at about 10 c/kWh. Its cost would be 15 c/kWh, unsubsidized. GMP will roll its extra cost into already-stressed households and businesses.

      New England, with fair-to-good wind conditions only on 2,000-ft or higher ridge lines, about 30 percent of the hours of the year near-zero wind energy is produced, because wind speeds are insufficient (7.5 mph) to turn the rotors, or too great for safety, as would be the case during strong-wind weather fronts or tropical storms, such as Sandy, passing over the ridge lines.

      About 60% of the wind energy is produced during about 30% of the hours of the year, mostly at night, and mostly during winter. When wind turbines are not producing sufficient or no energy, they DRAW energy from the grid.

      Wind energy is variable and intermittent and requires gas turbines to ramp down with wind energy surges and ramp up with wind energy ebbs to maintain a stable grid. This requires extra fuel/kWh and emits extra CO2/kWh.

      At greater annual wind energy percentages on the grid, these extras mostly offset what wind energy was meant to reduce, i.e., wind energy is NOT a viable CO2 reduction technology, AND it acts as a disturber of the grid which makes the grid less efficient and less stable, AND it is very expensive.

      See below URLs which have had about 10,000 views till now.

      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61309/lowell-mountain-wind-turbine-facility-vermont
      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later
      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses
      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated

  9. Barbara Durkin :

    Stop the waste and destruction of habitat funded by US citizens forced to pay higher costs for zero capacity value wind energy.

    VT should not increase the total of 14,000 abandoned wind turbines in the US thru the sacrifice of your actual values, like your magnificient mountain views that recharge visitors and residents spirits.

    Wind energy may be the greatest and most cruel hoax of our time. It robs future generations precious gifts from the present and past generations.

    New England’s largest wind developer, UPC First Wind, merits investigation.

    UPC First Wind is Hawaii’s largest wind developer making headlines for spectacular failures, publicly-funded, of course. First Wind’s Kahuku project may never operate after three fires and battery storage by Xtreme Battery burned to the ground. The Director of First Wind is the Director of Xtreme Battery burning public funds.

    Link to article:

    http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/8191/Lawsuit-Kahuku-Windfarm-May-Never-Get-its-Turbines-Repaired.aspx?utm_source=November+11%2C+2012+News+From+Hawaii+Free+Press&utm_campaign=November+11%2C+2012+Email&utm_medium=email

    Public Officials doing their homework and representing the silenced voices of citizens is refreshing.

    Thank You,

    Barbara Durkin
    MA resident and VT skier opposed to wind turbines and Enron’s business doctrine.

    • Barbara,
      Here is an excerpt from this article:

      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53258/examples-wind-power-learn

      KAHUKU IWT FACILITY, OAHU, EXCESSIVE CAPITAL COST

      Oahu has an island grid system with no/little interconnection with other islands. Wind energy must be smoothed before entering the grid.

      No existing conventional units can be shut down, because 10-15 % of the year there is no wind energy as wind speeds are too low (7.5 mph) to turn the rotors or too high for safety.

      The 30 MW IWT facility, with 12 Clipper Liberty wind turbines, @ $2,000/kW, requires a capital cost of about $60 million. The project total cost is at least $117 million, because the USDOE loan guarantee was for $117 million.

      Xtreme Power, Inc., supplied the dynamic power modules and the battery back-up system (to smooth the wind energy) housed in a 10,000 sq ft building at a total cost of at least $57 million.

      Xtreme Power, Inc. used 10 specially-designed inverters from Dynapower Corp. and installed them in 10 dynamic power modules (DPMs) housed in a building. During test operations, the inverters caught fire due to defective capacitors by Electronic Concepts, Inc.

      First Wind will sell the energy to Hawaiian Electric Company under a long-term PPA “at contract prices”, i.e., well above market prices.

      Unfortunately, a SECOND fire completely destroyed the 10,000 sq ft building and the equipment worth about $57 million. The wind turbines were shut down until further notice, i.e., in about a year to clean up the mess, redesign, rebuild and perform test operations. Where would an additional $57 million come from? US DOE?

      This an example of starry-eyed RE incompetents in the US DOE (who have no “skin in the game”) doling out the people’s money to incompetent wind turbine project developers; incompetence usually rules when the players use other people’s money. Solyndra, A123, etc., come to mind.

      http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/-Blaze-in-battery-warehouse-shuts-down-Oahu-wind-farm/-/8905354/15936674/-/blflf5/-/index.html
      http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/First-Wind-abandons-Kahuku-expansion-as-wind-farm-remains-offline/-/8905354/17155910/-/15dwex5z/-/index.html#ixzz2AbM1krda

  10. Stanley Shapiro :

    This dog doesn’t die because those who are subjected to proximity of these industrial wind turbines do not live in Vermont anymore.The source of the loss is if you are in auditory impingement you no longer have peace and quiet let alone your health. No matter what data is presented you are done.People are not stupid .They know at an instinctual level when harm is coming.The people who are enraged at the wind turbine incursion in Vermont are neither Progressive ,Republican, nor Democrat;rich or poor;they are simply people who do not want their lives ‘taken’,which is what these projects and their developers do.

  11. Jim Ru :

    There are no future generations. The game is over. Read Bill McKibben’s article in Rolling stone.

    Do the math yourself.

    Whatevers. But when you insist that we must do this or that for future generations, you’re blowing hot air.

    Fossil fuels have changed the climate. We either stop it now, or we all die, and soon.

    Have a nice day.

    • Rob Pforzheimer :

      Wind turbines have not and will never stop the use of fossil fuel. A more effective way of limiting CO2 would be if McKibben and his blind faith, sky is falling acolytes would stop exhaling.

  12. Stanley Shapiro :

    Regarding the comments by Shaw and Ru.There is a legitimate discussion that should take place.That is do wind turbines on ridgelines do anything to reduce global warming? I believe this is not the case.The hysteria of ‘we must do everything and anything as long as it does not use fossil fuels’ should be abandoned for a larger discussion of preserving what we have and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  13. David Dempsey :

    Shap Smith wants to wait for the energy siting commission’s report before considering any moratorium on energy development. Because the report won’t be done until after the session, the issue will be tabled for another year and wind energy projects will continue to be approved by the PSB during that time. The commission was created by Shumlin and the members were appointed by Shumlin supposedly to get public opinion about new energy projects. With the Shumlin administration producing the report, the commission is nothing more than Shumlins way of making it look like he cares about public opinion. Shap knows what the report will recommend. What harm will it do to have a moratorium pending the reports findings, no matter what side of the windpower issue you are on. The only losers would be the developers trying to get projects started to qualify for the subsidies. Shap needs to remember who he is representing.

  14. Dennis Liddy :

    A three year moratorium is essential. GMP does not have to make public the production levels of the Lowell project for two years. It will be two years before anyone except GMP knows for sure if the Lowell project is even meeting production levels that are required to keep it operating. Giving the third year for lawmakers to examine that project is necessary.

  15. bob hartwell :

    As a sponsor legislation being drafted to contend with the severe impacts of industrial wind, it is important to note that, very much contrary to the comments of Deputy Commissioner Hoffman of the Public service Department, the Public Service Board has a clear record of ignoring Act 250 standards in the Act 248 process; the failure to consider Act 250 goes to the heart of the problem. There is virtually no citizens input, no control by the towns and no respect for the criteria in the Act 250 process.

    It is unfortunate to see, yet again, that the Department of Public Service appears not to understand its obligation to protect Vermonters. Industrial wind makes virtually no contribution to efforts to combat climate change, increases the cost of power, ruins the environment by creating water quality problems and destroying hundreds of thousands of trees and leaves local property owners with severe affects, all factors given short shrift in the Act 248 process. As if the impacts are not enough, the developers committed to these projects are on on massive public welfare using hundreds of millions in federal tax credits which congress should repeal in connection with the negotiations to resolve the impending fiscal cliff.

    Bob Hartwell
    State Senator

    • Bob,
      Thank you for standing up for your constituents in the NEK, which is a prime target of the Shumlin ridge line destruction derby. He wants to destruct as many ridge lines, as quickly as possible, and get as many subsidies for his wind energy pals.

      RE is a NET job destroyer. For every job gained in RE, multiple jobs are destroyed in other economic sectors. See this article.
      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later

      I hope you will find some time to read my articles on wind energy. You will find them at THE ENERGY COLLECTIVE under Willem Post.

      If you need technical assistance preparing responses, please let me know.

  16. Jim Wiegand :

    A 3 year moratorium for Vermont is a very good idea for many reasons. This 3 year period will give Vermont a chance to observe the whooping crane population as it struggles to survive the invasion of wind turbines that have been thrust upon their world. Vermont can then compare this population and extrapolate their struggle to all the bird species that are forced to live with these turbines. Bird species like loggerhead shrikes that do not have a high profile or any of the scrutiny as the whooping cranes. It has been kept hidden, but they are all being slaughtered off by the turbines. These species do not have spotters or biologists looking out for them so turbine blades can be stopped as they pass through wind farms.

    Three years may be enough time for Vermont to finally realize that this source of energy is slaughtering off the bird populations across the world and that they do not want this on their conscience.

    Maybe in the next 3 years Vermont will have a better understanding about the limitations of wind energy. They will realize that this source of energy can not possibly save mankind, make one bit of difference towards climate change, or supply society with enough energy to offset any other form of energy production. They will recognize that wind energy is really just a very expensive and highly destructive supplement to the Grid.

    Three more years will give Vermont the time to better assess the use of non lethal wind turbine designs. There are many of these designs and even if some are not as efficient, it is better to use them than to kill off the eagles and other victims of the propeller style wind turbine.

    Over the next three years there will also be some high profile court cases against the wind industry. While in the spotlight, Vermont will see all the mounting evidence and also realize that their Renewable Portfolio Standard was rigged by industry.

    Vermont may then want to use its resources on real solutions and sever their relationship from an industry with an escalating image problem.

  17. Kevin Jones :

    An important point is ignored in this debate. Whether you are for or against wind development in Vermont you should be concerned that because Vermont’s legislature has created the most fundamentally flawed renewable energy program in the country, the SPEED program, their is no net carbon benefit for Vermont from these projects.

    The SPEED Program, unlike the renewable energy laws of all our neighboring states, encourages Vermont’s utilities to sell the renewable energy credits from these projects into out of state renewable energy programs and they are doing just that. Because of the legislature’s SPEED requirements, all of the large scale wind projects are registered in out of state RPS programs (largely in CT and MA) and the renewable energy is sold out of state to meet out of state renewable requirements. So these programs are not a net increase in renewable energy they are just displacing what other states have already required. Furthermore when a Vermont utility, or the State DPS in modeling SPEED projects, accounts for these power contracts they must model them as the residual emissions of the New England market which results in Vermonters being credited for coal, oil, gas, and yes nuclear power and thier associatred emissions (and MA and CT customers getting the green energy). The counterintuitive result of this sham renewable energy policy is that the more large scale wind our utilities commit to under the SPEED program the greater Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions. Vermont DPS modeling and the utilities own PSB filings confirm this fact. Since consistent with Vermont law the utiilties have sold the renewable energy credits for these projects thay cannot legally claim to their customers that they are buying wind power, renewable energy, or make any related claim that suggests that this is green or low carbon energy. By law it is not, it largely has the attributes of fosill fuel and nuclear generation. Both renewable energy advocates and utility executives outside Vermont agree that the Vermont legislature’s SPEED program is a sham.

  18. Dear Senators Benning and Hartwell (and I’m sure there will be many more):

    Thank you for your efforts to put some much needed brakes on wind tower construction in Vermont.

    I am quite literally unable to sleep, and enjoy the quiet of Vermont, in light of the cruelty being inflicted upon my neighbors, and the callous response of those with dollar signs in their eyes. It is sickening to watch.

    In light of the fact that wind power is obviously on its way out in Vermont, this will be my last post.

    Ellin Anderson
    Brownington

    http://www.ellinanderson.com/

  19. Rob Macgregor :

    A moratorium is not productive. Contrary to statements in other comments, no projects are far enough along in the permitting process that they would be approved before the siting commission delivers its recommendations. Yes, there are 3 applications for met towers in the various stages, but even if approved these would take roughly a year for data collection before actual projects are proposed. Accordingly the creation of and timeline for the siting commission acts as a de-facto moratorium at least until next spring. Any recommendations for significant changes to the existing Sec. 248 permit process could delay the introduction of any new applications further, pending PSB or legislative action on proposed changes.

    Ms. Smith et al may well have some valid criticisms of the existing process but there is no guarantee that even if the process changes in ways that critics favor, that they will not litigate outcomes not to their liking. Meanwhile, Shumlin’s opposition to projects not supported by the host towns will suppress developer interest, and as a result Ms. Smith et al will be hard at work re-writing town plans regardless of the siting commission’s eventual recommendations.

    In Vermont, it already takes an average of three years or longer for projects to go from planning to construction anyway, and longer than that if opponents appeal or litigate the permit outcome, which they typically do. In that time projects in Maine, New York or New Hampshire can go from concept to completion. That is neither here nor there, except to point out that the permitting process in Vermont proceeds at a snail’s pace by comparison to our neighboring states.

    Thus if fence-sitters and opponents are interested in further studying the impacts of Vermont’s existing projects, they’ll have plenty of time to do so without needing a moratorium.

    At the federal level, the inability of the Congress to extend the Production Tax Credit for more than a year or two at a time represents a cyclical moratorium. And this seems unlikely to change while Republicans control the House. While this is the case, there is not likely to be progress made on carbon reductions. So the profligate wasting of fossil fuels will continue unabated, as will the truly damaging practices of mountaintop coal removal, tar sands oil extraction and other abusive fossil fuel development.

    All while Vermont’s wind opponents refuse to look at the larger energy picture, and continue to try and make the perfect the enemy of the good. Until we successfully replace fossil fuels, a moratorium on wind development is the last thing we need.

    • Rob,
      Facts on the “ground” matter.
      When a project gets a PSB approval to construct, land has already been bought or leased, preliminary design drawings have been made, specifications have been drawn up, financing has been arranged, MEP testing has been completed, all to enable the PSB to judge the project and then issue approval.

      Because of advanced drilling techniques, the world has available about a 300-year supply of low-cost, clean-burning natural gas. Those techniques will be used all over the world where there is shale. Coal mines will shut down over time, the most expensive ones first.

      The gas would be burned in 60% efficient, closed cycle gas turbines, CCGTs, at a generation cost, including capital, O&M, etc., of about 6-7 c/kWh. At rated output, CO2 emissions would be about 1/3 of coal. No renewable energy can compete with this cost.

      RE promoters may jump up and down, but the gas WILL be used. US energy consumption is only 20% of total world consumption, i.e., the US has minimal international clout.

      Regarding Plug-in Hybrids: It would be decades before plug-in hybrids would be a significant percentage of annual car production and car population. To provide $7,000 subsidies for just one million cars/yr would be $7 billion. The world produces about 100 million cars/yr.

      It would be MUCH LESS costly to build very-high-mileage cars, as is done on Europe, Japan and Korea. NO subsidies would be required, and CO2 emissions would be reduced about as much as with plug-in hybrids which would mostly use fossil-sourced energy.

      Remember, it takes much energy to charge up millions of vehicles each day. Every kWh drawn from the grid requires about 5 times the fossil energy and produces about 5 times the CO2 emissions, to get that kWh to your plug. There is no NET CO2 reduction from using plug-in hybrids.

      Would that energy come from wind and solar?: In New England, wind speeds are too low (less than 7.5 mph) to turn the rotors for at least 30% of the hours of the year, and PV solar is minimal for about 70% of the hours of the year.

      This means almost ALL existing generating capacity will need to be maintained in good operating condition, staffed, and fueled, 24/7/365, to provide energy when RE is minimal or absent.

      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/50925/electric-vehicle-hoopla

      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses

      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later

      • Rob Macgregor :

        What does it matter that development paperwork is done in anticipation of the permit application and then PSB’s final decision? It still takes at least 3 years or more to get through Vermont’s permit process.

        As it stands now, since extension of the production tax credit is still pending and Vermont’s permitting process is being reviewed, it will most likely be at least 2 years before any new permit applications are filed with the PSB.

        As to your comments about natural gas, there doesn’t seem to be any recognition on your part that natgas has its own impacts (with lots of opponents) and that its cost curves will rise as its use increases. Or that as (and if) the economy recovers and demand increases again, that energy costs will be increasing anyway. This means that long term contracts for wind generation will look better and better. And no accounting for the eventuality of cap and trade or carbon taxes either, which would certainly have an impact on the cost of natgas.

        Some would say that that we can’t add any more carbon to the existing load, whether at the emissions rate of coal, or the rate at which natgas would replace coal.

        Nor do you take much account of the fact that if we use (read waste) the natgas in the same way that we wasted oil that we’ll run into a natgas peak just as we have with oil, sooner rather than later.

        So if we wait until the time that natgas production runs out, not only will we have added more carbon load during that whole time, we’ll likely have run out of the productive capacity to build out the renewables.

        A much more prudent course of action would be to build the renewables now so we can minimize the carbon loading and conserve the remaining fossil fuels to do the types of work that only they can do.

        • Rob,

          “It still takes at least 3 years or more to get through Vermont’s permit process.”

          That is the reason for the Shumlin Commission to EXPEDITE the process.

          “there doesn’t seem to be any recognition on your part that natgas has its own impacts (with lots of opponents) and that its cost curves will rise as its use increases.”

          I am very familiar with the pros and cons of coal and gas; during my 30-year career, I designed both type plants.

          “And no accounting for the eventuality of cap and trade or carbon taxes either, which would certainly have an impact on the cost of nat gas.”

          Cap and trade is a long way off, if ever, even in Europe. It is a VERY long way off in the developing nations that are burning coal in a dirty manner.

          Regarding impending shortages of gas:

          As gas is plentiful, an estimated 300-year WORLD supply (see Internet), coal will not be burned as much, because it will be much less costly to build 60% efficient, CCGT gas plants than coal plants, AND CO2 emissions/kWh would be about 1/3 of coal, AND no particulates. Given these 2 alternatives, China, India, Brazil, etc., would burn gas, instead of coal; a very positive development.

          The developing nations account for about 50% of the world gross product, but they burn THEIR coal in a dirty* manner, as Europe, the US and Japan, etc., used to do up to about 1950. It would be much better, if the developing nations ALSO switched to gas.

          *about 50 times dirtier regarding particulates, because of a lack of high-efficiency air quality control systems. See URLs

          I am FOR wind energy where it makes economic sense, such as the Great Plains.

          It makes NO economic sense in New England, because of marginal wind conditions, even on 2,000-ft high ridge lines; I have seen the results of wind tests and done the spreadsheets.

          Without the generous subsidies, equivalent to about 50% of the project cost, almost none of these wind and solar facilities would be built in New England.

          People in Lowell and Albany are happy these “monsters” (their words) are running only when winds are strong, which luckily for them, does not happen very often.

          When Tropical Storm Sandy past over New England, the wind turbines made unbearable noise, according to ear witness accounts, for about 3-4 days.

          Since then, there has been almost no wind, as there was almost no wind all summer, and the rotors did not turn, or turned very slowly and made no noise; a blessing in disguise for people “living” nearby.

          http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/83704/reduce-co2-and-slow-global-warming
          http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses
          http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated
          http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/107316/global-warming-coal-combustion-and-sea-level-rise

  20. Avram, Michael Colby has called you a hypocrite. Is what he said true: “Let’s not forget that Avram Patt supported efforts to ban development of his ridgelines in Worcester.”

    Rian Fried, a WEC member.

  21. Rob,

    “A much more prudent course of action would be to build the renewables now so we can minimize the carbon loading and conserve the remaining fossil fuels to do the types of work that only they can do.”

    You are correct in an ideal world, but in the real world, it will not play out that way.

    The relative economic advantage of coal-based developing nations is low wages and low energy costs. They would not be switching to renewable energy, RE, because it would divert trillion-dollar investments from development over decades AND would increase their energy costs 2 to 3 times. As already-developed nations implement RE, they will become relatively less competitive vs. developing nations.

    Because of advanced drilling techniques, developed and developing nations alike, would have available about a 300-year supply of low-cost, clean-burning natural gas. Those techniques could be used all over the world where there is shale.

    The gas could be burned in 60% efficient, closed-cycle gas turbines, CCGTs, at a generation cost, including capital, O&M, etc., of about 6-7 c/kWh, less expensive than energy from NEW coal plants. The capital costs of CCGT plants would less than half of coal plants.

    At rated output, CO2 emissions of a CCGT plant would be about 1/3 of a NEW coal plant. No RE can compete with this cost. Coal mines could shut down over time, the most expensive ones first. The net effect would be a major WORLDWIDE reduction in CO2 and particulate emissions.

  22. john burton :
  23. Andrew,

    Here is another reason the ridge line wind turbine folly should be abandoned by Vermont before it spends any more money.

    The Maine energy production results show beyond a doubt these facilities are NOT economically viable.

    Below is a URL with production data reported by the wind turbine facility owners in Maine.

    BY LAW, the quarterly data is reported by wind turbine facility owners to the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission, FERC.

    The results are dismal, much less than the optimistic capacity factors used to get financing from banks and investors, and approval from government regulators, the public and legislators.

    These wind turbine facilities on ridge lines are not economically viable, not even with the present huge subsidies.

    http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blog/show?id=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A43514

    HOW IS THIS RELEVANT TO VERMONT?

    GMP will likely NOT rue the day it spent $160 million to put 63 MW of these IWTs on the Lowell ridge line, plus about $10 million, required by ISO-NE, for equipment to integrate the variable wind energy to the grid. GMP was going to place the burden on the other suppliers to the grid, but the ISO-NE said it follows the “USER PAYS” rule, well familiar to GMP. Not a problem for GMP; it just rolls the extra cost in to rate schedules.

    GMP will charge ALL of its additional costs to the captive rate payers in its service area, 70% of Vermont households and businesses, already stressed-out, because of the Great Recession, and a near-zero-growth economy, and financing subsidized RE follies.

    Whereas, GMP was grossly misled and engaged in self-deception, it had the resources to determine the facts BEFORE proceeding, unlike lay-people.

    Independent energy systems analysts, with decades of experience, had advised against it, but were shoved aside, ignored, even belittled.

    GMP COULD have started with one 3 MW turbine to see how it would perform, but that was not impressive enough, as Shumlin wanted to proceed as quickly as possible, build as many IWTs as possible, destroy as many ridge lines as possible, to get as much state and federal subsidies as possible for Vermont’s wind oligarchy, which consists mostly of multi-millionaires in the top 1%.

    New England annual average grid prices are about 5 c/kWh, nearly unchanged for the past 3 years, and likely to stay that way, because of a LONG-TERM, abundant supply of natural gas.

    Hydro-Quebec energy is available at about 6 c/kWh. It is STEADY, CO2-free, available 24/7/365, rain or shine, windy or not windy.

    Vermont Yankee’s energy is available at about 6 c/kWh. It is STEADY, CO2-free, available 24/7/365, rain or shine, windy or not windy.

    Lowell Mountain energy, heavily-subsidized with state and federal subsidies, is available at about 10 c/kWh, per GMP. Its cost would be 15 c/kWh, unsubsidized, per US-DOE. GMP will roll its extra cost into already-stressed households and businesses.

    New England, with fair-to-good wind conditions only on 2,000-ft or higher ridge lines, about 30 percent of the hours of the year near-zero wind energy is produced, because wind speeds are insufficient (7.5 mph) to turn the rotors, or too great for safety, as during stronger weather fronts or tropical storms, such as Sandy and Irene, passing over the ridge lines.

    About 60% of the wind energy is produced during about 30% of the hours of the year, mostly at night, and mostly during winter. When wind turbines are not producing sufficient or no energy, they DRAW energy from the grid.

    Wind energy is variable and intermittent and requires gas turbines to ramp down with wind energy surges and ramp up with wind energy ebbs to maintain a stable grid. This requires extra fuel/kWh and emits extra CO2/kWh.

    At greater annual wind energy percentages on the grid, these extras mostly offset what wind energy was meant to reduce, i.e., wind energy is NOT a viable CO2 reduction technology, AND it acts as a disturber of the grid which makes the grid less efficient and less stable, AND it is very expensive.

    See below URLs which have had about 10,000 views till now.

    http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61309/lowell-mountain-wind-turbine-facility-vermont
    http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later
    http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses
    http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated

  24. alice barnett :

    Dear WIND developers. I own land 2000 feet from a proposed wind facility. My land is worthless.

    • Alice,

      You are impacted by the “collateral damage” of wind turbines. Part of your net worth was bulldozed by the Shumlin ridge line demolition derby which aims to demolish as many ridge lines as possible, as quickly as possible, to further enrich Vermont’s heavily-subsidized, wind energy oligarchy.

      Other people are even less fortunate. They have nearby houses that have become unsalable. Staying in such houses is not healthy, because of the unique noise spectrum of wind turbines.
      http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses

      At less than 20 Hz (infrasound) and above 20,000 Hz (ultrasound) most people do not “hear” noise, but a person’s ears and body are sensitive to infrasound which cause nausea, headaches, insomnia, elevated blood pressure, palpitations, tinnitus, imbalance, dizziness, lack of concentration, moodiness, irritability, anxiety, etc., in SOME people who live about 1 mile or less from large, say 3.0 MW, utility-size wind turbines. 

      The infrasound and low frequency noise, LFN, is harmful to humans. Humans should reside, work, study, play, etc., at least 1.5 mile from 3 MW wind turbines (based on recent Lowell Mountain experience), especially households with pregnant mothers, babies, infants and school-age children to avoid genetic damage impacts, and people with heart disease to avoid aggravating their condition, and elderly people who generally are less able to bear the disturbances from IWT noises.

      Infrasound and LFN is also harmful to wildlife and livestock. Domestic and wildlife animals are reported to be skittish near wind turbines. Animals with genetic defects have been found near wind turbines. Little data has been systematically gathered about the issue, but there is anecdotal evidence indicating problems. These symptoms are collectively known as “Wind Turbine Syndrome”.
      http://oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/wind.html

      These symptoms occur because the natural frequencies of the internal human and animal organs are in the same frequency range, i.e., 1 to 8 Hz, as those of house walls and floors. Floor resonance can cause the internal organs of the occupants to resonate resulting in an uneasy, irritating feeling. The infrasound is often amplified indoors due to resonating of house walls and floors. 

      Most peoples’ heart beat is less than 1.25 Hz, or a 75 pulse rate. People who live close to large wind turbines in Falmouth, MA, Ontario, Australia, etc., have complained about feeling internal pressures and having heart troubles and other symptoms which they did not have before the wind turbines were installed.

      The symptoms mostly disappear after people move away and reappear after they move back. After many complaints over a long period of time, the Falmouth, MA, ruling council finally slowed down the wind turbines at greater wind speeds by partially feathering the blades.

Comments

*

Comment policy Privacy policy
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Senators say three year wind moratorium is “urgent”"