Benning: Big wind, take two

Editor’s note: This op-ed is by state Sen. Joe Benning, of Lyndonville, who represents the Caledonia-Orange District in the Vermont Senate.

Last spring I had the opportunity to hike up to the top of Lowell Mountain to look at the construction going on for a new industrial wind plant. As I crested the top, it became immediately apparent that the “construction” was far less impressive than the “destruction” it was causing. Horrified, I went right back to the Legislature to move for a moratorium on such development. As I said at the time, “We should never rape a pristine environment in exchange for intermittent power that has to be subsidized by both the taxpayer and the ratepayer, especially at a time when we have ample power available on the grid.”

Since then, wind projects have been proposed or built in Rutland County, Windham County and Chittenden County. Sure enough, senators close to those projects who voted against the moratorium last spring, having now seen the destruction and experienced the social upheaval they bring, are rethinking their positions.

That effort failed in the Senate, 18-11. As a freshman senator in the minority party, that didn’t come as a surprise. What I did find encouraging, however, was the coalition of senators who voted in the minority. Most fell into the category of those who’d been directly affected by these industrial wind projects. My speech on the Senate floor ended with the prediction that “these projects are coming to a mountaintop near you.”

Since then, wind projects have been proposed or built in Rutland County, Windham County and Chittenden County. Sure enough, senators close to those projects who voted against the moratorium last spring, having now seen the destruction and experienced the social upheaval they bring, are rethinking their positions.

Big wind proponents claim these projects are the magical silver bullet that will solve our electric needs and cure man’s contribution to global pollution. Interestingly, George Aiken once used the very same argument advancing the cause of nuclear power. Over time we learned nuclear power had certain drawbacks. We now know big wind also has drawbacks. If we consider big wind as one tool in a toolbox full of alternative energy tools, rather than a means unto itself, it is easier to redefine the conversation. A substantive conversation, without all the ideological rhetoric, would be most helpful for Vermont.

We need a plan for evaluating whether use of this particular tool is appropriate in Vermont’s unique and historically cherished mountain environment. We need to analyze the data now being collected by big wind projects now in existence to determine whether they are actually living up to their promised expectations. We need to develop a comprehensive state energy plan that defines the proper tools for achieving our energy and carbon-reduction goals. These things take time. A three-year moratorium would immediately cease further environmental destruction while we get that time.

If our studies conclude that this high-priced, intermittent power is worth the environmental destruction and social upheaval it is causing, then a three-year time-out will not mean the end of the world. If, on the other hand, our studies show this particular tool is the wrong one for Vermont, then our time will have been well spent.

Leave a Reply

52 Comments on "Benning: Big wind, take two"

1000

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
3 years 8 months ago
Central to the discussion Senator Benning is suggesting, I think, is the question of whether subsidies, such as the Production Tax Credit, are in fact essential to encourage cutting-edge technology that would otherwise not be cost effective to research, develop or build. Or, are these incentives simply enabling companies to operate in a manner which is inappropriate and unsustainable? Either way, I’ll suggest the subsidy model itself requires as much scrutiny as the industrial/utility-scale wind projects themselves. A major problem I see is that our federal award system encourage companies to “go big or go home” resulting in infrastructure that… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 8 months ago
Matt Fisken addresses federal tax incentives as though they are unique to renewables. This is about as far from the truth as can be imagined. The US does not have and never has had anything resembling a free market when it comes to energy. Nuclear power has been subsidized and promoted since the Atomic Energy Act was first passed in the mid 50s. All of the research and development prior to that was paid for entirely by taxpayers. Oil, gas and coal have been subsidized for even longer. Subsidies for renewable energy have been miniscule compared to these massive and… Read more »
3 years 8 months ago
John writes: “Matt Fisken addresses federal tax incentives as though they are unique to renewables.” I said, “…whether subsidies, such as the [PTC], are in fact essential…” I was trying to be general and would never argue your point that other goods, services and energy sources continue to benefit from excessive pork entirely at the expense of taxpayers’ wallets, their health and the environment. To name a few, in Vermont alone, we have GMO corn, wireless “broadband,” and wireless smart meters. I’ll provide this document (https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/ELBO/assets/AMI%20Plan%20filing%20with%20PSB%2011-17-11.pdf) for illustration: “…[Burlington Electric Department]’s original business case demonstrated that a system-wide deployment of… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 8 months ago
Matt Fisken is completely missing my point. Simply put, when all other energy sources are heavily subsidized, it is unreasonable to single out one of them and expect it alone to be economically viable without subsidies. If wind is to compete on the energy playing field we have built in America, some subsidies, especially at this early stage of the industry, are inevitable. Perhaps there are some wind developers who are “philanthropists” as Mr. Fisken later contends, but to my knowledge, most of them are businessmen with an eye to the bottom line, just like developers of other any energy… Read more »
Steve Wright
3 years 8 months ago
John, You’re wobbling again. Matt was clearly speaking of the wind subsidy; he even mentioned it specifically, the Production Tax Credit. And by the way, GMP will get the tidy sum of $45-48 million over the next ten years from that hog trough. And speaking of subsidies, see below for data taken–by me–from the U.S. Energy Information Agency. FUEL FEDERAL SUBSIDY IN $/KWH Natural gas 0.63 Coal 0.64 Hydro 0.84 Biomass 2.00 Nuclear 3.10 Geothermal 12.50 Wind 52.48 Solar 968.,00
Steve Wright
3 years 8 months ago

Thanks Willem,
The comment box trimmed that $/mw column from my submission. Ah, technology.

John,
Your rhetoric was ‘wobbly’. But that’s okay, we all do it sometimes. Steve not Steven BTW.

John Greenberg
3 years 8 months ago
Steven Wright accuses me of “wobbling again.” I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean. I certainly understood that Matt Fisken was speaking about subsidies for wind power. What I tried to address is precisely what Mr. Fisken failed to: namely, the subsidies for everything else. There are at least two problems with the table Mr. Wright presents, other than the obvious correction provided by Willem Post below (MWH not KWH). First, the information provided is a snapshot: these are subsidies for one year. But many of these other energy sources, as I pointed out above, have enjoyed subsidies… Read more »
Sam Lincoln
3 years 8 months ago
How can one really know what the best energy generation system is when we don’t know how much it’s costing us, strictly relating to out of pocket cost, not weighing other non-monetary costs. In the fall I sent requests to five media outlets in Vermont asking them to publish information about each type of electricity generation used by our utilities in Vermont (nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, hydro, natural gas), how much they’re subsidized, how much their power costs our utilities, how many people they employ etc… I’d really like to know what these things cost on a per kw basis… Read more »
Peter Romans
3 years 8 months ago

Mr. Benning’s requirement for data is remarkable. VPIRG, CLF, Shumlin, Klein have no use for hard evidence. Their assertions are simply assertions and scientifically unsubstantiated. Our best response should always be, “show us the evidence”.

John Greenberg
3 years 8 months ago
To Senator Benning: First, I certainly agree with Mr. Benning’s assertion that “we consider big wind as one tool in a toolbox full of alternative energy tools, rather than a means unto itself ….” I don’t know anyone who argues that wind power is a panacea or, in Mr. Benning’s rather sarcastic phrasing: “the magical silver bullet that will solve our electric needs and cure man’s contribution to global pollution.” Second, what Mr. Benning appears to entirely ignore is that the very processes he’s asking for — “a plan for evaluating whether use of this particular tool is appropriate in… Read more »
David Bell
3 years 8 months ago

John,

Good points. On this site at least, the biggest argument against wind turbines seems to be that people just don’t like the sound/sight of them.

Though, given that Shumlin was re-elected, this does not seem to be the popular opinion among most Vermonters.

I am curious, did the Senators opposing wind energy really rely solely on their own judgement, or was their any sort of evidence to support their argument?

John Greenberg
3 years 8 months ago

I’ll let them answer that question.

3 years 8 months ago
Glad you asked. When one personally sees, from both the air and up close on the ground, the physical destruction needed to install ridgeline industrial wind towers, it does not take a scientist to recognize that this particular form of energy generation has a major drawback. In the face of that destruction, let’s ask some simple questions. Now that Sheffield and Lowell have been installed, wouldn’t it be nice to know exactly what they are providing us? Shouldn’t we determine how much actual power is provided annually, as opposed to how much was predicted? Shouldn’t we determine how much carbon… Read more »
Avram Patt
3 years 8 months ago
Sen. Benning, comparing the capacity factor of a baseload facility like WEC’s Coventry landfill gas plant or Ryegate to wind, or to solar for that matter (which has much lower capacity factor than wind) is disingenuous. First, utilities do not want, cannot use, all baseload power. We do not need baseload plants running unused for parts of every day and every night when demand is low. A utility needs a certain amount of baseload in its portfolio, and then no more. Second, there are two landfills in Vermont, one of which is likely to close soon. The Coventry plant is… Read more »
Rob Roy Macgregor
3 years 8 months ago
I’m curious to know, Mr Benning, if you’ve ever seen a mountaintop coal removal site? If not it might provide some much needed perspective. And if you have hiked up what used to be a mountain to such a site, why is it that you’d propose a moratorium on wind development and not a moratorium on coal use? We’ve certainly had no qualms about burdening the coal mining states with our energy demands. If you want to gather data on the impacts and performance of Vermont’s existing wind projects cut to the chase – it would make much more sense… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 8 months ago
Senator Benning makes numerous points, many of which have been nicely answered by Avram Patt and Rob Roy MacGregor: 1) “Physical destruction (is) needed to install ridgeline industrial wind towers…” As Mr. MacGregor points out, this destruction needs to be compared to the despoliation caused by other energy sources. Does Senator Benning really think that natural gas pipelines just lay themselves down neatly in the environment or that oil wells are beautiful? Planning on buying any Fukushima real estate? I understand it’s very cheap right now. The only legitimate discussion of environmental destruction requires comparative consideration of the destruction from… Read more »
Rob Roy Macgregor
3 years 8 months ago

Correcting myself : Reunion does have met tower permits for the Grandpa’s Knob project, but has not yet applied for a specific project permit.

3 years 8 months ago
David, “the biggest argument against wind turbines seems to be that people just don’t like the sound/sight of them.” Here are a few more reason: IWT systems, such as on Lowell Mountain, are environmentally-damaging, health-damaging, property-value-lowering, visually-offensive, noise-making, bird-killing projects, that produce expensive, variable, intermittent, i.e., junk energy, that could not be used on the grid, unless it is balanced by quick-ramping gas turbine energy. The Lowell Mountain energy will be foisted onto Vermont households and businesses at about 10 c/kWh, heavily subsidized, per GMP; 15 c/kWh, unsubsidized, per US-DOE. Hydro-Quebec and Vermont Yankee energy is available at about 5-6c/kWh,… Read more »
David Bell
3 years 8 months ago

Willem,

No, I said ” On this site at least, the biggest argument against wind turbines seems to be that people just don’t like the sound/sight of them.”

If you have legitimate reasons, there is no need to deliberately quote me out of context.

Steve Wright
3 years 8 months ago
David, You must have missed mine–and can you reference those who have made comments re the visual intrusion? Senator Benning was writing about the damage to the mountain not about the looks of the turbines. Have you seen the Lowell site? Take a look at the Ridgeprotectors ad on this site–VT Digger–or go to Vermontridges.org, or send me your address and I will send you the pictures of the Lowell destruction. Yes, I said “destruction,” and it’s not only ugly it has changed forever the physical and biological functions of at least 3.2 miles of the Lowell Mountains ridgeline. Does… Read more »
3 years 8 months ago

John,

I just published a new article on THE ENERGY COLLECTIVE which answers a lot of questions about having a moratorium on IWT build-outs.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/169521/wind-turbine-energy-capacity-less-estimated

Moshe Braner
3 years 8 months ago
Problem is that “we” in Vermont are subsidizing the alternative energy that is actually “used” by other states, not us. This is a slippery concept, but basically, other nearby states require their utilities to incorporate set amounts of alternative energy, but they are allowed buy “credits” for such elsewhere instead. Here in VT we do not require such from our utilities (namely GMP), but give out subsidies (and give up the ridgelines) for them to set up the wind turbines. Then they (GMP) turn around and SELL those “credits” to other utilities, enabling those other utilities to actually keep on… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 8 months ago

You have it exactly backwards. We’re not subsidizing those other states. It’s the ratepayers in those other states who are paying the subsidies, not Vermonters. Their utilities are buying the RECs; our utilities are selling them.

Steve Wright
3 years 8 months ago
And by selling the RECS the utility is voiding the ‘renewableness’ of the energy produced. You can’t sell the renewable attributes and keep calling the energy renewable. So, GMP and any other utilities who are selling RECs to, e.g., a Massachusetts coal-burning utility are actually causing more regional carbon;ghg emissions. Funny thing is, though, in Vermont selling the RECs and meeting renewable production goals in their source portfolios IS LEGAL! (The only state in the union as such). What a scam, generated–pun intended–by the utilities. Was the SPEED Program Robert Dostis’s gift to GMP when he was Chair of the… Read more »
3 years 8 months ago

John,

Vermont is destroying its ridge lines for the benefit of GMP and other states which will not be destroying THEIR ridge lines.

Nick Olcott
3 years 8 months ago

Willem, Your absolutely correct other states will not be destroying THEIR ridge lines, they will be REMOVING them and the mountains below only to dump whats been removed into a nearby valley, or pushing natural gas into water wells, or flattening 1000+ acre tracts for man made hydro dams I could go on but I hope the point was taken.

Don Arnold
3 years 8 months ago

If you understand that intermittent wind causes base load coal plants to ramp their output up or down more quickly than they were designed to,(causing more carbon emissions), and you know that this coal is domestic,(not imported) than you know that wind has no positives to balance the considerable negatives. Bet it only takes one site visit for a well informed person to change his mind.

Avram Patt
3 years 8 months ago
Facts please? No baseload plant, of any kind, coal, nuclear, gas, ramps up or down. By definition they run almost all the time. Natural gas can be baseload but it is also the primary fuel source dispatched on the New England grid system to follow fluctuations in demand. Some Natural gas plants are ramped up during high demand and ramp down when demand subsides. This happens regularly, every day, with wind generation on the grid, or not. It’s based on the time of day, day of the week, season of the year, and the weather. When wind energy is being… Read more »
3 years 8 months ago
Avram, Without wind energy on the grid, the economic scheduling of generators is repeated with very minor changes each day. With a little annual wind energy on the grid, say less than 3%, the above scheduling is very little affected. With increasing annual wind energy on the grid, say 3-15 percent, increasing adjustments to the scheduling have to be made 24/7/365, AND increasing capacities of quick-ramping CCGTs and OCGTs need to be in spinning mode and part-load-ramping mode the balance the wind energy. Some grids have wind energy accommodation fees between 5 -10 $/MWh that are charged to IWT system… Read more »
Don Arnold
3 years 8 months ago

To address an earlier point, Europe has been listening to the argument and has been backing away from wind for over 5 years now. Germany is worried about grid instability caused by intermittent sources. The largest power outages in the US have been due to grid instability.

3 years 8 months ago
Don, Thank you for your comments. Here are some items you may not be familiar with: The National Renewable Energy Laboratories, NRELs, have proposed High Voltage Direct Current, HVDC, lines from the Great Plains, where the good winds are, to the East Coast, where the people are. Those lines have much less line losses than AC lines, and can be buried, or on pylons, as needed, to satisfy NIMBY concerns. Germany is planning to build HVDC lines from North Germany, where the IWTs are, to South Germany, where the PV solar systems are. Germany has exported its variable wind energy… Read more »
3 years 8 months ago
“A US-wide crony-capitalist fraud, aided and abetted by governments, playing out right before our eyes?” Not just a US-wide fraud, a worldwide fraud. A fraud on top of the fraud known as “man-made climate change.” How humiliating for America that the Russian democracy, in Pravda no less, has to point this out to us: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-01-2013/123380-global_warming-0/ “For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. Knowing full well that their produce in China and sell in the West… Read more »
David Bell
3 years 8 months ago

Are you actually contending that every scientific agency of national or international standing is involved in a leak proof conspiracy?

And that virtually every climatoligist on the planet is just phonying up data for some evil purpose?

Greg Mitchell
3 years 8 months ago
I find it embarrassing that anyone would believe a fact free op-ed from a newspaper famous for lying in service of whichever master it happens to serve at the moment over the most respected scientific publications on the planet. Additionally, “The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle. The earths natural cycles, if human industrial output had not been involved, would have us near or slightly below thermal equilibrium, possibly slightly cooling.” http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle… Read more »
3 years 8 months ago
In the small country of Scotland, only three times larger than Vermont, there is growing panic over the huge number of wind turbine installations that have been put in place (1,293 turbines in 225 wind farms), and along with that, the millions of trees being cut down to make way for them. A median estimate is roughly ten million trees lost to date. http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2011/07/31/millions-of-trees-felled-for-wind-farms/ Since the average tree absorbs 50 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year and produces 250 lbs. of oxygen, the overall result in that country is that one-quarter of a million tons of carbon dioxide yearly is… Read more »
Nick Olcott
3 years 8 months ago

Richard, I think you need to take a look at math in the article you linked. 1.25m and 25m is a VERY large difference even cutting that in half again is still huge. Using your figures that would be 7,733 trees cut per turbine! Also considering the article mentions Scotland is home to Europe’s largest wind turbine farm. That farm is 600 hectares (roughly 1500 acres) while thats big its not really THAT big. There was once a time these Country’s followed our lead now we are playing catch up.

3 years 8 months ago
Nick, The following entirely different approach confirms my earlier figure of 7,733 trees lost per turbine, which you characterized as “huge.” The large Scottish windfarm you refer to, namely the Whitelee windfarm near Glasgow, spreads 140 turbines out over 1,500 acres. Assuming that it is located in one of the forested areas included in Scotland’s “5,000 to 10,000 hectares of woodland that has been destroyed for windfarm development”, and using an average figure of 700 for number of trees per acre (as estimated by various reforestation organizations) we can conclude that just this one Scottish windfarm could have denuded the… Read more »
Nick Olcott
3 years 8 months ago
Richard, While I applaud your your creativity with numbers I would like you and the other readers here to understand that while yes trees were cut to build that project it was built primarily on a moor (Moor or moorland, an uncultivated upland area that is characterized by low growing vegetation on acidic soils). It is very easy to do a current and past comparison with google maps or other methods to clearly see that the area had VERY FEW trees to begin with and that the majority of the project needed no clearing at all. I can understand part… Read more »
3 years 8 months ago

I saw that 450 number as well, and an even lower one of 365. But I also saw estimates of 800 to 1,000. So if you want to call chosing a median figure of 700 “creativity with numbers”, then I would call that creativity with words.
Sorry if I made a wrong assumption about the Scottish windfarm in question, but the point is valid as it applies to the Green Mountains, which are (soon to be were) covered with that “high growing” form of vegetation known as trees.

Avram Patt
3 years 8 months ago

It’s always useful to consider actual facts when discussing wind energy:

* The construction phase of First Wind’s 40 megawatt 16 turbine project in Sheffield involved the clearing of a total of approximately 63 acres, for the turbine sites, roads and everything else.

* Upon completion of construction, approximately 39 of those acres are being allowed to re-green. When I visited the site in the fall, most of the cleared area was greened over and brush and trees will continue to grow into that over the next few years.

* Total project footprint after construction: approximately 24 acres, including turbine sites and roads.

3 years 8 months ago

Avram,

The impacted area is much greater, as people “living” within about a mile are disturbed by the noise which also adversely affects their health due to lack of sleep.
Young children, infants and pregnant women are especially affected.

Kevin Jones
3 years 8 months ago
John Greenberg your criticisms of Moshe Braner’s comments are off the mark. Moshe’s statement that Vermonter’s are subsidizing the renewable energy used by customers in other state’s is largely correct. While Vermont utilities are selling REC’s out of state and using those revenues to reduce the costs of SPEED and Standard Offer resources many of these contracts are above market even with the REC sales. This is clearly the case with the Standard Offer (aka Feed in Tariff) resources. Vermont customers are paying significant premiums for these resources even after netting off the REC revenue. This begs the question as… Read more »
Kevin Jones
3 years 8 months ago
Avram your insinuation that a wind moratorium in Vermont is support for fracking is ridiculous. The reality is that the unanimity among Vermont utilities in opposition to an RPS is what is really supporting fossil-fueled generation in the Northeast. When a Vermont utility sells the RECs associated with a renewable project that utilities customers are really buying brown power (gas, oil, coal, etc) since they have assigned the renewable energy to customers out of state. Two utilities cannot consume the same green energy at the same time. As you should be aware the more SPEED resources the state produces the… Read more »
Avram Patt
3 years 8 months ago
Kevin: I wasn’t insinuating anything but rather making an open statement which I stand behind. Your focus on the fact that utilities are selling RECs outside Vermont is well established. The fact is that wind and other new renewable generation located within Vermont’s borders has added to the total amount of real, actual renewable energy on the New England grid that Vermont is a part of, whether the renewable attributes of the energy Vermont utilities purchase are claimed in Vermont or in another state. Those renewables have reduced the demand for natural gas required by the New England grid. I… Read more »
3 years 8 months ago
Avram, The Vermont, subsidy-chasing, wind energy oligarchs, aided and abetted by legislators, such as Shumlin, Cheney, Klein, Lyons, etc., are destroying Vermont’s ridge lines to reduce CO2 emissions in New England, and the oligarchs are receiving free RECs which they sell to out-of-state entities so THEY do not have to destroy THEIR ridge lines for IWT systems. If that is so good, why not increase the REC program 57 fold and destroy ALL of Vermont’s ridge lines and use ALL of Vermont’s “wind energy resource”, a la Blittersdorf, who would have Vermont use 200 miles of its ridge lines, enough… Read more »
David Bell
3 years 8 months ago

Steve,

When I said most comments I have read, why do you and Willem seem to think I meant every single comment ever made?

I did not say aesthetic concerns were not important or relevant, I said this seems to be the main concern for many commenters on this site. Sorry, if you felt my comment was dismissing this concern, I just feel it should not be the most important issue.

I have seen work done to create wind turbines, as well as what goes on in oil drilling and coal mining. None of it is what I would call pretty.

John Sales
3 years 8 months ago
VERMONT’S WIND MORATORIUM IS ILL ADVISED In the three years of Vermont’s proposed wind moratorium, production in North Dakota’s Bakken average fracked shale well will decline 80% (an average 40% decline/year). The main thing preventing U. S. energy shortfall, Fracked Shale, is not going well: Huge rig numbers, little need for additional exploration, inherent fast decline in the wells, strong demand, and artificially low pricing promote waste and argue for depletion within 20 Years. With the only energy source large enough to convert to renewables gone, energy will go critical, and timing is critical. An all-out effort with massive fees… Read more »
Rob Macgregor
3 years 8 months ago

Spot on, Mr Sales. Thank you…

3 years 8 months ago
John, Here are some numbers for perspective: World CO2 emissions (in million metric tonnes) increased from 33,160 in 2010 to 33,990 in 2011, an increase of 0.83 US 6,000 million tonnes in 2011 VT 8.1 million tonnes in 2011; 75% from buildings and transportation!!!!!!! The World’s 2011 increase was 102 times VT’s total emissions in 2011. Why should Vermont destroy its ridge lines? Pure subsidy chasing and the Vermont RE oligarchy building their subsidized RE businesses that produce expensive, low-quality energy, at the expense of other Vermont households and businesses. VT being a “leader” in RE, a la Rep. Klein?… Read more »
John Sales
3 years 8 months ago
Rob, thanks for the thanks Willem, Thanks for the numbers – they are important and and i’m not too good at them. I sure agree with buy local, build local, and that China is running circles around us and thumbing their nose at us. The “sleepers” I think we are missing are turbines in farmers fields and Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) – LFTRs are both scaleable and rampable (build them any size and turn them up and down to meet peaks and valleys in load – you can’t do that with renewables or uranium reactors. I’m 79 – since… Read more »
2 years 10 months ago

The important difference between mining coal on a mountain top and building wind tubine towers is that the latter have a viewshed ruination range of 50 miles or more (far enough to be seen by tourists driving on major highways,)

Maybe we should be catering to the lack of aesthetic sensiblilties of those who don’t mind seeing Vermont’s beautiful pristine Green Mountains blemished by an ugly industrial facility.

Why don’t we just hire a sculptor to take the guts out of Vermont Yankee and build a monument to nuclear power on the top of a mountian where everyone can see it?

wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Benning: Big wind, take two"