Editor’s note: Gabrielle Stebbins is the executive director of Renewable Energy Vermont, based in Montpelier. She has worked in the energy and environmental restoration fields for more than 10 years.
The board of the Northeastern Vermont Development Association (NVDA), an association “to develop and promote through study, planning and publicity the recreational, agricultural, industrial, natural and human resources of the region and to work for [its] economic and social betterment,” voted on June 28 to pass a resolution effectively placing a moratorium on wind energy in NVDA’s district for up to three years.
They say they intend to do more study and research to address questions regarding human health impacts, environmental health impacts, the cost versus the benefit of wind energy, the effect of wind turbines on property values and the impact of wind energy on greenhouse gas emissions. The study will look at national and international research.
Although Renewable Energy Vermont (REV) sent letters, including a list of national and international human health study results to every board member and although we requested an opportunity to speak before the board, there was no response to the letter and the request to speak was not granted.
While dining on salmon and steak, with a stunning view of Lake Memphremagog, there were a few members who spoke with concern about the resolution. One person mentioned that he had contacted many of the towns he represents to find out their viewpoint on the resolution. What he found was that his representative towns had not even heard about the NVDA resolution, and therefore could not have weighed in before the vote.
Another person, the only one to raise his hand and vote against the resolution (there were several who abstained in a vote taken by a show of hands), suggested that perhaps it does not make sense for an association charged with growing regional economic development, to pass a resolution placing a moratorium on one of the few forms of economic development available to the region.
Of greatest concern to me, as someone not allowed to speak but who researches renewable energy every day and represents the livelihoods of those the NVDA just voted out of their region, was that the intent of the resolution was to allow for more study because, as NVDA stated, the association and its board members do not have and know the facts.
Yet most of the individuals who spoke up in support of the resolution and against wind power, spoke as if they knew the facts – and many of these comments were, with all due respect, not based on fact. Since I was not allowed to speak at the meeting, my responses to these incorrect comments are below and I have provided references, so that you, the reader, can check my facts.
Yet most of the individuals who spoke up in support of the resolution and against wind power, spoke as if they knew the facts – and many of these comments were, with all due respect, not based on fact. Since I was not allowed to speak at the meeting, my responses to these incorrect comments are below and I have provided references, so that you, the reader, can check my facts.
1. “Wind energy doesn’t work because it is intermittent and not a form of baseload power — when the wind doesn’t blow, we won’t be able to turn on our lights.”
Here are the facts: large power plants can and do shut down abruptly at any time. In an interview with the CEO of the Texas Grid, it was clarified that twice in 2011, wind energy helped keep the lights on in Texas when fossil fuel-fired power plants failed.[1] This is what the operators of our grids do — they monitor where power is needed, where it is available and where it needs to go. They adjust and respond to changes in power supply and demand so that we, the energy users, can turn on our lights without a thought. This comment also fails to recognize the role the “smart grid” plays, by providing a two-way and real-time power flow, allowing for more integration of renewables into our power supply, without impacting the end user.
2. “These aren’t real jobs — once the construction is done, there are just a handful of jobs remaining.”
Rep. Larocque spoke to the contrary; highlighting the role wind energy in Vermont has played for all the employees of the J.A. MacDonald company in the construction of these projects. There is also a supply chain involved. Northern Power Systems, based in Barre, manufactures wind turbines and works with 352 Vermont businesses, totaling over $1.6 million a year in local, Vermont business.[2]
3. “Wind energy destroys our most precious resources. … Windmills have been proven to be detrimental — the noise of them blows up the brains of birds.”
The best way to fact-check whether wind farms destroy our natural resources is to go and visit one and see it for yourself. There have been numerous tours of the wind farm at Sheffield. Has everyone who voted against wind energy made this visit? Regarding birds: losses at turbine sites will never be more than an extremely small fraction of bird deaths caused by human activities – three in 100,000, according to the National Academy of Sciences.[3]
4. “Is this power necessary? … (W)e should just buy more Hydro Quebec (HQ)… We have a clean enough electric portfolio.”
The facts: The only long-term approach for Vermonters to get off gasoline and diesel for transportation is to move to electric vehicles. So, yes, we need more clean power and we need to start planning for it now, particularly since the Vermont permitting process for wind energy projects is so rigorous that it can take more than six years to get a project built.[4]
Perhaps we can buy more HQ, but then Vermonters can plan on having the conversation about transmission upgrades rather than wind turbines. And this doesn’t address the fact that most Vermonters want energy independence, with their power to be locally based, as opposed to outsourcing our needs to other people’s backyards.
5. “These projects can’t get built without massive subsidies — and wind energy costs too much.”
Fact: Fossil fuels in their start-up period got five times more in government incentives than renewable energy has and nuclear 10 times as much.[5] American taxpayers have paid over $500 billion to the fossil-fuel industries, and we are still paying after 90 years through permanent tax policies.”[6]
Regarding the cost: Well, utilities like wind because it “acts as a hedge against future volatility of natural gas prices.”[7] Unlike fossil fuels, wind energy offers “fuel price certainty” — the cost of wind doesn’t go up and down and all around. Once the wind farm is built, the cost is constant. Indeed, even without government incentives, it cost six to nine cents per kilowatt-hour in February 2012, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found.[8]
There are more facts available and I encourage anyone interested to visit http://windworksvermont.org/. And thanks to the American Wind Energy Association for providing easy-to-reference factual information based on neutral, third-party studies and reports.
I do agree with those who voted against wind energy last night in one regard, and that is that the conversation has turned ugly and has pitted neighbor against neighbor. However, I would suggest that it isn’t wind energy that has done this — it is the misinformation that is repeated as “fact” and the fear that is spread by this misinformation.
Vermont and the United States face an opportunity with clean energy — an opportunity with numerous benefits from jobs to energy independence to keeping Vermont dollars in state to addressing climate change. China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Texas, California and others continue to plan for the future by developing a robust clean-energy economy. Let’s not miss our chance.
Please, NVDA, as the board begins to seek out facts, we ask that you round out your research in partnership with Renewable Energy Vermont and the 300-plus businesses we represent. REV offers to work with you to convene panels of experts — with their credentials provided — to address the questions that NVDA feels they do not have the facts on. We offer peer-reviewed scientific studies not paid for by the wind industry. We hope you will choose to do as your vote last night states you will and look at national and international research to find the facts.
Citations
[1] “An Interview with the CEO of the Texas Grid,” The Texas Tribune, February 4,2011
[2] Communication with Northern Power Systems, Jan. 20, 2012
[3] Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects, 2007.
[4] Sheffield Wind project took about seven years to be permitted and built.
[5] “What would Jefferson Do?:The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future,” DBL Investors.
[6] “Energy Tax Policy: Historical Perspectives on and Current Status of Energy Tax Expenditure,” Congressional Research Service, May 2011.
[7] “Supplemental Direct Testimony and Exhibits of Kurtis J. Haeger on Behalf of Public Service Company of Colorado,” September 19, 2011.
[8] “Recent Developments in the Levelized Cost of Energy from Wind Power Projects,” February 2012.
