Editor’s note: Jim Rademacher lives in Pittsford.
We have all heard much about the concerns relating to industrial wind turbines on our ridgelines. Our governor wants us to install industrial wind turbines as fast as we can in order to reduce our carbon footprint and thereby slow the rate of climate change.
Is the governor correct? Remove the “install industrial wind turbines” and substitute “do something prudent” and I agree. Is installing industrial wind turbines prudent?
We hear that there is no way to produce electricity without some form of sacrifice and we all need to do our part. We all need to do our part but electricity is not the problem. Electricity accounts for 4 percent of Vermont’s CO2 production. Transportation accounts for 47 percent and home and building heating for 31.5 percent of our CO2 production. A prudent governor might more appropriately direct his and our energies to reduce CO2 emissions toward those two areas. CO2, not electricity, is the villain that needs to be attacked and most of it comes from transportation and heating.
Industrial wind turbines can reduce CO2 emissions but they are a very cost ineffective way to do so. There are more effective and cheaper ways to lower CO2 emissions. The Lowell Mountain 63 MW project is expected to produce an average 20 MW of electricity. That will amount to 175,200 MWH/year. In the Lowell Mountain certificate of public good application, Green Mountain Power (GMP) stated it would cost about 11 cent/kwh to produce the electricity. This past summer GMP could have purchased electricity from the grid for between 5 and 6 cents/kwh. On Thanksgiving Day the price was 3.8 cents/kwh. Because of the abundance of natural gas and because of the current excess generation capacity that exists in New England, both VELCO and ISO-NE predict electricity costs to be stable for decades to come. That is well beyond the life expectancy of any wind turbine. At an average grid price of 5.5 cents, the cost of the Lowell Mountain electricity is twice the market price.
The Lowell Mountain 175,200 MWH/year will cost us $9,636,000/year above market price. ISO-NE states that for every MW of electricity purchased from the grid 0.4 metric tons of CO2 are produced. The 175,200 MW that the Lowell Mountain project will produce will save 70,080 metric tons of CO2. The $9,636,000 excess cost divided by the 70,080 tons gives us a cost of $137.50/ton of CO2 reduced. This is a very cost ineffective way to reduce CO2. Most experts believe that CO2 reduction efforts can be performed in the $25-35/ton range. We should be able to achieve 4 to 5 tons of CO2 reduction for $137.50.
VELCO states the average Vermont demand for electricity is 800 MW. The Lowell Mountain 20 MW is 2.5 percent of our need. Since electricity is 4 percent of our CO2 production, Lowell Mountain will reduce our overall CO2 production by 0.10 percent; nearly nothing, and cost us an excess of $9,636,000/year. If CO2 is the villain, there are more cost effective ways to reduce it. We could use that money to insulate homes, install energy efficient light bulbs, and encourage more fuel efficient vehicles.
It can be said that the Lowell Mountain electricity will not cost 11 cents/kw because of production tax credits of about 2.2 cents/kw. That may be true, but we will just be paying for that 2.2 cents through our federal income tax. Everyone across the country will be contributing to that sum to help us pay for it, but then we will be paying to all the other production tax credit projects across the country. In the end we will pay that 2.2 cents subsidy to GMP.
It might also be said that renewable energy credits could reduce the cost by some 2 to 3 cents/kw. That might be true. This type of sale would then allow whoever purchases the renewable energy credits to continue to produce excess CO2. This would negate any of the tiny positive CO2 effects the turbines would have. This would leave us with all the environmental sacrifices, all the increased cost, and no CO2 benefits. What’s good about that?
Why are we seemingly rushing to industrial wind turbines? We need to sit back, take in a deep breath, put on our thinking caps and bring some sense to the CO2 problem. We need a complete and immediate moratorium on industrial wind turbines.
Where is that roughly $10 million/year consumer excess cost going? Where will the $10 million/year for the other similar existing and proposed industrial wind projects go? It will end up in the pockets of Wall Street entrepreneurs. I would sooner see that money end up in the pockets of local contractors and lumber yards as they go about insulating grandma’s house. We would get four to five times the bang for our buck reducing CO2 and the $$$$ would stay in Vermont instead of blowing down to Wall Street.
