Opinions
Justifying the addition of towering turbines to Vermont's mountain scenery is a tall order.
Unfortunately, proponents continue to tout wind energy as "the answer" while, in the fashion of "Jeopardy!" contestants, are unable to come up with the correct question.
We don't want anyone to think anyone is trying to flimflam anyone? Right?
It is my fervent hope that our governor and Legislature heed Mr. Bongartz's very helpful suggestions and take control of this locomotive before it takes control of Vermont.
It is unreasonable to expect wind energy to make a meaningful contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, given wind's unreliability and the consequent need to meet increasing power needs with reliable capacity. We would be better served by focusing on clean coal. The technology exists to clean coal today and that would make a meaningful difference. The proliferation of wind turbines will not.
Ultimately, Americans should use energy more efficiently before we try to build our way out of our energy woes.
Illuzzi suggests that instate generation would be cheaper for our manufacturers and that it would save money for ratepayers. Perhaps he hasn’t heard that countries in the world with large wind plants are finding their rates are constantly rising, notably in Denmark and Germany.
This most recent petition joins thousands of others signatures around the state, against the scale of these massive industrial wind projects.
People who are concerned about energy, the environment, or the economy take a serious look at what works and what doesn't.
In all three areas, big wind does not work.
Our ridges are not a good fit for these massive towers.
Should Vermont proceed on its own now, scar its ridgelines with industrial development and major road construction (as would be required by the Glebe Mountain proposal) in the belief that we would be doing "our part" in the effort to combat global warming?
I think not —
That’s about 20 percent of your electric bill coming back to Invenergy in the form of tax credit from your federal tax dollars.
Other places in Maine suitable for wind farms would not involve destroying wilderness or decreasing tourist dollars.
Bravo to the northern caucus for speaking out to protect their region. The lawmakers of the Northeast Kingdom, who sometimes feel like outsiders in Montpelier, demanded to be heard.
Also filed under [
Energy Policy|
Vermont]
Let’s hope our elected officials in Richmond and Washington don’t fall for the same untested arguments our supervisors did. Sen. Allen’s response to Mr. Flora’s thoughts is reassuring in this regard.
Legislators willing to examine the issue fully are finally starting to smell something rotten about how this [wind] industry operates.
Also filed under [
Energy Policy|
Virginia]
The answer, my friends, isn't blowin' in the wind ...Bush avoids getting sucked into option of wind power
February 4, 2006 in chron.com
February 4, 2006 in chron.com
While Bush should be congratulated for his plan to reduce U.S. dependence on oil produced by unstable Middle Eastern regimes, we also should be thankful that he didn't seek to buy green votes by overhyping the benefits of inefficient wind power.
Also filed under [
Energy Policy|
USA]
In a recent fiasco the Highland County Board of Supervisors issued a permit for a wind energy project supported by only 20 percent of 97 speakers at the public hearing. Prior to the hearing more than 1,000 residents and landowners of this county with a population of only 2,500, signed a petition opposed.
Editor’s note: The following letter was written to Del. Chris Saxman and shared with The Recorder.
Also filed under [
Energy Policy|
Virginia]
My suggestion is that our state legislature make a proposal: for the state energy commission to study windmill energy on behalf of the state of Vermont. This study can ascertain the effects, both economic and ecological, of placing larger sized windmill "farms" in a few carefully selected locations, where they can be out of view of the most residents and tourists; to assure both ecological and economic responsibility.
Also filed under [
Energy Policy|
Vermont]
"Quixotic" is an appropriate term for Victoria's energy policy. Ostensibly targeted at greenhouse gas emissions, it is also, confusingly, designed to promote an inefficient windmill industry. The outcome can be nothing but trivial in terms of emission reductions but serious in terms of cost to Victoria.
It is not true that wind only blows in Vermont's top 12 poorest towns (Sheffield, Lowell, East Haven, Searsburg ...). Waterbury has ridges!