Perhaps it is a commentary on the standards of contemporary journalism that it was difficult to distinguish between Keller's article (How useful are wind-energy plants? 8/4/06) and a wind developer's marketing brochure. The short answer is not very. Comparing wind power to conventional hydro power is specious. Hydro power is available when it isn't raining. That's what dams are for. Wind energy isn't controllable. More to the point: wind energy's achilles' heel-its intermittency- limits its capacity value and its impact on emissions.

Rather than stand as a beacon of progress, the wind power development proposed by UPC for the Northeast Kingdom could have a devastating effect on the area's fragile environment, economy and communities. It's not worth the megawatts.

Hats off to Rob Ide. He had the courage to say what so many of us are thinking. The wind towers' value isn't sufficient to cancel the rights of the rest of us to the Vermont skyline that we value so much.

Since the PSB alone cannot change the system, I hope that it will work with the legislature to change the law, to develop a process for independent review of all the evidence. Conflicting claims should not be adjudicated in an adversarial forum.

Opposition to industrial wind energy is more than about aesthetics and threats to wildlife as well as to tourist/second home-based economies. It is also about wind energy's fundamental flaw — its inability to provide electricity on demand (i.e. it is not dispatchable) — and, consequently, its negligible impact on emissions. In other words, it is about whether industrial wind energy makes any sense.

This may help explain why the opposition to industrial wind energy that Mr. Brunell alludes to is growing so rapidly – in Vermont, Massachusetts (both Nantucket Sound and the Berkshires), New York (Long Island and upstate), West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Kansas, Michigan, etc, etc. This opposition wants to ‘protect’ something of value – their environment and/or lives - from the intrusive nature of something of limited value, industrial wind energy.

Editor's Note: Submitted to The Columbian.

Wind energy's Achilles' heel — its intermittency — limits its capacity value and its impact on emissions. Because of this, current federal and state programs promoting wind energy are bad public policy ("Energetic turn to wind power," Metropolitan, Thursday).

A recent Record editorial and letters to the editor attacking the agreement by the Sheffield Select Board with UPC Vermont Wind raise some important points that need to be clarified.

Unlike wind power, where foot-dragging over building windmills is retarding the industry in the state, Vermont could become a hub for biomass generation. It's an idea whose time has come.

Editor's Note: A letter submitted in reponse follows the editorial below.

Good public policy promotes desirable social and economic change cost-effectively. Government programs, however well-intentioned, tied to bad ideas are bad policy. Such is the case with federal and state programs promoting industrial wind energy.

Even in places where the electricity does come from fossil fuels, wind turbines would not threaten in any way the steady base load provided by coal. And wind's intermittency and variability requires other sources to stay on line. The greater load balancing burden may even cause those sources to burn more fuel not less. Wind promoters cannot point to any evidence of other fuels being reduced by wind turbines on the grid.

Energy efficiency is by no means a permanent solution, but it should be a permanent part of the solution. Sensible energy use, combined with new power resources, is the only workable answer for New England.

I respect Mr. Watts’ desire to address emissions. Unfortunately, at least with respect to electricity generation, there is no 'silver bullet'. The only practical solutions, in addition to conservation, are 'safe nuclear' and 'clean coal'. Wind energy has become a 'symbol' in efforts to address emissions from electricity generation. The 'inconvenient truth' is that wind energy is ineffectual.

Editor's Note: Submitted to the Burlington Free Press in response to Richard Watts' Op-ed published 7/21/06 which is also below.

No matter what Vermont Secretary of State Deb Markowitz and the UPC attorney, Richard Saudek, think and despite any precedent, the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Sheffield has, in my view, committed unconscionable act in driving forward into complex negotiations with UPC for massive wind turbine emplacements without even having been directed to do so by the electorate. Due process has been seriously usurped.

Suppose you wanted to make a bundle in the electric energy business in the little state of Vermont. How would you go about it? The old-fashioned way would be to generate electricity at a lower cost than your competitors. But forget that – too demanding. Here’s another way: get the federal and state governments to rig the deal in your favor.

There is another solution to Vermont’s energy needs, and I suggest that a second nuclear power plant be given serious consideration.

To begin with, UPC would have absolutely no interest in wind energy if they weren't in line to receive enormous tax subsidies to do it. Wind energy from Vermont ridgelines hasn't a possibility of being produced at competitive prices with even the most expensive of traditional energy sources. Without the subsidies, wind energy in Vermont is an economic joke.

Some day large overhead power lines will become dinosaurs. Vermonters are forward-thinking, creative people. We should be looking ahead today. Who wants to be the last ones stringing these lines across the landscape, with all the environmental and dollar costs that they entail?

The promoters cannot show any evidence to back up their claim of reducing greenhouse gases and pollution. That is the empty hat they are desperate to fill with full-page ads proclaiming "the truth." But their arguments are as puffs of air and don't have a leg to stand on.

This project is not based on need, but on greed. The small amount of power produced would be intermittent and unreliable; will not replace any existing generation; curtail any emissions; lessen our dependence on oil, which is used mainly for transportation and home heating; or have any effect on global warming.