Opinions
Category:
Impact on Landscape and Vermont
Browse in :
All
> Topics
> Impact on Landscape
(390)
All > Location > USA > Vermont (302)
Any of these categories
All > Location > USA > Vermont (302)
Any of these categories
In his letter to the editor on Nov. 6, Jeff Wennberg painted a ridiculously benign picture of the impact on the mountains of Ira if construction of about 40 wind turbines takes place there. For instance, Jeff states, "Anyone who has seen a completed wind farm on forested land knows that these projects follow the contours of the terrain." He cites the Lempster wind turbine site as an example. ...The blasting and construction of wide service roads and tower base areas there have changed the contours of the land so drastically that, when I now stand in the area of this project, I have a hard time imagining what the terrain looked like before.
Also filed under [
New Hampshire]
Thank you to Art Kruegger for raising the question about whether big wind turbines built on Vermont's mountaintops will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is a question Vermonters for a Clean Environment has been attempting to answer for seven months, and we are still looking for answers.
Also filed under [
General]
It is also clear that to be green we do not have to destroy our views, our quality of life and the very character of Vermont that makes it special. VCWF's project would require significant deforestation, habitat loss, noise pollution, losses in property values, damage views both day and night, require mountaintop blasting, and decrease quality of life for the area.
The low price of electricity and abundance of it right now are hurting renewables, and there is essentially no market for new generation. He also said he doesn't expect that to change for several years.
So why are we willing to obliterate our mountains and fill our night sky with flashing red lights for something we may not even need?
Also filed under [
Impact on People]
I find it ironic that the mountains chosen by the Rutland Herald to exemplify our state's beauty are the same mountains that will be visually spoiled by the Vermont Community Wind Farm's proposed plan to erect 45 400- to 500-foot wind towers.
Along with the turbines come the 36-foot-wide access roads cut into the mountains, the removal of the top of the mountain for footings and the power grid lines.
Also filed under [
Impact on Views]
Also filed under [
Impact on People]
The statement that the project "is expected to begin moving forward soon" is incorrect, unless the reporter knows something I do not.
The Public Service Board's decision is pending this fall but a number of interveners are currently fighting the project before the PSB, including Save Vermont Ridgelines.
Should this project be approved, one of the largest bear habitats in Vermont will be destroyed. As this is the first wind project proposed on national forest land, it will pave the way for similar projects in other national forests, such as those currently proposed in Virginia, West Virginia, and Michigan.
Also filed under [
General|
Impact on Birds]
This installation will require high-intensity aircraft beacons to be located on top of each of the towers. The turbines would each be twice as tall as the existing turbines, 110 feet taller than the Bennington Monument, and be visible from the Woodford State Park all the way through Searsburg, Wilmington and into Marlboro. A large number of people who choose to live in these towns because of the remoteness will have their enjoyment of the area spoiled by having this industrial generating station placed along the ridgeline.
Over 60 properties nearest to the turbines will be subject to noise levels exceeding that recommended as fit for human habitation by the World Health Organization. Is this how we want to preserve that National Forest for future generations - by making it unfit for humans to be in it? ...For the sake of the affected people and the future of the forest, let's hope the permit is not granted.
Also filed under [
Impact on People]
While being a multi-state resident for decades now, I have grown to appreciate Vermont much more than Connecticut, so much so that I have started a new business here in hopes of permanently moving here soon. But while the controversy rages about ridge lines, and wind mills, I can't help but wonder why the state of Vermont has banned all billboards from the interstates, and disguises the cell towers along the interstates to look like trees as not to offend the local character, but now it seems as though we will have no problem building 30-story tall structures on the most visible and scenic areas of the state, all with the flashing navigation lights so all can see for miles around in the once silent and dark scenery of the last great 'Kingdom' in the east!?
Also filed under [
Impact on Views]
About "getting used to the turbines," I live under the existing eyesores. I have not, nor will I, get used to them. They are noisy, with constant whirring and intermittent clunks that I first mistook for gunshots. I can hear this inside my house with the windows shut. The proposed expansion will, by the developers' estimates, put the average noise level at my house at 44.9 dBA. The World Health Organization defines 45 dBA as unfit for human habitation. Several acres of my property, and that of dozens of neighbors, will be above this limit. I doubt that I would get used to that. Would you? ...There are better alternatives for electricity production. One is located right in Somerset. Vermont leads the nation (by a large margin) in percent of energy consumption from renewable sources. Adding more wind turbines would not alter that ratio, for reasons stated above.
The turbines will not help our energy needs and don't belong in the National Forest. Let's keep it a forest.
In the town of Searsburg the private citizens own about 20% of the land and the rest belongs to the power companies,the state, and the National Forest. That extremely limits our growth as a town, yet they continue to destroy more forest land in the name of public good. ...This project is expected to cost over $60 million to build and destroy 80 acres of prime pristine forest land. How can you justify the cost with the return? Is there a price on our National Forests? Is there a price on the people's lives that live nearby that will surely be changed by the noise and lights? Is there a price on the many others who will see the nine to 12 red flashing lights from a distance in the night sky? They paint a rosy picture, but is it?
I ask you all, Is this in the public good?
Also filed under [
General|
Impact on People]
The PSB attached a number of conditions to their approval of the project. As the Ridge Protectors, a group of people who have opposed the project for years, say, the attached conditions contain potential deal breakers and they intend to fight the actual project to the bitter end.
We are with them. The Sheffield voters, when they approved the project for an entirely illusory tax benefit, sold the Northeast Kingdom's birthright for a mess of pottage. Assuming The Ridge Protectors prevail and the project is stopped, these same voters, when they discover the taste of pottage, will be thanking them.
We must not strip our mountains for the pitiful amount of electricity the wind turbines would provide
February 7, 2007 in Barton Chronicle
February 7, 2007 in Barton Chronicle
As a writer, I am deeply indebted to the Northeast Kingdom, from which I’ve drawn inspiration for almost 50 years: its woods, fields, ponds, hills, its people, its other creatures. Like most of my neighbors, I favor conservation and renewable energy. The fear of climate change has been with me for many years, ever since I felt the early, subtle signs of it. But I do not support the proposed UPC industrial wind facility.
Also filed under [
General|
Energy Policy]
Vermonters should stand up for the landscape that makes Vermont as special as it is. Vermonters should stand up to protect our land from those who wish to profit at our expense from perhaps the most valued resource we have: The beauty of our beloved Green Mountains of Vermont!
Also filed under [
General]
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?
Also filed under [
General|
Energy Policy]
And we would still need the same amount of generating power from other plants (which would be run less efficiently, i.e., with more emissions) to keep the system running when the wind isn't perfect. With this pathetic outlook, and considering as well the fact that electricity is only a fraction of our energy use, wind looks about as far from a "serious" solution to global warming or decommissioning nuclear plants as one could get.
Also filed under [
General|
Energy Policy]
Why Illuzzi thinks that wind energy will "avoid cutting wide swaths through our...countryside..." is beyond me.
The footprint for wind is huge.
Also filed under [
Impact on Space]
Proponents of the Little Equinox Mountain wind facility say it will create jobs, create tax dollars, and enhance tourism. Your readers in Manchester, Vt. might be interested to know how that argument played out when FPL Energy similarly invaded our community in 2004
Combining windmills with the ridges of Vermont, our glorious and unequaled landscape, is an irresponsible idea.
Also filed under [
Impact on Views]