What is unique to this state are the wild mountain tops for which Vermonters old and new have worked for a hundred years to restore and preserve. The desire to violate them not with manured hay fields but with collections of 330-foot-high steel and composite wind turbines -- for insignificant benefit other than profits for a few -- reveals a set of values that some people do not find attractive, wherever they come from.
Opposition to industrial wind power, however, is about more than just the view.
A host of issues and unanswerable concerns led to the decision, according to Simeon Moss, director of Cornell's press office.
Initially, I was delighted. But then I began listening to the concerns of residents near the proposed site, hikers, skiers, birdwatchers, astronomers who frequent the nearby observatory and even trainee pilots concerned about 400 foot wind turbines cropping up in the flight path to the Ithaca airport. As a result, I am no longer an unabashed supporter of tapping Mount Pleasant.
Will they demonstrate that remote ridgelines in the Northeast Kingdom are to be sacrificed to commercial wind development -- and that only a few souls way up north who have lost their peaceful retreat to strobe-lighted industrial monoliths will complain?
"'Shadow-flicker' is a recognised problem with wind turbines. That's why they aren't built near housing developments. And we want to be good neighbours."
The £1million wind turbine next to Whitemoor Prison is to be switched off at certain times of the year because 'shadow flicker' is upsetting inmates.
Blasting Vermont's lovely ridgelines to ram monstrous turbine assemblies into the earth, along with clearcut wide strong roads through wild areas and ever more power lines strung about, is a violent assault, despoiling all life around it.
Vermonters must decide if it is worth destroying their exquisite mountains for symbolism -- because the giant wind turbines being proposed for the ridgelines won't produce much power.
Deep in the Allegheny Mountains of West Virginia sits a giant coal-fired power plant aptly named Mount Storm - a 1,600-megawatt goliath that just a few years ago ranked second in the nation in toxic mercury emissions.
We cannot lose sight of Vermont's distinctive place in the world with its open spaces and gorgeous vistas. It is up to us to continue the legacy. Real jobs, real lives depend on it.
In these early stages of U.S. wind development, promoters still have it pretty easy. They're our new best friends! But it's likely their popularity will be short-lived, as it won't take long before rural America realizes that their own initial awe and stupor was contrived, allowing the very quality of their lives to be stolen out from under them, and they will also realize, too late, that their loss was in vain.
Environmental group supports proposed wind power project
Almost 70 years ago, Vermonters decided man's hand did not need to be evident everywhere. Remember that spirit now as this state considers allowing wind turbines on ridgelines.
Everyone probably agrees with the fundamental goal of the legislation -- to protect Vermont's fragile environment by increasing the use of clean energy. But before lawmakers rush into mandates, they must ensure the measure doesn't inadvertently harm the economy or the landscape.
According to the study, a further financial and technical strong-arm effort would be required in order to be able to even input the quantity of green electricity planned by the federal government into the German electricity network by the year 2015.
If America devoted a mere 1% of its land area to wind turbine farms, it could generate 20% of its electricity from wind, asserts the American Wind Energy Association. And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Sadly, equine mirages don’t make sound energy policy. They may generate good sound bites, political polemics and fund-raising appeals. But they don’t generate much electricity.
Wind energy is environmentally harmful and costly to taxpayers. Furthermore, its expansion could adversely affect the nation's electricity transmission system.
LYMAN, N.H. -- In the hope of fending off a potentially costly lawsuit, the Zoning Board of Adjustment voted Thursday to allow UPC Wind Management to withdraw its application for a height variance. The wind energy company had sought the variance to the town's 35-foot height ordinance in order to erect a wind-measuring device on Gardner Mountain. This is the second time UPC has withdrawn an application for a variance. It also reneged an application last summer, after a 4-1 preliminary vote by the board to deny the variance. "I want them to get a message as to how we voted. I don't want them to continue to withdraw their application and resubmit," said board member Jim Trudell, who cast the only vote to disallow UPC's withdrawal request. "I think we need to make a stand. This cat-and-mouse thing eventually is going to come to a head, one way or another, and I'd just as soon it comes to a head now." But other board members said they were concerned that if they denied UPC's request to withdraw the application, then voted against granting a variance, the international company would involve the town in a costly legal battle. "Is it going to be worth the money to set a precedent?" Chairman Steve Moscicki asked. "If we have to do this again, if we have to do this 10 times, that's our job." UPC project manager Tim Caffyn did not return calls made to his West Burke, Vt., office this week regarding the company's request to withdraw its application. Caffyn has said that if UPC was allowed to install a 150-foot device to measure wind, and found conditions favorable on Gardner Mountain, the company would likely erect up to 20 wind turbines up to 320 feet high. He has also stated publicly that if Lyman residents are opposed to UPC developing a wind farm in town, the company would look elsewhere. Nearly as soon as UPC submitted its first application for a height variance, residents rallied to oppose any wind turbine development on Gardner Mountain. About 190 of the town's approximately 280 voters signed a petition last fall opposing allowing UPC a height variance. Residents have said during a series of public hearings that UPC does not meet the five criteria required for a variance. After the last public hearing on UPC's application in December, Lyman native Brian Santy submitted three petitioned articles, all related to wind turbines and wind-measuring devices, for this year's annual town meeting. The planning board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on those articles, which seek to make Lyman's zoning ordinances more specific, next Tuesday. Some ZBA members pointed out Thursday that if UPC does reapply for a variance, it would be under different zoning regulations should the petitioned articles pass. "I don't think they'll come back again," board member Terry Simpson said. "They have to have an open door." But members also said they are frustrated that UPC has twice withdrawn its application, and many said they wouldn't be surprised to find UPC knocking on Lyman's door again. "I think doing this a second time is ridiculous," said ZBA member Linda Stephens. "The facts of their case are not going to change," Moscicki said, noting UPC will also need a use variance to erect the device. "If they come back again - three strikes, you're out."
Manhattan (Kansas) benefits greatly from the scenic and intrinsic values of Flint Hills ranching landscapes and the from the stewardship of ranch landowners who struggle to preserve a way of life in the Flint Hills in Riley County and the two adjacent counties to the south and southeast.