Article
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.
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.
I am very surprised at Sen. Vince Illuzzi’s misinformation regarding the cost and impact of wind energy in the Northeast Kingdom. In his My Turn column, (Free Press, Feb. 8) he suggests that wind energy will help “break our dependence on foreign oil”.
Indeed, a chart of Vermont’s energy sources shows that oil represents a mere 1.6 percent of our energy supply, and this not necessarily from foreign sources. He suggests that it may be “reasonable to expect that in-state power generation will increase reliability”.
Wind power is well documented as one of the most unreliable energy sources (no wind-no electricity) and cannot be counted on to furnish either base or peak load electricity. He suggests that in-state wind generation will avoid …
... more
[truncated due to possible copyright]
Indeed, a chart of Vermont’s energy sources shows that oil represents a mere 1.6 percent of our energy supply, and this not necessarily from foreign sources. He suggests that it may be “reasonable to expect that in-state power generation will increase reliability”.
Wind power is well documented as one of the most unreliable energy sources (no wind-no electricity) and cannot be counted on to furnish either base or peak load electricity. He suggests that in-state wind generation will avoid …
I am very surprised at Sen. Vince Illuzzi’s misinformation regarding the cost and impact of wind energy in the Northeast Kingdom. In his My Turn column, (Free Press, Feb. 8) he suggests that wind energy will help “break our dependence on foreign oil”.
Indeed, a chart of Vermont’s energy sources shows that oil represents a mere 1.6 percent of our energy supply, and this not necessarily from foreign sources. He suggests that it may be “reasonable to expect that in-state power generation will increase reliability”.
Wind power is well documented as one of the most unreliable energy sources (no wind-no electricity) and cannot be counted on to furnish either base or peak load electricity. He suggests that in-state wind generation will avoid cutting wide swaths through our pristine countryside. Who is he kidding?
More than any other form of electrical generation, wind turbine construction would cut enormous swaths across our ridgelines as well as adding transmission lines from these remote areas.
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. Furthermore, the special deal EMDC has with Lyndon Electric is a mere 5 percent off the New England grid rate which is actually a higher rate than longer term power purchase agreements. Plus the grid has enormous rate fluctuations.
Illuzzi says that the Northeast Kingdom is not under siege from wind developers, yet if all four projects are allowed, (East Haven, Sheffield/Sutton, Lowell, Brighton/Ferdinand) the Northeast Kingdom could have on its ridges as many as 100 blinking wind turbines, all 330 to 400 feet tall, and all visible from most of the Northeast Kingdom. It is a shame that Sen. Illuzzi has parted company with a majority of the Northeast Kingdom legislators who have obviously learned the facts.
Indeed, a chart of Vermont’s energy sources shows that oil represents a mere 1.6 percent of our energy supply, and this not necessarily from foreign sources. He suggests that it may be “reasonable to expect that in-state power generation will increase reliability”.
Wind power is well documented as one of the most unreliable energy sources (no wind-no electricity) and cannot be counted on to furnish either base or peak load electricity. He suggests that in-state wind generation will avoid cutting wide swaths through our pristine countryside. Who is he kidding?
More than any other form of electrical generation, wind turbine construction would cut enormous swaths across our ridgelines as well as adding transmission lines from these remote areas.
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. Furthermore, the special deal EMDC has with Lyndon Electric is a mere 5 percent off the New England grid rate which is actually a higher rate than longer term power purchase agreements. Plus the grid has enormous rate fluctuations.
Illuzzi says that the Northeast Kingdom is not under siege from wind developers, yet if all four projects are allowed, (East Haven, Sheffield/Sutton, Lowell, Brighton/Ferdinand) the Northeast Kingdom could have on its ridges as many as 100 blinking wind turbines, all 330 to 400 feet tall, and all visible from most of the Northeast Kingdom. It is a shame that Sen. Illuzzi has parted company with a majority of the Northeast Kingdom legislators who have obviously learned the facts.