I’m sure there’s a lot of opposition in these parts to the Lowell Mountain wind farm. Sorry to say, I’m not convinced. We need to develop new sources of energy. Wind power is one of the least environmentally harmful sources, and goodness knows we’ve got plenty of wind here. And the anti-wind farm arguments strike me as melodramatic and redolent of NIMBYism.
Let’s take the characterization of the project as “the rape of Lowell Mountain.” First of all, that phrase has to be a little offensive to sexual assault survivors and their advocates. Second, we’re not talking about untouched wilderness here; a century ago, most of Vermont had been clearcut for farming and timber harvest. What is now “pristine” forest was a barren wasteland. Somehow it recovered from that; I think it can withstand the installation of some wind turbines.
Now, compare the effects of a wind farm to other kinds of energy production: deep-water drilling, widespread hydrofracking, mountaintop removal in coal country, the hazards of supertanker transport, the Alberta tar sands.
We’ve used up most of the easily extracted energy sources. Whether or not you believe in the “peak oil” theory, the remaining sources will be more difficult, costly and dangerous. Wind energy is relatively benign, especially compared to the alternatives.
Opponents have argued that we don’t need to produce more energy, we need to consume less. I agree that we need a lot more conservation. But that alone is not the answer; we will continue to need quite a bit of power, and we will need to replace hydrocarbons whenever possible with renewable energy sources.
We Vermonters have a responsibility to produce at least as much energy as we consume. Preferably more, if we have energy sources that can be used with relatively low environmental impact. If we fail to do that, then we are preserving our environment on the backs of others — the Midwesterners who can set their tap water on fire, the fishermen of the Gulf Coast, the poor and working-class people who live downwind from refineries and power plants.
Now, if there are specific reasons that Lowell Mountain is a bad idea, I’m willing to listen. But you should be ready to propose alternatives. Are you saying there are better places for wind turbines? Fine, then build ’em there and leave Lowell Mountain alone. Are you saying that Vermont shouldn’t develop wind power at all? I have a much harder time with that.
and I congratulate you for having the courage to step out there near the whippin’ post!
You’re absolutely right that we need to have this conversation.
See below previous GMD posting on this issue:
Green Energy And Good Jobs For Vermonters
People of Vermont, Governor Peter Shumlin, and Other Interested Parties,
Vermont’s leading voices for working families and the environment are united and speak with one voice when it comes to renewable in-state energy production. We agree that renewable energy production is necessary if we are to become energy independent, environmentally responsible, and carbon neutral. We also comprehend the building of these new energy facilities as a source of construction jobs for working people. However, the question becomes, will these jobs go to out-of-state corporations, will they go to irresponsible in-state companies, or will they provide livable wages, good benefits, and family sustainable employment for a generation of Vermonters?
It is our common assertion that the environmental and economic issues related to new energy development cannot be separated. Creating green energy without also supporting a strong local economy, or aggressively seeking job creation without addressing basic environmental issues undermines the future upon which our Green Mountain State is predicated. As Vermonters, as the leaders of organized labor, as environmentalists, we do not and cannot accept a disjunction between these two foundational beliefs. In brief, we need green energy, and we need good green jobs!
As the State of Vermont moves forward with its comprehensive energy plan we have an opportunity to not only guarantee Vermont’s place of honor as a leader in the global struggle against climate change, but also as a leader in local green job creation. It will be by virtue of this multiplier effect, by virtue of breaking down the false dichotomy between environmental concerns and economic concerns that we will firmly establish the cultural shift necessary to achieve sustainability, self reliance, and to further the common good in Vermont and beyond. Once again, history calls for Vermont to lead the way. Will we heed this historic call as we so often have in our proud past? That is the question before us today.
Therefore, we, the undersigned leaders of Vermont’s labor and environmental movements, with a combined membership in the tens-of-thousands, call on the Public Service Board to make local job creation, livable wages, and good benefits a basic, binding, and non-negotiable prerequisite prior to issuing a Certificate of Public Good for renewable energy projects. We further call on our Governor, Peter Shumlin, to continue to be a strong voice in support of hiring local, ideally union, for these green energy projects.
We look forward to working in partnership with socially responsible renewable energy developers, the Public Service Board, our Governor, and the State of Vermont towards a green energy and green economic future. However, let it be known that we will publically resist any and all new energy projects that do not address the needs of the People of Vermont, articulated as good jobs and a green environment.
Freedom and Unity,
Ben Johnson, President of the Vermont AFL-CIO
Jeff Potvin, President of the Vermont Building and Construction Trades Council
Michael Morelli, Business Agent for the Vermont Iron Workers Local 7
James Haslam, Director of the Vermont Workers’ Center
Zak Griefen, Chairman of the Vermont Sierra Club
Steve Crowley, Energy Committee Chair of the Vermont Sierra Club
David Stember, Organizer for 350Vermont
Yes Vt needs to become energy independent and yes any new generation will have consequences. But distributed solar PV is an infinitely better choice, economically and environmentally compared to ridge-top wind.
It only takes 500 square feet of space on the roof or in the yard of an average VT home to provide 100% of their annual power with PV. Today’s cost of a PV-generated kwh, WITHOUT any subsidy, is $.18 or less. Since distributed net-metered PV directly offsets RETAIL rates, PV is effectively at “grid parity” today.
Wind power is getting more and more expensive as the cost of steel and concrete are going up. PV cost is going down (cost of panels dropped by 30% in 2011!)
PV combined with baseload hydropower for power, and biomass for heat, would be a sound strategy for VT (in-state, 500MW of hydropower that is currently NOT even connected to the VT grid, could be re-focused on VT, HydroQuebec can provide the rest, and the NE grid becomes our net-metered battery for PV).
But distributed PV, and people cutting their own firewood sustainably from their backyard forests DOES NOT HELP the bottom lines of utility monopolies, which is why industrial wind has all the political focus.
Vermonters can smell the corporate-monopoly interests of big-wind and they are not going to stand for the idea of industrializing our ridge-lines in the name of corporate profits. Climate change is a false motivation for electric-generation in VT, nothing VT does will change climate change, and 95% of our current GHG emissions are from winter-fuel-oil and transportation, not electricity.
1) From what I’ve seen and heard, the project in Lowell was handled poorly at all phases of the project – from community engagement to ignoring environmental regulations.
2) There are lots of things that could have been done differently to make the development more respectful to the region, without eliminating the project or reducing its generating capacity. A project whose proceeds would go to the affected communities in this time of economic hardship would have been more beneficial than one that’s funneling all that income to a megalithic multinational conglomerate.
3) There are things that could have been done to reduce its environmental impact via erosion and other issues, and there are probably things that can and should be done to mitigate any further impacts.
BUT, and it’s a BIG but:
The results of coal-fired electrical generation cannot be ignored, and we are in a position, climate-wise, where we MUST start implement alternative energy generation NOW – large scale, small scale, and in between. There is no longer time to do anything else. Carbon emissions in 2010 increased by 5.9% over 2009. We cannot continue to behave as if we need not make some pretty painful sacrifices to stop burning carbon.
When I hear people complain that the view will be “ruined” by the windmills, I wonder whether they’d noticed the smog-dulled fall colors, the diseased tress of all types courtesy of insects and fungi that didn’t used to be able to live here, or the excessive cloudiness that makes the ridge lines invisible behind masses of clouds 2x more often than they used to be?
Our views are already being ruined by the pollution from fossil-fueled electrical generation. As atmospheric carbon increases, we’re slated to have even more cloud cover. You won’t even be able to see the windmills for much of the year, due to coal-fired electrical plants.
When I hear people complain that the view will be “ruined” by the windmills, I wonder whether they’ve heard of mountain top removal coal mining?
Here’s one small example of the devastation caused by coal before it’s even made it to a power plant:
This is the standard coal mining practice now.
For scale, compare the hi-res version of that photo, in which you can see the HUGE mining trucks, if you look closely, to a photo of the Lowell project:
Yes, the Lowell project isn’t pretty, but it’s such a minute disruption when compared to what we are asking others to accept.
I feel like those fighting wind power in Vermont are asking Virginians and others in Appalachia to give up the rivers and streams that used to make their farms fertile, to give up water that isn’t poisoned by mine tailings, to give up their entire ridge lines – as in the actual physical mountains themselves, and to give up their health.
Yes, Lowell (and Sheffield) could have been handled very, very differently, with a better outcome for all of us.
However, we still have the mountains, we still have the streams, and our waterways have not been inundated with arsenic and sulfuric acid, among other mining-induced pollutants.
If we work together to create and enforce (most particularly enforce) regulations to prevent the detrimental effects, while increasing the benefits to the local economy, wind power – even on large scale in some instances – can be a good thing for Vermont.
Wind power can, and will, save people in other communities from much, much worse fates.
How many of the people who have posted comments have been up on the Lowell Mountains to see what’s being done to them? This thread is very interesting in revealing how much people are willing to believe in the abstract. There are many reasons why every big wind project proposed for Vermont has met with enormous opposition. Of those of you who support the Lowell project, how many of you live in an area where big wind has come to town?
It isn’t pretty. And it’s not just about the environmental devastation, the noise, the lights, etc. The corporation takes over, from town government to the properties that people can no longer live in and people have no choice but to sell out to the corporation (with a gag order), all over the world the story is the same.
If you support wind energy development on Vermont’s ridgelines, then I challenge you to provide some evidence to support your position. I have been asking this question for more than two years, and have received one piece (testimony submitted by CLF in the Deerfield wind case) that is pathetic. Will wind turbines on Vermont’s ridgelines reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Show me some evidence. I can provide you with a recording of a workshop held in June, sponsored by the Department of Energy, in which grid operators said that we have 500 MW of wind in the New England region right now, and for them, it’s just “noise.”
How many gallons of fossil fuels were used to build 7 miles of new roads in Sheffield and are now being used to build 5 miles of new roads in Lowell? If this is such a great thing, doing new energy, how about some transparency?
What we do know is that you can build wind turbines in the midwest for 5 to 6 cents a kwh, whereas in Vermont it’s 10 to 12, and it starts out much more expensive and that’s the levelized cost over 20 years. Do the turbines last 20 years? No, they have a record of lasting 10 to 15 years.
If we are going to sacrifice people and their investments, then let’s be honest about it and compensate people?
The most ridiculous part of this issue is that Gov. Shumlin says we don’t have time for the debate, Bernie Sanders rails against wind opponents and says they need to shut up. As long as it’s “their” corporation (GMP and First Wind), it’s okay with them if they trample on people’s property and first amendment rights, right?
Let’s have that dialogue, and let’s zero in on just what this technology means for Vermont.
And yes, Julie, there are alternatives. I have lived off grid with solar for more than 20 years. I take personal responsibility for my electricity consumption, and I use solar for heating water. Technologies are advancing rapidly. We do not need to be stuck in this big utility big grid big wind paradigm, we should be preparing for locally distributed generation. What’s happening up on Lowell is business as usual and people who read this blog and write on it seem to want to ignore that GMP is no different than Entergy, it’s all the big corporations running roughshod over the democratic process and the people who live here.
There are three major categories involved here. One is corporate involvement in the wind industry and its interactions with government. Another is environmental impact. Another is environmental benefit.
On the corporate front, yes, it would be great if a locally owned workers cooperative could raise the millions and organize the installation. I don’t mean that to sound snide. I’m just pointing out that we have large power demands and even at half the present consumption we would have a problem that requires large scale intervention. Until we entirely restructure our way of organizing society (not a bad idea, actually) corporations are the entities that have those resources. I would like to see a separation between and realignment of the power balance between government and business. But that’s another effort.
As for the environmental impact, I don’t deny that there is some. There is environmental impact to any method of obtaining energy. The lead acid batteries in my basement that store the energy from my PV array had an impact in their lead mining, manufacture and transport and will have another when they are recycled. The mining and manufacturing processes that made my PV modules and inverter parts had an impact. And so on. The alternatives to wind power all have their own impacts, just elsewhere. (Except for air pollution and climate change – enjoy) And wind power elsewhere has its impact as well.
And yes, 500 MW of wind in the New England ISO, peaking at 26,000 MW, is noise. It’s noise because we haven’t installed enough. Given that the NE ISO varies between about 15,000 MW and 26,000 MW, depending on the time of day, we could put upwards of 3,000 MW of wind power on the grid before it would materially change operations. I have heard the arguments about wind power variations creating inefficiencies in peaking plants, but up to about 20% of total capacity any variable power supply is indistinguishable from normal load variations. I have studied isolated grids in my profession and that 20% can be exceeded without disruption if the utility uses a “smart grid” approach instead of the usual brute force approach.
And I have to respond to this, from EnergyOptimist: “nothing VT does will change climate change.” Are we, as Vermont residents, magically exempt from carbon emissions? Our overall impact, given our population, will be relatively small compared to New York, but we pollute. And if we do secretly run our state electrical grid on magic pixie dust, then why use solar? Why conserve at all? Drill, baby, drill.
The Brattleboro Reformer has an article today about ISO-NE’s grid capacity, in which they say there is plenty of power for the coming winter. Winter loads tend to peak at 22,000 MW, and the region has 33,000 MW available. With an excess of 10,000 MW (for winter, I know that our summer load is higher, peaking at about 27,000 MW), we really do have time to consider Vermont’s best alternatives.
This rush to build big wind on ridgelines when technological innovations are happening with solar and battery storage just doesn’t make sense, especially with so much local opposition to every project that is being proposed. So far we have major corporations from Italy, Spain and Canada looking to profit from our resources. Is this really the right way for Vermont to address climate change?
Much of this discussion is essentially moot. People are arguing for wind as an answer to mountain top removal coal mining, oil dependence, etc, and some are arguing that wind is an essential complement to PV. But step back and look at the technical facts for a moment: If you download the spreadsheets on state-by-state resources at http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov (a fully pro-wind site), and add up all the estimates for the commercially viable onshore wind resources in the Eastern US, and then multiply by a reasonable capacity factor, you will find that the total amount of viable wind resource in the ENTIRE EASTERN US adds up to only about 17 gigawatts worth of conventional (24/7) power generation. The average electricity consumption rate of the US, however, is 450 gigawatts, and this only accounts for about a third of total US energy consumption.
So you can forget about onshore wind in the East being a significant contributor. Wind power in the west might really do something, but onshore wind will never make significant dents in mountaintop removal mining, natural gas use, or oil use, even if we develop every single ridge line in this region. Sorry, that’s simply how the numbers work out. Sure we might power a significant fraction of Vermont with wind, but this will not make a significant difference, and will actually divert hundreds of millions of dollars from the development of sources that will.
It turns out that the only renewable energy sources capable of making a significant difference in the Eastern US are direct solar (PV, solar hot water, passive solar), geothermal (as in geothermal thermal heat pumps), and offshore wind. (You can forget biomass electricity generation and small hydro as well. These are also completely negligible).
Wind power is also not showing a good cost trend, whereas PV really is. And the additional cost of transmission for wind actually prices significant wind development above solar today. If you don’t believe me, look at the materials on the NE ISO website.
So if you want to back sources that have some real potential from what we presently know, put the money into PV, solar hot water, and geothermal, along with conservation and efficiency. Offshore wind MIGHT become another option if the cost comes down radically (no basis for this assumption exists yet though).
In short, all the support for wind power in Vermont is based on technical ignorance of the resource potentials and cost trends, and an amazing lack of respect for the local environment.