TimesArgus.com - We Are Vermont

Wind is not the energy answer



Toolbox

Published: November 15, 2006

Around Halloween, Leila LaRosa, the local face for UPC Vermont Wind, sent a letter to Sheffield and Sutton residents. The letter attempted to refute worries about industrializating otherwise protected ridges and assert that the project's value is worth the sacrifice.

"They ... ARE effective and they DO reduce our dependence on oil, gas and fossil fuels," LaRosa wrote.

The only measure of success the industry presents, however, is that they are built. They do not show that wind energy on the grid actually reduces the use of other fuels. This is not surprising, because the variable, intermittent, and unpredictable wind energy only makes the rest of the grid work harder to balance it.

The letter brings up taxpayer subsidies, citing (incorrectly) only one, the 1.9-cent per kWh production tax credit. There are also five-year double-declining accelerated depreciation, and other federal and state breaks that can cover 75 perent of the developer's costs.

On health problems from low-frequency noise, the letter is exactly backwards. As the scientific community looks into it, the U.K. Noise Association and the French Academy of Medicine recommend a one-mile setback from any residence.

Even as she denies negative impacts, LaRosa tries to divert attention to the undisputed problems with coal and nuclear. But it is a wind facility proposed for Sheffield and Sutton, and wind energy does not reduce the use of those other sources. It is not a choice between wind and something worse.

Wind only adds more negatives, and none are reduced.

Eric Rosenbloom

National Wind Watch

East Hardwick







READER COMMENTS


No, it's an answer. You offer a false choice.
-- Posted by thefoolonthehill10 on Thu, Nov 16, 2006, 6:26 pm EST

report this comment


The major point, if there is one, seems to be that wind is bad because it doesn't improve any of the negatives of other supplies.

Way too much is made of the much bally-hooed claim of an "intermittent" power problem. The writer draws on irellevant facts, which really do not support the supposed conclusion - that it is some kind of problem that should cause us to reject wind as a power source.

There is nothing wroing with intermittent power. Just as there is nothing wtrong with intermittent demand. Wind generators perform at the same operating factors as the hydroelectric plants currently feeding our power supply mix. The fact that rainfall is intermittent means that hydro plants perform at 30-35 percent of their capacity, the same as wind plants.

What's the big deal about that? While its true that the electric grid is constantly balancing loads and resources, this is not any particular problem because of wind. Imagine when loads go up and down, as demand shifts. This is the same type of situation. It is not a problem. It happens every day. And when one of those nuclear plants or coal plants shut down in an unscheduled outage, you can imagine all of the "balancing" that is needed in that case.
But we deal with it, all the time.

So, again, the complaint about "intermittency" being a problem for the power grid is misplaced. We can deal with it. No problem.

It is very much open to question as to whether the allowance for accelerated depreciation for wind plants is a reasonable taxpayer subsidy. But for certain, it is only consistent with the many other accelerated depreciation allowances for other sources like coal and nuclear plants.

We would all benefit from a comparison of taxpayer subsidies to energy supplies. But in the case of wind power, its environmental and economic advantages to the state and region are clear justification for getting the help that is needed in order for us to do something about climate change.

The best outcome would be if the full benefits of wind power development go to Vermont consumers, and the affected communities.
-- Posted by Joe Bongiovanni on Wed, Nov 15, 2006, 5:41 pm EST

report this comment


The major point, if there is one, seems to be that wind is bad because it doesn't improve any of the negatives of other supplies.

Way too much is made of the much bally-hooed claim of an "intermittent" power problem. The writer draws on irellevant facts, which really do not support the supposed conclusion - that it is some kind of problem that should cause us to reject wind as a power source.

There is nothing wroing with intermittent power. Just as there is nothing wtrong with intermittent demand. Wind generators perform at the same operating factors as the hydroelectric plants currently feeding our power supply mix. The fact that rainfall is intermittent means that hydro plants perform at 30-35 percent of their capacity, the same as wind plants.

What's the big deal about that? While its true that the electric grid is constantly balancing loads and resources, this is not any particular problem because of wind. Imagine when loads go up and down, as demand shifts. This is the same type of situation. It is not a problem. It happens every day. And when one of those nuclear plants or coal plants shut down in an unscheduled outage, you can imagine all of the "balancing" that is needed in that case.
But we deal with it, all the time.

So, again, the complaint about "intermittency" being a problem for the power grid is misplaced. We can deal with it. No problem.

It is very much open to question as to whether the allowance for accelerated depreciation for wind plants is a reasonable taxpayer subsidy. But for certain, it is only consistent with the many other accelerated depreciation allowances for other sources like coal and nuclear plants.

We would all benefit from a comparison of taxpayer subsidies to energy supplies. But in the case of wind power, its environmental and economic advantages to the state and region are clear justification for getting the help that is needed in order for us to do something about climate change.

The best outcome would be if the full benefits of wind power development go to Vermont consumers, and the affected communities.
-- Posted by Joe Bongiovanni on Wed, Nov 15, 2006, 5:39 pm EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout