I disagree just as wholeheartedly, however, with your assertion that my
"dismissal of wind power as a viable option for addressing (Vermont's)
energy needs ... is inappropriate." It is only after several years of
careful consideration of Vermont's available resources, carbon footprint
impact and impact on her character and environment that I concluded
that industrial wind facilities are not a good option for Vermont. What
is inappropriate is the pursuit of wind energy projects in a wind poor
state, where, unlike Midwest states, essentially all of the available
wind resources are concentrated in areas that possess fragile,
invaluable ecosystems and where we will sacrifice the wilderness,
ecology and viewscapes for what turn out to be de minimis impact on our
carbon footprint. What is also inappropriate is current process for
industrial wind facility permitting that lacks Act 250 review and is
largely immune from local decision making.
Your letter stated, "Your image of wind turbines running the length of
the Long Trail ... was unworthy of a technical presentation. Credible
numbers ... would have wind supply 20 percent of Vermont's energy,
requiring as little as 30 miles of ridgeline...."
SMALL ELECTRIC LOAD
In my presentation, I stated carefully that the figure of 150 miles of
ridgeline referred to the amount that would be required to produce 100
percent of Vermont's load. Far from being unworthy, you seem to agree
with the numbers since your figure of 30 miles is consistent with your
20 percent wind energy number. I discussed the larger figure, though,
for several well-founded reasons. First, I presented this figure to give
people a clear sense of the massive scale of the devastation to
wilderness that will ultimately be required to produce any significant
amount of wind energy on ridgelines in the Northeast. Vermont actually
has a very small electricity load to begin with. What would actually be
required to produce a significant fraction of the Northeast's power
supply from wind energy in the Northeast is actually thousands of miles
of ridgeline. Your figures do not give people an accurate feel for what
is truly at stake.
NO STATUTORY LIMIT
Second, while it is true that some politicians and advocacy groups are
currently talking about 20 percent, this limit has no teeth. There is no
statutory limit in Vermont on wind power, communities have little or no
power to stop projects, and wind permitting is not governed by Act 250.
Also, the appetite of corporate interests in developing wind facilities
is enormous. There is therefore no basis for believing that current
state decreed renewable goals, combined with corporate financial
pressure, will not push well beyond the 20 percent figure. Once
precedent is set and certain regions of Vermont essentially become
sacrifice zones, then we will likely have more and more. VPIRG,
incidentally, has already publicly discussed 28 percent, and the
Legislature has instructed the PSB to examine much larger targets.
20% IN VERMONT
But let's take a look at what just 20 percent in Vermont would entail.
Vermont's average (continuous) load is about 700 megawatts, and the
Legislature has currently established the goal of meeting 20 percent of
that need with renewables, or 140 MW. If that goal is met with wind,
three times that amount, or 420 MW of wind generation capacity, is
required because turbines have a 33 percent "capacity factor" at best
(possibly significantly less in Vermont).
It turns out that this would require at least nine major projects and
hence the devastation of nine entire "mountain systems." This can best
be seen by looking at what is actually in the works in Vermont:
Sheffield (40 MW, PSB approved), Deerfield (48 MW, PSB approved),
Georgia Mountain (15 MW, PSB approved), Lowell (63 MW, in process), Ira
(80 MW, on hold for now), Grandpa's Knob (40 MW, plans to file in 2010),
Waitsfield (60 MW, in scoping process), Londonderry (48 MW, in scoping
process), and Little Equinox (24 MW, prospectus out).
These add up to 418 MW, just shy of 20 percent of our electricity load.
In total, these projects actually turn out to require approximately 39
miles of ridgeline, plus at least 31 miles of new roads (that are
known). This is closer to 40 miles of ridgeline and 70 miles of new
road systems - well above your estimate. All of this, just to produce 20
percent of our electricity load and to lighten our carbon footprint by a
mere 1 percent. Remember, virtually all of Vermont's carbon emissions
presently originate from combustion of heating and transportation fuels,
not electricity.
IMPACT TO TOPOGRAPHY
The impact to topography of these projects will also be much greater
than those involved with logging roads, and the visual impact of just
these projects will dramatically degrade the unspoiled character of
Vermont.
Finally, the open letter stated, without supporting data, that the
projections of cost-competitive photovoltaic power by 2015 are a "very
big stretch." These projections are based on the best data available.
But even if these projections prove optimistic, this still does not
justify devastating Vermont's mountains with industrial wind power
facilities. Almost all of the emission reductions are going to have to
come from wind generation in places like the Midwest or offshore and/or
from other sources (probably solar), and also conservation and
efficiency. We should therefore be focusing on these measures and not
pursuing inappropriate and ineffective options which will devastate the
last of our remaining wilderness in Vermont and divide our communities.
Luce, Ph. D., is an assistant professor of physics, sustainability studies at Lyndon State College.
