RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Wind farm development proposal no done deal



A packed crowd at the Tinmouth Community Hall listens to Per White-Hansen's wind-farm proposal Monday night.

VYTO STARINSKAS / RUTLAND HERALD
Toolbox

By Gordon Dritschilo Staff Writer - Published: April 8, 2009

A day after the developer of a proposed wind farm faced the public, several who attended the meeting said the discussion is far from over.

Annette Smith, executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, said she arrived at the forum in Tinmouth Monday night neutral, and said developer Per White-Hansen was off to a rough start.

"He's already sent up a lot of red flags in an area that could embrace this if done right," she said.

White-Hansen is looking at putting as many as 60 wind towers in Ira and surrounding towns. He faced a number of questions from a sometimes hostile crowd of 160 Monday night.

Smith said she made a pitch to White-Hansen that he should pursue a "community stakeholder" process that would change the local dynamic. Before permitting, she said, the company should work with the community to identify interested parties and then hire experts everyone can agree on.

"It ends up being a far more cooperative and less expensive process in the end," she said. "You don't end up with everyone appealing everything and you get better science."

Smith said she has watched the process elsewhere in the state and seen how divisive it can be.

"You don't have to do it this way," she said. "There are better ways to do it. There's a great benefit to everyone to slow down, put on the breaks and talk."

Robin Chesnut-Tangerman of Middletown Springs said Smith's comments were probably the most important offered all evening. He approached White-Hansen afterward and encouraged him to take the suggestion seriously, as did others at the meeting.

Chesnut-Tangerman said he supports wind power in general, but could have concerns about specific projects.

"I went in with an open mind about this proposal, looking for answers," he said. "I get frustrated at people who are opposed to nuclear, opposed to dirty coal, opposed to damming rivers and opposed to windmills, but still want energy."

While several in the crowd were strong in their opposition, Chesnut-Tangerman said at least one supportive speech drew applause.

Ira Select Board Chairwoman Christine Tyminski said her entire board attended.

"Wind power is great and that's a lot of power for a small town," she said. "My opinion may not be the same as anyone else's."

Tyminski said nobody on Ira's board has spoken to White-Hansen yet, and she plans to invite him to one of the board's meetings so they can get more questions answered.

West Rutland Selectman Peter Bianchi said he owns land in Ira that White-Hansen is looking at. He said West Rutland supported an earlier wind proposal in the area by Noble Environmental Power and he supports this one, though he expects it to be "an eyesore."

Bianchi said the West Rutland Select Board will meet with White-Hansen later this month.

Michael Brzoza said he drove down from Maine for the forum. His family owns land in the area and he has been approached by White-Hansen about possibly hosting a tower. He said he thought the meeting was informative.

"I'm not sure which way the crowd was going, but it looked like it was not in favor," he said. "There are concerns. For us it's concerns of the mountain being scarred for life."

He also is concerned that new technology might render existing towers obsolete in a few years, prompting companies to abandon them. Brzoza said he plans to visit the Mars Hill Wind Farm in Maine to get a better picture of what could happen.

"I think there's things that they don't tell us," he said. "That's why we need to be aware. That's why I need to visit an actual farm."

gordon.dritschilo@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


No apologies necessary Rob. My arguments are hardly red herrings or straw men however. They are based on facts which you refuse to acknowledge. I am not defending anything but my tax dollars and the mountains of Vermont, both of which you are intent on depriving me of. That is the crux of our disagreement.

You said, "Weaknesses in the study / testing protocols and permitting process should be corrected. Maine's regulatory imperfections are not necessarily Vermont's." At least Maine has noise regulations, inadequate as they may be. Vermont has no noise regulations. Hello? I'd call that a weakness in the permitting process, wouldn't you?

You said "We agree that conservation and efficiency measures are the most cost effective practices. My point is that they are insufficient by themselves to address the magnitude of the problem. We need all of the above, including utility scale renewables." That is false. Only the most cost effective measures should be employed until they are no longer the most cost effective. That is basic economics. 30% reductions in our overall energy use are possible with these measures, not just electricity production. Other proposals, such as inefficient and expensive wind power, are not remotely as cost effective. Tax dollars should be spent on the most cost effective solutions. Period. As far as the "magnitude" of the "problem", electricity consumption is down by 20% in the last year. The problem is a lot smaller thanks to the economic meltdown.

Supply and demand will dictate the price of electricity, whether from VT Yankee, Hydro-Quebec, or wind power. Wind generators cannot sign long term contracts because they cannot guarantee production. They can only agree to be paid for whatever their electricity is worth at the moment, which is usually not very much. Wind power makes its money off subsidies and beneficial tax treatment, not on the sale of electricity.

To get a better idea of the capacity of wind power, study the FERC spreadsheets for the Noble wind projects in NY. During the first quarter of 2009, when wind is supposed to be the most reliable, average capacity factors only reached 28%. More importantly, during peak hours wind power was minimal. Most wind generation occurred during off peak hours. Pathetically, some of Noble's output was "negatively priced" meaning Noble actually paid the grid to take its power, so that it could take advantage of the tax credits and REC subsidies. This minimal ability of wind power to add capacity to the grid leads to its 10% effective capacity and the pickup truck analogy. Hardly a straw man or red herring.

You said, "It's well understood that given current transmission constraints, wind power is not necessarily dispatch-able as baseload." Transmission constraints have nothing to do with the dispatch-ability of wind power. The grid operator cannot command the wind to blow. Wind cannot by definition be dispatch-able.

You mention the "smart grid". No smart grid is going to make power that is not there. Exactly what is the smart grid supposed to do that inexpensive off peak meters can't do already? It is common knowledge that night time demand drops to about 2/3 of daytime demand. The capacity is there for off peak space and water heating to be employed right now. You don't have to hook up everyone's home to a central computer to maximize the efficiency of existing transmission infrastructure and generation capacity. Have you run the numbers on the cost benefit of the "smart grid"?

Why is it necessary to destroy unspoiled mountains because some mountains are already destroyed? Collective guilt? We owe it to coal country to destroy our mountains too? That is a bizarre argument. It is wishful thinking that coal will not continue to be mined and burned. It provides the baseload generation that we cannot due without. Unless you are in favor of nuclear energy, coal will remain the backbone of our electrical system, wind turbines or no wind turbines.

I'm glad you agree about subsidies. A tax on carbon is not necessary however. Carbon taxes in Europe have not resulted in reduced fossil fuel consumption because wind power only has a 10% capacity credit. Please don't tax me unnecessarily to subsidize inefficient technogies that do not accomplish the objectives you attribute to them.

The hubris of your position is disturbing Rob. Essentially you are saying you know better than I do what's good for me and the rest of us. You are basing your self-appointed superiority on a political platform, not science. You have been sucked into something that you don't really understand, because no one knows if man can control the climate, but you want to impose your will on me regardless. Thus the "communistic" appellation. I suppose you are in favor of the recent idea of blasting pollution above the atmosphere to reduce insolation? I wonder who will get the multi-million dollar government contract to study that idea?

Let's put global warming in perspective. Global warming has been estimated to have a price tag of $9 trillion. The current world wide economic meltdown has cost $50 trillion so far and is expected to double. According to a study by the Climate Institute in Maine, if temperatures rise a couple of degrees Maine will have a longer growing season, more biomass production, and striped bass in the ocean. What's not to like?

Am I supposed to be worried that Ted Kennedy or George Bush's ocean front compound might be as risk? Who owns ocean front property in most places in the world? Rich people. In the US we subsidize Federal Flood Insurance so they can rebuild after all the hurricanes that Al Gore is predicting will take their houses, which shouldn't be there in the first place, since you and I are end up paying for their rebuilding costs. Mother nature always wins these contests. When will we learn? Where ever the coast line ends up, you and I won't be able to afford to live there. It will still be ocean front property.

The biggest problem the world faces is not global warming. Its not even on the first page. Population is our biggest problem. There are too many of us and we live too long, despite all the pollution from coal burning plants. Does the world have the ability to provide for the swelling aging population of people who are no longer capable of productivity? Like you and I will be sooner than we'd like to admit. That's what I'm worried about - much more than how soon the next glaciers will get here - and they will get here, even if it warms up first.

Thanks for the dialogue. I agree that I won't be changing your mind and vice versa. So be it. I could not in good conscience sit here and read your propaganda without responding.

All the best, Steve
-- Posted by Stephen Thurston on Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 11:18 pm EST

report this comment


Steve, i apologize for seeming disagreeable, but you've set up enough straw men and red herrings that it would take quite awhile to refute them all, so I'll reply to some of them, and after that i have lots of other things to do.

Weaknesses in the study / testing protocols and permitting process should be corrected. Maine's regulatory imperfections are not necessarily Vermont's.

Virtually every comment you make about wind power's impacts could be re-written without a lot of work to reflect the impacts of any energy production. The collapse of coal slurry ponds upstream in a West Virginia watershed, mountaintop coal removal, oil tankers running aground and spilling large amounts of crude, uranium mine tailings or spent radioactive materials storage affecting groundwaters, etc. etc. Were those locations impacted by such practices and accidents somehow less important to local residents? By my original comment, there is no energy production without impact, so pick your poison ....

What part of mountaintop coal removal has less impact than road and turbine pad construction? It's premature to talk in generic terms about blasting, other than that it makes things sound scarier, without some site specific geo-technical study. Similarly with overly broad generalizations about bird and bat impacts.

It's well understood that given current transmission constraints, wind power is not necessarily dispatch-able as baseload. This will change as we begin to build smarter grids. Again, " theoretical contribution" to baseload is not the only way of measuring wind power's contribution. Is the actual output of a turbine is only theoretical?

The perfectly efficient, 100% capacity factor generator is not out there. Taking into account thermodynamic losses and other inefficiencies, the costs of fuel, and the as yet unaccounted for externalities of fossil fuels, the / - 30% capacity factor of wind doesn't look so bad, especially when the fuel is free.

Many renewable energy proponents would be happy to see energy subsidies eliminated, and externalities accounted and paid for. Wind power would still be one of the least expensive forms of production as a result. With a theoretical "free market" sending accurate pricing signals, renewables including wind would fare very well. Right now, leveling the playing field is what subsidies attempt to do, and probably not very well.

I agree with some of the intent of your comment about the inefficiency of Cap and Trade. In the long run a carbon tax would be a lot more efficient in sending pricing signals to the energy market, and then to the public about energy use.

Vermonters will be getting some new pricing signals about the rising costs of energy very soon, when (and if) new Hydro-Quebec and Vt Yankee contracts are negotiated. They'll look like much shorter term contracts, at pretty much closer to market rates than what we've enjoyed for the last twenty years. As i understand it, one of the better hedges against increasing prices is to increase supply, which is what in-state generation would do.

We agree that conservation and efficiency measures are the most cost effective practices. My point is that they are insufficient by themselves to address the magnitude of the problem. We need all of the above, including utility scale renewables.

i'm not sure i understand how "communistic social controls" deliver wealth from the working proletariat into the hands of the wealthy "power brokers".

Climate science is a complex issue, but it's far beyond its infancy, Even if there are some processes are not completely understood, and details left to be filled in, consensus is being reached. People with a lot more, and specific knowledge of the issue than either of us are stating that utility scale wind power has a role in addressing the problems of power generation.

Last, do the math comparing the efficiencies and impacts of small vs. big wind.
At approximately 1/2 acre per residential turbine, with lower wind speeds, the footprint of small wind would be many many times larger than for utility scale wind to create a fraction of the power. i support small wind as well, but even if everyone lived where they could put up a small turbine cost effectively, it still wouldn't address the size of the problem.

I imagine that we'll have to agree to disagree. Having been involved in the issue for some time now, it seems people rarely change their minds on the topic.
Other than that, I hope all's well...

Rob
-- Posted by Rob Roy Macgregor on Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 1:17 pm EST

report this comment


Rob, why have there been poorly sited projects and legitimate complaints about noise? Because the wind industry is in denial. If appropriate setbacks were acknowledged by the industry many areas with wind resources would be eliminated.

In Maine the same noise consultant has been employed for the noise studies for every project currently proposed or constructed, including Mars Hill and the model has not changed. Low frequency noise is not included in the analysis, and the impact of multiple turbines in a line source configuration is not recognized. This leads to a model which is designed to get permits, not protect residents.

Stantek is the environmental consultant used by all the large projects in Maine and by White-Hansen. The same boilerplate language is used in every application. White-Hanson is merely following the wind industry play book. So yes, as you say "guilt by association" should not be overlooked.

Effective capacity, guaranteed capacity, capacity credit all refer to the theoretical ability of wind power to provide reliable baseload generation. At a 10% effective capacity a $5 million, 3000 hp, 2.5 MW wind turbine has the effective capacity of a 300 hp motor running continuously. Its as if a diesel locomotive only had the power of a pickup truck. The economics of wind power depend entirely on a subsidy system that requires tax payers and rate payers to pay $5 million for a pickup truck. It is ludicrous.

This does not include the priceless loss of a mountain ridge silhoutted against the sky or the permanent scarring of 35' wide smooth, flat roads blasted or filled to the tops of mountains and the huge 300' wide plateaus that are constructed at each turbine location so that the blades can be assembled horizontally and lifted in one piece. The industrialization of the mountain tops will be there until the next ice age.

Do we have the right to make such choices that all future generations will be forced to live with, when wind power's ability to contribute to our energy consumption is so insignificant?

Retail electricity generation represents only about 25% of overall energy use. Even if we cover every ridge with turbines wind power cannot exceed 10% of grid capacity without major reliability problems. All experts agree that 20% is the absolute limit. So at best wind power will contribute no more than 5% of overall energy use.

As for subsidies, they should be eliminated for all segments of the energy industry. Wind power enjoys much larger subsidies than other forms, but hold harmless provisions and oil depletion allowances mask the true cost of energy. The coal industry should be responsible for health impacts just as asbestos and tobacco industry have been made accountable. Likewise the wind industry must accept responsibility for the noise impacts that it knows full well do exist and the killing of protected species like eagles. Turbines on ridges are like egg beaters in a fish bowl to birds, bats, and raptors. Post construction mortality studies is the wind industries response to this issue.

What Vermonters want and deserve is to pay no more for electricity than is absolutely necessary. Vermonters should not be put in a position of subsidizing an ineffective technology that has spent millions lobbying for beneficial tax treatment without which the industry would not exist.

I don't pretend to have sufficient knowledge of fossil fuel reserves and the future costs of extraction but I know that if the true cost of energy was readily apparent I would know the correct choice to make for myself and I would not need you or the government to make this decision for me.

Like wise I don't pretend to understand climate change well enough to agree its causes or if humans have the ability to control it. From my reading there are huge "knowledge gaps" in our understanding of things like albedo from cloud cover. The science is in its infancy and yet social control is being exercised "communism style" by Cap and Trade policies which have yet to reduce fossil fuel consumption but have transferred huge amounts of wealth from average citizens to the power brokers who have capitalized on the fear created by global warming hysteria.

At the risk of repeating - conservation, efficiency, insulation and appropriate incentives to achieve progress in these areas are by far the most cost effective approaches to our energy problems. Subsidizing industrial scale wind power is one of the least cost effective things we can do.

I am all for living sustainably and admire folks who live off the grid by ingenious use of multiple approaches to energy production. As a home builder I am committed to building the most energy efficient home for the least cost including life cycle costs of systems. I encourage my clients to take a long range view which permits the consideration of superior insulation, ground source heat pumps, solar radiant heating and other wise choices that pay good dividends to the home owner and to the environment. I would not hesitate to recommend small scale wind power if the conditions were right.
Steve Thurston
-- Posted by Stephen Thurston on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 1:19 pm EST

report this comment


Steve - no doubt there have been poorly sited projects, and legitimate complaints about noise. But generalizations made based on other sites, lacking site specific information, amount to little more than assumptions. They may guide research questions and protocols, but a priori and by themselves do not serve well as a basis for site specific conclusions.

Neither side of the issue is well served by stock assumptions and rote responses. I will grant that the stock wind industry response to the noise question is inadequate at best. This does not however, justify the conclusion that land based turbines cannot be properly sited. The developer's identification of more potential turbine sites than would actually be used might work to provide adequate setbacks. No particular conclusions based on site specific evidence are possible at this early stage in the process. Careful and rigorous study protocols are certainly called for. We need to know a lot more about site specific ambient noise levels, the levels at different wind speeds and directions, leaf-on / leaf-off, etc., etc.

Investigations involving UPC Wind in New York are not necessarily germane to the project at hand. To my knowledge, as of this writing, no judgments or even indictments have been offered in that case, so what exactly is your point in bringing this up in this context - guilt by association?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "effective capacity". Are you using this term interchangeably with "capacity credit'? If so, this is not the same as its actual power contribution at any given time, or as emissions displacement, or as what fossil fuel generation might be displaced at any given time when the turbines are generating. "Capacity credit" is not the only way of measuring the value of wind power.

Granted that offshore wind has much potential for New England, but it has problems of its own, including the expense, and its location far from its end use, with attendant line losses. Vermont is pretty far away from offshore.

Whether this particular project has merit or not, it is clear that Vermonters are calling for the development of in-state energy generation including something somewhere looking a lot like this. Offshore wind will not meet the criteria of sustainable, in-state generation, nor will there be any significant local economic benefit.

As to subsidies, are you implying that no other type of generation is subsidized? Or that the wind industry alone is controlled by rich investors and multi-nationals? Or that conservation and efficiency efforts by themselves will suffice to solve the many problems created by the way we generate and use energy?

We certainly need to conserve and to use what we do use efficiently. But we also need to generate it as cleanly and sustainably as possible, as close as possible to its end use, and preferably with some economic benefit in-state.

By many estimates there is little or no "fossil fuel horizon" left, be it coal, oil or gas-fired. There is a significant chance that from "yesterday" on out, the rest is damage control, in Vermont as everywhere else.
-- Posted by Rob Roy Macgregor on Thu, Apr 9, 2009, 1:40 am EST

report this comment


With all due respect, Rob, this wind project is located within 1/2 mile of homes according to Mr. White-Hansen. Turbines on ridges above rural homes below are a recipe for disaster. Nighttime noise levels in communities such as Ira or Clarenden are typically in the 20 decibel range, ie "dead quiet" even though there is sufficient wind on the ridge for turbine operation.

Vermont has no noise regulations to protect its communities from turbine noise. However, experience in other communities, and common sense application of simple rules of noise propagation indicate that low frequency noise from turbines will carry long distances and homes that are line of sight to the turbines can be impacted at distances much greater than 1/2 mile.

There are currently 15 lawsuits pending in Mars Hill, Maine against First Wind, formerly UPC wind, which changed its name after being investigated for bribery by the AG in New York. People living as far as 1.2 miles from turbines at Mars Hill have been subjected to intolerable nighttime low frequency noise. Decibel readings of 52.5 have been recorded by the state at homes 3000' away from the nearest turbine. The World Health Organization recommends decibel levels for sleeping not exceed 30 dB and not exceed ambient levels by more that 5 dB during the day and 3 dB at night.

No one argues that a replacement for fossil fuels needs to be found. But in so doing, lets not sacrifice the health and welfare of entire communities. That is more irresponsible than doing nothing and just trades one set of problems for another.

Mr. White-Hansen said that turbine noise would "blend with the background noise" and this may be true during the day. The number one complaint of people worldwide living near turbines is sleep disturbance, because at night there is very little background noise, so what was unnoticeable during the day becomes intolerable at night. The turbines at Mars Hill are 1.5 megawatt. VCW is considering 3 MW turbines which will be much larger and therefore emit more low frequency noise, which is a result of 8 ton blades ripping throught air molecules at tip speeds nearing 200 MPH. The wind industry compares this noise to the sound of a refrigerator. These types of self-serving and misleading comments do not increase the confidence of communities being asked to host these projects and lead to unnecessary fear and anxiety. The wind industry needs to take responsibility for the noise these 120 ton 3000 HP machines produce, which exceeds 100 decibels measured 1 meter from the rotor.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the capacity factor of this 80 MW wind project is expected to be 32-34% or about 26 MW. Much of this electricity will be absorbed by the grid in voltage fluctuation because at low wind speeds very little electricity is produced. The effective capacity of this project, similar to projects studied in the NYSERDA wind integration report is expected to be 10%, due to the demand of the grid and the availability of wind generation being largely out of phase. So only 8 MW of this project will provide electricity that enables reductions in baseload fossil fuel generation. 8 MW is 4/10,000, .0004 of the daily demand of the ISO New England grid. There are not enough mountains in New England to enable wind generation to provide worthwhile capacity to the grid. We are barking up the wrong tree.

95% of the wind resource in New England lies off shore. Rather than destroying forever the mountains that are sacred to so many of us, let's do the research and development that will enable ocean energy to provide reliable, dispatchable power at a time in the near future when it will make sense economically. At the moment land based wind generation requires a subsidy that is more than double the value of the electricity produced. The money being spent to subsidize the wind industry, which is controlled by millionaire investors and multinational conglomerates, would be much better spent insulating, upgrading heating systems, and encouraging fuel efficiency and conservation. These activities will reduce the need to import foreign oil, which is used for transportation and to heat buildings, not generate electricity. These reductions will buy many years of fossil fuel horizon, giving future generations the time they need to solve the energy problems that our generation has created.
Steve Thurston
-- Posted by Stephen Thurston on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 7:38 pm EST

report this comment


Power generated by wind farms in Vermont will more than likely be sold to Vermont utilities at rates below the spot market price. The Public Service Board has shown a preference for stable, fixed price contracts in the recent past, and this will continue as the state demands that an increasing percentage of its' power comes from renewable sources in the years ahead.
It's also important to note the difference between the "electron path" and the "contract path" for the electricity. While the power sales contracts could theoretically go anywhere, as above, they will likely stay in-state. The electricity flows into the transmission grid and likely out into the local distribution system fairly close to the point of generation. There's no point in moving it long distances, when there's demand close to the source, in this case the surrounding towns, and Rutland.

While noise has been an issue at some sites, properly sited turbines need not cause disturbance. Proper siting is key.

Last, there is no energy source out there without impacts of some sort. Critics would do better to compare wind to all of the other alternatives, and not to the alternative of nothing at all.
-- Posted by Rob Roy Macgregor on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 4:48 pm EST

report this comment


What few people understand is most of the power generated from a wind farm is sold to the grid at the highest "spot" price - it does not go to the towns hosting the industry. the clearing of the ridge tops and the access roads will totally destroy these woodlands - these projects are nothing more than the industrialization of our ridge lines
Vermont's forest ridges are special and unique and deserve to be preserved not plundered
- Steve Donovan Springfield, VT
-- Posted by Steve Donovan on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 1:45 pm EST

report this comment


http://betterplan.squarespace.com/
i would not want one anywhere near me- they make a lot of noise, esp. at night and if you read the above, there are health concerns.
-- Posted by alexa now on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 11:49 am EST

report this comment


Isn't there a way to put high tech, aluminum windmills on top of every telephone pole? And produce them at a reasonable cost? I live in a high wind area, and would purchase several if I could afford it. I am a supporter of wind power, but totally understand how people don't want to be run rough-shod......
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, 8:25 am EST

report this comment

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

Logout