RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Turbines will ruin natural beauty



Toolbox

Published: September 14, 2009

Thank you for using the beautiful fall foliage picture of the West Rutland/Ira ridgeline to accompany your article "Vermont gears up for fall foliage gold" in the Sept. 6 business section of the Rutland Herald. The article by Bruce Edwards forecasts a strong, economic projection for the upcoming fall foliage season and underscores the importance of tourist dollars received from visitors coming to enjoy the beauty of our region.

I find it ironic that the mountains chosen by the Rutland Herald to exemplify our state's beauty are the same mountains that will be visually spoiled by the Vermont Community Wind Farm's proposed plan to erect 45 400- to 500-foot wind towers.

Along with the turbines come the 36-foot-wide access roads cut into the mountains, the removal of the top of the mountain for footings and the power grid lines. If completed, the tourists will cross the border from New York state to Vermont on Route 4 and be greeted not by natural beauty that is unique to Vermont, but by huge wind towers standing four to five times the height of the highest tree and all the accompanying roads and power lines. It has been projected that this project will not decrease power costs, but actually cost the ratepayer more.

Are we also willing to lose the revenue that is generated by the tourist escaping the visual pollution of development to enjoy Vermont's natural beauty?



MARY ANN STICKNEY

West Rutland








READER COMMENTS


Comfy, turbines requires 10 acres of CLEAR CUT, per turbine on the ridgeline. This causes erosion and displaces whatever was living there and most of what crosses the access road. In addition the noise (including subsonic vibration) severely impacts the local wildlife. Add the blender effect and birds and bats, and these things are just not "eco-friendly" at all, as the developers claim them to be.

And to vermonster, total jobs will be 1 part time.

Foreign corporations will receive millions in subsidies though.

Solar (individual), hydro or nukes are the ways to go. Not unreliable wind.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Sep 19, 2009, 12:05 pm EST

report this comment


Vermonster, I think your idea of putting windmills on all of the ski resort mountains is fantastic. The access is already there. There is already plenty of noise pollution so nobody will even notice the little bit of noise that they make and you can't really call it an eyesore any more than the ski resorts already are. As for the tourists, if they are coming from NY, they are so relieved to be away from the billboards that I doubt they will even notice the windmills.

Local Yokel, forgive my ignorance but I am wondering what is destructive about windmills. Would you mind filling me in? (In addition to ignorant, today I am lazy as well!)
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Wed, Sep 16, 2009, 6:31 am EST

report this comment


Those towers are no more ugly than the rows of condos we have to look at on Stratton from my picture window. They are no more ugly than the weekend retreat castles which are visible here and there halfway up the ridgelines. They are no more ugly than the powerlines that cut through once pristine looking woods and up and over hills. They are no more ugly than the radio and cel towers which we don't even tend to notice.
While wind power is not the answer by a long shot, It is a supplement that can be counted on for a portion of our power needs. It will provide JOBS which many of the NIMBY's could care less about. If the touri are inconvenienced by the view for a few miles then too bad. The vast majority of the state will be just as beautiful. I think a good compromise would be to mandate wind farms be placed atop ski areas first as the scenery has already been spoiled for the benefit of those who must ski or snowboard. Last time I checked, the wind always blows on top of Stratton and Killington.
-- Posted by vermonster on Tue, Sep 15, 2009, 4:58 pm EST

report this comment


Hydro will also play a major part. As it does now and as it should. Here is an "off the wall" thought. As a fairly avid trout fisherman, what positive roll would hydro dams play in protecting our rivers and lakes from evasives such as "rock snot" (that is what it has been called) and other nasty imported species. I do realize there are concerns about atlantic salmon and such. (Still I am in favor of maximizing hydro capability.) (And buying hydro power from canada if we need it and they want to sell it to us.) Wind power is weak, unreliable, costly and destructive to boot. Good letter Mrs. Stickney.
-- Posted by Local Yokel on Tue, Sep 15, 2009, 11:00 am EST

report this comment


If you listen to the amount of money being poured into the Legislature from renewable energy corporations and their owners, Vermont Yankee will be shut down and we will all be paying allot more for power.
-- Posted by Jim Eckhardt on Tue, Sep 15, 2009, 8:21 am EST

report this comment


In practice, Vermonters are opposed to renewable energy. There's little doubt that nuclear power will be VT's primary source of power for the future.
..
-- Posted by mark on Mon, Sep 14, 2009, 8:05 pm EST

report this comment


the nuclear power plant in Vernon covers 125 acres..Is not visible from a wide view point and produces more than enough power for Vermont..Safely/quietly and econonomically.There needs to be a replacement nuclear plant on the same location before shutting down yankee.
-- Posted by bruce meyer on Mon, Sep 14, 2009, 7:42 pm EST

report this comment

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

Logout