Letters from the sales brochure

There were a couple of letters from Starksboro in today's Burlington Free Press in support of industrial wind plants on Vermont's mountaintops. Here are a couple of quotes.

"There should be no doubts when it comes to wind power."

Well, sorry -- there are doubts, aren't there.

"Vermont would not have to send millions of dollars out of state to pay for power."

True, the president and vice president of the East Haven project live in Vermont. Some of their investors might live here, too. That won't make giving them my money feel any better. And the major wind player in the region, Enxco, is a multinational consortium based in France. In addition, we'd still be paying for the same electricity as before, since wind's contribution would be fickle and minuscule.

Green Berkshires

is on line (click the title of this post), with material provided by Eleanor Tillinghast, particularly her extensive well researched and documented paper "Wind turbines don't make good neighbors."

Anti-environmentalist promotes wind

According to the Humane Society of the United States (HumaneLines newsletter #300, June 8, 2004):

"The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote soon on a dangerous proposal that would completely bypass all public input on energy projects affecting marine mammals, sea turtles, and migratory birds. Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) is planning to amend the federal Energy Bill to gut one of the strongest and most important public interest laws on the books -- the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [of 1969]. NEPA mitigates the threats to wildlife and the environment by requiring careful review of major federal projects that will harm the environment.

"But the Pombo amendment seeks to limit this review for projects involving alternative energy development.

Pombo is not coy about being against environmental protections that raise the direct costs of exploiting our energy resources. He is shrewd enough to see that the environmentalist promoters of renewable energy sources, particularly wind, find themselves opposed to thorough environmental impact studies for their projects. For example, the developers of the project in East Haven, Vermont, complain about the state Agency of Natural Resources requiring a year-long study of birds at the site. They argue that whatever the localized impact on birds, the project itself -- by mitigating greenhouse and acid rain gases -- will allow more birds to live.

Vermont utilities don't buy any coal-generated electricity, around 1% from oil, and around 3% from natural gas. Electricity accounts for about 1% of the state's greenhouse gas emissions. The East Haven 6-MW "demonstration" project will likely produce less than 0.2% of Vermont's electricity, so it would theoretically mitigate about 0.002% of the state's CO₂ output. If all the current proposals in the state were to go forward, we would have power plants on several prominent ridges, more power lines and roads, erosion, and pollution, and birds and bats killed by the hundreds and thousands every year -- and the mitigation effect might reach 0.05%. It's no wonder that these "environmentally friendly" projects don't want serious environmental reviews.

As promoters of renewable energy, they are by definition environmentalist and good, and environmental laws are for bad guys. Pombo's seat is being challenged by a wind developer. His amendment cleverly undercuts the wind industry's sense of righteousness, forcing them to make a clear choice between their beloved profits and their claims of environmentalism.

Misconceptions about wind

A letter by Peter Sterling of Worcester to the local rag (also to this one) claims that an earlier letter saying that wind turbines require extensive power lines and create an ice-throw hazard is perpetuating myths.

Like the aesthetics of the jumbo-jet sized blades on giant towers rising from formerly wild mountain ridges, "extensive" is a matter of opinion. But also like the installation of power plants on the ridges, where you ought to have a damn good reason for forcing their presence on everyone, whatever their aesthetic values, another power line is another power line. If it doesn't do any good, we shouldn't have to see it go in. In fact, the smallness of the single though long transmission line that will be needed from the East Haven project to the Burke Mountain substation is proof of the small amount of electricity expected to be generated. That line is likely to be supplying more power to the facility than it will be taking away.

Sterling spends most of his letter pointing out that the "demonstration" project is on private land, so the concerns of its impact on the Champion lands are irrelevant. I hope he is not really so unrespectful of his neighbors.

But even so -- getting back to the ice throw "myth" -- if the blades will be hurling ice far and wide, then the facility's bordering a public recreation area is indeed relevant. The following is from a letter by John Zimmerman, Enxco's area representative, sent to an American Wind Energy Association discussion list in January 2000, describing his experience at the facility in Searsburg.

... [T]he danger from ice being release from rotor blades overhead is real ... When there is heavy rime ice build up on the blades and the machines are running you instinctually want to stay away. They roar loudly and sound scarey. Probably you would feel safe within the .5 mile danger zone however.

One time we found a piece near the base of the turbines that was pretty impressive. Three adults jumping on it couldn't break. It looked to be 5 or 6 inches thick, 3 feet wide and about 5 feet long. Probably weighed several hundred pounds. We couldn't lift it. There were a couple of other pieces nearby but we wondered where the rest of the pieces went.

In the winter, icing is a real danger and GMP therefore restricts public access to the site(s).

The turbines proposed for East Haven have much larger blades and are on much higher towers than the ones at Searsburg, so the danger would be even greater. This should be considered as well by all the snowmobilers that Mathew Rubin has courted by promising to open the area for them. They certainly won't be bothered by the noise, but they may take exception to large blocks of ice hurling down on them.

Sterling closes, of course, with a threat: If you oppose the East Haven project, you must be for global warming. Something like 1% of Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions comes from generating the electricity we use. In the worst electricity environment, mitigation by wind turbines is minuscule. Here, the effect on global warming would be zero. With that being the case, their installation would add to Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions.

Coming to a field near you

'The vociferous proponents of wind energy would have you believe that you cannot be anti–giant windfarms without being anti–energy conservation, anti–renewable sources and cravenly irresponsible.

'That's simplistic nonsense.

'... [L]et the Western Morning News stress for the umpteenth time that we are not anti–renewable energy. We do accept the need to tackle global warming. But as the newspaper which represents the people of the Westcountry, we cannot accept that the desecration which is about to be inflicted upon our lovely landscapes is justified or necessary.

...

'THE factual evidence from other countries of the failure of windfarms to make a really significant contribution, while damaging the local environment, is in itself sufficient reason to stop and take sensible stock.'

Dooleysprudence

(James Joyce, 1916)

Who is the man when all the gallant nations run to war
Goes home to have his dinner by the very first cablecar
And as he eats his cantelope contorts himself in mirth
To read the blatant bulletins of the rulers of the earth?

It’s Mr Dooley,
Mr Dooley,
The coolest chap our country ever knew
‘They are out to collar
The dime and dollar’
Says Mr Dooley-ooley-ooley-oo.

Who is the funny fellow who declines to go to church
Since pope and priest and parson left the poor man in the lurch
And taught their flocks the only way to save all human souls
Was piercing human bodies through with dumdum bulletholes?

It’s Mr Dooley,
Mr Dooley,
The mildest man our country ever knew
‘Who will release us
From jingo Jesus’
Prays Mr Dooley-ooley-ooley-oo.

Who is the meek philosopher who doesn’t care a damn
About the yellow peril or problem of Siam
And disbelieves that British Tar is water from life’s fount
And will not gulp the gospel of the German on the Mount?

It’s Mr Dooley,
Mr Dooley,
The broadest brain our country ever knew
‘The curse of Moses
On both your houses’
Cries Mr Dooley-ooley-ooley-oo.

Who is the cheerful imbecile who lights his long chibouk
With pages of the pandect, penal code and Doomsday Book
And wonders why bald justices are bound by law to wear
A toga and a wig made out of someone else’s hair?

It’s Mr Dooley,
Mr Dooley,
The finest fool our country ever knew
‘They took that toilette
From Pontius Pilate’
Thinks Mr Dooley-ooley-ooley-oo.

Who is the man who says he’ll go the whole and perfect hog
Before he pays the income tax or license for a dog
And when he licks a postage stamp regards with smiling scorn
The face of king or emperor or snout of unicorn?

It’s Mr Dooley,
Mr Dooley,
The wildest wag our country ever knew
‘O my poor tummy
His backside gummy!’
Moans Mr Dooley-ooley-ooley-oo.

Who is the tranquil gentleman who won’t salute the State
Or serve Nebuchadnezzar or proletariat
But thinks that every son of man has quite enough to do
To paddle down the stream of life his personal canoe?

It’s Mr Dooley,
Mr Dooley,
The wisest wight our country ever knew
‘Poor Europe ambles
Like sheep to shambles’
Sighs Mr Dooley-ooley-ooley-oo.

Speaking of the weather

Have you noticed that you sleep more when it's rainy and cold?