The document argues against utility-scale wind power development on mountainous ridges in Vermont, highlighting significant environmental and aesthetic impacts relative to its limited power generation potential. It states that ridge line wind resources are not a viable renewable energy source compared to alternatives like solar energy, which has greater potential and fewer negative consequences. The conclusion emphasizes that focusing on ridge line wind could hinder the development of more effective renewable energy solutions.

1. Wind Power in Vermont?
Ben Luce, Ph.D
Email: ben.luce@lyndonstate.edu
Version: March 21, 2011

2. Introduction
This presentation presents several arguments
to the effect that utility-scale wind power
development on mountainous ridge lines is
not a desirable or needed form of renewable
energy generation.
1

3. Introduction
Three basic arguments are presented:
• The environmental and aesthetic impacts of ridge line
wind are very great relative to the amount of power
produced.
• Ridge line wind resources are not actually a significant
renewable energy resource to begin with.
• There are much more appropriate alternatives, such as
solar energy, and, closely related to this:
– A primary focus on development of the alternatives is
necessary anyway, precisely because ridge line wind
resources are so limited, and:
– Focusing on ridge line wind development will divert
considerable resources away from and therefore hamper
the renewable energy development that is actually most
needed. 2

4. Introduction
• Some common justifications for utility-scale
wind development in Vermont are:
– Mitigation of Climate Change
– Reduction of dependence on foreign energy
resources
– Local job creation opportunity
– Problems with and the potential closure of the
Yankee Nuclear Power Plant
3

5. Introduction
• All of these justifications have merit, but are indirect:
They do not address the question of whether wind
power in particular is the appropriate solution in
Vermont.
• Some proponents of ridge line wind assert that “we
need it all”, that is, all possible renewable energy
development. This simplistic assertion does not
withstand a careful consideration of the actual
potential for wind generation in the Eastern US, or the
potential and prospects for alternatives to wind power,
or the potential negative consequences of ridge line
wind development on both the environment and the
progress of renewable energy development in general.
4

6. Introduction
• Other common arguments or claims in support
of wind development in Vermont include:
– There are no viable alternatives
– All sources have impacts
– There is no silver bullet – wind should play a part
– Vermont’s lands are a “working landscapes”
– People will grow to like the way turbines look, or at
least get used to the impacts after awhile.
– The environmental impacts are acceptable
– The mountaintops can be restored adequately later
These arguments also do not withstand a careful
consideration of the facts.
5

7. Introduction
The drivers for wind development in Vermont today are:
• Genuine public support for wind.
• A short-term outlook on renewable energy cost trends.
• Federal incentives for clean energy development.
• State Legislation setting renewable energy targets for utilities, with
a strong bias towards large sources.
• A singular emphasis on electricity in Vermont clean energy circles,
as opposed to a more balanced focus on the actual primary sources
of greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel/nuclear dependence in
Vermont.
• Policies such as strong renewable energy targets for utilities with
little emphasis on small-scale generation, and the ability of utilities
to sell Renewable Energy Credits out-of-state, while the state
simultaneously tolerates allowing utilities to represent to their
customers that they are also receiving the same renewable energy.
• Wholly inadequate support for alternatives to wind: Vermont’s
incentives for photovoltaics, for example, are presently very weak,
inconsistent, and very user-unfriendly.
6

8. Introduction
Genuine, major, technical problems with wind generation
exist (in the presenter’s opinion):
• Impacts on birds, bats, bears, and other wildlife. These
have not been adequately mitigated, and may never be,
especially where very extensive wind development is
concerned, due to the intrinsic nature of wind generation.
• Noise impacts, especially low-frequency noise.
• Aesthetic impacts, and the corresponding impacts on
Vermont’s eco-tourism based economy and overall
environmental valuing of the land.
• Cost of wind power in comparison with alternatives, that is,
when the full cost of transmission is included, and also in
comparison with the cost trends of alternatives such as
solar.
• A simple lack of wind resources: Onshore wind in the
Eastern US is simply not a large renewable energy resource.
Alternatives not only exist, but will have to carry the day in
the long run anyway. 7

9. Introduction
The “intermittency issue” (in the presenter’s opinion):
• Claimed problems with “integrating” wind power on the grid, for
example, those associated with “firming” wind power with natural
gas fired generation, are perhaps over-stated by critics of wind
generation, although it must be acknowledged that convincing
rebuttals of these claims with detailed system performance data
have not been forth-coming from the utility industry or grid
operators. In any case, it is the presenter’s opinion that energy
storage will eventually overcome intermittency issues with wind
and solar.
• On the other hand, the relatively low “capacity factors” of wind
generation - around 33% at good sites and probably significantly
less in Vermont – do mean that 3-4 times the peak capacity in wind
generation is needed to displace a given amount of conventional
generation. This has severe consequences for how much
environmental and aesthetic impact wind generation must incur to
offset a given amount of conventional generation. This then is the
real issue with wind’s intermittency: It means that ridge line wind,
in particular, turns out to be an extremely high impact renewable
energy source relative to its energy project, not unlike large hydro,
or many conventional energy resources. 8

10. Climate Change and US Energy Policy
• The following graphs, and a great deal of other data,
make it abundantly clear that the climate crises is real.
• Massive reductions in greenhouse gases are needed.
• Some steps are being taken in the US, but even the
current round of clean energy incentives falls far short
of the mark: US energy policy is a mess.
• Smaller scale distributed generation, such as small-
scale solar, is being drastically under-emphasized,
although it has the best long-term potential, because:
– It has the largest physical potential to meet the demand
for energy, and can do so with minimal environmental and
aesthetic impact.
– The potential cost reductions in the technology are great.
– Distributed generation actually decreases the need for
new transmission and distribution infrastructure, unlike
utility-scale wind development. 9

11. Temperature and CO2 levels are tightly correlated,
and human activity has dramatically boosted CO2
levels, essentially overnight in geological terms:
10

12. Global Climate Models (GCMs) reproduce 20th
century warming accurately & appear to
confirm human (anthropogenic) role:
Human created forcings alone (such
Natural forcings alone (such as solar) as CO2 emissions) do account well for
cannot account for the large the large temperature rise in the
temperature rise in the latter 20th latter 20th Century
Century. Natural forcings only
account for a slight upwards All forcings together account well for
temperature trend between about the overall temperature anomaly
1890 and 1960. curve during 20th Century

13. Wind Generation Outlook
• Wind power is a moderately mature
technology, and is expanding rapidly world
wide.
• Many large-scale projects in Vermont have
already been proposed (See next slide). At
least ten are active, ranging from projects in
the formative stage to those in advanced
stages of installation. One has been in
operation for 13 years (Searsburg).
12

14. 13

15. The Department of Energy has a plan for 300 gigawatts
(equivalent to 120,000 2.5 megawatt turbines) by 2030.
Pressure to build wind in Vermont and surrounding
states will not likely ebb anytime soon.
14

16. Wind Resource Overview
• Virtually all of the US commercially viable wind resource is offshore
and in the Midwest.
• As the coming slides establish, the Eastern US has only enough
onshore wind resource to offset about 17 gigawatts of conventional
generation at very best, and probably substantially less than this is
in practice. More than half of this potential is in New York (so the
onshore resource is not even well distributed in the East).
• Compare: Total electricity consumption in the US is equivalent to
450 gigawatts of conventional generation operating 24/7. And
electricity consumption accounts for only about 1/3 of US CO2
emissions.
• Conclusion: Total potential for onshore Eastern wind power to
reduce US CO2 emissions works out to be about 2% at best, and
probably half of this or less in practice. Even just some modest
efficiency measures could save far more than this resource can
provide. Onshore wind power in the Eastern US is not a significant
renewable energy resource.
15

17. Available
U.S. Wind Resources Resources
Nearly all of the U.S. wind resources
are located in the center of the country and offshore
16

18. Relative Ranking of State Wind Resources
Source: Dept. of Energy’s “Wind Powering America” program. These estimates include certain
obvious land exclusions. Further exclusion would likely occur in practice with greater scrutiny.
Capacity
Ranking State
1901
1 Texas
2 Kansas 952
3 Montana 944
4 Nebraska 918
5 South Dakota 818
6 North Dakota 770
7 Iowa 570 Vermont has
8 Wyoming 552 th
Less than 1/3,000th
9 Oklahoma 517
of
10 New Mexico 492
US Wind Resource
.
. Potential
25 Maine 11.3
29 Pennsylvania 3.3
27 Vermont 2.9
30 New Hampshire 2.1
31 West Virginia 1.9
33 Virginia 1.8
34 Maryland 1.5
35 Massachusetts 1.0
17

19. Comparing Vermont’s Wind Resource
with a Typical Midwest State, or Offshore
• It is instructive to compare Vermont’s wind resource
directly to that of, say, Iowa, or with the wind resource
of the coast of Maine (closer to home).
• See following slides
• The stark differences are due to the fact that Vermont’s
commercial resource lies only on narrow, widely
separated ridges. Note that this implies (incidentally)
that there can be little or no flexibility in siting wind
generation in Vermont, if a significant fraction of
Vermont’s resource is to be developed.
• If a significant amount of Vermont’s wind resource is
not to be developed, then the contribution of
Vermont’s wind resource to addressing climate change
or other issues is utterly negligible. 18

20. Wind Resource Comparison
In gigawatts (Note: This data is also from NREL, but this time with no obvious land exclusions, so that
the estimates for Iowa and Vermont are somewhat higher than on the previous slide)
Iowa 600
Gulf of Maine 150
Vermont 6
 Iowa has more than 100x Vermont's wind resource
 Gulf of Maine has 25x Vermont's wind resource
 Even with no exclusions, Vermont possesses less than one half of one-
thousandth ( 0.05%) of the onshore United States wind resource
19

21. Iowa vs. Vermont (approximately to scale)
 Iowa's worst areas for wind potential exceed the potential of Vermont's best
potential areas
 Iowa's wind resources are widely dispersed
 Vermont's (rather poor) resources are concentrated on, and largely limited
to, her high elevation ridgelines

22. Iowa
Iowa is mainly laid out in a grid,
right down to the cornfield level.
Siting wind here is relatively easy,
notwithstanding issues with noise,
birds, bats, etc. Note that the
latter might still severely impede
wind development, even in Iowa,
although Iowa already has more
wind generation than will (can)
ever be sited in Vermont. 21

23. Add it All Up: How much wind power could be obtained
from onshore Eastern Wind Resources Overall?
• Eastern US onshore wind resources, as estimated by NREL
(unlisted states have little or no potential), in peak gigawatts (GW):
– New York: 25.6 GW
– Maine : 11.3 GW
– Pennsylvania: 3.3 GW
– Vermont: 2.9 GW
– New Hampshire: 2.1 GW
– Virginia: 1.8 GW
– West Virginia: 1.9 GW
– Maryland: 1.5 GW
– MA: 1.0 GW
• Total: 52 GW (50% of this in NY)
• Equivalent to just 17.6 GW of conventional generation (at best – assuming a 34% capacity
factor – actual factors are probably significantly less on average in the East)
• US electricity consumption is equivalent to 450 GW (continuous)
• It follows that Eastern wind would/could provide less than 4% of US electricity demand
• Factoring in that electricity generation accounts for approximately 34% of US greenhouse
gas emissions, it follows that eastern onshore wind generation would reduce US emissions
by less than 2% even if completely developed, probably less the 1% if largely developed.
• Vermont’s entire wind resource would reduce US emissions by less than 0.1% even if
completely developed.

24. < 0.1% CO2
Reduction
Potential
< 2% CO2
> 100% CO2 Reduction Potential Reduction
Potential
23

25. Wind Resource Conclusions
• Ridge line wind is simply not a major renewable energy
source in the Eastern US.
• Offshore wind MIGHT BE a significant if the
environmental impacts of hundreds of thousands of
turbines offshore proves to be acceptable (no such
conclusion can be drawn at present).
• Virtually all of the renewable energy in the Eastern US,
if a transition to renewables ever occurs, will have to
come from some combination of offshore wind,
Midwest wind, solar, deep geothermal, or “ocean
power”. All the rest (small hydro, biomass, ridge line
wind, cow power etc), are essentially negligible, all
some of these can assist with other problems, such as
cow power’s ability to reduce methane and surface
water pollution. 24

26. Wind Resource Consequences
• These resource considerations alone of course do not imply that the
more negligible sources, such small hydro, biomass, ridge line wind,
etc, also aren’t worth developing. The answer to this question depends
also on the merits of those particular sources. Some may very well be
worth while, and can yield side benefits, such as already mentioned
reductions in surface water and methane pollution in “cow power”.
• But the small size of these small resources does mean that they will
never contribute significantly to mitigating climate change or other
major energy issues, and therefore that it cannot be argued that they
are “essential” for these purposes. To invoke such a justification
implies an overall dearth of renewable energy resources with serious
potential to address these issues, which in turn would logically
undermine the entire notion that a transition to renewables is even
possible.
• The claim that ridge line wind power is essential to addressing climate
change and other issues is therefore manifestly false. Whether its still
desirable or not is a different question that depends on the impacts it
25
incurs relative to the power it will provide.

27. Wind versus Solar
• The solar energy resource in the Eastern US is hundreds of
times larger than the commercial wind resource, even
when the conversion efficiencies (~15%) of photovoltaics
are taken into account.
• Under realistic exclusions in Vermont, such as limiting solar
collection to just a few percent of the open (non-forested
areas) in Vermont, the “developable” solar resource is still
at least several times larger than the wind resource.
• More importantly, the solar resource is available
throughout the Eastern United States. Solar is really the
ONLY onshore renewable energy resource in the Eastern US
of any real consequence, aside from deep geothermal, and
there is little reason to believe that the latter will be cost
effective in the near term.
• Other aspects of solar generation are covered later in the
presentation.
26

28. Impacts of Ridge Line Wind Development
Some proponents of ridge line wind development resort
to the blanket statement that “All sources have impacts”
in their defense of wind.
In fact, ridge line wind generation has much greater
impacts overall than wind generation in open, flat
areas, and much greater impacts of all kinds in
comparison with (properly sited) solar generation.
The following slides illustrate these points visually.
Impacts include aesthetic, environmental, auditory, and
economic.

30. On the same scale as the mountains themselves:
(Size-accurate simulation from a proposed site in MA: Very apropos to Vermont)
29

31. (Size-accurate Simulation : Susie’s Peak in Clarendon, VT )

32. (Size Accurate Simulation: Poultney, VT)
31

33. Mars Hill, Maine
This photo shows how developers often portray their projects, if they portray ridge line
wind projects at all. Note that this photo is taken from a long distance away, and from a
low angle. This effectively hides the roads and clearings, for the most part, and creates
the impression that the turbines are nestled in among the trees.
32

34. Mars Hill, Maine
This aerial photo, taken during construction of the project, shows more accurately
the nature of the disruption to the topography. Note the scale of the project: those
are full size trees around the clearing. The disruption is very great, and permanent.
33

35. Mars Hill, Maine
This aerial photo, from Google Earth, shows the full extent of the disruption to the
mountaintop clearly. This mountaintop is now an industrial site.

36. Kibby Mountain, Maine
Note the massive scale of the road beds here (those are full size trees along the
roads, not bushes).
35

37. Kibby Mountain, Maine
36

38. Searsburg, VT
This is Vermont’s only operating wind project, constructed through what was a pristine
national forest ridge line. These turbines are small compared with the multi-megawatt
turbines being proposed today.
37

39. Tararua, New Zealand (clearing for a 3 MW Turbine)
38

40. Summary of Impacts
• Industrial scale roads and clearings down the
entirety of the ridges
– Extensive blasting and bulldozing
– Hundreds to thousands of truckloads of fill
– Permanent, levelized, 500 foot diameter clearings
• Strong visual impacts
• Impacts to wildlife
• Noise
39

41. This photo shows what it means to
site wind in Iowa, at least in terms
of land impacts. The land impacts
are generally much lower.
40

42. Side Note: On the Performance of Searsburg,
and the Selling Off of its Renewable Credits
• The average “capacity factor” of the Searsburg project over its 13 year lifetime has
only been 22.4%, or about 2/3 of what is generally considered to be a good
commercial wind power site.
• Nonetheless, in 2010 the winds were a bit above average, enabling the facility to
achieve a one-time annual capacity factor of about 27.8%. Green Mountain Power
trumpeted this, and also proclaimed in a press release that "In its 13 years of
continuous operation, the Searsburg facility has demonstrated that wind power
works in Vermont”, and also that "Our success at Searsburg encouraged us to
propose the Kingdom Community Wind project in Lowell of up to 63 megawatts,
which is now undergoing review by Vermont's regulators." The actual capacity
factors of the project, however, suggest that the project is basically unsuccessful.
• In the same press release, GMP stated that “At six cents per kilowatt-hour, GMP
Searsburg wind has been a cost-effective way for us to provide our customers with
renewable energy.“ Unfortunately, GMP omitted mentioning that they have been
selling the Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) for this project out-of-state, meaning
that their customers in Vermont have not been receiving renewable energy from
this project in any meaningful sense. (GMP admitted they are selling the RECs for
Searsburg in their testimony on the proposed Kingdom Community Wind project in
Lowell, VT, before the Public Service Board of Vermont). 41

43. Side Note: On the Performance of Searsburg,
and the Selling Off of its Renewable Credits
• Selling of the RECs out-of-state, while informing customers that they are receiving
the renewable power in Vermont, is “double-counting”, and fundamentally
undermines the meaning and integrity of the RECs. This is because it will likely
result in less renewable energy development overall.
• This practice also gives Vermonter’s a false impression of the cost of wind power
relative to alternatives, and thereby undermines the development of alternatives
to wind.
• While this practice is occurring in Vermont, the state is also not enabling utilities to
purchase the RECs associated with small, distributed renewable energy systems,
thereby missing a sensible and cost effective way for utility customers to support
the development of alternatives to wind generation in Vermont.
42

44. Powering Vermont with Wind Power?
• It is true that providing much of Vermont’s power with
wind power is possible. This is because Vermont is one
of the few Eastern States with at least some significant
wind power, and because Vermont’s load is so small in
comparison to other states.
• But even the impact of just meeting a significant
fraction of Vermont’s load with wind would have very
significant impacts to the state, and even with all this,
the total contribution to reducing US greenhouse gas
emissions would still basically be negligible.
• The next few slides explore what would be required to
produce certain percentages of Vermont’s electric
power with utility scale wind.
43

45. What percentages are being proposed?
• Proponents of wind development in Vermont
often state that they are only pursuing producing
a certain fraction of Vermont’s electricity with
wind power, with figures ranging anywhere from
about 10% up to 40%.
• It should be noted that there are no statutory
limits on how much will be or could be
developed, and no proponent has the power to
enforce a given limit anyway.
44

46. What would be required to provide just
20% of Vermont’s Power with Wind
• Vermont consumes about 6000 gigawatt-hours per
year: Equivalent to slightly under 700 megawatts of
conventional generation running 24/7.
• Assume a capacity factor of 28% (the best year of the
Searsburg project):
• Megawatts of wind needed = .2*700/.28 = 500 MW
• This implies about 8 projects of the Lowell Project size
(Lowell is a 63 MW project)
• Most projects would be somewhat smaller, so 10-12
would likely be needed
• Conclusion: 10-12 entire “mountain systems” would
be needed just to provide 20% of Vermont’s
electricity, or well under 10% of Vermont’s total
energy consumption. 45

47. What would be required to provide 100%
of Vermont’s Power with Wind
• 2500 MW of wind
• This implies about 40 projects of the Lowell Project size
• Most projects would be somewhat smaller, so about 50
would likely be needed
• Conclusion: 50 entire “mountain systems” would be
needed just to provide 100% of Vermont’s electricity.
• The would require approximately 150 miles or ridge
line: Equivalent to the length of Vermont.
• Vermont’s entire electrical demand is equivalent to
the output of a single large power plant: All of this
wind generation would still be an essentially
negligible contribution to reducing US greenhouse
emissions overall.
46

48. Visual Impact of Turbines
• Are Turbines “magnificent” as some claim? How do people
really perceive these devices over the long term?
• Will people perceive them as magnificent in locations that
were formally considered to be extremely natural,
unspoiled, scenic places?
• What happens after the novelty wears off, or as people get
used to seeing turbines in many places?
• What happens if wind power becomes decidedly unpopular
due to its impacts?
• How will they be perceived specifically in the context of
Vermont?
• How much income will Vermont lose due to loss of its
“unspoiled character”?
47

49. Vermont Brand Study
• Commissioned by the Vermont State Department of
Tourism
• This study thoroughly surveyed the attitudes of nearly
1000 people who vacation in Vermont
• Available at: http://www.vermontpartners.org/
• As one component, the study investigated what images
and what words that people who vacation in Vermont
feel describe Vermont. It accomplished this by having
people rank various sets of images and words in terms
of how well they describe Vermont.
• The next two slides show excerpts from the Branding
Study.
48

50. 49
49

51. 50
50

52. Top Three words:
“Unspoiled,
Beautiful,
Mountains”
(note that “mountains” is first noun
in the ranked list)
51

53. Vermont Brand Study
• Conclusion: The Vermont Brand Study clearly
suggests that people who vacation in Vermont
deeply value the unspoiled character of the
State (and the mountains in particular).
• This is not a far-fetched suggestion.
• A large fraction of Vermont’s economy, to the
tune of hundreds of millions of dollars,
depends on income associated with
vacationers and also second home owners.
52

54. Precautionary Principle
• The precautionary principle states that in
situations where there is a lack of consensus
about whether a proposed activity has
acceptable risks, the burden of proof should fall
on those who propose the activity.
• Proponents of utility scale wind in Vermont have
provided little or no evidence that wind power
development in the state will not have an
extremely adverse impact on the State’s eco-
tourism based economy, or its image in general of
an unspoiled, natural place.
53

55. 54

56. 55

57. Impacts on Birds
 Vermont’s mountains are also home to many
species of songbirds.
 “Breeding bird surveys have shown that the
forests of Vermont and Northern New
England are a globally important resource for
birds throughout the hemisphere”
 From: Audubon Vermont
http://vt.audubon.org/conservationNews.html
56

58. Impacts on Birds
 Mountain ridges generate updrafts used by
migrating raptors. (From: Bildstein 2006).
57

59. Impacts on Birds
 Claims to the effect that wind turbines have a
negligible impact on birds generally look only
at impacts to global populations, and do not
consider local ecosystem impacts in general.
 They also do not address what may happen if
hundreds to thousands of gigawatts of wind
generation is developed.
58

60. Impacts to Bats
 An endangered species of bat does live in Vermont
(Myotis Sodalis)
 Myotis Sodalis sounds are difficult to distinguish, so
that impacts to this species are hard to quantify.
59

61. Impacts to Bats
 Recently, Vermont's Endangered Species
Committee and Fish & Wildlife Department
recommended to the Secretary of the Agency of
Natural Resources (ANR) that the little brown bat
and northern long-eared bats be listed as
endangered.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110
202/NEWS02/102020313/As-bats-die-off-Vermont-
panel-seeks-endangered-status
60

62. Impacts to Bats
 Bats in general are under great stress in the
Northeast, due to White Nose Syndrome.
 Bats can be killed when simply flying close to
turbine blades from decompression effects.
 Some ridge line wind projects have been shown to
have very large bat kill rates.
 The impact on bats of significant wind generation in
Vermont could be very great, with correspondingly
large impacts to Vermont’s ecosystems overall.
61

63. Impacts to Bats
• How are bat mortality issues being handled in Vermont in wind project
permitting?
• Not well. The group “Vermonters for a Clean Environment “, states that
“The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources has entered into Memoranda
of Understanding (MOUs) with wind developers of three other sites in
Vermont in an attempt to reduce bat mortality, but these agreements are
not sufficiently protective. The MOU that ANR signed with developers of
the Lowell wind project is instructive. The MOU attempts to limit bat
mortality by setting a minimum "cut in speed," or speed the turbine must
spin before operations can begin, of 3-4 meters per second (mps). Under
cross-examination in the PSB's technical hearings for Lowell, Adam Gravel
of Stantec testified that the cut-in speed must be at least 5 mps to reduce
bat fatalities. He also testified that bats' highest vulnerability is between
April 1st and October 15th of each year. Yet the Lowell MOU permits
over half of the turbines to continue to operate with cut in speeds too
low to prevent any bat mortality.”
62

64. Impacts to Bats
• In a petition to list two bat species as endangered,
the Center for Biological Diversity cited research that
has found that "Bats are killed in significant numbers
by utility-scale wind energy facilities, with the
greatest number of fatalities occurring along
forested ridge tops in the eastern United States
(Kunz et al. 2007)."
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/bat_c
risis_white-nose_syndrome/pdfs/petition-
Myotisleibii-Myotisseptentrionalis.pdf
63

65. General Impacts to Wilderness, Wildlife
 Habitat Fragmentation
 The Valleys and many other areas are already highly
developed, fragmented. Are we now going to incur
similar impacts to the mountain environments as well?
Vermont is a working landscape, but most of the “work”
taking place in the mountains does not dramatically
degrade the mountains aesthetically or environmentally.
Wind generation will.
 Environmental pressures on our mountain environments are
increasing in general:
 Climate Change
 Invasive species
 Development
64

66. Noise and Health
 Low-frequency noise, including “infrasonic” noise,
from wind turbines may in fact be affecting the health
of people in the near vicinity of turbines:
 Peer-reviewed research:
 “Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds,
infrasound and wind turbines”
 Hearing Research, Volume 268, Issues 1-2, 1
September 2010, Pages 12-21
 Alec N. Salt, a, and Timothy E. Hullara
 a Department of Otolaryngology, Washington
University School of Medicine, Box 8115, 660
South Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA
 See summary at
http://oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/windmill.html
65

67. ”The noise generated by wind turbines is rather
unusual, containing high levels (over 90 dB SPL) of
very low frequency sound (infrasound).
66

68. Impacts of Solar Relative to Wind
• The impacts of solar development are not
comparable at all to wind development. Solar
does not require clearing of forest, blasting,
etc. In many cases solar can be roof-mounted.
Even large “solar orchards” utilize existing
fields, and are even compatible with some
forms of agriculture. There are also numerous
open areas that are well out of view and
wholly appropriate for solar orchards.
67

69. 68

70. 69

71. Solar Resource in Vermont?
• Vermont has about 1.2 million acres of farmland, which
constitutes about 20% of the state (see
http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/VT.HTM)
• It’s reasonable to assume that about 1% of this, or about
12,000 acres, could be dedicated to solar energy collection.
Much of this could be done on roofs, small systems in
backyards, on car ports. Much of the rest could be done in
out-of-the-way municipal sites (many such sites exist in
Vermont). Only some would need to be sited in fields that
might otherwise be used for agriculture, and some forms of
agriculture are compatible with “solar orchards”.
• But in any case, a collection area of 1% is solidly
conservative number to assume for solar generation, to
prevent the generation from having adverse impacts.
• This is enough to power Vermont comfortably.
70

72. Solar Resource in Vermont?
Specifically, taking into account that a 1 kilowatt PV produces about
3 kWh/day on average, and has a collector area of about 8 m2, it
can be calculated that a total collection area of 11,000 acres would
provide the equivalent of Vermont’s entire electricity consumption:
Area needed =
6000 gigawatt-hours /(3 kWh/[kilowatt – day] x 365 days x [1
gigawatt-hour/106 kWh] x 1 kilowatt/8 m2 x 4047 m2/acre)
= 10,831 acres
This figure is conservative: Optimal PV systems today can already
produce closer to 4 kWh/day on average per kilowatt, and future
systems with higher efficiencies will likely produce upwards of 5
kWh/day or even higher. So the ultimate land area will likely be less.
71

73. Cost of Photovoltaics
• The levelized cost of PV power is rapidly approaching “grid parity”,
that is, the point at which PV power will equal typical retail
electricity prices. PV costs need to reach $3-4/watt installed to
reach grid parity in most places in the US. Current costs range from
about $6/watt and up, depending on system type and capacity.
• After grid parity is reached, PV will likely expand massively, bringing
the cost down further through a combination of technological
improvements, competition, and economies of scale.
• The next two slides show two different summaries of PV cost
trends. The first is from Immanual Sachs at MIT, and shows the
trends for cost per kilowatt-hour. The second is from PV industry
Paula Mints, and shows the price trend of modules. The “grid
parity” projection shown here was created by the presenter using a
“least squares” fit to the data. The data for “large buyers” is shown
as this best reflects the trends of the underlying manufacturing
costs, which are generally (but not necessarily always) somewhat
less than the retail costs.
72

74. PV Cost Trend
PV is on track to become fully competitive by 2015.
73

75. 74

76. Costs of Wind versus Solar
• Wind power has huge hidden costs for transmission:
• “A conservative goal for 5,500 megawatts of wind power and 3,000 megawatts of
hydro power through 2030 would carry transmission costs of between $7 billion
and $12 billion”
– Gordon van Welie, president and chief executive officer of ISO New England Inc.
– From “New England grid chief: Cooperate on wind power”, by David Sharp, Associated Press
Writer, August 16, 2010.
• These costs will increase the cost of these renewables very significantly.
• Ridge line wind power is already a relatively expensive form of wind power, costing
somewhere in the neighborhood of $.10/kWh.
• It is therefore not clear that ridge line wind power has a strong cost advantage
over solar, especially when the longer term cost trends are considered: Wind
power will also not likely decrease much in cost, due to the intrinsic costs of steel,
cement, copper, specialized magnets, etc, that wind technology requires. (In fact
wind power has increased in cost in recent years – technological advances have on
partially offset the rising costs of cement, steel, copper, and magnets).
• Solar on the other hand has the potential to continue to decrease dramatically in
cost as thin film technologies emerge, and as new breakthroughs lead to higher
efficiencies.
• The cost of utility scale wind power should also not be directly compared with
solar. Solar effectively competes with retail power prices, and actually decreases
the need for transmission lines.
75

77. Diversion of resources to wind
• Imagine what the impact would be on distributed
solar power development if the tens of billions of
(ratepayer provided) funds presently
contemplated for wind development in the
Eastern US were devoted instead to solar.
• In the long run, most of the renewable energy
will have to come from solar or offshore wind
anyway. So why not focus now on the sources
that will really make a difference?
76

78. Division of Communities
• Wind development has and is creating enormous
divisiveness in communities throughout Vermont,
and will likely continue to do so.
• Is this really the social context in which
renewable energy should be advanced?
• Is not this divisiveness a potential threat to the
development of renewable energy as a whole?
77

79. Solar vs. Wind
Local vs. Centralized Decision Making
Distributed Solar Industrial Wind
 Can be sited in a much greater  Sizing options limited
number of places  Requires a much larger investment,
 Very Scalable intrusion and minimum efficient
 Can be implemented at very local scale. Scale is key to project
level economics
 Household  Commercial implementation limited
 Neighborhood to large scale, utility or state
 Town sponsored projects
Which is more in keeping with Vermont's tradition of
civic decision making and stewardship?
78

80. The Trouble with Solar (Utility)
The Benefits of Solar (Consumer)
Wind Generation and Distribution Solar Generation and Distribution
 Wind requires industrial scale  Solar can be scaled down to the
development household level
 Wind requires transmission into grid  Solar need not enter the grid
and to the consumer  Direct use
 Utilities generate revenue through  Battery storage
 Generation  Small to no opportunity for utility
 Distribution generation or distribution revenue
79

81. Vermont Carbon Footprint (2008)
Thousands of tons per year
Gasoline/Diesel 672
Heating Oil 446
Propane 126
Natural Gas 105
Electricity ~50
 Carbon impacts from gasoline and oil far outweigh the carbon impact
of electricity.
 Why are we focused so narrowly on electricity in Vermont?
80

82. Heating Fuels in Vermont
Percent
Electricity
Wood, Other
5
10  85% of Vermont's heating
is based on fossil fuels
Natural
Gas 12  Nearly equal in carbon
Fuel output to transportation
59
Oil fuel usage
14
Propane  Only 10% biomass based
81

83. An Optimal Plan for Reducing Vermont's
Carbon Footprint?
2010 – 2015 2015 Forward
 Internal combustion vehicles  Continue efficiency and
 Higher efficiency Vehicles conservation
 Mass transit
 Expand Photovoltaic build out
 Weatherization
 Biomass and Geothermal
 Plan for, and begin,
Photovoltaic transition
82

84. Vermont’s Existing Renewable
Energy Policies
 Strong Renewable Energy Targets for utilities
 No targets for homeowners or businesses
 Weak and inconsistent incentives for small-scale renewables:
 Official PSB/utility solar prices appear to be exaggerated,
creating a false impression of levelized solar power costs.
 Solar Business Tax Credit has been in Crises
 Wind Permitting geared toward centralized PSB decision
making
– Communities have essentially no actual say, just “input”
– Environmental Guidelines can be over-ruled
83

85. The End
84