[jackmccullough]

I just heard from WCAX and VPR that Entergy has announced they're closing Vermont Yankee next year.

Big news, eh?

[AmILost]

I can't believe this state when it comes to electricity. You have people rallying against nuclear, people rallying against hydro, people rallying against wind power. You have people celebrating solar power, but guess what? Vermont doesn't get a whole lot of sun. Solar is not our solution.

I've seen bumper stickers that say "Ridgelines are not renewable!" on the cars of the anti-wind power people. Umm, yes, ridgelines ARE renewable. Disassemble the wind turbine and voila, you have your ridgeline back, idiot. Stupidest bumper sticker I've ever seen.

So we import our electricity, from regions that produce their electricity with - you got it - hydro & nuclear! And we pay a hefty premium for it. The electricity rate in Vermont is TWICE the rate as in Washington state where I came from. Wouldn't it be nice to cut your electric bill in half?

[Logs and Dogs]

While I understand the bulk of your reply regarding buying electricity and capacity from nuclear, coal etc. sources.....It is actually very hard to put a ridgeline back together after all the blasting, just saying.....it would be a tough jigsaw puzzle to solve for....

[Flashback]

Losses will include many high paying jobs...at least high paying compared to most jobs in Vermont.

Of course, that also means Vermonts tax burden will be spread among those of us who remain.

[FrugalYankee]

Oh dear. That is very bad news for the state indeed. As if electric rates weren't among the highest in the nation. Vermont doesn't have much in the way of alternatives. It's as AmILost said, we don't want to have anything to do with doing the dirty work of power generation, so we'll be stuck paying whatever price demanded by those who do.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by AmILost

I can't believe this state when it comes to electricity. You have people rallying against nuclear, people rallying against hydro, people rallying against wind power. You have people celebrating solar power, but guess what? Vermont doesn't get a whole lot of sun. Solar is not our solution.

I've seen bumper stickers that say "Ridgelines are not renewable!" on the cars of the anti-wind power people. Umm, yes, ridgelines ARE renewable. Disassemble the wind turbine and voila, you have your ridgeline back, idiot. Stupidest bumper sticker I've ever seen.

So we import our electricity, from regions that produce their electricity with - you got it - hydro & nuclear! And we pay a hefty premium for it. The electricity rate in Vermont is TWICE the rate as in Washington state where I came from. Wouldn't it be nice to cut your electric bill in half?

Tearing down the wind tower doesn't bring back the parts of the mountain blasted away to create a level site, the soil, the displaced wildlife (including threatened species like bicknell's thrush), nor does it eliminate the access roads.

[AmILost]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Tearing down the wind tower doesn't bring back the parts of the mountain blasted away to create a level site, the soil, the displaced wildlife (including threatened species like bicknell's thrush), nor does it eliminate the access roads.

Are you okay with houses? Because to build a house, wildlife is displaced, sites are levelized, trees are cut down, roads are paved.

These things are an inevitability of human settlement. You've chosen to settle here and therefore are already responsible for a certain amount of displacement of wildlife, roads to get to your house, etc. The same goes for the local businesses that you support.

Mountains have been blasted for the granite quarries that built this state. Mountains have been blasted to build the freeways you use to get from place to place.

So why is anybody drawing the line on wind turbines?

[AmILost]

Especially when wind turbines are a clean source of energy. If someone is a proponent of not causing irreversible damage to the environment, I'd think they'd choose wind over coal as the lesser of two evils.

Also, if preservation of the environment trumps society's energy needs, then I could argue you are doing more harm to the environment SIMPLY BY LIVING IN VERMONT than you would be if you lived in New York City. Since society's presence requires infrastructure, your presence in Vermont contributes to the need for infrastructure here. Since population here is low, the PER PERSON contribution to infrastructure (which we agree destroys the natural environment) is greater than in New York City.

[AmILost]

But I guess since WE'RE not the ones burning the coal, we're not at fault for ruining the environment in another state. We're just buying electricity, after all.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by AmILost

Are you okay with houses? Because to build a house, wildlife is displaced, sites are levelized, trees are cut down, roads are paved.

These things are an inevitability of human settlement. You've chosen to settle here and therefore are already responsible for a certain amount of displacement of wildlife, roads to get to your house, etc. The same goes for the local businesses that you support.

Mountains have been blasted for the granite quarries that built this state. Mountains have been blasted to build the freeways you use to get from place to place.

So why is anybody drawing the line on wind turbines?

Originally Posted by AmILost

Especially when wind turbines are a clean source of energy. If someone is a proponent of not causing irreversible damage to the environment, I'd think they'd choose wind over coal as the lesser of two evils.

Also, if preservation of the environment trumps society's energy needs, then I could argue you are doing more harm to the environment SIMPLY BY LIVING IN VERMONT than you would be if you lived in New York City. Since society's presence requires infrastructure, your presence in Vermont contributes to the need for infrastructure here. Since population here is low, the PER PERSON contribution to infrastructure (which we agree destroys the natural environment) is greater than in New York City.

My family's been here since before it was a state so I didn't move here. The people moving up here from the cities like NYC have about doubled our population since the 60's, and that is the source of the development destroying the state. Chittenden County has been ruined by the sprawl and pollution associated with it. No I am not okay with those mcmansion developments gobbling up the land. We don't need to become another NJ or MA. The line needs to be drawn at some point. When these developers started to target semi-wilderness areas in the NEK (i.e., Ferdinand) they crossed a line that should never have been crossed. If the people of Chittenden County want to pretend they're "green" despite living in a mcmansion on land that was field or forest 10 or 20 years ago, put them up in Burlington, Charlotte and Shelburne, in their backyards.

I'm not sure if you've followed the news this summer about the Lowell wind project being ordered to stop producing power at times because these wind sites cause grid instability, but these wind turbine projects do little except line the pockets of developers with government subsidies and tax credits at our expense. The grid operators have opposed the seneca mountain project because of grid issues but that hasn't stopped the developers (NH's trailer park king as I understand he's known) from pushing forward to destroy the wildest part of Vermont for some government handouts.

Wind power is most effective on a small scale. I'm for decentralizing power production and more solar and wind on individual homes. For the centralized power production needs that remain, I don't think we need to jump up to destroy our mountains and wildlife. I think thorium nuclear reactors offer some potential for fairly safe nuclear power, and VT Yankee could have been replaced with it.