Professor Ben Luce analyzes whether it makes sense to develop Vermont's wind resource atop its many ridgelines or if there are better alternatives with less impact on natural resources and communities.

1. Should Vermont’s Ridges Be Used For
Wind Power Development?
Dr. Ben Luce, Lyndon State College
Ben.luce@lyndonstate.edu

2. An Extremely Serious Issue
• Immense Ramifications for the environment
and renewable energy development: Far
beyond VT’s concerns
• Most wind supporters have great intentions
• We need to transcend the sound bites
• And the politics
• Conduct a real analysis of the arguments for
and against
• Get to the facts
1

3. 2

4. Greenhouse gas levels are rising quickly. So is
the global average temperature:
3

5. 4

6. Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining

7. My own Conclusions
• The impacts of ridge line are enormous
– Should be our last resort option, if done at all.
• The economics are not promising
– Existing projects are not cheap
– Electricity rates will not decrease
– Wind power costs have been increasing
– The industry may actually soon collapse
– Significant wind development here will be
extremely expensive
6

8. My own Conclusions
• The wind power resources of the Eastern US
are essentially negligible
– This is not “the answer” supporters assume it is
• There are much better alternatives
• The current push for wind in Vermont is not
based on a rational evaluation of facts, or a
well thought out plan to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
7

9. What are the impacts?

10. Impact Summary
• Topographical Impacts "The block provides possible
habitat for wide ranging
• Hydrological Impacts species of concern such as
• Habitat Fragmentation & Loss pine martin and Canada lynx."
• Impacts to birds and bats -Billy Coster, senior planner
and policy analyst with the
• Noise Impacts ANR, to Jack Kenworthy, chief
executive officer of Eolian
• Aesthetic Impacts: Rewewable Energy
– Ecotourism
– Environmental valuing
• Impacts to the Social Fabric of our communities
• Implications for the effectiveness of and public
support for renewable energy investments
9

11. Very large roads and platforms are
needed
• The Turbines are huge:
400+ feet high
• Weight: Hundreds of tons
• Very large trucks and
industrial strength roads
are needed
• Extensive bulldozing and
blasting is required
10

12. 11

13. Wind Turbine Construction
Mars Hill, Maine
SUMMER 2011

14. Lowell Mountains
Vermont
13

15. Mars Hill, Maine
SUMMER 2011

16. Lowell Mountains
Vermont
15

17. Lowell Mountains
Vermont
16

18. Sheffield Vermont
SUMMER 2011

19. Sheffield Vermont
18

20. Sheffield Vermont
(Blasting prep)
SUMMER 2011

21. Brodie Mountain Massachusetts
20

22. 21

23. 22

24. Mountain Environments are Hydrologically
Important and Sensitive
• Act as sponge
• Large Surface area
• Vegetation
• 3D Water table

25. Mountain Aquifers
http://www.sonoma.edu/users/n/norwick/document/ford/gws2.html

26. Hydrological Impacts
Soil Compaction and Impermeable
surfaces impede infiltration, and can
cause erosion and have adverse
impacts on streams
“The Lowell wind project is a high-
risk site with steep elevations and
very erodible soils, the Applicants
have proposed the use of alternate
Best Management Practices, which
are essentially untested and
unproven at scale this large,” stated
Geoff Goll of Princeton Hydro, an
expert who testified to the Vermont
Public Service Board on the Lowell
Project

27. Birds
• Mountain ridges generate updrafts used by
migrating raptors. (From: Bildstein 2006).
ANR to Eolian: “The land, Coster notes, is a gateway
for migratory birds en route to the Nulhegan
Basin.” (Orleans County Record, 5/23/12)

28. Bats
• Endangered species of bats
do live in Vermont (Myotis
Sodalis)
• Bats can be killed by merely
flying close to turbines
• The Lowell Project will use
turbines specifically
designed for lower wind
areas (lower wind speeds),
which may be particularly
problematic for bats

29. Noise and Health
• “Infrasonic” noise from wind
turbines appears to be affecting
the health of susceptible people
in the vicinity of turbines
• Large turbines essentially “shake
the air”
• This can be amplified by the
resonant effect of buildings.
• Similar to health impacts on
people working in buildings with
improperly configured
ventilation systems.

30. Noise and Health
• One example of related 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

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

32. Hear for yourself?
• A single visit to a local wind project is not a
basis for evaluating noise impacts
• Noise varies greatly with:
– Wind direction and weather
– The observers Location
• See: “The Problems With ''Noise Numbers'' for
Wind Farm Noise Assessment”, Bob Thorne,
Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011
31: 262.
31

33. Setbacks?
• “It is concluded that no large-scale wind turbine
should be operated within 3,500 meters [2.2 miles]
of any dwelling or noise-sensitive place unless the
operator of the proposed wind farm energy facility,
at its own expense, mitigates any noise within the
dwelling or noise-sensitive place identified as being
from that proposed wind farm energy facility to a
level determined subject to the final approval of the
occupier of that dwelling or noise-sensitive place.”
• Source: “The Problems With ''Noise Numbers'' for
Wind Farm Noise Assessment”, Bob Thorne, Bulletin
of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 262. 32

34. Vermont Brand Study
• Commissioned by the State of Vermont
Tourism Department
• Released in 2010
33

35. 34

36. “Unspoiled,
Beautiful,
Mountains”

38. The Economics of Wind Power

39. Subsidies for a Renewable Energy
Technology are fine if….
• They are helping to make the technology
reasonably affordable (or better, competitive)
• They are supporting development which is
truly sustainable, and important for reducing
emissions.
• Otherwise, they can be counterproductive
38

40. Cost Trends of Wind Power
What DOE Predicted in 2002 Actual
40 Wind
COE cents/kWh
30
20
10
0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Source: US Department of Energy
(Second plot: 2011 Wind Energy Technology Market Report)
39

41. Wind’s bad cost trend is why…
• Wind is still deeply dependent on subsidies
• People think its cheaper than it is
• The industry is on the verge of collapse
40

42. Summary of Wind Power Cost
• Well above $.10/kWh in the Northeast (even with
subsidies)
• Ridge line wind particularly expensive:
– Extensive site development
– Relatively small projects
– Transmission costs
– Impact management
• No longer cheaper than Natural Gas fired generation.
• Probably about the same as solar today when full costs
are considered
• Hydro: Well under $.10/kWh
41

43. The solar cost trend is much more
promising:
Solar power is on track to
become competitive with
retail power rates (which is
the critical cost consideration
for potential buyers) by about
2015. Continuing subsidies
for solar power are therefore
justified. The US should pay
particular attention, though,
to retaining a strong solar
manufacturing base.
• Department of Energy’s Solar Technologies Market
Report
• http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51847.pdf
42

44. Natural gas fired generation has been slowly replacing coal-fired generation, and,
due to the shale bas boom, is projected to replace large amounts of coal-fired
generation in the near future.
43

45. Natural Gas “Fracking”
• Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing
• Can pollute aquifiers, among various impacts.
I am not personally supportive of
fracking and continued dependence
on natural gas, but nonetheless the
shale gas boom is negatively
impacting the economic prospects
of wind power strongly. Few if any
utilities are now pursuing wind for
economic reasons, except to meet
mandatory renewable energy
requirements.

46. Additional Transmission Costs
for Eastern Wind Power
• The Northeast Grid is already fairly congested
• According to Gordon van Welie, president and
chief executive officer of ISO New England Inc: “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.”
– From: “New England grid chief: Cooperate on wind
power”, by David Sharp, Associated Press Writer,
August 16, 2010.
• 4000+ miles of new transmission lines
45

47. Question:
On a resource basis alone, can wind power
make a substantial contribution to
reducing US greenhouse gas emissions?

48. Answer:
• In the Midwest, maybe (there are still potentially
serious issues there with noise, birds, aesthetics,
better alternatives, etc)
• In Vermont, maybe in the future, but a great cost
(if most of the ridges are developed)
– And Vermont’s energy demand is basically miniscule
• In the Eastern US, no. Unless offshore wind turns
out to be environmentally and economically
viable (which has not been demonstrated)
47

49. 48

50. State by State Wind Power Potential from
the Department of Energy
(source: www.windpoweringamerica.gov)
49

51. Relative Ranking of State Wind Resources
Source: www.windpoweringamerica.gov (see previous slide)
Capacity - in peak gigawatts
Ranking State
1901
1 Texas
2 Kansas 952
3 Montana 944
4 Nebraska 918
5 South Dakota 818
6 North Dakota 770
Western
7 Iowa 570 US
8 Wyoming 552
9 Oklahoma 517
10 New Mexico 492
.
15 New York 25.6
25 Maine 11.3
29 Pennsylvania 3.3
27 Vermont 2.9 Eastern
30 New Hampshire 2.1
31 West Virginia 1.9
US
33 Virginia 1.8
34 Maryland 1.5
35 Massachusetts 1.0
50

52. Total for Onshore Eastern Wind Resources
• As estimated by DOE (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% in NY)

53. Effective Onshore Wind Power Capacity
in the entire Eastern US
• NREL data applies to CF=.3
• NREL Estimates Eastern Peak Capacity = 52 GW
• Effective Wind Capacity: .3*52 GW = 15.6 GW
• Current average US consumption = 470 GW
• Potential average onshore Eastern wind
penetration into current US load:
(15.6 GW/470 GW) x 100% = 3.3%
• Long term: Probably less than 2%
• Maximum CO2 reduction: ~ 1%
52

54. These NREAL estimates are likely a gross
over-estimate of onshore wind potential in
the East
Myriad local siting issues were not
included here

55. < 2% CO2
> 100% CO2 Reduction Potential Reduction
Potential
54

56. Renewable Alternatives to Wind?
Really only one serious one for the Eastern US as a
whole: Solar Power
(This is not say that other sources, such as dairy methane
digesters based generation, are not worth doing for
various reasons. Just that when it comes to really serious
greenhouse gas reductions for the electricity sector for
the Eastern US, solar power is the only obvious
renewable that we know can make a major difference).

57. Solar is the Renewable:
• Total Insolation: ~120,000 Trillion Watts
• Total World energy demand: 30 Trillion
Watts
• Current US Primary energy demand:
~3.3 Trillion Watts
• Solar collectors covering 1-2% of the
Sahara would provide all World electrical
demand.

59. Solar Energy Distribution for Montpelier,
VT

60. Photovoltaics

61. 60

62. Typical Grid-Tied “Inverter”
Simple!

63. Energy Storage?
• Economic viability not demonstrated yet:
– But we will know soon: Electric Vehicles are here
• Lithium Ion Batteries?
• Super-Capacitors?
• Back to Hydrogen & Hydrogen Fuel Cells?
• A more or less full transition to intermittent
renewables will eventually require deployment of
larger amounts energy storage. My own
experiences with electric vehicles (see electric
bike slide below) has been good, and I am
optimistic about storage. But nonetheless we
don’t know yet how the economics will develop.
62

64. Chevy Volt: EV with gas back-up
• 35 miles on a charge (16 kWh)
• ~$1.50/gallon equivalent
• Gas generator back-up (up to 375 miles)
63

68. My (solar powered) E-Bike
• 1000 watts
• Cruise control and regenerative braking
• 20 miles on 6 cents of electricity

69. Solar Hot Water: A no-brainer
Water

71. Geothermal Heat Pumps
This is a great option for, along with weatherization of buildings, displacing large
amounts of oil consumption in the Northeast.
70

72. Summary on VT Renewable Energy
Policy Situation
• Vermont’s policies on renewable energy have not been well thought out.
The policies are utility and developer centric, and in terms of dollars
committed have been strongly slanted towards utility-scale wind.
• This situation is greatly aggravated by Vermont allowing utilities to sell
Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) out-of-state for projects supported by
the SPEED Program, which has the effect of fueling development here
which may not be desirable or appropriate, while suppressing much
needed renewable energy development in other states.
• At the same time, support for distributed solar generation, which I
believe is by far the most important source to pursue here and
throughout the region, has been modest and inconsistent.
• An optimal policy would be a greenhouse gas reduction program across
all sectors that takes much more advantage of very cost effective
measures, while simultaneously supporting the steady and sustainable
development of renewable electricity options which are truly
appropriate for Vermont, and also for the region.
• The SPEED Program (the “feed-in tariff”) should be replaced by genuine
Renewable Energy Standard which utilities can meet by purchasing RECS
from homeowners and businesses which generate their own power. 71

73. Optimal Plan for Reduction of Carbon
2010 – 2015 2015 Forward
 Higher efficiency  Continue other measures
Vehicles
 Weatherization  Greatly expand
Photovoltaic transition if
 Energy efficiency
cost has indeed trended
 Solar Hot Water low enough.
 Geothermal Heating
 Plan for, and begin,
Photovoltaic transition
72

74. Further Discussion?
73