Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (5889)	5/18/2007 7:09:13 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24245

Water: Vermont's answer to energy crisis Published: Thursday, May 17, 2007 By Sandy Wilbur A lot of people in Vermont don't want nuclear power -- even if it doesn't emit carbon dioxide and it provides our cheapest reliable electricity -- and want it closed in 2012. But if we successfully close Vermont Yankee, both carbon dioxide emissions and electric rates will go up. It is being proposed that industrial wind farms can fill the gap created when the Vermont Yankee contract, which provides a third of our electricity, ends in 2012. Although industrial wind farms have a place in our energy future, wind can never provide for that gap because it doesn't always blow. Instead, Vermont would have to build more natural gas generating units to back up the wind, causing more carbon dioxide to be emitted in Vermont. That seems to conflict with the Legislature's attempt to deal with global warming, the Legislature's interest in protecting Vermont ratepayers, and existing statutes that protect Vermont high-elevation ecosystems. But there is an answer for Vermont's energy future, with or without nuclear energy, and it would help keep Vermont the number one least polluting state in the country and the sixth most desirable tourist location in the world. The answer is hydropower. Hydro Quebec has 35,000 megawatts of hydropower. We need only 1,000 megawatts in Vermont, a drop in a mighty big bucket. It doesn't emit carbon dioxide, it is renewable (as all hydro is regardless of the size), and it is reliable 24/7. Industrial wind will not make Vermont energy independent, nor will it keep the money earned by out-of-state developers and their investors in the state. If Renewable Energy Credits are sold out of state, as is proposed, wind farms in Vermont could actually help carbon dioxide emitting facilities in Massachusetts and Connecticut continue to pollute. Industrial wind can be a valuable resource when sited correctly. But it has caused controversy in many of the proposed locations in Vermont because developers do not share the same concerns and dedication to stewardship of the land that many Vermonters do. If we are serious about combating global warming, we need to focus on the causes of carbon dioxide emissions, our heating and transportation, not on an electric system that is already cleaner than anywhere else in the country. We in the Northeast are fortunate indeed to be able to use water as an electric generating source. There are many important headwaters that supply our rivers and wildlife habitat and begin on our ridgelines. Compromising our protected areas above 2,500 feet for any form of development could be a slippery slope, and a lot of mud can be washed down our mountains if Vermont doesn't get this right. Hydro Quebec, along with sound efficiency and conservation practices, offers us, right now, our best option for our future electric needs. It would also provide Vermont the time to explore community-based power solutions that are decided by and for Vermonters. And that public discussion, where everyone is invested in the outcome, could be a fertile ground for the discovery of new and better ways to power our electric needs, reduce our heating with new efficiencies, and conserve our energy and natural resources. Sandy Wilbur lives in South Londonderry. burlingtonfreepress.com