A few days ago I wrote here how green activists are (suddenly) horrified that the state of Vermont and Green Mountain Electric Company are defiling pristine mountain ridge-lines to make way for Big Wind, and thus are now protesting (and no longer supporting) wind parks in northeastern Vermont.
Scott Wheeler interviews 2 Big Wind protesters, who propose solar energy as a way to keep prices down in Vermont.
One of the leaders of the protest is Steve Wright, who with Stacey Burke, are shown being interviewed by Scott Wheeler at a sort of homemade TV station. There are some interesting parts that show how the green mind ticks (not very well, you’ll soon see).
Once a Big Wind fan, now an opponent!
At the 8:20 mark note how Burke says she was once enthusiastic about wind power on mountain tops, and now admits she had been too ignorant to know better.
When I first heard about the wind towers going up on Lowell Mountain, I actually thought, oh wow, how cool is that? […] Because I was ignorant of what was really gonna happen.”
Don’t you just love people who can’t make up their minds?
Intermittent wind can’t replace nuclear power, but solar can!
At the 13:00 minute mark, anti-Big Wind activist Wright is asked if wind towers could replace Vermont Yankee Nuclear power plant. His answer:
“The answer is no with a big exclamation point. There is no relationship between whether Vermont Yankee lives or dies and the placement of industrial wind turbines on Vermont ridge-lines, especially with Lowell Mountain. And the reason is that Vermont Yankee represents a kind of power source that is referred to as base load. That means it’s running all the time. It is always available. The wind doesn’t always blow, so therefore the turbine installations are referred to as intermittent power. Intermittent power cannot replace baseload power.”
So far so good. He’s right about that. But then listen to what he says just seconds later at the 14:55 mark after being asked how we could supply the GROWING need for power:
Our answer for the long term with Vermont, is to invest seriously in two approaches. One is solar, and two is aggressive action on efficiency. We can especially reduce the use of home heating fuels in that situation, thereby reducing our carbon emissions…”
Intermittent solar can work, but intermittent wind cannot? Who is he trying to kid? Solar, like wind, is also an intermittent supply. And it’s a heck of a lot more expensive. Maybe the sun shines at night in Vermont.
Wind energy is too expensive…the solution is solar!
At the 18:55 mark Wright is asked about the high costs of wind power for consumers: Listen to his ridiculous answer:
Actually what we’re trying to do is to save Vermomt rate payers money by having a more effective energy planning process and an effective long term energy plan in Vermont. The rates that will emerge, imposed on Vermonters, on customers, from wind projects are gonna be higher than basically anything we have functional right now. So the ratepayers are gonna get hosed by the high prices, high electrical prices the more aggressively wind energy is installed.”
Yet he above proposes solar energy, which is several times more expensive than wind! He proposes using solar energy to rescue Vermonters from high electricty prices. I wonder if he takes a hammer to his head to cure a headache.
I probably should be grateful for Wright and the protests, which do seem to be having an effect. But what Wright proposes instead of wind is much worse. Solar power? Get real.
Greens grateful that FOX NEWS covered the protests!
Finally at the 25:00 minute mark, they discuss media coverage of the Big Wind protests. The greens give kudos to (conservative) FOX 44…the only statewide media outlet to be present at a protest. Now I bet that’s something they didn’t expect.
Just more greens that did not do their due diligence and see what, where, how and when the wind parks they so wanted would do to their state. More unintended consequences. Just where does wright think the solar panels will go for it to be viable enough to have any effect in the winter.
[…] Big Wind Protesters/Greens In Vermont Show Comical Side Of Their Thinking – Blind Leading The Blin…. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]
Vermont Yankee Nuclear has an output of 620 MW. For wind turbines to produce that amount of power, we would need 1800 x 1.5MW =2400MW operating at 25% average output. And of course, that is forgetting about energy lost due to ramping of fossil plants and the power those 1800 turbines will suck from the grid to operate(including spinning to prevent deformation of blades during extended period of no wind) and keep warm in the winter.
So how is “green” Vt doing so far? Wikipedia say they have 46 MW operational and 63 proposed. That 100 MW will produce equivalent 25MW equivalent at 25% output, which would only be achieved on the ridges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Vermont
They are 100MW/2400MW or about 2.4% toward their “coal” and already they are crying about what they’ve done! Then, since the output of a nuclear plant is not that variable, they will have to use Nat Gas to follow the wind around, meaning they are going to increase their carbon footprint from the almost zero carbon footprint of Yankee Nuclear to significant carbon emissions (but less than coal) of the nat gas plants. And to obtain the nat gas the will have to buy the gas from a number? of nat gas well, which have their own environmental problems.
And solar, I’ll spare myslef the calculations of how many acres of solar panels it would take in Vt to produce 600Mw, but it is likely many thousands!
This is the stupidity that we find ourselves in!
oops. 100MW/2400MW is 4%, not 2.4%. Yipee, they are a little more ahead of goal that I first wrote. That’s the trouble with figuring this stuff out, you have to know basic math, and greenies/libs are notoriously terrible at math.
After they have squandered more money on solar, they can finally top it off by doing offshore wind next, which is more expensive again.
Maybe they have a Big Renewables mole who chases them from one expensive solution to a more expensive solution? Meaning, they are the Usful Idiot front group?
Ah ha ha 03:00 “And I’ve BEEN a bureaucrat. I don’t like speaking ill of bureaucrats. But in this case…”
Okay, that explains why he wants inputs on decisions without understanding anything.
Well, at least thay recognise that the nuclear plant will not be replaceanle with either wind or solar. So why do them> uh, it feels good…
And if Yankee has to close, they will be on the front lines against any new nuclear or “fossil” electricity plant.
I am reminded that in England a new government-susidised biomass electricity plant is being built. It will be mostly fueled by that well-known “renewable” fuel, wood. But there is a problem: the British Isles have not had an adequate supply of wood since the time of Henry VIII – that is how their coal industry got started – so the wood will have to be imported from South America.
It is already in use and they are already gaining new insights into the business of burning large amounts of biomass.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/biofuels/9108965/Firefighters-tackle-blaze-at-worlds-biggest-biomass-power-station.html