LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME

[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]



Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Wind is not the energy answer 

Around Halloween, Leila LaRosa, the local face for UPC Vermont Wind, sent a letter to Sheffield and Sutton residents. The letter attempted to refute worries about industrializating otherwise protected ridges and assert that the project’s value is worth the sacrifice.

“They … ARE effective and they DO reduce our dependence on oil, gas and fossil fuels,” LaRosa wrote.

The only measure of success the industry presents, however, is that they are built. They do not show that wind energy on the grid actually reduces the use of other fuels. This is not surprising, because the variable, intermittent, and unpredictable wind energy only makes the rest of the grid work harder to balance it.

The letter brings up taxpayer subsidies, citing (incorrectly) only one, the 1.9-cent per kWh production tax credit. There are also five-year double-declining accelerated depreciation, and other federal and state breaks that can cover 75 perent of the developer’s costs.

On health problems from low-frequency noise, the letter is exactly backwards. As the scientific community looks into it, the U.K. Noise Association and the French Academy of Medicine recommend a one-mile setback from any residence.

Even as she denies negative impacts, LaRosa tries to divert attention to the undisputed problems with coal and nuclear. But it is a wind facility proposed for Sheffield and Sutton, and wind energy does not reduce the use of those other sources. It is not a choice between wind and something worse.

Wind only adds more negatives, and none are reduced.

Eric Rosenbloom

National Wind Watch

East Hardwick

timesargus.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share


News Watch Home

Get the Facts
CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky