[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]



LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

A few more points  

The excellent editorial of Nov. 12 concerning Vermont’s electric utilities made several points that people need to hear, frequently. Vermont Yankee and Hydro Quebec have been and, I assume, will continue to be reliable and clean power sources available to Vermont. They are also more cost-effective than other sources.

The editorial, however, misstated information about the capacity of wind generators. A wind generator has what is called a nameplate or rated capacity, for example, 2 MW. But in terms of actual output, wind generators produce only about 20 to 25 percent of their rated capacity (look at the record for Searsburg), and even that production is intermittent (not only when the wind blows, but at what speed). It is not that they generate power about 35 percent of the time, as the editorial states, but that they generate, on average, only 20 to 25 percent of their rated capacity (0.4 to 0.5 MW), and even that is at unpredictable times and therefore unreliable. What is predictable is that when we need power most, they will generate very little.

The editor’s analogy of the 1200 400-foot wind generators that would be required “to replace the Vernon nuclear power plant” is too simplified. First, that arithmetic is based on a 35 percent capacity factor. At the more likely 25 or 20 percent, the number of generators would be closer to 2000. However, the reality of wind power is not so straightforward as that. Since wind power cannot provide the reliability of either base or peak power, other sources (e.g., nuclear or gas) must be available all the time. No number of wind generators can ever replace Vermont Yankee.

Finally, the editorial rightly decries the $334,000 of taxpayer money spent on a poll to assess what Vermonters prefer as energy choices and suggests that the money could have been saved by taking a good look at what we already have. I applaud that idea. But between the series of workshops held around the state ($146,000) and the “deliberative polling,” the cost (according to the Burlington Free Press) was closer to $500,000. What a waste! Nor should public opinion replace informed public policy decision-making.

Cynthia Barber
Newark, Vt.

11/24/2007

caledonianrecord.com

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

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

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

 Follow: