[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

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


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Deerfield wind project would be monstrous  

Credit:  Tyler Resch | Times Argus | 4 November 2012 | www.timesargus.com ~~

Over recent centuries, it is clear that humans have been using petroleum-based products to such an extent that the residues are having negative long-range impacts on climate. Indeed, there are limits to how much fossil-based material the earth’s crust is going to be able to provide. The energies of the future that we humans use on this earth will be derived from more natural sources such as wind, sun, geothermal or biomass. Therefore it is imperative to favor the development of sources of energy that are not dependent on fossil fuels.

Here in Vermont, Searsburg Mountain was the only active wind-energy plant in the state for several years. When an expansion of this facility was first proposed, I was all for it. The 11 towers that Green Mountain Power installed there more than a decade ago to generate six megawatts have seemed successful and done little or no harm to habitat or anyone. This project is on private land, the former camp property of a Bennington lawyer.

Plans to expand along ridges to the northwest and southeast seemed logical enough, though that land is public, part of the Green Mountain National Forest. And that fact has produced lengthy bureaucratic delays because no wind-generating facilities had ever been built on National Forest land, so new policies had to be evolved.

But as specific plans have developed, by a Spanish utility called Iberdrola, serious complications have arisen, and the whole scheme has mushroomed to such proportions that I can only think of the result as monstrous and very destructive.

Think of the Bennington Battle Monument, which is 306 feet high, historically the tallest structure in the rural state of Vermont. Set on a slight promontory in the village of Old Bennington, the monument can be seen from several miles away, and indeed has become a symbol of legendary significance, celebrating a key victory in the American Revolution. Its extraordinary height attracts 50,000 tourist visitors each year to this state historic site.

The principal problem with the Iberdrola proposal is that it involves not one but 15 structures, each of which is far higher than the Bennington Battle Monument: 389 feet high to the tip of the blade. These would be not on a promontory but on top of a prominent ridgeline and would be seen for many miles and lighted at night for aviation safety. Such a series of structures will be nothing like Vermont has ever known. It’s a matter of scale. This is not just a commercial application, it is industrial, really mega-industrial.

There are several other serious concerns about this proposed project.

The 15 nearly 400-foot towers would arise adjacent to a National Forest wilderness zone, the 5,020-acre George D. Aiken Wilderness. Congress does not designate official wilderness zones for trivial reasons. In this case, the Aiken Wilderness adjoins thousands more acres of wild and uninhabited territory, consisting largely of Green Mountain National Forest and also the lands originally taken by the New England Power Co. for hydroelectric purposes, now owned by TransCanada Hydro, which operates the Somerset and Harriman reservoirs. This huge region, also known as Lamb Brook, with its tall unnamed mountains, deep valleys and opportunities for undisturbed solitude or recreation, is the largest and best wild territory in southern Vermont and some of the best black bear habitat anywhere. Its integrity ought to be preserved.

Those who oppose the Deerfield wind project point out that the Forest Service has violated the National Environmental Protection Act by failing to perform an analysis of the impact the wind project will have on the Aiken Wilderness, and that the noise and persistent massive visual presence of the 15 huge towers will destroy the wilderness attributes of the Aiken Wilderness.

In addition, some less than ethical procedures were followed during development of the plans for this industrial wind project. The Forest Service has compromised the integrity of the National Environmental Protection Act by selecting a person to draft its environmental impact statement (EIS) who was also working for the project developer, Iberdrola. Those who read the project’s applications will find six relatively lengthy instances of plagiarism where the words of the developer’s agent were used again verbatim for the EIS. This is a disturbing conflict of interest.

Another important objection is the impact of the huge whirling blades on bats, especially in view of the known massive mortality in recent years because of white-nose syndrome. The developers played down bat deaths based on a 2009 study that estimated 1 million bats had been killed in the Northeast by the white-nose syndrome. But new evidence in January 2012 by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service concludes that 5.7 million to 6.7 million bats have died since 2009 and that white-nose syndrome has spread to 19 states and four Canadian provinces. Bats are vital to the natural ecology of any region.

I have decided to oppose this destructive project by joining with the litigation of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, an organization known for its solidity and attention to fundamental values.

If all these concerns about the Deerfield wind project were widely realized by all Vermonters, it is clear to me that they would demand serious redesign or relocation.

Tyler Resch of Shaftsbury is research librarian at the Bennington Museum, journalist, author of a dozen books on regional history, and a former selectman.

Source:  Tyler Resch | Times Argus | 4 November 2012 | www.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 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 $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.