Vermont utility plans to get 9% of their power from new wind project

[garybeck]

For developer Green Mountain Power, the $150 million wind installation would provide up to 9 percent of its energy supply at a predictable cost. The project also would be a powerful response to legislative pressure for more renewable electricity in utilities’ portfolios.

For the town, one of Vermont’s poorest, the Lowell Mountain project would mean a $400,000 to $535,000 yearly payment from GMP. That’s enough to cover most or all of the town budget and reduce the municipal property tax to near zero.

more: http://solarbus.org/blog/?p=101

[WarKillsChildren]

1. This is Green Patriotism

Making America energy independent and the planet safer.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Imagine how "free green energy" could reduce manufacturing

costs, then the price of products, then a more favorable price for said products over ones that are created using fossil fuels for the energy component of their manufacture.

[madokie]

3. All kinds of benifits to be had by going green

one little step at a time is better than the alternative of staying on fossil and nuclear.

[Travis_0004]

5. Its not free

You have to pay rent on land, and upkeep on the turbines, and there is a finite life span.

Right now wind and solar is more expensive than coal. If it was cheaper than we would be at 100% renewable now, since power company would love to save money.

In the long run it will be cheaper, but it will never be free or even close to free.

[kristopher]

7. Your data is dated

Wind is competitive with coal and solar is competitive with natural gas for peak power. Of course it isn't free, but it is attracting money from utilities that 10 years ago would have gone to coal.

Nuclear is the most expensive option and thus incurs significant opportunity costs. That means we get more electricity if we spend the same amount of money on renewables (including solar) than if we spend it on nuclear. We also avoid producing wastes that we have no means of dealing with.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[PHIMG]

8. Thanks for making those great points, and let me add

Factor in the externalities of treating millions of kids with asthma caused by coal and gas fired power plants and "cheap" fossil fuel power is anything but.

I live in an area with some of the highest asthma rates in the city from our gas fired power plants. We'd much rather have wind turbines I tell you that!

[Kolesar]

9. Polite post...you deserve a candy heart

[Double T]

4. Wind turbines are great.

Glad to see a poor small town will no longer be financially strapped. The USA must install tens of thousands more wind turbines in the next few years. NEW Nuclear power plants are an absolute must to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and to recharge the batteries on millions of electric cars.

[Duckhunter935]

6. oh nooos, but what about the birds