http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-smolker/vermont-the-little-state-_b_4858004.html
Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Rachel Smolker Become a fan
Co-director, Biofuelwatch
Vermont: The Little State That Could?
Posted: 02/26/2014 9:01 am EST Updated: 02/26/2014 12:45 pm EST
MORE: Vermont Energy Natural Gas Climate Change Biomass Enbridge Pipeline Green News
I am fortunate to live in the tiny state of Vermont, a state that has boldly led the way on so many issues it's hard to list them all. We were the first to pass same-sex marriage and to take serious steps to make health care accessible to all. We outlawed billboards altogether and passed Act 250, a sophisticated mechanism for protecting the landscape against wanton development. That, in fact, led Vermont to be the last state in the nation to be colonized by Walmart. We were also the first state to ban fracking. We fought Entergy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission long and hard demanding they shut down the dangerously rickety Yankee Nuclear power plant. Recently, at long last and against all odds, we "won" a semi-victory on that front.
Now Vermont has taken another bold step: denying permission for development of a dirty biomass burning facility, deceptively referred to as the North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project.
That facility would have burned 450,000 tons of wood annually, harvested from the "Green Mountain" state's just barely recovering forests. The state's Public Service Board is required to review big development proposals and issue (or deny) a "certificate of public good" (CPG) in order to proceed with the project. In this case, the decision was that the facility was not a public good. Many biomass facilities around the country and the world have not won permits, or have been abandoned en route to development due to economic concerns. But Vermont may be the first to deny a permit on the basis of sound reasoning.
The Springfield facility was denied on the basis that cutting and burning trees could not be assumed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Public Service Board commented that "the evidentiary record supports a finding that the Project would release as much as 448,714 tons of CO2e per year, and that sequestration of those greenhouse gases would not occur until future years, possibly not for decades, and would not occur at all in the case of forest-regeneration failures." They also concluded that it would be more cost effective to do energy conservation, efficiency and load-management than to burn 450,000 trees a year for a pittance of electricity.
Vermont already has the wood-burning McNeil Generating Station (noted as the largest polluter in Vermont), and the Ryegate biomass facility. Another new biomass facility is proposed and pending for the town of Fairhaven. These facilities, like others of their ilk, release about 50 percent more CO2 per unit of energy generated than a coal burning facility, and far more particulates (increasingly recognized as a cause of all manner of illnesses and diseases). And these facilities are shockingly inefficient, generally only around 25-35 percent efficiency, which means energy from one out of every 3 or 4 trees is captured while all must be cut and transported and all contribute to pollution and greenhouse gases. Vermont, the "green" state already ranks among tops in the nation for asthma and suffers the consequences of a veritable army of dirty residential wood heating stoves running at full throttle for half the year.
Burning up forests in inefficient facilities for a tiny bit of electricity is hardly "green" and certainly not clean. Besides, without billboards, how would we conceal the clear cuts and denuded landscapes from view of tourists, who come specifically to see the trees: a mainstay of the state's economy?
It is inspiring to see common sense dictate energy policies for a change. I can't help thinking of Vermont as "the little state that could." Big industries and developers roar down the tracks and flash their wares, assuring us our concerns are trivial and our values old-fashioned, or that we are too tiny to matter. But citizens in the state do not so easily roll belly up. As Gayle Coger Morabito, an activist involved in opposing the Springfield biomass facility stated: "We are reassured that our voices can be heard. It's hard work, but patience does pay off. We certainly have the facts and figures our side."
However, there seems to be a never-ending parade of challenges that keep parading down the tracks. Vermont Gas (owned by the Canadian Gaz Metro which transports gas from Alberta to Quebec and onwards) wants to extend a pipeline that would transport fracked gas across the state, under Lake Champlain to eventually supply the Ticonderoga pulp mill in New York State. Unfortunately, the Public Service Board, did recently grant a certificate of public good for the gas pipeline in spite of an outpouring of public opposition. Apparently transporting fracked gas through the state is a "public good" even if fracking in the state is deemed illegal. Resistance to that pipeline will likely advance to another level.
Meanwhile, Enbridge (part owner of GazMetro) is pushing yet another pipeline to transport tar sands oil across the northern edge of the state en route to Portland Maine for export. So far twenty-nine towns in the state have already passed resolutions opposing that one.
Even opposition to large-scale wind developments is raging in the state.
Vermont's senate just passed a bill that would enhance public participation in decision making about the siting of energy projects. Public participation is exactly what is needed.
So what will be the future of the little state that could? Vermont could shine a leading light on the path to a liveable future, focusing on reducing demand for energy rather than embracing the doctrine of endless growth, and looking towards small-scale, non-combustion renewables to fill essential needs. The state is already positioning itself at the forefront of the local food movement, and has long prioritized the protection of its landscape. Vermonters should be taking note of a nationwide and global trend: for better or worse, farm lands have become a hot commodity for investors seeking solid, reliable ways to use their money. Why? Because in the chaotic future we face, where environment and economy are on a collision course, food and water will be most assuredly paramount. Forests and healthy ecosystems will be our best defense against the ravages of a warming and polluted world.
A glance back through history reveals that the collapse of great civilizations has been directly linked to over-exploitation of natural resources. One can only hope that Homo sapiens can finally learn from that history. Vermont's decision not to stumble any further down the path towards burning its trees for electricity is a tiny but significant step in the right direction. If we can keep the pipelines and extraction industries out and focus on learning to live together and in balance, perhaps "the little state that could" will manage to deliver toys and treats to the children of the future after all.
Promoted Content by Taboola
Here we go again. People parading their ignorance for all to see. Usually it was the former professor of anatomy dishing up rhetoric,, now we have a biologist. Who needs real experts when anyone can learn about energy conversion from the University of the Internet?
ReplyDeleteNice to see her holding up coal as a shining example of what we should be burning. (cough cough)
I think her mention of coal was a matter of 'holding up' dirt to dramatize more dirt. Carbon dioxide is an immediate climate change actor. Elementary carbon is a sequestered climate changer, i.e. a 'changer-in-waiting - besides being a famous messer-with-lungs.
DeleteI get the impression that you are trying to manipulate the facts in order to manipulate the public, Jean. The plutocrats are paying professional spin-doctors big money for that.
Not at all Bob. I"m just voicing my opinion like most folks who post here.
DeleteCO2 isn't all that immediate. More long-term. As a matter of fact, even if humans were to stop all CO2 emissions right now it wouldn't do jack. Please see chapter 20
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
And those of you touting solar, solar, solar, might want to investigate how those solar panels are made. See, we don't mine silicon nuggets like we do gold. It takes a LOT of energy to take those oxygen atoms away from the silicon. And it takes a LOT of energy to grow those crystals and keep those clean rooms clean. Ever wonder where that energy comes from? I'll give you a hint - solar panel production has moved to China. To me this is like paying $25 for a $20 bill. Maybe if you're lucky that panel will recover the same amount of energy from the sun that was required to manufacture the thing in the fist place. And as far as the source of the energy to manufacture it, it seems to be don't ask don't tell.
This reminds me of people who go to the grocery store to buy milk and don't get the connection about manure being somehow involved.
Yeah, I never knew about the waste coming out of coal plants until I had the opportunity to visit many in 2009 after the 2008 failure of a coal ash pond in Tennessee....LOTS of particulate matter, collected and stored on side for eternity....just keeps building up with nowhere to go.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately there are groups against every one of our viable energy resources, so if we listened to everyone, the lights would go out. If we want our electronic gadgets and the easy lifestyle we have grown accustom to, we have to accept some form of power generation. Someone will have it in their backyard. I ask again, for the naysayers to propose an acceptable solution to our energy needs. (Somehow no one has ever responded when I've asked in a comment on past threads...)
LENR
DeleteLENR is not not discussed in Public Forums. There is light - or at least some sort of glimmer - at the end of that tunnel, but nothing to focus attention. There are at least two ways to fix that problem:
Delete1) A 'mascot'. Some cute cartoon beastie named... Leonard?
2) A vociferous opposition. Could be hard to get started, but if the Big Energy plutocrats feel their grip slipping, they would kick in a LOT of psychoprop.
LENR stands for "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction", another name for the cold fusion discovery made by Fleischmann-Pons 25 years ago. It received wide media attention at the time and raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy. Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available but without success so cold fusion ended up being widely discredited.
DeleteThe funny thing is after a huge public relations effort from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to discredit the discovery years ago, there now seems to be a working apparatus on campus. MIT Electrical Engineering Professor Peter Hagelstein even teaches an Independent Activities Period course titled “Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments”, complete with a demonstration unit that puts out 10 times more energy than the input energy needed to run it . It is some kind of a nuclear reaction but totally safe, the process does not require or produce radioactive material. MIT has re-named cold fusion again, they are calling it LANR for "Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions". Cold Fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) or Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR), labels matter not. The technology is getting on its feet.
In late March there will be a CF/LANR weekend conference at MIT featuring 24 speakers. Here's your invitation: "http://world.std.com/~mica/2014colloq.html Only $70 to attend, if you pre-register.
yes, and this independent work of Hagelstein and swartz is only a tiny event compared to many lab works (by ENEA, SRI, Navy,Toyota, Mitsubishi), and some industrial works (now Cherokee fund/Rossi, Brillouin/SRI, Lenusco, Defkalion).
Deletethese summaries give a vew of LENr landscape from a business point of view
http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/
http://www.lenrftw.net/home/are-low-energy-nuclear-reaction-devices-real
LENR is discussed in many places, but censorship is huge... not a conspiracy of oil, but a conspiracy of cowards and academic frightened of ridicule.
If you read the real science and history of cold fusion fiasco in the 90s you realise that many students fallacies get popularized by few outspoken nuclear physicist able to manipulate media and authorities.
http://www.lenrnews.eu/open-answer-about-lenrcold-fusion-to-a-consensual-anti-scientific-science-apologist/
based on Beaudette book, you sure have to read to build an informed opinion.
NASA has also evaluated LENR and publicly stated that it seems to work, and that they are developing plans to use it.
DeleteI've been watching this field since Fleisher-Pons because of its potential value and stubborn refusal to die. For years a very few labs in the world continued to work on a phenomena where energy was inexplicably coming from somewhere, until the process became repeatable enough to generate some new science from observations. A problem along the way is that one of the main pioneers, Andrea Rossi, is seen by many as untrustworthy, and he's been closed-handed with the work his company has done. However, at this point there are several related and reasonable scientific theories for how the process works, and commercial devices are starting to appear. Nobody has appeared with a debunk.
The projection - possibly overoptimistic, possibly not - is that LENR devices could power individual homes and factories, and potentially vehicles as well, with no pollution, at significantly lower cost than at present. An epic game-changer, one the world needs, and soon.
Note - there are reports that oil companies seem to be, behind the scenes, manipulating their holdings to hedge for this scenario.
There is a lot of info about LENR on the internet (including links from this site).
Solar, wind and water; solar, wind, and water; solar, wind and. . . But you get the idea.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the woman spearheading the effort, microhydro electrical generation by itself would be sufficient to power all of Vermont's needs.
Anybody who's opposed to these is unaware of the far worse drawbacks of nuclear, biomass, and fossil fuel use for electrical generation. And I think NOSAG would be in favor of s/w/w...
But chuck solar and wind projects all over the state are being blocked by NIMBYS. See Charlotte Solar Farm and Lowell Mountain.
DeleteRenewable energy is awesome, until you have to put it somewhere.
Maybe we should build water wheels along the river, water would turn the wheels giving energy to run equipment in the building. Oh wait that was tired. In the summer time I cool my home with wind.
DeleteSo Chuck good news form the woman spearheading the micro hydro electrical. When do we switch over? That's what I thought. Do I oppose developing alterative power, of course not. In the meantime we have what we have, demonizing it will not diminish use. To be a productive economy we have need energy to do business. We cry about China, well China builds business while we find ways to tear down. A major part of the American economy is trucking. Semi's burn fuel yet there is no alternative for door to door delivery. (That thing on Bewitched of twitching your nose doesn't really work.) Will wind and solar provide enough energy to power that very important part of our economy?
Seems to me there has been a lot of good money wasted on bad investments (you could buy boxes and boxes of cowboy boots) creating non-fuel products that fail. It's hard not to believe it's crony capitalism. I think if we where serious about alternative energies, we'd develop the alternative source, then start creating the products it will support. Seems to me we're doing things ass-backwards right now.
Exactly! Not to mention the fact that the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow...you need something that can work for base load at all times. Yes Hydro works, but try building new hydro facilities...now I'm all for adding hydro to existing reservoirs...but you can't build new reservoirs. And unfortunately the micro hydro technology is not ready for mainstream, economical consumption. I know someone who has taken a sabbatical to try to refine available techs to make it more affordable and functional in low head situations. but we're still talking research stage.
DeleteThere are a number of factors that play into resistance to developing necessary alternatives for energy sources.
DeleteOne is Big Oil. Just as Big Steel used to rule American politics, so Big Oil is still in its heyday. How to cut them down to size? Eliminate the tax breaks. Transfer the external costs that society is paying to the fossil fuel producers, and suddenly even exploring for new oil (and new coal mines) doesn't break even.
Another is the cheapness of energy. Make the current cost of energy skyrocket and when people start screaming, the government will finally move to expand the potential of wind, solar and water sourced energy. Eliminating the tax breaks for the fossil fuel companies will help drive prices up.
NIMBY's will come around as they find out that those ridge lines full of wind turbines mean markedly lower power bills.
But it's just not going to be pretty to make it all happen.
This "Big Oil" you're talking about is not necessarily about energy. Oil is also used in most (if not all) plastic products so as long as people continue to purchase plastic products we'll always have "Big Oil" around. Even if only 3% of oil is used for plastics.
Delete"when people start screaming, the government will finally move"
Why must the government always be the solutions for you chuck? Let free enterprise be the catalyst, especially after we see how inept our current governments are (Local and Federal).
7:20, you're absolutely right about the other products that come from oil-- one hopes that as petroleum is used less for energy production, it will still be available for materials production (e.g., it's in our shampoos). And of course when the oil runs out, so does our shampoo as we know it.
DeleteWhen you don't have government mediating the distribution of resources, what you get is the men with guns mediating them. If you're in favor of feudalism, you should have no problem with that, but I believe in rule by right, not by might.
Here is an idea. Dump the "Burning of something" idea to generate power. Again the a possible energy solution is right beside you.
ReplyDeleteHow many power generating turbines are on the river in Springfield ?
I heard something like seven and most likely old. Here is good project, update them, build some more if possible. Good clean energy right at your feet.
The municipal hydro idea was attempted in the 1970's. Springfield selectman Chester Scott pushed hard for it, and a lot of local people were in favor of it, due to the then recent "energy shortage" and as an alternative to nuclear energy, and because of the reasons you cite.. Plans were developed and submitted, the process went quite a ways, but it didn't pass. CVPS was against it, some property owners didn't want to lose their land for the project, some people disagreed on monetary numbers. It was debated long and loud. Maybe those plans are still available somewhere, so some smart people (like NOSAG) could re-evaluate them within our current situation.
DeleteThat hydro project was a pretty lively affair, since it involved displacing residents all the way up to Cavendish. There were not very many non-Springfielders in favor of it. Meanwhile, the hydro dams along the river in Springfield were bought privately. I never figured out why the town didn't start with those first instead of trying to develop its own Tennessee Valley Authority.
DeleteAt the time, I heard loud complaints by townspeople in both Cavendish and Weathersfield - and their officials - that the dam and its output would be the property of Springfield, but all of the flooding and disruption would occur in Weathersfield and Cavendish. There was also the little detail that route 131 would be submerged, and would have to be rerouted - at considerable expense, given the terrain. If there was ever any possibility of realizing the project, the way Springfield dealt with her neighbors killed it.
DeleteOf COURSE NoSag is in favor of solar, the toxic waste that results from solar panel production is in China, not here.
ReplyDeleteSadly, the opening paragraph loses most (if not all) of her credibility. Vermont wasn't the first state to allow same-sex marriage, Mass was (in 2003). Vermont had "civil unions" - not the same thing - and didn't have same-sex marriage until 2009. Passing Act 250 had zero effect on WalMart - they didn't come to Vermont because there was little reason to. We are a small, rural state. Until other more lucrative locations (Mass, NY) were built out, VT was not a viable target for a WalMart location. As for "ban fracking" - well, that's just silly. VT isn't a natural gas producer, so not doing a specific type of something you are already not doing is kinda pointless. Finally, give the age and condition of VT Yankee, the NRC was very likely to not issue a renewed license to Entergy anyway. Yes, there was a lot of hype and public debate, but the end result (continuing on the current license, no renewal) was the likely outcome regardless.
ReplyDeleteWater freezes, wind is not always present and the sun is available approx 12-15 hours a day.
ReplyDeleteRunning water does not freeze.
Deletethey were 8 power dams in Springfield not including the one they removed in the name of progress
ReplyDeleteOnce oil came in as a cheap fuel, everything else except coal was discounted. I always thought that when gas got up to $4 a gallon, people would get serious about energy alternatives. I'm still wrong.
DeleteIt's called capitalism chuck, $4 is considered acceptable by many.
DeleteWell, capitalism coupled with addiction. Back in the first oil shock (1972), a Barron's writer said that oil was to Americans as opium was to the Chinese. It's still true.
DeleteIt's not called addiction, it's called fueling our cars to go to our jobs. Jeeze chuck.. are you that close minded?
DeleteThanks for not using "anonymous"!
DeleteHow far will you walk before choosing to use your car, LR? When I have a car, I will drive from the library to the post office. I view that as a convenience-based addiction. I don't think about it; I just do it so regularly I am pretty much enslaved to it. Which means my walking limit is about five hundred feet.
That's your choice chuck, not an addiction. The choice as to how far I walks over driving is just that, a choice. It varies depending on the weather, how I feel, etc...
DeleteAgain, not addicted to oil. As one poster stated, it's part of our infrastructure.
Addicted to oil???? HAHAHAH, man that kills me.
ReplyDeleteIt's like saying I'm addicted to running water because I need to shower, instead of just standing out in the rain. As for the Barron's writer, Oil is part of our infrastructure and factors into many aspects of our life, opium is not. To compare the requirement and impact of the two shows lack of common sense and logic on the part of the original author (or any that agree).
And how far will you walk before choosing to drive?
DeleteIt doesn't matter how far someone is willing to walk before they drive, it's irrelevant to the abstract point your failing to make.
DeleteLoyal Democrat-- Throughout the recorded history of the human race, cities expanded to the point where a citizen could reach the urban center within an hour. Those on foot tended to be packed in, those with horses and carriages lived farther out, and when trams, buses and trains came along, people lived still farther away. The automobile and the superhighway made it possible for the evolution of the megalopolis. Among the prices we pay is our enslavement to oil for gasoline and diesel fuel.
DeleteSpringfield ought, by historical standards, have a population willing to walk three miles from their residence to the center of town, or roughly the distance from North Springfield to downtown. We don't, because we like the convenience of spending ten minutes on the trip rather than an hour. Most of us don't even like the inconvenience of extending that time to twenty minutes on a bus. For the convenience we prefer we pay by being enslaved to gasoline.
And for the longer trips, such as to work at the VA hospital or shop in West Lebanon, sometimes we can drive , but sometimes we have to drive.
When we have no choice but to drive, we are at the mercy of those who control the gasoline supply. Who is going to protect us against any price-fixing or contrived shortages?
When we have a choice to use a more efficient form of transportation but do not use it, then we have to consider whether we aren't victims of some form of addiction.
It has been said that thanks to the availability of energy, every American has the equivalent of 80 slaves working for her/him. How willing are we to get along with fewer? If we aren't, are we addicted? Are we enslaved? Just asking.
It's not just about "convenience" chuck, it's about practicality.
DeleteWhen presented with various choices most will chose the most practical, sensible and functional to fit their needs at that moment. I could take a taxi into town instead of my car but it's much more expensive. I could walk into town but it's a 6.5 mile trek. All of these are choices I'm presented with but neither are practical or functional. As far as being at the mercy of the gas supply is as illogical as saying we're at the mercy of supermarket for our diets. Please chuck, try to open your mind to a more realistic plateau. Not everyone is pigeon-holed into your closed world.
How high would the price of gas get before you'd stop buying it? State it in a percentage of your household income. Right now I am paying 8 percent of my household income per month for gas. Sixteen percent would definitely be a cutoff, maybe lower.
DeleteSixteen percent is YOUR CHOICE. My choice is irrelevant.
DeleteOnly if it's a choice; if it's not a choice, it's either slavery or addiction. What do you know about denial?
DeleteChuck, sounds like you're a "slave" to your gas provider. For those of us who are not overly concerned with the price we get along just fine. Poor chuck... stuck in your own little world once again,.
Deletechuck, it's not slavery or denial for me, it's called indifference. I have a tendency to focus on more important issues instead of making up "slavery" and "addiction" excuses for how I live my life. It must be sad for you chuck, everyday you close yourself off from reality is another day without happiness.
DeleteLeslie, though I don't know Chuck Gregory personally, we share that "little" world, and so does everyone I associate with. The price of gas, oil, and propane (and the associated problems and politics) are concerning both in terms of getting through this week and in long-term decisions. Thank you for not using "anonymous".
DeletePhilip, my issue was not the price of oil, it's with chucks characterization of "slavery" and "addiction" to it. If one is so emotionally tied to a commodity then I have great concerns for their mental status.
DeleteSo now it seems that another post was too brusque. The evidence is mounting that the blogger is a female Democrat. More info to come.
ReplyDelete:D
In the old photographs of Springfield you see trolleys. Did those trolleys connect with North Springfield? Had the large hydro electric project been built, how large would the lake have been?
ReplyDeleteNo - from the flood control dam to, eventually, approximately the Cavendish sewage treatment plant. In the valley just west of Amsden it would have been fairly deep.
Delete