Frank Posts

Ross Perot coined the phrase “giant sucking sound” in the Presidential debates of 1998. He was talking about the jobs he (correctly) predicted that would leave the United States in the search for cheaper labor if we passed NAFTA. Today’s giant sucking sound is the $25 billion not going into our economy if Congress doesn’t pass an extension of the federal supplemental unemployment insurance for those facing long-term joblessness due to the Great Recession.

I feel moved to write a companion piece to Bring on the turbines by jvwalt  posted on the GMD on 11-August-2012.  First I'll tell you that I live in Windham and we are being targeted for a multi-wind turbine enterprise for the second time. I'm also a member of Windham's selectboard and own property abutting the proposed site. I also have a wind turbine and solar panels and was a passive supporter of the initial effort that was to be sited on Glebe Mountain just west of my house. I would have seen and heard those more than just about anyone, but felt that I'd take one for the team and not oppose the project. The project was canceled but I maintained an interest in wind turbines since I had one. I kept track of how much power mine generated and also became a better observer of wind. The turbine does give problems from time to time (lightening stuck once and iced up twice) and has been a disappointment as to the amount of electricity produced. Right now I estimate that in only 59 more years it will have paid for itself. I'm a supporter of renewable energy, but my own personal experience with wind in Windham is disappointing.

Now Windham is being targeted for a second time on a different site. The proposed site this time is attractive to the wind developer (Iberdrola) for two main reasons: 1. The proposed site is owned by one company, Meadowsend Timber Mgt, and 2. there is a power transmission line nearby.  The Town of Windham is opposed to the project for several reasons and has written its town plan with language that specifically prohibits such an enterprise. Nonetheless Iberdrola and Meadowsend have filed with the Public Service Board for a Certificate of Public Good that authorizes them to erect three measuring towers and Iberdrola says they will have enough data to make a decision in early spring. Measuring the wind for so short a time and only during the windiest months will not provide reliable data. Existing wind resources maps produced by Northeast wind1 for the Vermont Department of Public Service show the proposed area to be of marginal quality. So why would they even investigate the site at all? And gather data for so short a period of time? We believe that the site will only be economically feasible for the duration of the Production Tax Credits which they hope to get. We have no complaint about a company getting PTC's to get up and going, but we do urge the criteria for receipt of PTC's be re-written so that locations where wind is economically feasible after the PTC's end are the only sites eligible. But congress seems to apply the touch of a blacksmith when writing legislation and this piece has set off something akin to a gold rush to get in under the PTC wire. But here in Vermont "We use almost no oil to generate electricity in Vermont, and we have the lowest carbon footprint in the country for our electricity generation...2 " and we don't need to guilt-trip ourselves about our carbon footprint. I recommend that everyone go to the Energize Vermont website and read/watch the slide presentation by professor Ben Luce of Lyndon State College. Professor Luce is a wind advocate, but presents sound reasons why wind is is wrong for Vermont.3

Another concern about developing this site is the fact that the entire west and north boundaries of the proposed site in Windham have slopes of greater than 25%4. This is significant because the Saxtons River rises in Windham and passes through some significant wetlands as it consolidates into the actual river which, by the way flows through two flood prone towns; Grafton and Saxtons River. Extensive excavation is required to build the necessary access roads and sites for the turbines. The terrain in Windham is difficult and it will be challenging to manage additional runoff from this site after extensive excavation the project will require. This is steep and rough terrain and managing runoff cannot be done as easily as landscaping an office park. This  terrain is entirely forested, underlain with rock that will necessitate blasting, and it is home to a pretty diverse wildlife population.

Another concern is item number 4 in the Memorandum of Wind Energy Lease Agreement between Meadowsend and Iberdrola (operating under the name of Atlantic Wind  LLC.) That item reads " Assignment. Atlantic Wind may assign the agreement and/or right in all or any portion of the Property without the consent of Meadowsend." I just can't help but think of Vermont Yankee when I read this.

And to end on a positive note I can tell you that Windham is currently forming a community solar project that will require practically no excavation or blasting, has no moving parts, does not make noise, preserves the beauty of Vermont's ridgelines, does not exclude hunters and snowmobilers from large areas they currently enjoy, will power up 35 average Vermont homes, and will be sited on land that does not contribute to water runoff and seasonal flooding.  We do not contend that one small solar orchard can out-produce a huge wind turbine installation, but a lot of smaller ones can make a substantial contribution with a lot less damage to our state.

1 http://www.northeastwind.com

2 http://vtdigger.org/2011/08/16...

3 http://www.slideshare.net/luka...

4   http://www.windhamregional.org...

There is a quite entertaining reprint a little earlier than this diary. The author finds that he makes more and more of his purchases using credit and debit cards. He goes off on an interesting spin about the consequences of the disappearance of currency. There is only one, tiny, minor quibble interfering with my enjoyment of his essay:

Currency isn't disappearing.

In fact, while currency was 30% of money (M1 -- currency, checking accounts, and money orders) in 1990, it was 50% in 2010. So the role of currency in money rose on an average of 1 point a year for 20 years.

Indeed, while the economy, as measured by (nominal) GDP, rose by a factor of 1.9 from 1990 to 2008 and the money [which goes to operate that economy] rose by the same factor, the amount of currency rose by a factor of 3.3 over the same period.

So why did my BS detector rumble so fast when I saw the earlier post? Well I had participated in an earlier online discussion. Somebody talked about "printing presses" in dealing with the increase in the money supply. I had learned that printed money was only a small fraction of the money supply, and I wanted to say that definitively. So I looked up the figures. To my surprise, the fraction at that time was much higher than it had been when I learned it.

So, the lesson for us all is to look it up.

The earlier poster would have had much less egg on his face if he had. I avoided some egg on my face by doing it on the much-earlier discussion. And I caught him by looking his figures up.

The source for these figures, and my first choice for looking all sorts of things up, is Statistical Abstract of the United States. It comes out every year, too early to have that year's figures in it. A copy is in every branch library where I've ever looked for one. I believe you can get it on-line. Any specific info is on-line in other forms, too.

I can't get the "post a comment" button to work. So, I'm using this to respond to the first -- and only, so far -- comment on my diary.

1) Jeff didn't write the previous diary about money. He reposted it and gave the source.

2) The author specifically talked about  "the slow disappearance of actual physical money. " Sure, he segued from that into a discussion of local money. but I was commenting on one aspect.

As for the claim that my figures don't challenge that claim, I point out that not only is currency (using "money" is ambiguous as hell) increasing as a %age of M1, it is increasing much faster than GDP.