The Value of Destruction

Click on Photo, above, to see more pictures of Saturday's activities on the mountain

Remembering how it used to be. What is this worth?


27 comments on “The Value of Destruction

  1. Sammy Windy says:

    Nice script you’re reading from. Well said.


    • purslane says:

      That comment suggest it is you reading from a script.

      Try thinking for yourself instead of speaking only as your corporate masters decree.

    • windy says:

      may you be the one to live under one and enjoy the wonderful noise, dead birds and bats, the wonderful light strobing through the rotating blades – or maybe you already live near one and it has made you a little off-kilter.

  2. pgosselin says:

    The power companies were regulated by pols into mutilating the mountain. Power companies would much prefer other cheaper, cleaner alternative ways of generating power. Blame yourselves and your pols.
    Leave GMP out of this.

  3. purslane says:

    I seem to have jumped the gun a bit. The comment link isn’t active. The writer had sent me her comments with the link, neglecting to mention that they were “awaiting moderation”.

  4. joe says:

    I would like to thank everyone on the mountain for raising my electric rates as that is all that will come from this protest. Also find it very funny that you as a group have decried the alleged use of the nelsons private property by GMP but are now using GMP’s land. Lets see just how committed you are to this stand up and name yourselves each and every one of you who trespassed on the turbine site over the weekend. I know that If I was as committed to a cause as you all claim you are I would not hide behind fake name and such. Until that time in my mind and many others you will only be seen as a bunch of pot smoking hippies with nothing better to do.

    • pgosselin says:

      At least the protesters are courageous enough to come outin person and express themselves in the face of authority, and not hide behind the anonymous name of “joe” in a blog. Maybe they are trespassing, but at least they are not defacing the mountain for “useless windfarms”.


    • GMP is the one who is trespassing, and worse, on the Nelsons’ land. The Superior Court judge could easily have resolved the disputed boundary before GMP blasted a canyon out of it. So, Joe, you’re all in favor of letting a Canadian corporations expropriating land and blasting it to smithereens, eh? And you’re right about the high rates you’re going to see from this project, and it won’t be because of those of us standing up for what’s right. This boondoggle is going to raise your rates, even with the nearly $50 million in tax subsidies from you and me. Bend over and get ready to get spanked.

      • pgosselin says:

        I don’t know much about the property line issue, and you are probably right there. But to me that’s beside the point. The question is: Is the destruction of the mountain warranted by the public good? The answer is absolutely no. Nobody out there has shown me the answer is yes.

        1. It isn’t going to lower electric rates
        2. It’s not going to have any impact on the climate.

        I’ll spare the long list of negatives.

        So the protesters have the legal right and obligation to fight this. Hopefully there numbers will explode. You’ve got to focus on the pols, and not GMP.

      • joe says:

        “Bend over and get ready to be spanked” really?? no wonder your words fall on deaf ears and you spout comments like rates wont go up because of what you are doing?? Are you serious?? any cost of delays or loss of federal subsidies WILL BE PASSED DIRECTLY TO RATEPAYERS are we clear on that? That is a fact plain and simple so whatever delays you create will be paid for by hard working Vermonter who are having a hard enough time paying there bills. Its not just GMP you are hurting.

      • purslane says:

        @joe: If GMP does not get their grant, their extra costs can’t be passed on to ratepayers without PSB approval. The threat of higher rates caused by delays is a blatant scare tactic. If they do get their grant, that will be paid for by taxpayers.

  5. Kelley Craig says:

    As someone who lives in Maine and was educated in Vermont, this issue is near & dear to my heart. However, I must ask the campers – what did the land your home sits on look like prior to and during construction? What did the land where your schools, pharamacies, shopping malls look like prior to and during construction? I see many campers wearing trendy “camping” clothes – did they grow on trees? or were they made in factories. Would you have camped in front of the proposed factory site?
    When is enough enough? Is it after YOU are comfortable and warm?
    I say – the grass will grow again. The ridge will be beautiful again. We have windfarms in Maine and they are beautiful. Are they perfect? no. But YES – put them up in my backyard.

    Campers – your dedication is admirable. Wind energy is better than fossil fuels and we need more of these projects.

    • purslane says:

      The difference with wind turbines is that their impact is way out of proportion of any benefit they might provide. In fact, that benefit (less fossil fuel use) has yet to be demonstrated on any grid in the world, let alone Vermont, where no fossil fuels are used for electricity.

  6. Any idea how many hundreds of thousands of gallons of fossil fuels are being used to clear, stump, grub and blast away the mountain, haul the turbines into Vermont from the western US and abroad, make all the steel and haul all that rebar and concrete up to the top of the mountains? This is stupid. These machines belong on flat land, they were never intended to be built on mountains with important ecological functions that have real value.

    • purslane says:

      They don’t belong on flat land, either. The plains and deserts are important ecosystems, habitats, and migratory pathways that deserve the same respect as mountain ridges do. There is no “balance” with a product that doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, whose only purpose is tax avoidance and greenwashing.

    • pgosselin says:

      As long as they can’t compete without the massive subsidies, which they never will, at least until we run out of other fuels (which will be quite awhile), they don’t belong anywhere. Technically they are completely inefficient.
      The whole thing is a grand engineering farce. The jerk pols who cleared the way to this mess have to be booted out.
      As far as looking beautiful, anything does after 10 beers. I suggest you sober up.

      • joe says:

        pgosselin, Wow! so according to you if anyone thinks turbines are beautiful they are drunk??? What a wonderful way to speak about someone’s opinions. Is making fun of people and making personal attacks what you call a positive discussion? Funny I dont see anyone here attacking you over your opinions or beliefs. If you want to be heard try to educate with truth and not personal attacks it only makes you look angry and uninformed. And for your “Technically they are completely inefficient” claim please explain this in detail to me as Im having a very hard time understanding how my turbine that powers over 80% of my home energy use is inefficient when the vestas v-122 that are going up have a much higher swept area vs wattage rating?

  7. purslane says:

    @joe: How much battery storage do you have? There is a big difference between feeding the grid, which must respond instantly to demand (which does not adjust itself according to wind conditions), and feeding batteries. What is the annual average capacity factor of your home turbine? What is your annual average electricity use?

    Granting even the overblown projections for the Lowell project (let alone its actual usefulness to the grid), it would produce at about 2% of Vermont’s average load. I dare say we could reduce our electricity use by that very modest amount and save destroying yet another mountain.

    • joe says:

      roughly 800 amps at 24 volts making an average of about 4000 kwh per year most of the time my inverters are in in sell mode feeding power back to the grid however for full disclosure I also have 250 watts of solar panels tied in as well. Yearly usages is about 6000 kwh per year small I know however I have taken great pains to install a tier 3 rated refrigerator, soft start well, cfl’s etc etc. And for your last comment about reducing electric use your are completely correct on that one however we need to be doing something just trying to have people use less is not going to work in a quick enough timeframe. Not saying we dont need to educate others on reducing power consumption but we live in a country that is very resistant to change. If you only knew how many folks I know who are stocking up on light bulbs before the ban takes place!! And please dont forget every bit of power no matter how small comes of that mountain is less that comes from other sources.

      • purslane says:

        The average electricity use per home in Vermont is about 7500 kWh/y, which is already much lower than the national average of about 10,000 kWh/y. Without even trying, my family used only 4100 kWh in the past year. Granted, our dryer, as well as the range and stove, is propane-fired. On the other hand, both of us parents work at home. Unless they have electric heat, I really can’t see how people use so much. Households, however, account for only about a third of electricity use.

        By the way, are you paid more for selling into the grid than the cost of buying from the grid?

        Finally, your last sentence is the rub: While the power from wind may displace power from other sources, it has never been shown to reduce fuel burning or emissions from those sources.

        It’s like if someone rode their bike to work but often hitched a ride in a car. You could say that every stretch he is riding means less work required from the cars. But the cars burn more gas for every startup when they pick him up.

        To avoid this inefficiency (and wear and tear on other the generators) on the grid, wind energy is fed into the larger grid, in this case the New England Pool, where its impact is negligible, even dissipated as mere heat in the lines.

  8. purslane says:

    @joe: P.S. “pot-smoking hippies”, you suggested earlier — your sensitivity about drunken aesthetics is transparently bogus.

    • joe says:

      Hmmm Just ask your fellow occupier Fireweed just how much weed he has sold or smoked up there?? Just saying!

      • Fireweed says:

        Not sure who you are Joe, but you can look it up. Fire weed, Epilobium angustiflium is the scientific name.

  9. Dups says:

    pgosselin says “Leave GMP out of this”?


Comments are closed.