Growth creates demand.
Conservation and efficiency are great, but we can't expect them to keep up with demand.
Get power from existing RELIABLE sources, hydro and nuclear.
Other than hydro,'renewable' sources are just feel-good PR and do nothing to actually address energy needs. Wind 'energy generation' is a hoax and solar has very limited applications in a geographic area where solar panels are buried under snow for a good part of the year.

Tom is absolutely correct. Get rid of the flag please.

Our Quebec Hydropower and Yankee Nuclear are carbon dioxide free, always available ( rain, wind or shine) and very inexpensive sources of electical power. Let's make sure that the state politician do not damage this power source, while waiting for the "Milleneum" of renewable power to match the benfits of these two power sources.

We have a good mixture of energy resources with nuclear and hydro-power - we need to do all that we can to ensure continued future supply and safety in both of these areas so that our state can grow and prosper. If the free market decides that alternative energy sources like smaller hydro-turbines are feasible without the enormous tax subsidies now offered to wind turbines, we will all benefit. If the Vermont media would start doing some actual reporting on this issue, the public will become more informed.

A few years back on the NPR program Living on Earth, former Bishop Hugh Montefiore of England put considerable thought to meeting Kyoto emission requirements in that country. He realized erecting thousands of wind power stations could not work. His conclusion was only through Nuclear power would his country be able to reach their goals.

In Vermont it is impossible for wind power to even keep up with growth in demand. Renewable sources can realistically only add up to a small amount of our energy, but are still worth pursuing. Most demand comes from other states with larger cities, in Vermont most demand comes from the western part of the state. The in state renewable people need to realize we are all part of the new England power grid.

Few residents understand that allowing commercial wind power in Vt is a big mistake. Once these corporations gain a foothold our towns become victims of a corporate takeover. The wind developer’s goals are not in our best interest. Here is a clear example; in Prattsburgh, NY the same developer that wants to develop Sheffield is now suing private landowners to take their land by eminent domain. We have the pathetic proof of the original Searsburg performance. Why would any legislature go along with increasing that? Why should an entire region in Vts NEK be devastated by the sprawl and industrialization of ridgelines for an ineffective power source?

We need one or two new state of the art nuclear plants. That is the scientific way to a successful future.

By Jon Day

I suspect electric energy users west of the Green Mountains create the demand for the most electric power. The residents of Vermont's Northeast Kingdom, however, clearly do not. Per capita, as a region, we use the least electric energy and, without considering the three uppermost dams on the Connecticut River we produce 71% of our power (all from renewable resources--independent hydros, the Coventry Landfill methane plant, and the Ryegate wood biomass energy plant). If you do consider the large dams, and why shouldn't we, we generate 239% of our energy--all from renewable sources. Our efforts with respect to conservation and efficiency are noteworthy also. Recently we have saved more energy each year than the 1.2-1.5% annual increase in demand. Bottom line: We are net exporters of power and are actively contributing solutions to Vermont's electric energy problem.

What about the future? In the short term, in addition to renegotiating present energy contracts and increased efficiency and conservation, we see additional biomass energy plants coming on line in this "woodbasket" of Vermont. These will be firm base load energy producers that are based on sustainably using our low value wood for which, with the closure of our pulp mills, there is no longer a market. They will provide jobs in the woods, in the trucking industry, and in the plants as well.

By contrast the Sheffield industrial wind energy proposal, and five others in various planning stages for the NEK, will have a disproportionately large environmental footprint and impact on our forested ridgelines and natural landscapes. These industrial wind plants will fragment wildlife habitat, harm water quality, kill birds and bats, and degrade the human environment by reducing property values, creating noise, vibration, and lights in our peaceful night skies, and by destroying our natural beauty which is the backbone of our tourist economy. The small amount of unreliably available (remember no wind, no power) power we get from such wind plants will be at very high cost because we are paying for the subsidies to produce it and will also have to pay for having generation capacity on line to back it up when there is demand on the grid and the wind stops blowing.

Some places (major cities and areas that require protection like Vermont) cannot necessarily meet their own power needs without, in Vermont's case, ruining it's best asset, it's scenery.

This does not preclude makin every effort to conserve and obtain as much power as is practically and economically possible.

My first choice would be to extend our contracts with Québec and not be afraid to commit to them as Canada will become even more, as with oil reserves, the source for our power needs.

We must also not rule out NEW nuclear power. To cite the risks of nuclear power based upon outdated technology and not upon the efficient, non water cooled, small fuel celled present day reactors is foolish when everyone else around us is jumping on board as they realize that the public is not going to tolerate a loss of electrical power under any circumstances( e.g Illinois 11 reactors, Pennsylvania 9 Ontario adding 3/4 soon).

Perhaps, to be far really sighted , we need to consider closing Vermont Yankee and building one of the new reactors as used in France.

Thanks for today's Vermont Edition show, and several in the past in which you covered electrical energy in VT. I wonder though why you have very little discussion of the obvious, huge, and urgent problem we have with liquid fuels. Next winter, if we can get heating oil at all, it'll be $5/gallon. This is also related to the electricity issues: people will figure out that electricity is (for now) cheaper than heating oil (or propane), switch to electric heat, and overload the grid, resulting in blackouts during the coldest part of winter. Vermont needs to prepare for this eventuality, I wish you'd cover it. The solution is to raise the price of electricity, and use the money for insulation!