A. Smith | Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice

A. Smith 
Member since Dec 9, 2015



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Walters: One Small Step on Volkswagen Settlement Funds

Thank you David. By the way, I was curious how the electric school buses are heated, and learned from someone who has looked into it that they have gas heaters.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by A. Smith on 12/01/2017 at 10:45 AM

Re: “Walters: One Small Step on Volkswagen Settlement Funds

Adam, I'm sorry you feel the need to throw rocks instead of sticking to the issue. How do you think the money should be used? But since you bring up wind turbines and groundwater, it has been in the news in Canada http://torontosun.com/2017/09/11/concern-t…. Maude Barlow who is a champion of water worldwide recently joined efforts to address groundwater impacts from wind turbines. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/maud…. As for solar radiation management, it's been in the news a lot recently, nothing wacko about it. Perhaps the wacko part is the people who choose to ignore it, or ridicule people for talking about it http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/ar…. Let's find ways to work together instead of fighting. Peace and love.

17 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by A. Smith on 11/30/2017 at 9:35 AM

Re: “Walters: One Small Step on Volkswagen Settlement Funds

Gov. Scott's proposal sounds reasonable, spreading it around numerous sources of air pollutants. Town trucks and big dump trucks used in extractive industries are worthy of investment. Farm tractors are another area in need of improvement. I do not comprehend the idea of putting all your eggs in one basket when there are many sources of emissions that need attention.

22 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by A. Smith on 11/29/2017 at 8:32 PM

Re: “Developers Withdraw Swanton Wind Project Proposal

The spin around this is typical of the wind industry when they lose, blame someone else and neglect the facts. Swanton Wind was required by the PUC to do a System Impact Study, which was ongoing. The best guess about why the project was dropped was that the SIS showed up something expensive. That's what caused the developers of the Seneca Mountain Wind project to pull the plug, and they correctly did their SIS before filing the application. The circumstances these developers likely hope will change have nothing to do with the governor's office or the PUC chair, but ways to shift the cost of transmission upgrades onto ratepayers. Right now wind does not have the right of eminent domain and has to pay for transmission upgrades. It would a breath of fresh air if this industry would be honest instead of constantly spinning, blaming, and denying responsibility.

1 like, 3 dislikes
Posted by A. Smith on 11/29/2017 at 9:50 AM

Re: “Walters: State Legislative Panel Approves Wind Rules

These noise rules are all about protecting people who live near big wind turbines. You would never know that from this article, nor from the questions asked by legislators today. It's all about the industry. Why is that?

44 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by A. Smith on 10/26/2017 at 8:02 PM

Re: “Sound and Fury: Wind Foe Unleashes Blast of Rhetoric

There have now been several news stories about the Oct. 12 LCAR hearing where committee members were promoting the wind industry's talking points. What has not been reported is that prior to that meeting, at the Renewable Energy Vermont workshop on wind held the week before, the chair of LCAR, Sen. Mark MacDonald spoke at the end of the wind workshop (scroll to the end until there are between 3 and 4 minutes left on the video http://bobthegreenguy.com/rev17/sessions/c…) and essentially invited the wind industry's expert to get on the agenda for the LCAR meeting. Sen. MacDonald as chair did not contact any non-industry people to invite their testimony.

The proposed rule is inadequate in numerous ways, especially failing to set a standard for low frequency noise, and also neglecting to set standards for property boundaries, seasonal residences, and amplitude modulation (all of which NY's DPS regulate), yet at the Oct. 12 meeting the only nit-picking with the rule that attendees witnessed was on behalf of the wind industry, trying to weaken the rule rather than add more protections, which was the clear legislative intent.

As for this columnist's bias, it is well documented in his prior blogging life, which continues with this one-sided view of the issue. One thing the wind industry is good at is spin, as Mr. Walters shows once again.

58 likes, 26 dislikes
Posted by A. Smith on 10/25/2017 at 11:12 AM

Re: “Walters: Legislative Panel Delays Wind Rules — Again

I counted "only" 10 wind proponents present.

21 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by A. Smith on 10/12/2017 at 8:16 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Keep up with us Seven Days a week!

Sign up for our fun and informative

All content © 2017 Da Capo Publishing, Inc. 255 So. Champlain St. Ste. 5, Burlington, VT 05401
Website powered by Foundation