In an article entitled "No invite for Gov. Douglas to renewable energy conference" published in The Rutland Herald on Thursday, Oct. 18, Gov. Jim Douglas was reported as saying, "It is foolish of advocates to argue that the state could replace large sources of power — like the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant — with wind turbines in any case." I like to think I follow the energy debate in Vermont very closely. I have never come across any organization advocating replacing the 250 megawatts of Vermont Yankee power we use in state solely with commercial wind power.

That said, installing some commercial wind power could certainly provide a significant amount of cost-effective, environmentally acceptable power. Additionally, increased investment in end-use efficiency can continue the impressive work of Efficiency Vermont. Efficiency Vermont is the most cost-effective, pollution-free means for meeting a portion of our electrical energy needs. Beyond conservation, more wood-burning plants, like the McNeil facility, fired by a well-managed, sustainable fuel supply could make a significant dent in replacing Vermont Yankee's output. Add to this mix grid-tied small-scale wind, solar photovoltaics (yes, it really works in Vermont), micro-hydro and more landfill- and farm-fired methane projects, and it becomes clear that we can create the safe, renewable energy that we need to replace the outdated and dangerous nuclear plant in Vernon.

It would appear that one of the state's largest utilities might have its own non-renewable contingency plan for replacing a large amount of Vermont Yankee's power output. An examination of the membership of Green Mountain Power's board of directors shows that representatives of the new owners, Gaz Metro of Montreal, now occupy two seats. These folks already have a natural gas pipeline running into northwestern Vermont. A reliable combined cycle combustion turbine of significant generating capacity could be up and running in a relatively short period of time.

Proponents of keeping Vermont Yankee going until it completely collapses insist we need "base-load" power plants, the type that run most of the time. The fact is, and most Vermont Yankee supporters know this, Vermont is part of the New England power grid, our part of the eastern interconnect portion of the national grid system. Our region has about 32,000 megawatts of installed generating capacity. An organization called the New England Independent System Operator sees to it that the region as a whole is always supplied with a balanced, constant flow of quality power day and night. When Vermont Yankee goes down for refueling, stuck valves, collapsing cooling towers, or a litany of other mechanical failures, Vermont does not go dark.

With the veto of the omnibus energy bill this past legislative session, any movement towards an energy future without Vermont Yankee after its license expires on March 23, 2012, has been temporarily forestalled. We have many options available that could result in cost-effective, environmentally acceptable, Vermont-scaled, safe electric generation. Developing new, safe methods of creating electricity would also be a big economic development boon to Vermont. A plant that is old and failing is not only a bad option for power generation; it is not good for Vermont's tourist economy. Ask yourself how many more failures at this plant will it take before our much needed tourists decide that Vermont may not be the pristine place that it once was?

Continuing to rely on one of the oldest, experimental nuclear power plants in the nation, which as we have recently witnessed, is collapsing before our very eyes, with no truly safe, viable long-term storage plan for the most toxic waste known to man, is at the very least, foolhardy.

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS

Hancock