Impact on Landscape or Colorado
Rep. Klein is perhaps the most dogmatic supporter of large renewable energy projects in the Vermont Legislature. Being such a strong proponent, one would reasonably believe that he would have established a well-articulated rationale for his support. But a look at his record on big renewable energy reveals a pattern characterized by an absence of any objective rationale in support for his positions. In other words, he seems to be for large renewable energy projects simply because he thinks they're a good idea.
Nevertheless, the Scottish Government is right to try to take some of the heat out of the debate and grant a measure of protection to some of Scotland's most remote and beautiful landscape. Wind may be a precious national resource but so is the Scottish countryside.
Once the Rollins project was built, Rainer and Gaby Engle of Switzerland, who bought their "American dream getaway," faced 21 turbines -- the sounds and sights of which dominated their lakeside experience. They lost their enjoyment in the property and listed their property for sale.
Renewable energy may be a popular catch phrase along Colorado's urban Front Range, but it has turned into fighting words across much of rural Colorado. Not because rural communities are against it, to the extent it makes economic sense, but because they're about to be force-fed an overdose by state Senate President John Morse, D-Colorado Springs.
It is sad in these rough economic times that our single-party Colorado state government would impose a law that has the same effect as a tax increase on its people by passing expensive legislation cleverly introduced under the cover of environmental benefit. This just does not make common sense.
Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) claims its proposed wind farm development at Stronelairg above Fort Augustus wiill not impact on deep peat. However, the company admits in its environmental statement that a quarter of the site is on peat deeper than one and a half metres, with nearly a further quarter more than one metre.
New Hampshire is merely a conduit for a private, for-profit organization. We sacrifice our land, property values, beautiful scenery, tourism industry, jobs, second homeowners with the money they bring, possibly our health - and PSNH, its officers and stockholders make more money.
Isn't it questionable why so many people are supporting something that is so bad for New Hampshire?
The Whitley County Concerned Citizens (WCCC) reviewed the most recent Purdue pro-wind ‘study' that appears to be little more than an editorial from a public university. This study, referenced in an article published in the latest issue of Inside Indiana Business and making its way around the Internet (http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?id=58637), claims to be ‘science-based' but is riddled with problems.
A Democratic bill to boost the renewable energy standard in rural Colorado is being rushed through the legislature. Its sponsors should slow down and consider making it less onerous. ...Because they weren't involved in drafting the bill, Tri-State quickly calculated it would cost them between $2 billion and $4 billion to meet the new standard.
This much is clear: many people who live near these towers believe that the structures are adversely affecting their health. Local officials do not need Falmouth's experiences to understand that there is virtually nothing that will placate people when they believe that their health, and their property values, are suffering. Better to clear the air ahead of time before trying to harness the wind.
The pro-wind side professes that "we need to destroy our environment, to save our environment!" On the surface, this may seem the more responsible alternative. But I think the next question that needs to be posed is, what are we hoping to accomplish in strip-mining our mountains?
You cannot be at the same time a wind energy town and a location for retirees, second homes and the odd couple resettling. One of the area's most respected real estate agents has already made it clear that no one is interested in looking at land adjacent to the wind proposal property.
"Citizens investigating this technology's impact on their communities are deciding wind projects don't make for good neighbors. With four projects operating in Vermont and accumulating noise complaints, and another three communities with active developments, Vermonters are examining this technology ...We predict support will continue to erode as developers continue to push this technology on our communities," continued Snelling.
A moratorium on Big Wind Farms in New Hampshire, makes absolute sense. I applaud Representative Harold "Skip" Reilly (R-Grafton) for his forward thinking on this matter. Reilly has proposed legislation calling for a moratorium on all wind power construction until the state updates its energy plan. (HB-580 and HB-484).
Get back to basics and start asking important questions.
Why should we spend millions of dollars to destroy wildlife habitat, kill bats and eagles, pollute our headwaters, fill valuable wetlands, polarize our communities, make people sick, mine rare earth metals - just to ensure that we can consume as much or more next year than we did this year?
The costs of industrial wind far outweigh the benefits ... unless you are a wind developer.
We are presently at a critical point in New Hampshire. Foreign wind farm companies are rushing to construct huge wind turbine projects along NH's ridgelines, in ways that will forever change the landscape of our state, unless we act now. We need to institute an immediate state-wide moratorium on such projects, before we reach the point of no return.
The "view" is what attracts people to Vermont as tourists, as transplant Vermonters, and it is what keeps many of us here even when we could be more financially well-off elsewhere. ...Before we destroy our views of our mountains, perhaps we should try to calculate the tremendous value of our views.
The more large-scale wind development I see on our mountaintops, the less I like it. Not the sight of the towers and turbines themselves, but the clearing, blasting, filling, leveling, grading and overall destruction that can be required to build high-elevation wind-tower pads, service roads and transmission lines.
God help our ridges if what happened to the Lowell Mountain Range is the first step in Vermont's path to energy independence.
Is wind part of the answer to our need to diversify our energy sources? Yes. Is the Tuttle-Willard ridge the best place for wind power? No. There's too much at stake. Our insatiable appetite for energy shouldn't be a tradeoff for healthy forests and wildlife habitat. As the SEC discusses Antrim Wind Energy's plan, the wind will be blowing on Tuttle Hill. Let's hope the wind keeps blowing through that spruce.
The Forest Service has compromised the integrity of the National Environmental Protection Act by selecting a person to draft its environmental impact statement (EIS) who was also working for the project developer, Iberdrola. Those who read the project's applications will find six relatively lengthy instances of plagiarism where the words of the developer's agent were used again verbatim for the EIS. This is a disturbing conflict of interest.