Impact on Landscape
Note: counts do not include items in sub-categories
In the WMN (April 6) Energy Secretary Ed Miliband warns that communities in the Westcountry have "no option" but to support a "massive expansion" of wind farms.
Does he think we are the only ones who care about what happens to the countryside?
The reason I strongly oppose the wind-power project is that it will despoil miles of wild and beautiful high-country scenery and skyline for power and profits that will go far to the south and leave us with little in the way of local jobs or economic gain. It is simply a bad trade-off. Conservationists and stewards of the land have been trying to buy the Phillips Brook tract and preserve it ...This massive wind project and the ridge-scarring road system to build and maintain it would nail such hopes in a coffin.
As the U.S. tries to reduce the climate change spurred by the warming of the atmosphere because of increasing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, alternative forms of energy production will be necessary.
And yet, it doesn't make sense to trample sensitive ecosystems in the new rush to develop alternative energies. It would be an oxymoronic case of destroying the Earth in order to save it.
If there are two facts that anyone who has any knowledge of the Mojave Desert knows for sure, they are that the area has ample amounts of both sun and wind. There are also plenty of wide open spaces. This would make the California desert a prime candidate for the development of both solar power plants and also wind farms. ...These former railroad lands were donated to or purchased by the Department of the Interior for conservation, and thus were thought to be protected forever. But the Bureau of Land Management considers them to be open to all types of development other than mining.
Those of us who live close to power lines are concerned about the governor's and CMP's claims of the project's cleanness, greenness, price reliability and general value for Maine.
We have met with the Lewiston City Council, our state legislators, attended hearings with the Maine Public Utilities Commission and tried to get CMP to listen to us.
We are worried about our own backyards, but we are not interested in having the project simply moved to other people's neighborhoods. We want solution
We have recently learned about the wind turbine projects proposed for construction along the shores of the majestic St. Lawrence River in Hammond. I implore those who want to preserve and protect a way of life to speak up and take action before it is too late. For those readers who have never visited the Thousand Islands area of the St. Lawrence River in upstate New York, go and see for yourself Mother Nature's gift to all of us who have been blessed to spend time in that beautiful environment.
On March 17, the state Department of Environmental Protection rejected for a third time Gamesa Energy's plan to install industrialized wind turbines on Shaffer Mountain. What part of "no" doesn't Gamesa - and Berwind Corp. - understand?
DEP's eight-page "Technical Deficiency Letter" was sent to Timothy Vought of Shaffer Mountain Wind LLC and lists questions that must be answered if the permit application is to be resubmitted.
If wind energy was the one practical and affordable answer to global warming then I would grit my teeth at the loss of the countryside and accept it. But I know that they are no answer to global warming in northern Europe.
The Germans who have invested more than anyone in this form of energy are finding, according to newspaper Der Spiegel, that despite more than 17,000 wind turbines across Germany the nation is now emitting more CO2 than before it built them.
The view from the top could not be clearer: Ed Miliband, the minister for energy and climate change, said last week that opposing the onward march of wind turbines - on which the government is pinning its hopes of meeting its targets on renewable energy - should be as "socially unacceptable" as not wearing a seatbelt or failing to stop at a zebra crossing.
Hmm. Tell that to the people who believe the view over Britain's last remaining wildernesses is about to be destroyed for ever - and for a very dubious set of returns.
This project has been sold to the town as a way for our citizens to be "green." The real reason behind this project is to produce as much "green" as possible for CCI Energy. Mr. Paul Barry, the owner of the land where the turbines will be sited said at a recent Planning Board meeting that this project is not about the money. If this is true then I ask that CCI Energy, its lawyers and the special interests that support this outside firm to make arrangements with Cohasset to transfer 100 percent of the revenue that the turbines produce (after expenses) to our town.
Energy: The governor wants to carpet the desert with solar panels. The senator says it will destroy the ecosystem. The battle between environmentalists and conservationists is one of alternative energy's big drawbacks.
Endless Energy's effort to put a wind farm on top of Redington Mountain near Carrabassett Valley is a bad idea that won't die the death it sorely needs. In fact, the idea seems to get worse all the time. Knocked down four times, twice by the Land Use Regulation Commission, once by the Governor's Wind Power Task Force, and once by the legislature in its 2008 Wind Power bill, this commercial creature is still on its feet however barely.
When thinking of alternative energy sources, windmills sound so appealing. The reality is different from the romance, however. Wind turbines are an inefficient and periodic source of electric power that are most useful only in limited locations. Atop a mountain ridge in Coos County is not one of those places.
With the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, it actually seems as though Ontarians are being asked to "buy in" to having no say as to what happens in their "backyard." The wind turbine development on Wolfe Island is not only unsightly on what was once a beautiful, peaceful and pastoral island but it will provide insignificant power to the grid at only intermittent intervals.
The governor's assertion in his State of the State address on Feb. 11 that "West Virginians know energy better than anyone" is belied by his woeful ignorance of wind power's limitations. He seems all too eager to sacrifice the glorious vistas of the Mountain State - as well as the tourism, recreation and vacation home building industries dependent on those unfettered, forested ridges - to posture himself as a forward-thinking, environmentally minded political leader.
Instead what he has done is to have swallowed whole the baloney sandwich served up by the wind industry, and he now asks the Legislature to follow suit.
Last week came news that Fish and Game and the Appalachian Mountain Club had agreed not to contest the mitigation package proposed to make up for the wetlands and 58 acres of high country that will be affected by the roads and towers.
This was a sorry day for New Hampshire's conservation community and is probably another good reason for circumventing the state's permitting procedure and instead moving to the federal level, the Army Corps of Engineers.
My heart aches for the citizens of Hammond, both year-round and seasonal, for they are about to lose their entire way of life and the wildlife and peace and quiet of the area. The natural beauty will be gone. Friends and neighbors will be choosing camps, and lifelong grudges will be formed. Is it worth it just to pick up a few thousand bucks? Ask the people of Lowville what it has done to families and neighbors. I say to the turbine industry, go away and leave us alone. Stop appealing to people's sense of greed no matter what the cost.
Should the wind-farms get built, the residential development potential on the land surrounding it, will be destroyed, and its "development premium" will disappear. This is because, no one in their right mind, would invest a quarter of a million dollars to build a residence, on land which is engulfed by 40 story towers, when they could just as easily go elsewhere, and avoid this grief, and the potential re-sale loss that might occur on their investment.
So why should a wind-farm permit be granted to these interlopers, when the communities and surrounding landowners will suffer so greatly? It shouldn't!