Impact on Wildlife or Maine
Haven't we learned anything from Mars Hill and Vinalhaven about sound and human impacts?
What kind of energy is really going to be produced to mitigate the impacts stated above?
The applicant offered to put 1,000 acres into conservation. The 1,000 acres just happens to surround the turbines and roads. Gee, thanks.
Concerns about this project need to be expressed to the DEP soon.
With the addition of expensive wind, and even more expensive off-shore wind, and the cost of the new power line, Maine people cannot look forward to lower rates. Yet we will be in economic competition with Vermont and other states. Our future should be with hydro and natural gas, not wind power.
But the saddest thing to me is the way the public has been discouraged from participation.
In the U.S. wind, on a megawatt basis, gets more subsidy than either gas or coal. And the cost of wind power, per kilowatt generated, is going up, not down as the industry "matures." ...Nowhere in the world have citizens willingly accepted expensive power. I hope Maine does not provide an exception by allowing the wind industry to continue to ravage our landscape to their own ends.
Two more associated towers are to be located in Concord, the next township to the east. My town is now among the unfortunate that have been infected with the virus of wind-energy sprawl. Industry activity, lately, has been substantial in our area and our town lies within the new expedited permitting zone. It was bound to happen.
Developers of mountaintop industrial wind are touting many promised benefits - from reduced greenhouse gas emissions and decreased dependence on fossil fuels to a huge economic renaissance.
These are all false promises spun to enhance public acceptance.
The cost of wind turbines has been shifted onto neighbors who never imagined these kinds of burdens when the benefits of wind energy were sold to the public. It is wrong and it is unfair to impose both the noise and the uncertainty of resolution - or if there will ever be resolution - on a few nearby homeowners.
We can transform the electric power grid system to accommodate wind power, but at great cost and huge risk to reliability. But the real question is why are we mandating a controversial energy source with no proven efficacy when it will not become viable until we have economically viable electricity sequestration?
For several years, Maine residents have been exposed to the great promise of economic growth related to the approval of wind farms on our mountaintops. We need to ask a few questions.
Maine citizens weren't consulted before this misguided and biased law was enacted. As an "emergency measure" we didn't have time to make our objections known before it was implemented. What is now apparent is that the wind industry hugely influenced the crafting of this law.
Dear citizens of Camden, Rockport and Hope, there are and will be better ways to "go green" than permanently destroying what we have inherited in Ragged Mountain. Maine has a wealth of resources, including water. We encourage you to consider the alternatives before causing irreparable changes.
"There was a lot of 'Here, here, here and here' and 'No, no, and no,' " according to task force member Rep. Stacey Fitts, R-Pittsfield.
A Maine Audubon Society member said the process involved a lot of, "I want this in, I want this out."
So, two years later, Maine is left with a map and only hazy recollections of how it came to be.
the Altamont Pass, Calif., wind farm's cruel blades pulverize 4,700 birds each year, according to the National Audubon Society. Victims of this green power plant include golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels and burrowing owls. ...Environmentalism's avian holocaust will continue - 33,000 birds annually, according to a 2002 Fish and Wildlife Service estimate - until government pulls the plug on subsidies for inefficient, unnecessary and deadly windmills.
Schalit sought e-mails from 2005 to 2007 between Adams and First Wind, between Adams and Baldacci (for whom he had previously worked as legal counsel), and between Adams and several wind power attorneys employed by Verrill Dana. Given Adams' role as PUC chairman, his close ties to Baldacci and subsequent employment with First Wind, the requested documents would seem germane to the public's interest in the deliberations of the governor's wind power task force.
Wind power in Maine is a chess game, a chess game for those protected by multinational companies and allies in the current administration. ...A game that put people's rights and public health behind those of the wind industry and simply ignored the complaints of those disturbed by the maddening whoosh of turbines.
If the 1,800 turbines were constructed, as much as 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forest would have to be clear-cut. In addition, the turbines require electricity to run, which does not come from the turbines and must be generated on site by diesel generators or brought in on separate power lines.
One study done in Colorado actually determined that wind power increased carbon emissions by 10 percent.
In reality, commercial wind power is an unreliable, environmentally degrading, overpriced form of power generation. Nothing short of massive amounts of public money can make those projects happen, because no developer in his right mind would undertake a project without public money.
Saco has been sidestepping and apologizing for the wind turbine's weak production since shortly after it was installed. Because of the poor siting, the turbine has reportedly produced only 27,545 kilowatt hours, or about $3,900 worth of revenue, since its installation in February 2008.
As an environmentalist, I have for decades supported a move away from our addiction to oil to more eco-friendly, renewable energy, including wind. However, when I hear the developers spin the tragic Gulf oil spill to justify their desire to use our tax dollars to destroy Maine mountaintops, with as many as 1,800 400-foot turbines spread over 360 miles, I am appalled by how this "justification" is so disingenuous.
The bulk of the Cool Cities Coalition talking points are based on "coal mining: bad; wind turbines: good." This rhetorical trick is the fallacy of false choice, as in "it's better to drink bleach than gasoline," while neglecting alternatives, such as drinking water, whisky or nothing at all.
The coalition can't prove "wind turbines: good."