Impact on Wildlife or Maine
In this surreal debate, perhaps it's worth remembering that though it has been four centuries since Cervantes' character Sancho pointed out to Don Quixote, "Look, your worship ... what we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the vanes that turned by the wind make the millstone go," we still must look at things honestly for what they are, not just for what our fantasies want them to be.
There are many ways to conserve energy without jeopardizing the traditional economy of Maine (such as tourists and "sports" at Grand Lake Stream) with visual scars, low frequency bombardments and large power cost increases that discourage businesses.
Don't get me wrong. The donations are commendable. OG&E doesn't have to give away any money in compensation for pushing prairie chickens off their homes.
No other energy company has stepped up to the plate with a similar gesture.
But will it really save the birds?
We also need to have details about where the fossil fuel savings come from for each project. In order to estimate exactly what we are getting for our money we need this information. On top of that we need to factor in the carbon footprint from permanent deforestation for infrastructure and running of diesel generators needed to operate things on site when the wind isn't blowing.
I would suggest that concerned citizens of Orangeville take the time to read the more than 35 pages of corrections and comments that have been written and sent to the Town Board from the state Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and state Department of Agriculture & Markets.
The prospect of cheaper "green" electricity, even at significant cost to private citizens, appears to be totally acceptable to these entrepreneurial wind developers, and now with the Department of Energy in Washington DC involved, actually "exciting." However, for many of the 106 Vinalhaven households within the 1.5 mile FIW noise umbrella, the daily turbine experience is vastly different. Our feelings of "excitement" would best be described as outrage.
People who want to stop average American citizens from exercising their right to "have a say" love to throw out the NIMBY tag, thinking it will shame those citizens into silence or make them look selfish; thereby turning public opinion against them.
That's not how I see it.
Who knows when the onslaught of blasting and earth gouging is to resume on the Record Hill Wind project in the quiet little community of Roxbury?
The Department of Environmental Protection doesn't know and former Gov. Angus King isn't forwarding any information, while the campers and camp owners of Roxbury Pond sit nervously silent.
Your readers should not lose sight of the fact that the "Setting the Course" special section that appeared over a recent weekend (June 4-6) in this paper and six others statewide was a paid advertisement, not journalism.
Had it been journalism, the mix of stories would have included one that points out that the technology basket in which Maine intends to put the bulk of its economic development eggs -- floating offshore deepwater wind turbines -- doesn't exist.
If using a huge amount of real estate to generate a tiny amount of energy from an intermittent energy source sounds deranged, consider, too, that we haven't yet found the Holy Grail for storing wind-generated energy. Wind is either an instant energy snack or a famine. It must be used when it's there or immediately replaced when it isn't."
Waitsfield voters may be asked to make a decision about changing the Town Plan before Citizens' Energy has completed its environmental studies, and that would be wrong. The environmental studies for this project need to come first before any changes to the Town Plan are made.
As an active professional working to save Maine's mountaintops, I've met and have dealt with large groups who are opposed to improper siting of wind factories. We all agree that much larger and more efficient wind factories in the ocean beyond sight of shore, where wind is better and more reliable, makes more sense. To say we are against wind power is a falsehood.
As to the sound problems that Aniel argues, the Maine Medical Association agrees with her, not Dr. Dora Anne Mills.
Although TransCanada might hope that its huge payouts to local communities and even conservation organizations might dazzle people sufficiently to look the other way, its plans to carve up Sisk Mountain are nothing less than another cut at the North Woods.
Save Wind energy isn't free. And, it's destructive.
The cost of electricity in Maine will double because of Gov. Baldacci's climate change policies favoring wind energy.
Despite the claims of "Wind Week" propagandists, there is no empirical evidence that wind power will: 1. reduce the cost of electricity in Maine, 2. reduce carbon emissions, 3. make Maine ‘energy independent', or 4) be environmentally friendly.
There are many reasons to oppose the Highland Wind Project -- environmental, economic and health-related -- but as much as anything, there is the loss. ...All other arguments aside, how could anyone support the loss we will all face if this area is industrialized?
Doug Rooks is correct about at least one thing (May 9). There is a growing backlash to industrial-scale wind turbines on Maine's mountains. People who care about Maine's present and future are refusing to roll over for the short-term interests of the wind industry and its largely unfounded claims.
Things are going badly for our wildlife populations in and around the operating industrial scale wind projects in Wisconsin.
Anecdotal reports from people living in Wisconsin wind projects report an absence of normal wildlife, i.e. no turkey, no deer, fewer or no songbirds, and no bats. Relatives and friends outside the wind facility report greater numbers of deer and turkey.
Maine's lead conservation groups seem only too willing to feed another ridgeline into the TransCanada wind machine in northern Franklin County. This is despite the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence that wind turbines will fundamentally or materially change Maine's energy economy, slow climate change, or even materially benefit the state. In their breathless enthusiasm for the wind industry, wind power supporters seem uncannily willing to accept the industry's claims at face value.
There are no after-the-fact studies showing a correlation between the increase in electric generation from wind turbines and the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and chronic disease. Those assumptions are purely hypothetical, untested and unmonitored by any government agency. There are no state or federal standards in place to verify the reality of those hypotheses. Mills' statements about the climate benefits of wind power are not based on peer-reviewed studies, but are merely opinions without concrete substantiation.
Due to the recession, conservation and efficiency, and people using less to save money, there is lower demand and an oversupply of electrical generation.
In March GMP and CVPS and Hydro Quebec announced agreement on new 26-year contracts to provide Vermont with clean renewable hydroelectric power.