It's really going to blow if you allow the moneygrabbers to turn Maine into a giant wind farm, excuse the pun. You are being hornswaggled....or screwed, if you prefer. There is no global warming. And we are sitting on over 300 years of oil and natural gas under US soil that we can't touch because of the idoits in DC that would rather fund unfriendly nations and terrorists by purchasing their oil. Of course, our ethical elected officials are more than likely being bought off in one way or another. They only have their own bank accounts in mind; not the American people. Corruption is out of hand, from the White House to the State Houses, and we the people need to correct the situation in 2010 and 2012. If we don't, we can kiss America good-bye.

Copenhagen was a bust because the truth is coming out. Global warming is a money-grabbing, power-grabbing hoax. Spread the word.

WELL SAID EJ...Good job....

Perhaps a better question would be: "Which way are the windbags blowing us?"

I've been told that the wind turbines already in place are killing millions of birds and bats (apparently they're just piling up on the ground beneath these monstrosities) and causing inestimable and very serious health problems for humans living nearby. Still early for comments on this article but in a couple of hours, those who want to break big wind will discover this oped and start screeching about collusion and treachery. Breaking big wind is the next cause celebre for activists and those who must have some sort of cause to make their lives complete. The same sort of misguided mentality that closed Maine Yankee and that has prevented any significant form of industrial power generation in this state.

If the turbines don't kill birds and bats , why does First Wind and the state of ME have to pay people to state that fact?

People who live around wind farms don't have to buy bird seed in the winter any more? But they all are NIMBYs anyway , so they are not supposed to be listened to?

Mars Hill and Vinlhaven have some mighty upset people living around the wind farms . 24/7 racket and flickering lights. Everybody just making this stuff up?

So Why Isn`t There A Referendum in The Works

For Isn`t This What They Were Really Meant For

Pin Wheels In Maine~~That Is A Crime

To Our Way of Life

Unlike Denmark and Their Very Old Pin Wheels

I Do Not Foresee The New Pinwheels In Maine As A Tourist Attraction

The only reason the Stetson Mt wind farm is not on the list with Mars Hill and Vinlhaven is that

It is not on the grid..so the turbine blades turn very slowly no matter how hard the wind is blowing. Just to keep them from being destroyed. The GE models used are particularly horrible. Cause lots of problems. As evidenced by the app. two week shut down recently. No red flashing lights at night. We were fortunate not to have a plane crash.

FAA says it is up to the neighbors to call the owner of the wind farm. Govt. you CANNOT TRUST.

Cats kill way more birds than wind turbines but nobody's calling for a cat moratorium. Cats make enormous amounts of noise, their eye's glow, and they can hold up to 200 gallons of mineral oil - but nobody wants to eliminate them. And where does this bird seed myth come from?

If wind turbines are so ugly and repugnant, why do we tolerate power poles and power lines? Man, they're ugly and we've become so inurred to them that we don't see them anymore. The hard-working citizens of this state deserve better than miles of residential power lines ruining the landscape. Cars hit 'em and birds and bat fly into them every day. And think of the health effects of EMF on the people (hard-working and non-corporate) of Maine - I walked beneath a buzzing transformer last week and the sun got right in my eyes. Oh the humanity. It's time to rid our state of this aesthetic blight.

Gee MiloCrabtree~~As Much As I Agree Telephone Poles Are Blight on Scenery

Dang, I just Don`t Think We Got the Money For Dat Right Now

but Then Again~Just Think of the Jobs That Would Create

And Then We Could use Chain Gangs

And Maybe an Accidental Fryin would Occur

Reasoned debate indeed, including acceptance of the reality of global warming, man-made or otherwise. Wind-power should be seen simply as one aspect of the larger quest for environmentally friendly energy solutions. Germany has been a pioneer in wind-energy exploitation and is the current leader in the relevant technology. That sector is continuing to evolve, with modern turbines that are significantly more efficient than earlier generations. Windmills are increasingly moving off-shore, also in Germany. The economics involved are far more intricate than described above. Germany’s wind energy sector employs some 100,000 workers; energy related jobs and monies kept at home, stimulating the local economy. The energy market in Western Europe is rapidly consolidating, which means that German windmills can be backed-up with Norwegian hydro-power, much like Maine wind-energy could be backed up with Quebec hydro-power. It's also worth noting that Germany is far advanced in bio-energy and fuel cell energy solutions and generates significant quantities of solar energy. While Germany’s energy costs may be among Europe’s highest, the country still manages to perform well on the economic front and remains one of the world’s strongest exporting countries. Perhaps we should find out what they are doing right.

Build windmills? No, they are a visual blight and kill birds and bats. Then there's the intermittent light flicker until the shadow passes and the noise you can't hear that drives you mad.

Build coal power plants? No, they cause environmental destruction thrice over. First, you destroy the earth in mining, then pump pollution into the atmosphere, then have to dispose of the ash.

Build natural gas plants? No, it's just another fossil fuel. Besides, we need LNG terminals and those LNG ships are bound to blow up and destroy the coastline.

More oil powered plants? No! Again with the fossil fuels? It just enriches the Arabs and you get oil spills.

How about we pave the desert with solar panels? No, you destroy the fragile desert ecosystem.

More hydro-power? No, we have to protect the furbish Lousewort. And what about the fish? In fact, we should remove more dams!

Then we could build nuclear power plants? Aaaaaaahhhh! Nuclear!! I'm scared?

Unless we return to a Little House on the Prairie style animal-power existence, we need power, and more of it. Every power source has its advantages and disadvantages, and more importantly, a special interest group to oppose it. We can't power the world with pixie dust, so we are going to have to accept some trade-offs and build more power plants.

Imperceptus: well said. No solutions, but my lights had better work! And don't get me started on plug-in cars. As if they were charged by lightning!

The serious climate change nuts want us to return to an 1880's per capita carbon footprint. Is everyone ready for that?

Rep. Everette McLeod..on Govt. Oversight Commitee

Named to National Panel on Energy

Rep. McLeod represents the area that is being "developed" by First Wind. He used the same bank that First Wind does. HSH Norbank OUT OF GERMANY. HE LEASES LAND TO FIRST WIND FOR WIND FARMS.

Leading a delegation to Eastport."Rep McLeod also picked up the theme that Washington County needed to diversify. His list of possible industries include building wind turbine blades that could be shipped around the world through the port of Eastport. We have resources in Washington County to do just that . Let's get the ball rolling."

Is he a lobbyist or a legislator? Do we have any oversight with the assistant AG representing LURC in the 1.7 million dollars taken from developers in "fees." The AG saying this just isn't worth investigating. Even though price fixing by fishermen was important enough to investigate after they complained off shore wind turbines would hurt the industry.And a lobbyist on the oversight committee. Our ME state govt. increasingly seems to run more like the Mafia. Although I have been told by an Italian friend the Mafia has more class.

Please , Don't Lie to Citizen's..See the German Experience , Final Report 2009 , below:

Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaft sforschung

Economic impacts from the

promotion of renewable energies:

The German experience

Final report – October 2009

Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies:

The German experience

Abstract

“The allure of an environmentally benign, abundant, and cost-effective energy

source has led an increasing number of industrialized countries to back public

financing of renewable energies. Germany’s experience with renewable energy

promotion is often cited as a model to be replicated elsewhere, being based on a

combination of far-reaching energy and environmental laws that stretch back nearly

two decades. This paper critically reviews the current centerpiece of this effort, the

Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), focusing on its costs and the associated implications

for job creation and climate protection. We argue that German renewable

energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to

harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction

of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio. To the contrary,

the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these

incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for

stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security.

In the case of photovoltaics, Germany’s subsidization regime has reached a level

that by far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 €

(US $ 240,000)”

Wnd Zombies, get educated, politicians, get educated..The German experience

Just some excerpts:

Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaft sforschung

Economic impacts from the

promotion of renewable energies:

The German experience

Final report – October 2009

"While employment projections in the renewable sector convey seemingly impressive

prospects for gross job growth, they typically obscure the broader implications

for economic welfare by omitting any accounting of off-setting impacts. These impacts

include, but are not limited to, job losses from crowding out of cheaper forms

of conventional energy generation, indirect impacts on upstream industries, additional

job losses from the drain on economic activity precipitated by higher electricity

prices, private consumers’ overall loss of purchasing power due to higher electricity

prices, and diverting funds from other, possibly more beneficial investment."

Mr. Zappa liked to use a lot of German material in his music....

I miss Zappa.

I have Joes Garage, it has some good stuff on it.

Germany's renewable myth

Posted: October 21, 2009, 9:01 PM by NP Editor

Germany is seen as a leader in renewable energy, but its experience has been a costly waste

By Manuel Frondel, Nolan Ritter and Colin Vance

An aggressive policy of generously subsidizing and effectively mandating “renewable” electricity generation in Germany has led to a doubling of the renewable contribution to electricity generation in recent years.

This preference came primarily in the form of a subsidy policy based on feed-in tariffs, established in 1991 by the Electricity Feed-in Law, requiring utilities to accept and remunerate the feed-in of “green” electricity at 90 percent of the retail rate of electricity, considerably exceeding the cost of conventional electricity generation.

A subsequent law passed in 2000 guaranteed continued support for 20 years. This requires utilities to accept the delivery of power from independent producers of renewable electricity into their own grid, paying technology-specific feed-in tariffs far above their production cost of ¢2.9-10.2 per kilowatt hour (kWh).

With a feed-in tariff of ¢59 per kWh in 2009, solar electricity generated from photovoltaics (PV) is guaranteed by far the largest financial support among all renewable energy technologies.

Currently, the feed-in tariff for PV is more than eight times higher than the wholesale electricity price at the power exchange and more than four times the feed-in tariff paid for electricity produced by on-shore wind turbines.

Even on-shore wind, widely regarded as a mature technology, requires feed-in tariffs that exceed the per-kWh cost of conventional electricity by up to 300% to remain competitive.

By 2008 this had led to Germany having the second-largest installed wind capacity in the world, behind the United States, and largest installed PV capacity in the world, ahead of Spain. This explains the claims that Germany’s feed-in tariff is a great success.

Installed capacity is not the same as production or contribution, however, and by 2008 the estimated share of wind power in Germany’s electricity production was 6.3%, followed by biomass-based electricity generation (3.6%) and water power (3.1%). The amount of electricity produced through solar photovoltaics was a negligible 0.6% despite being the most subsidized renewable energy, with a net cost of about $12.4 billion for 2008.

The total net cost of subsidizing electricity production by PV modules is estimated to reach US $73.2 billion for those modules installed between 2000 and 2010. While the promotion rules for wind power are more subtle than those for PV, we estimate that the wind power subsidies may total US $28.1 billion for wind converters installed between 2000 and 2010.

Consumers ultimately bear the cost of renewable energy promotion. In 2008, the price mark-up due to the subsidization of green electricity was about ¢2.2, meaning the subsidy accounts for about 7.5% of average household electricity prices.

Given the net cost of ¢41.82/kWh for PV modules installed in 2008, and assuming that PV displaces conventional electricity generated from a mixture of gas and hard coal, abatement costs are as high as $1,050 per ton.

Using the same assumptions and a net cost for wind of ¢3.10/kWh, the abatement cost is approximately $80. While cheaper than PV, this cost is still nearly double the ceiling of the cost of a per-ton permit under Europe’s cap-and-trade scheme. Renewable energies are thus among the most expensive GHG reduction measures.

There are much cheaper ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than subsidizing renewable energies. CO2 abatement costs of PV are estimated to be as high as $1,050 per ton, while those of wind power are estimated at $80 per ton. By contrast, the current price of emissions certificates on the European emissions trading scheme is only 13.4 (Euro) per ton. Hence, the cost from emission reductions as determined by the market is about 53 times cheaper than employing PV and 4 times cheaper than using wind power.

Moreover, the prevailing coexistence of the EEG and emissions trading under the European Trading Scheme (ETS) means that the increased use of renewable energy technologies generally attains no additional emission reductions beyond those achieved by ETS alone. In fact, since the establishment of the ETS in 2005, the EEG’s net climate effect has been equal to zero.

While employment projections in the renewable sector convey seemingly impressive prospects for gross job growth, they typically obscure the broader implications for economic welfare by omitting any accounting of off-setting impacts. These im-pacts include, but are not limited to, job losses from crowding out of cheaper forms of conventional energy generation, indirect impacts on upstream industries, additional job losses from the drain on economic activity precipitated by higher electricity prices, private consumers’ overall loss of purchasing power due to higher electricity prices, and diverting funds from other, possibly more beneficial investment.

Proponents of renewable energies often regard the requirement for more workers to produce a given amount of energy as a benefit, failing to recognize that this lowers the output potential of the economy and is hence counterproductive to net job creation. Significant research shows that initial employment benefits from renewable policies soon turn negative as additional costs are incurred. Trade-and other assumptions in those studies claiming positive employment turn out to be unsupportable.

In the end, Germany’s PV promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as $240,000.

It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion would vanish as soon as government support is terminated, leaving only Germany’s export sector to benefit from the possible continuation of renewables support in other countries such as the US.

Due to their backup energy requirements, it turns out that any increased energy security possibly afforded by installing large PV and wind capacity is undermined by reliance on fuel sources — principally gas — that must be imported to meet domestic demand. That much of this gas is imported from unreliable suppliers calls energy security claims further into question.

Claims about technological innovation benefits of Germany’s first-actor status are unsupportable. In fact, the regime appears to be counterproductive in that respect, stifling innovation by encouraging producers to lock into existing technologies.

In conclusion, government policy has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into Germany’s energy portfolio. To the contrary, Germany’s principal mechanism of supporting renewable technologies through feed-in tariffs imposes high costs without any of the alleged positive impacts on emissions reductions, employment, energy security, or technological innovation. Policymakers should thus scrutinize Germany’s experience, including in the US, where there are currently nearly 400 federal and state programs in place that provide financial incentives for renewable energy.

Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world” (The Guardian, 2007), we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits.

Financial Post

From Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience, published this month by the Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut in Essen, Germany, and written by Manuel Frondel, Nolan Ritter, Colin Vance. The full report is available at www.rwi-essen.de. Photo: Two German workers install solar panels. The estimated cost per green job of Germany’s subsidy policy is $240,000. (Reuters)

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/21/germany-s-renewable-myth.aspx##ixzz0UrwfwO8i

The New Financial Post Stock Market Challenge starts in October. You could WIN your share of $60,000 in prizing. Register NOW

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/10/21/germany-s-renewable-myth.aspx#

So if wind is uneconomical and not really carbon friendly, let's build nucear reactors on Vinalhaven, in Dixmont, and on Stetson Mt. And let's put a new one in Wiscasset. And just give us the link, rockstars, and stop the cut and paste orgy.

MiloCrabtree...I do now know how to cut and paste . Just googled and typed. If you have no defense...attack the messenger. So transparent.

Just as we never seem to want to consider the cost of our national highway system when the subject of rail subsidies comes up, we seem to want to turn a blind eye when it comes to the true cost of oil. Sure, wind-energy is subsidized but so is oil. The costs wrapped up in political and military activities alone, necessary to keep the global oil market sufficiently stable so as to safeguard our current levels of supply, are simply being ignored. How much do we spend to keep the Gulf of Hormuz open? How much have we spend to prevent Iraq from upsetting the global oil-cart? If there is going to be a "reasoned debate" about the true costs of the various types of energy we cannot be selective. Let's also not forget the environmental and health-care costs directly related to oil and it's wastes. Wind-energy alone can't come close to solving our problem but unless the U.S. comes up with a diversified energy production system that can withstand foreign political upheavals and attempts at extortion, our economy remains highly vulnerable and our internal politics will be swayed by forces beyond our control.

Pizanos - the subsidy for oil is something like 20 cents and $23 dollars for wind - for comparable units of electricity produced. Moreover since there is ZERO way we are going to walk away from the world's richest oil supplies, they must be protected. And for a lot of other reasons than fueling our cars, e.g., pure military reasons. The world is filled with very bad people who would like to kill us which includes you. How about we all just walk away from the middle east and give the enemies the keys to the kingdom? You think we can power our tanks with solar panels? etc., etc. etc. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is not Candyland and there is no cocoa marsh. Oh and one more thing - the Subsidy Fairy that you believe in isn't real!

pizanos..

.We are in Iraq to steal their oil. Over a million Iraquiis dead . Their babies are deformed from our little nukes. Their water is filthy . There is very little electricity. Prior to our bringing our unique brand of democracy...they were know as the beacon of the middle east. Women taught at university.

Please give us another example of the reason wind energy is so good for us.Or maybe the similarities in the oil and wind grab.

rockstars - When were you in Iraq? My daughter spent two tours over there and must have forgotten to tell me about all the things you stated. Also, I've talked with quite a few Army and Air Force personnel and civilian contractors that have been in and out of Iraq, and they also neglected to mention these things. I think you're blowing smoke or listening to MSNBC too much. Maybe you're just kidding. Yeah, that's it....you're just kidding. Because if you're serious, you need to check the source of your "facts". Or, better yet, you need to take a trip over there and see for yourself.

"Because of wind's unpredictable variability, it can never replace the capacity of conventional generation. Twenty-five hundred 450-foot wind turbines, spread over five hundred miles, can mathematically offset a large coal or nuclear plant; but they cannot do so functionally--for what must happen when 5000MW of volatile wind is only producing 100MW at peak demand times, a common occurrence?

This business is absurd. The whole point of modern power systems has been to move beyond the flickering flutter of variable energy sources. Prostituting modern power performance to enable subprime energy schemes on behalf of half-baked technology is immoral. As is implementing highly regressive tax avoidance “incentives" to make it appear that pigs can fly. No coal plants will be shuttered and little, if any, carbon emissions will be reduced as a result of this project—or thousands of them. " J Boone

Indeed, wind technology mirrors the subprime mortgage scams that wreaked havoc with the economy. Both are enabled by wishful thinking; bogus projections; no accounting restraints, accountability, or transparency; no meaningful securitization; and regulatory agencies that looked the other way, allowing a few to make a great deal of money at everyone else's expense while providing no meaningful service.

Boone

Here is how ethical and profitable wind turbines have been to Maine, and to whom thus far. The Wind Scam.

1. The Executive V.P. and Chief Development Officer of First Wind is Kurt Adams. The same Kurt Adams who used to be Chairman of the Maine Public Utilities Commission, the State's primary utilities regulator. Prior to that, he was Governor John Baldacci’s chief legal counsel.

2. Governor Baldacci appointed former Governor Angus King to the Wind Power Task Force. He's also one of the two partners in Independence Wind LLC.

3. First Wind's Vice President for Mergers and Acquisitions is Angus King. No, not the former Governor. His son! A Vice President at First Wind has a father on the Governor's Wind Power Task Force!

4. Ernie Hilton testified for the CMP power line upgrade on 12/10/09. That upgrade will allow the industrial wind power developers to sell electricity out of state. His wife is LURC commissioner Gwen Hilton. (http://www.hyltunfarm.com/contact/contact.php http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=lurcstaff&id=8260&v=tplcombio)

5. Marcia Spencer-Famous, the Senior Planner at LURC who oversees industrial Wind Project approvals is married to biologist Norm Famous. Norm Famous is, well, infamous for stating that they "found no bats on Vinalhaven" (Downeast Magazine). Famous helped clear the way for the Vinalhaven wind turbines that are now torturing the poor residents?

6. Barry Hobbins co-chairs the Right to Know Advisory Committee and the Commission to Study Energy Infrastructure. He is also a member of the Governor’s Ocean Energy Task Force. (http://www.mainesenate.org/hobbins/bio.htm)

6. The Governor's Wind Power Task Force produced Public Law 661, best known as the expedited Wind Permit Statute. Portland Rep. John Hinck, House chair of the Energy Committee, helped ram the Expedited Wind Permit statute into law as "Emergency" legislation. His wife, Juliet Browne was a member of the Task Force.

7. The Governor's legal adviser, Karla Black, sits on the State of Maine Right to Know Committee (http://www.mfoic.org/index.asp?mid=71).

8. The Director of Maine's Center for Disease Control, Dora Mills, refuses to acknowledge peer reviewed evidence of wind turbines' negative effects on human health. Her sister is Maine's Attorney General Janet Mills. AG Mills refuses to ask the wind developers to sign a Code of Conduct the way her counterpart in NY, AG Andrew Cuomo did.

9. Stacy Fitts is a member of both the Governor's Wind Task Force and his Ocean Energy Task Force. He's also Senior Engineer at energy consultant Kleinschmidt Associates. In fact, , a company that is extremely interested in wind subsidies and prides itself in the fact that it has someone on the inside in the Ocean Energy Task Force? In fact, on their website (http://www.kleinschmidtusa.com/MarineRenewable/default.htm) Kleinschmidt boasts "we have been very active in the development of state regulations in Maine, where one of Kleinschmidt’s engineers is a member of the Governor’s Ocean Energy Task Force."

10.. Maine State Representative for District 11 is Everett McLeod Sr. Among the towns he represents are: Burlington, Lee, Winn and Mattawamkeag. According to documents recorded, Rep McLeod is leasing some of his land to First Wind for their Rollins Project. The Rollins Project includes Burlington, Lee, Winn and Mattawamkeag. State Rep McLeod also represents the unorganized territories that are home to First Wind's Stetson Mtn and Jimmey/Owl Mtn Projects. But wait, there's more! He also represents Carroll Plantation where First Wind is planning to put turbines on Bowers Mtn.

Tidal Power for Maine

Gee Whiz~~Do We Have A Coastline or NOT

EJParsons...there are these modern inventions called telephones and the internet , communications via satelite.You don't have to be right beside someone to know what is going on. This is the 21st century. The horrors going on in Iraq are a big reason our soldiers have been severely limited emailing family.

I have talked to people who think the BDN is a liberal rag. It is all in one's point of view. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with a closed mind. In some ways, I would think it is a happier life.

Happy New Year

If you do not know how to cut and past, rockstars, that explains a great deal.

MiloCrabtree...Damned if I do and damned if I don't friend? We are on a national windfarm site for the country to read. Do you think your arguments for windfarms as to whether I can cut and paste will win hearts and minds?

EJP: still at it with your GW "hoax"? You and others are perpetuating the real hoax. Do I have any anwers? Not really, nor unfortunately niehter does anyone else.

Unfortunately, the science really is in on global warming, and common sense and open eyes allow one to discover that humans have a huge impact on the earth in so many ways, including conversion of fossil fuels into airborne pollutants and increasing atmospheric CO2, the consequences of which are well established by real scientists worldwide. While there is reasonable controversy on time lines, The Flat Earth Society has increased it's membership substantially in response to global warming science, substantially because of contradictions to libertarian free market notions.

The global warming issue, however, has been inappropriately used by those that want to justify blanketing the state of Maine with thousands of monster wind turbines. The value of these turbines has been pumped up by developers, while the myriad of problems with mega-turbines have been swept under the rug.

There are two types of people that want to destroy our ridge lines, the natural world, and our health, for the ongoing wind farm folly:

1) Those that will make huge profits on these taxpayer financed commercial wind farm opportunities.

2) Those that think that wind farms will solve the pollution and imported oil problems, without substantial personal lifestyle sacrifices being required.

In short, wind farms in Maine provide little benefit at all while causing huge destruction in so many ways. This is folly at it's worst.

Remember that output from the currently operational wind farms in Maine is proprietary information, and the power companies keep that information, along with where the power is sold, a secret. Doesn't that tell us a lot?

Jim

I'm not trying to win hearts and minds for windfarms - I just don't suffer mindless actvism gladly. Like witless climate change enthusiasts, for instance. How anyone can believe in that claptrap is beyond comprehension.

rockstars - I'll ask you again; when were you in Iraq? Limited emailing? Not quite. When our daughter was there, she emailed every day and called us twice a week. I think you are making this stuff up because I do know quite a few people that have been over there, being that I live in the second largest Air Force community in the US and serve the area of the largest Army helicopter training base in the South. Do some research and get the facts straight.

Congratulations to Steve Bien for a timely article.

The Maine Wind Power projects are more about claiming huge government grants, selling carbon credits and sending unreliable intermittent power to Mass where the renewable energy credits are higher. Electric rates in Maine will definitely increase because the ISO New England agreement requires Maine to share in the cost of building the power grid necessary to transport the power out of the state.

"zavier" commented above about the ethics and profitability of wind turbines in Maine and the Governors Wind Task Force. In para 6 it is stated that Juliet Browne, wife of Portland Rep John Hinck, Maine House Chair of the Energy Committee was a member of the Governors Task Force that helped develop the Expedited Wind Power legislation. Isn't it interesting that Attorney Juliet Browne now represents First Wind in the DEP permitting process. She very successfully represented First Wind before the Board of Environmental Protection in Augusta where an appeal from Lincoln residents was turned down and she is currently guiding First Wind through the expedited permitting process on the Oakfield project. Some cozy, eh?

Ok, you break wind fellows have sold me - it's a conspiracy between government and corporations and we don't need these things. Would it be ok then if we let ExxonMobil or Hess bring drilling rigs into the gulf of Maine to drill? Or would that bring out another cadre of activists who oppose offshore drilling?

One of the answers will be utilization , in a safe manner, of our offshore resources, where appropriate environmental protections can be obtained, and where constitutional home rule issues are not under constant debasement by the Wind Mafia.

The Expedited Wind Law is unconstitutional. Regulatory organizations must be free from external corporate influence and political pressure.

The DEP has become tainted in Maine by the "Expedited Wind law" . LURC has basically been bought out, as well as many others.

Science and reason must be applied, not Industrial Propaganda and the vested interest of the "The Power Elite".

"There is little that is cognitively more dissonant than supporting the concept of minimizing the human footprint on the earth while cheerleading for the rude intrusiveness of physically massive/energy feckless wind projects. The slap and tickle of wind propaganda flatters the gullible, exploits the well intentioned, and nurtures the craven. It is made possible because there's no penalty for lying in the energy marketplace. The country has evidently arrived at a point in its legal culture where no negative consequences seem to exist for making false or misleading claims to sell wind energy—the stuff dreams are made of. But industrial wind is a bunco scheme of enormous consequence. And people who value intellectual honesty should not quietly be fleeced by such mendacity, even from their government."

Jon Boone

How the "f" do you nurture the craven? What does that mean? And I too hate being constantly debased by the wind mafia. Is there anything more diabolical?