There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel. The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. Oil is finite. We are using oil globally at the rate of 2X faster than new oil is being discovered. We need to take some of these billions in bail out bucks and bail ourselves out of our dependence on foreign oil.If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains, the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota. Jeff Wilson has a really good new book out called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. He explores our uses of oil besides gasoline, our depletion, out reserves and stores as well as viable options to replace oil.Oil is finite, it will run out in the not too distant future. WE need to take some of these billions in bail out bucks and bail America out of it's dependence on foreign oil. The historic high price of gas this past year did serious damage to our economy and society. WE should never allow others to have that much power over our economy again. I wish every member of congress would read this book too.

www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com

Multinational corporations have long been under fire for extracting the natural resources of third world countries and leaving nothing for the impoverished people, relegating to living in shanty towns. Invariably, there is always a handful of corrupt government officials who give the corporate bloodsuckers their support, betraying the citizenry in the process, while benefitting immensely themselves.

The wind companies have come into Maine and have cozied up to officials at various levels of government. And under the protective cover of the global warming hysteria, the common person is made to feel he is destroying the planet if he even questions the Windbags' assault on Maine. In the end, the common person will see Maine despoiled by thousands and thousands of turbines, more power lines and far taller power lines. And he will receive nothing in the process as all monies are made by out of state (or out of country) corporations as his taxes go up to give these companies corporate welfare.

FACT: The places the wind turbines are being erected have LOUSY wind, as tjhe only good wind for wind power in Maine is in the Western mountains and 20 miles offshore. Please, educate yourself and others on this by clicking on Maine at::http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps_none.asp This is the official government wind resource map in the U.S.

The reason the wind companies target places like Stetson and Aroostook are:

1. They are really in the business of harvesting government subsidies

2. They have calculated the town folk in such places are not savvy enough to resist and will be instantly bought off with false promises of jobs.

3. They feel they can get to local officials

How many carbon friendly forests are cut down to build these farms and power lines?

How much power is really made since the turbines average only about 25% of their stated capacity?

How much added power is lost through the fact that losses occur the farther one transmits electricity and many of these turbines are very distant from the eventual end users in Mass and Ct?

How much energy is used to make the steel in the turbines?

What will happen to the price of steel as scamming companies all over rush to milk the subsidy?

Will the increased price of steel cause other items to inflate just as Ethanol used large amounts of corn which caused skyrocketing food prices?

WIND IS THE NEW ETHANOL.

THE WIND RUSH IS THE NEW DOTCOM CRASH IN THE MAKING.

We need government stimulus to be invested in things that will work and create real jobs that efficiently create lasting benefits to society. Not this scam.

Yea, Theres got to be a better way.This wind tower quick fix is just another way to waste money on hype.Im getting tired of this hind site 20/20 country everybodys got there fingers in the cookie jar .Hows there one world gov. coming along?

Maine media have been overlooking a huge, complex, multi-faceted issue that has dramatic implications for all of Maine, but in particular, the BDN readership area. It should be a journalist's dream to be handed such a meaty issue. Things like the DEP allowing Mars Hill to operate beyond its licensed allowable decibel level, even after it was granted a variance to go from 45 to 50 decibels. The implications of the use of TIF for this industry on top of all the other financial props: tax equity financing, production tax credits, double balance 5 year accelerated depreciation, guaranteed access to markets from Renewable Energy Portfolio schemes from the states, and the ability to sell so-called renewable energy tax credits to companies that pollute. The connection between Gov. Baldacci & Kurt Adams of First Wind. The incredible erosion problems at Kibby Mt. caused by TransCanada. Angus King's "bribe" of proposing to pay 500 kwh per month on Roxbury residents' CMP bills. The emergence of documentable medical problems known as vibro-acoustic syndrome and its effects on humans and wildlife and its demonstrated effect causing the lungs of bats to explode from changes in air pressure (are bats the equivalent to the canary in the coal mine?). The connection between the push for industrial wind sites in rural parts of Maine and the proposed $1.4 billion expansion of transmission lines across Maine. The implications of building at least 30 more sites as huge and sprawling as Stetson Mt. and the Rollins project in Lincoln Lakes in order to meet the goal of 2,000 megawatts of "installed capacity" by 2015. The severe curtailment of citizens' rights as seen in the time constraints utilized in Lincoln (2 minutes?), LURC denying a public hearing for Stetson II, the expedited permit process constraints (which are likely unconstitutional), the chilling LD 199 that, if passed, would not allow any town in Maine to have a say in siting utility scale wind projects, etc. I could list dozens more issues. Why doesn't the editorial decision makers at BDN want to look into these in depth? Surely they can't be that much in Baldacci's pocket to not have the journalistic integrity to bring these issues to the readership.

I guess something good does come from the bad economy. Are we supposed to feel bad, that First Wind and other wind companys are slowing down on some of their projects? Maybe it will give some more time for Mainers to see whats going on and just say no to these wonderful scam artists! Almost as good as a Moratorium. Bet they were hoping Mainers would happily pay to put new transmission lines in for them.

"Between 2006 and 2008, generation of electricity from wind in the United States more than doubled to 21,000 megawatts". I'm so unimpressed. This increase in energy mearly equals building one small nuclear power plant on 10 acres of land .. about the same as the Maine Yankee facility that Maine was forced to abandon 15 years ago. So, slashing 10's of thousands of acres of carbon sequesting forest is more "progressive" than constructing a energy efficient, clean, safe, environment friendly nuclear station. Go Figure.

WHY DO WIND COMPANIES LIE? OIL CONSUMPTION REDUCTION FOR ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION IS INSIGNIFICANT IN THE US!

But Psychologically, attaching it to Energy Independence, is a good SCAM.!

Glen R. Schleede*

December 1, 2004

Reasons why wind energy will have no significant impact on oil use for electric generation

Where is the oil used in the US?

Table: 2002 Electric Generation By State & US Total

Endnotes

One of the false claims made by “wind energy” advocates is that greater use of this potential energy source would reduce US dependence on oil, including oil imports.

In fact, adding more wind turbines will have no significant impact on US oil consumption.

Unfortunately, many well-meaning people (including some prolific authors of letters to editors and reporters) have accepted the wind advocates’ claims about reductions in oil use. This brief paper explains why the reduced oil use claim is false.

The claim about reduced oil dependence is only one of many false and misleading claims made on behalf of wind energy by the wind industry, US Department of Energy (DOE), DOE’s National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) and other wind advocates. Other such claims are discussed elsewhere.1

Facts about oil use in electric generation in the US:

1. The only potential use of wind turbines is to produce electricity.

2. Very little oil is used in the US to produce electricity. In 2002, only 2.45% of the electricity produced in the US was produced by using oil.2 The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects that percentage to drop to 1.68% by 2025.3

3. Most of the use of oil in the US for electricity generation occurs in a few states, as shown in the attached. For example, in 2002, 3 states (Florida, New York and Hawaii) accounted for nearly 58% of all the electricity in the US generated by using oil.

4. Oil accounted for more than 5% of electric generation in only 9 states and the District of Columbia. Those states are Hawaii, Florida, Massachusetts, Delaware, Alaska, New York, Connecticut, Maine and Virginia.

5. Oil accounted for less than 1% of electric generation in 31 states. Twenty-six of those were under ½ of 1%.

One Lie...It will reduce our OIL CONSUMPTION . Remember, there is no review of this companies claims or research by any Independent Agency in the US at this moment.

The legislature established a goal of 3000 MW of wind power by 2020. 3000 MW is less than 10% of the 35 MW of grid capacity of the ISO New England grid. 6000 turbines and 1500 miles of Maine ridge line will be required to meet this goal. Every wind farm that is built destroys a piece of Maine forever. One by one they will keep coming unless we stop them.

Wow - such negative comments from people who are so misinformed - or uninformed. Fact - electricity from wind in Maine offsets electricity generated by natural gas - whether existing generation or new generation planned to cover future demand. As for where the wind turbines are being located, I have 3 observations:(1) the western mountains are more difficult, thus more expensive, to build on; (2) offshore off the coast of Maine isn't feasible with current technology - the water is too deep, as compared to the coast of Denmark, for example. Also, the potential effects on fisheries, whale migration, etc. could be more significant than predicted; and (3) the wind companies will place windmills where the wind is sufficient to generate electricity and return a profit, period. Government subsidies for wind are far less than subsidies for nuclear, oil & gas, etc. Check the stats. New jobs average 1 per every 4-5 turbines across the industry, plus spin-off for construction and local economic impact. Ask an economic developer or planner. TIF is a useful tool for planning taxes - not necessarily giving money back to the corporation. Local and County tax benefits can be significant. Ask Mars Hill. Ask the landowners who receive anywhere from $5-10,000 per year per turbine what they think. Mainers don't make money? Bull . . . it's a great opportunity for the people of Maine - or, we could live in a cave forever.

I wonder if "windfuture" is Angus King or an employee of First Wind's PR agency.

Did I read the other day that Maines public broadcasters had checked the box indicating that they wanted to pay the extra dollars for "green power"? Interesting couple there, the folk who run their business on fed money, state money, volunteer money AND their sponsors meet up with the power supplier who runs on Fed money, state money, and their customers.

Selling the power from a few nukes into the grid could supply free heat to every elder and low income home in Maine, but we dither with windmills that stop if the wind does not blow; or if it does; over 35 mph. Shamefull!

windfuture don't include me in your remark - I don't live in a cave and don't plan on living in one in the future. Your "great opportunity" is going to be an eyesore on the landscape of Maine for generations. If these are so great why doesn't the state of Massachusetts keep all the benefits for themselves and erect a thousand or so along the many assessable ridge lines in the Berkshires? This would put the electrical source closer to the end user with the result being less transmission loss. The difference in wind generation potential is minuscule and shouldn't be a factor. I think it's stupid to give all those $5,000 to $10,000 stipends to Mainers when they could go to all those deserving users in S. New England.

Why the data must be looked at closely: Depending on Firstwind data is akin to depending on the fox to guard the chickenhouse.

Yesterday the Te Apiti wind farm had peak generation of approximately 30 MW. Installed wind turbine capacity at Te Apiti is 90 MW. Average wind generation for the whole day from Te Apiti was approximately 12 MW. Just when we need as much supply as possible to cover known outages and hence put pressure on spot prices, wind has been missing.

- March 27, 2008 Unreliable renewables contributes to high prices.

What does this say concerning "data" on real world production?

They ship it out of Maine because they get a better price for it spot market. Are we the host for this parasite?

As the technology progresses and it becomes more and more feasible to harness energy from non-fossil fuel sources, it will become more and more commonplace. Its takes time. Hang in there.

Remember personal computers? Originally they were as big as houses and just as expensive. Same story, as technology progressed, so did their accessibility. Now they are everywhere and quite affordable.

What about one solar panel per taxed structure? An entire town would become a cheap power plant. That would be cool.

Mr Gaynor is right , it costs alot, but not from his 1.528 million salary, it is from yours....

The true cost of electricity from wind energy is much higher than wind advocates

admit.

Wind energy advocates like to ignore key elements of the true cost of electricity

from wind, including:

•

The cost of tax breaks and subsidies which, as indicated above, shift tax burden and

costs from “wind far m” owners to ordinary taxpayers and electric customers.

•

The cost of providing backup power to balance the intermittent and volatile output

from wind turbines.

•

The full, true cost of transmitting electricity from “wind farms” to electric customers.

“Wind farms” are highly inefficient users of transmission capacity. Capacity must be

available to accommodate the total rated output but, because the output is intermittent

and volatile, that transmission capacity is used only part time. The wind industry

seeks to avoid these costs by shifting them to electric customers.

•

The extra burden on grid management.

"What about one solar panel per taxed structure? An entire town would become a cheap power plant. That would be cool".

YES, that would make a big difference, not just in power generation but also in bringing down the price of rooftop photovoltaics. The power companies such as Iberdrola (the company from Spain which owns CMP) are scared to death of this sort of thing and I imagine expend considerable effort lobbying and lying (redundant?) to discourage it from happening. Instead of subsidizing these wasteful corporate leehes, why not provide a hefty subsidy to homeowners for rooftop solar.

Also, once everyone had one, any stigma of a funny looking roof would go away. Just as if every suburbam lawn stopped being mowed and was turned into a vegetable garden.

POWER to the people.

Question: " If these are so great why doesn't the state of Massachusetts keep all the benefits for themselves and erect a thousand or so along the many assessable ridge lines in the Berkshires?"

Answer: For the same reason that multinationals suck the resources dry in third world nations instead of developed nations -- Massachusetts folk can defend themselves and in the corporate leeches' view, rural Maine is a third world state that can't.

POWER to the people.

The wind industry, DOE and its national laboratories, and other wind energy advocates have

misled the public, media, Congress and state legislators and regulators with their claims about

the benefits of wind energy. In fact, they have greatly overstated the benefits and understated

the true costs.

•

Federal and state government actions designed to force greater reliance on wind and other

non-hydro renewable energy sources are:

Distorting capital investment by steering capital to projects that have little merit.

•

Producing significant transfers of wealth from taxpayers and electric customers to owners

of “wind farms” and other renewable energy production facilities.

These effects are particularly true in the case of the generous federal and state tax breaks and

“Renewable Portfolio Standards.”

"Shleede 2004"

The Scam continues....AND WE ALL PAY!!

jaygee,

I think you're misinformed on the issue of where high quality wind resources occur in Maine. If you look at a low-resolution map, sure, there only appears to be good wind offshore or in the western Maine mountains. A high resolution map shows that there are numerous small patches of high quality wind (basically anywhere a large ridgeline is exposed to a large expanse of open space to the NW).

Check out this map and list of windfarms to see where the wind is and where the things are going. Every speck on the map is potential wind site.

Mountainman, you should run for public office...maybe then you could take down the entire wind industry along with 'ruby rose' and 'jaygee'!!!

Expedited Process of Wind Power is the term for Lobbied Self Interest by Big Wind in this state and elsewhere, shoved down the throat of a misinformed legislature who is too used to' group think of vested self interest'. That never makes good policy.

Where was Citizen input on a policy that affects all Maine citizens at all levels. It didn't happen. It was Elitist Group Think.

The people of America are not being well served by federal and state government officials

who:

1.Fail to understand the facts about the nation’s energy situation and outlook,

2.Continue pursuing energy policies that are costly and ineffective, and

3.Cater to special interest groups at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.

The Scam Continues--

jspencer, I'm still waiting for the answer to where you found figures comparing wind and hydro electric generation as being comparable @ 30%.

Most of what I read gives hydro a 90% rating. The articles also rate hydro high on its ability to backup wind generation because it can be "turned on" with short notice, something that is needed due to the unreliable nature of wind power. Help me out here - give me a reference for that 30% figure.

The same wind blows thru Mass and Conn, saving hundreds of miles of trans. lines. Why make the wind power so far from where it is needed?Oh that's right . MassConn does not want these sprawling all over their states. Wind is steadier offshore and might make enough power not to need to be subsidized. I guess that free taxpayer money is too hard to resist. Screwing over rural Maine does not seem to matter to the developers or to the schills who signed away their land rights to the wind pimps. The fascists in Augusta seem unable to resist the bribes and donations either. These wind projects make as much sense as buying plastic bottles made in China, shipping them to Fiji, filling them with water and shipping them to Maine to sell. Talk about carbon dioxide emissions!!!!! Windmills and pinwheels are toys, one being a lot bigger and more annoying not to mention dangerous.

WRofGlenburn

Check out:

http://www.maineenvironment.org/documents/redington_NRCM_exhibits.pdf

This shows capacity and annual energy production for Maine hydro facilities. To get the annual capacity factor of each dam, divide the MWh by the MW to give you annual equivalent full load hours. Then compare this number to 8760. 8760 would give you 100% annual capacity factor. 4380 gives a 50% capacity factor, etc. Most Maine dams appear to be in the 4000-6000 hours range, roughly 50-60% annual capacity factor. These are actually very high numbers for hydro, indicative of them putting in a small turbine for the amount of water available. Part of the Penobscot restoration project involves adding turbine capacity at the remaining dams, which will increase rated capacity and annual output. This will likely result in somewhat lower capacity factors, but take greater advantage of the available resource at those dam sites.

Alternative energy created in Maine should stay in Maine. We need to break away from the ISO grid.

jspencer, Thank you for the link and info. You realize of course that this is a sales brochure for wind power and the comparisons are apples to oranges.

The hydro outputs in most cases are voluntary and by design. Some of these plants are brought on-line as demand warrants and shut down as demand decreases. Additionally, some of the hydro facilities provide dual roles incorporating flood control with their electric generation duties. Wind power is just the opposite. You almost have to use it when it's generating and when you really need it it may not be available. That's why a steady and reliable base source is required with wind. Hydro is the most flexible and best suited to mitigate the 100% flucuations of wind generation. That is one reason that the cost of wind power is higher than is acknowledged publicly. BTW 50-60% is a lot better than 30%, eh?

Markets should shape energy policy, not feel good fads.

Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf ran the numbers, and found that the effective tax rate for wind industrial power is -163.8% !

In other words, that is to the tune of .64 cents from govt subsidy,directly.

Energy Information Administration estimates wind receives $23.37 per megawatt hour, VERSUS .44 cents for coal!

Despite these government crutches, wind only provides 1% od US NET electric generation.

Energy policy should be generated by the markets, not subsidization at these levels. Not only will this nonsense ruin environment, it ruins

our check books .Rep. Mr.Delahunt in 2005 of Mass. was calling for a Apollo project in Alternative energy . In reality, such projects are only

possible because of political patronage, not economic or scientic logic.

And our enlightened represntatives in Maine, from the governor on down, to a Task Forces on Energy, fall into the same scam. Why one might ask? THE SCAM CONTINUES----

After reading countless Comments on these alternative energy topics, I believe I may have stumbled on the most obvious answer, and limitless source of energy that seems readily and easily accessable....that being the energy expended by all this RHETORIC !! Do you not see, or read, that few of you naysayers have offered your best idea of an ALTERNATIVE ? It seems few will discount the use of oil for little more reason than foreign dependency. Little is said about the HUGE impact it has had on the planet and inhabitants. But MANY are crying the blues about the visual and audible impact on their personal lives. Talk about NOT thinking globally and acting locally. How's this for a sugesstion...Put Up or Shut Up! Join forces to discover the answer rather than standing independently with your fists in the air about what ISN'T the answer!

Follow the money. It is not about a PR campaign to atempt to discredit legitimate facts and discussion for corporate benefit. It is about you seeing the facts on the ridiuclous fallacy of Energy policy scamming.(unless you are part of it , and have vested interest in it)...TAX DOLLARs are being wasted wth industrial Blow Toys.

Suggestion....Repeal of Expedited Process in Maine. Return to local control on issues affecting all regions of the state. Economic evaluation of energy production by independent sources. Residential energy tax credits for consumer utilization, and decentralization of energy production for local utilization.

Lets see the real influence and interrelationships of big wind in our state reported on , and have a Citizen Task Force for Energy Policy, with citizen input, that effect the only entity of rule in this state, the citizen.

Lets look at Clean coal, Oil, gas,(and , oh my gard, Nuclear) and other sources in Maine, which has a wealth of good options. There are places for wind and solar, but Industrial wind is a farce. $23.37 per MW subsidized at over 64 percent, v .44 cents for coal., for 1 percent production of Electricity, which we have a wealth of. Lets get real here.

. Also, the markets are seeing this. Industrial wind onshore is doomed. Offshore, maybe in the near future.

The corporate policy naysayers love to scream NIMBY, visual thing. It is not that at all.That is their PR to discredit. It is about taxpayers being scammed financially, physically , environmentally. You want an immediate suggestion, STATE WIND MORATORIUM on this issue for Independatnt fact review , NOW.

Elimination of Expedited Process for CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS , NOW!

Start with those two, please.

I wonder if "billkapaldo" is the Bill Kapaldo who builds Bob's Stores and Linnen n Things.

billkapaldo, feels good to rant doesn't it? I don't know if we can credit you with the discovery that blogs are full of "RHETORIC" because I think it was always common knowledge. While rereading your post I noticed that you haven't provided any concrete suggestions to tackle our energy dilemma. I'm not sure what your point is about oil. I agree its had a big impact on inhabitants (earthlings) but I'm not sure about this "HUGE" impact on the planet unless you're referring to the climatic hysteria espoused by Al Gore and his acolytes. I think the bottom line on this blog is that most people agree that wind power has a role to play but its role is being overplayed, that there are other alternatives like nuclear, tidal, or even more coal generation, that the truth about costs and long term environmental concerns are not being properly addressed, and that many feel wind generation is being shoved down their throats. It would be nice to get back to a scientific discussion. You should read moutainman's comments above, he has some good points. Looking forward to reading some of your constructive comments.

First Wind's CEO, Paul Gaynor, used to work for Bechtel. Need we say more?

And a very important Third component to wind Policy needed in Maine. Immediately We should:

ESTABLISH A MAINE ETHICS CODE, ititiated by the new AG, for wind power companies trying to do business in this state . A major component being a full transparent process and disclosure of money transfers made by Wind Power companies to all private, municipal and state entities as it relates to the siting process in the State of Maine

Oh, another immediate action.

3..Continued from above..

An immediate Code of Ethics Policy for all Wind Companies in Maine initiated by the new AG, with a major component being Transparent Process, with full disclosure of money transfers that have been made to all private , local, and state officials as they relate to Wind Power initiatives in the State of Maine.

Oh, you don't think we need an ethics code, read on....

SCIDA's action marks the first upbeat note for First Wind after a year of controversy, which still include lawsuits challenging eminent domain proceedings brought by the town board, and charges of improper, unethical action by town Supervisor Harold Mc- Connell.

In addition, First Wind also is one of two wind farm developers currently under investigation by the state Attorney General.

Web link: http://www.steubencourier.com/news/2009/0125/news/...

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280030625&LD=199&Type=1&SessionID=8

This link describes "An Act to Facilitate Windpower Siting" This is being proposed now in our state government to take the power to decide if a wind project can go ahead away from towns and have state agencies such as DEP and LURC make those decisions. Think about what this means.

How about the names of LD-199 sponsors, (now tabled), and the sponsor relationships to Big Wind ? LD-199 Sponsors anyone?

The only listed sponsor for LD-199 that I could find is Richard Cebra (R) Naples.

I still don't know why we are stuck the idea of a wind-powered future...photovoltaics people! The sun always shines, and will for the next few billion years.

rojogrande:

If you were to cover every square inch of the United

States with solar panels using the most up-to-the-minute

technology, it wouldn't come close to providing even our

base-level energy requirements. How's that?

The answer is Hydrogen. For cars, heating and power

generation. Period.

Wasting money on wind and solar only takes away from

the resources needed to perfect hydrogen and finance

the transition.

OldBangor

mountainman, you should provide us all with your name and provide the name of the towm you live in. That way we could use this blog to drum up political support for you to run in an upcoming campaign. I am SURE that if you ran for public office on this anti-wind, big government scam/conspiracy platform, you would undoubtedly emerge victorious!!

Maybe Focus541, it is YOU who should provide YOUR name and the town YOU live in. Chances are YOU are NOT from Maine, and YOU have YOUR hand in the cookie jar too! How much are you making from all the wind towers coming to Maine? It must be so frustrating for you to have Mountain man providing facts for the Maine people to read and learn. Thats OK focus541 you just keep lashing out at those opposed to Maine getting scammed by flatlanders, your true colors are showing! More and more Mainers are are turning on the wind companys after finding the true facts are not what you and your scamming cronies are telling them! Pack it up and get outta town! Mainers are on to you!

jaygee, IownMaine, mountainman, and others against wind power - please leave a comment at SaveRoxbury.org so that we can contact you via email.

LD 199

Listed below are the sponsors of the Turbine Siting Authority bill which strips towns of self determination regarding wind turbines facilities.

Let them know that 1200 turbines on 300 miles of Maine's ridge lines (55 Roxbury sized wind farms) is unacceptable. It will require 1200 2.5 megawatt turbines spaced about 1/4 mile apart to achieve the Governors' goal of 3000 megawatts of installed capacity.

3000 MW of installed capacity will produce less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the needs of the ISO New England grid that Maine is part of and will have no impact on global warming, oil imports, or the price of natural gas. It will have unknown impacts on Maine's wildlife, destroy Maine's western mountains and tourist economy, and will put at risk for Wind Turbine Syndrome any citizen living within 2 miles of turbines on ridges overhead.

Also remind them of the importance of local government in the democratic process, and your refusal to allow them to take it away from you.

Thanks,

Steve

3-49) Bill “An Act To Facilitate Wind Power Siting” (H.P. 164) (L.D. 199)

Sponsored by Representative CEBRA of Naples. RepRich.Cebra@legislature.maine.gov

Cosponsored by Representatives:

FITTS of Pittsfield RepStacey.Fitts@legislature.maine.gov

FLETCHER of Winslow, Home E-Mail: fletcher2@roadrunner.com

State House E-Mail: RepKen.Fletcher@legislature.maine.go

HAMPER of Oxford, Home E-Mail: rep.hamp@yahoo.com

State House E-Mail: RepJames.Hamper@legislature.maine.gov

ROBINSON of Raymond, Home E-Mail: jrobinson@robinsonmfgco.com

State House E-Mail: RepJohn.Robinson@legislature.maine.gov

SARTY of Denmark. Home E-Mail: drtom16@hotmail.com

State House E-Mail: RepThomas.Saviello@legislature.maine.gov

rojogrande, don't know where you're from but at my house the sun disappeared yesterday afternoon and didn't reappear until this morning. Somehow I don't think photovoltaics are ready to provide enough heat to keep me warm at -20F.

Is wind energy overly subsidized?

Compared with Nuclear and Oil/Gas - not really. Nuclear receives 3 times the subsidy wind receives - and when was the last nuclear plant built? Oil and Gas - 10 times the annual subsidy, and they have it permanently in the tax code!

Fact: Every energy technology is subsidized. Wind energy is no exception. Wind receives a tax

credit that provides an inflation-adjusted 1.5 cents for each kilowatt-hour generated, over the

first ten years of the project. (Pre-inflation adjustment = 2.1 cents per kWH. This credit reduces the tax liability of a wind farm, but is not a

subsidy of public money flowing to the wind farm owner.

Other energy sources receive subsidies in many forms, including tax deductions, loan

guarantees, liability insurance and leasing of public lands at below market prices. Some, like

the depletion allowance for oil and gas, are permanent in the tax code. Additional indirect

subsidies include federal money for research and development programs and policy provisions

in federal legislation. The largest subsidy, however, may be an invisible one—the fact that the

environmental impacts from fossil fuel use are not reflected through higher costs of those energy

sources. Instead, all of society must pay the price for dirty air, polluted water, health costs,

global warming, fuel spills, and cleanup and disposal of fuel byproducts attributed to traditional

energy sources. Clean, renewable, domestic wind energy produces no emissions, requires no

fuel and the cost is fixed and predictable over time.

I'm not saying to get 100% of our energy needs from the sun, that would be infeasible. But, if it was more common place LESS coal would be needed, and over time exponentially help our situation.

I like hydrogen too. Look on youtube for hydrogen torch that melts metal. Pretty cool.

Oh, and live in Garland.

rojogrande:

The biggest problems with wind and solar are that they are

very expensive to manufacture and operate versus the power

that they produce. They also have their own invasive characteristics

on the environment, not the least of which is the energy required

to actually manufacture them. My point is simply that the feel-good

quotient involved takes away resources from the truly practical and

doable perfection of hydrogen power for transportation, heating and

power generation.

Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J25S948uJPw

OldBangor

I can't wait until the new wind turbines go up in Lincoln this year. I will enjoy having the turbines in the background of the next anti-war anti American rally at the gazebo that you nimby's enjoy having so often.

Every energy generation system has drawbacks and costs, and most are heavily subsidized by the government. Many, if not most, of the costs and subsidies are not figured in.

Nuclear -- operating costs look OK until you include the fuel life cycle, There are enormous government subsidies for uranium mining, and while the US has a fair amount of it is is a non-renewable resource. The scenic areas where the ore is mined are destroyed forever - it is not just the scenery that is destroyed; the land is contaminated for any other use. There are no disposal plan for the extremely poisonous waste (It's like building a house with the toilet emptying into the basement).

Coal - even assuming the use of "clean coal" (research and technoiogy paid for with government subsidies), there is still the indirect costs of coal mining, which remains one of the most hazardous occupations. Mining also irrevocably destroys scenic areas, often levelling entire mountains. Although we have a lot of it, it is still a non-renewable resource. It will go a long ways towards tiding us over until we perfect renewable technologies, but it is not a solution itself.

Hydro - Changes the ecosystem; severe negative impact on anadramous fishes. Impedes use of the waterway. The required dams cause signifiant ecosystem change and floods what could be decent farmland. The government has historically seized entire valleys by eminent domain and forcibly removed the inhabitants. These actions are far enough away in time and space that we in Maine tend to ignore them, but if we wanted to build a similarly large-scale hydro power systemtoday, , we might need to destroy some of our river communities.

Solar - Cost of manufacturing the panels should not be ignored. Biggest problem is getting enough reliable sunshine for electiricy generation. Little advantage to large-scale adaptation, so power companies have not been all that interested. Good for distributed power generation; works well for situations like municipal buidings, schools, or large industiral buildings, but requires some local expertise.

Wind - the biggest disadvantage is that like solar, the power supply is erratic. However, windmills scale well, and can produce electricity when running well below their stated capacity. (Few power plants run all the time at stated capacity - I have heard that nuclear plants average only 30-40% of capacity over a year). But the windmills most commonly used in farms have an upper wind limit; they disconnect when the wind gets too strong. Windmills also change the scenery, though unlike coal or uranium mining, they do not destroy the land or exosystem. Some people actually consider them picturesque, like lighthouses. More seriously, they can kill birds who do not see the moving vanes, and they can be noisy. There are windmills that are silent and do not kill birds (and also do not have to disconnect in high winds), but they are less efficient in power generatioin, so the wind farm companies have not considered them.

All in all, wind mills cause some of the least amount of damage. And if wind farms could be persuaded to use vertical-axis windmills, most of those problems would disappear (though you would need to increase the number of windmills to compensate for the efficiency loss). The largest objection then becomes aesthetics, and on that point opinions differ. While I would personally prefer wilderness to any form of development, I have seen the wind farms in California and allow that they are a magnificent sight. Given that we need the energy, this is one of the least damaging systems we can use.

OldBangor:

I understand what you're saying. To paraphrase my original post; until it becomes cheaper it is not feasible. I wonder what effect a windmill will have on the surrounding environment. What about tourism?

ClaireC:

I think it's very telling that you chose to completely

IGNORE my posts regarding Hydrogen. I'll put this

clip up one more time. Granted, it's only about cars,

but the implications are obvious for transportation,

heating and power generation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J25S948uJPw

OldBangor

rojogrande:

You obviously didn't look at that clip, did you?

The technology EXISTS! Mass production and

the development of a support/distribution network

are the only things required to solve ALL of our

energy needs. The transition will take some time,

but we did it with gasoline and electricity, didn't we?

OldBangor

I agree with billkapaldo. You people that are shooting down the wind energy proposals I don't see you offering up any alternative solution to the oil use problem.

I think that now isl the time to take advantage of building these farms while we do have a good supply of alternative energy. These guys would be the first to complain when coal and gas and oil gets too high and to build these farms would be four times as expensive at that time. Seems they are short term thinkers; not planning. Did you guys just start insulating your homes when oil prices went sky high last season? Are you the same people that waited to get rid of your 1960's gas guzzler when the price of gas shot to 5 buck a gallon? The same people that put on their snow tires during or after the first snowstorm? You probably wait to change the oil in you car until the red oil light comes on.

I also agree that nuclear would be a great alternative but that probably won't happen again because people are just so polarized against it. Hydro dams would be one of our greatest and most reliable clean energy sources but these same people , the "eco-nazis " , won't allow that either. Taking all the different opponents arguments into perspective just what would you guys recommend fro alternatives? Wait let me guess you are the guys that will pull that old rabbit out of the hat saying, "Maine already produces more energy that it uses thats why we sell it off". Not thinking of a future where maybe we could have some industry interested in moving here along with employees and families and we will be at the edge of our limits of supplying power for those people/industries.

We should be taking advantage of this low price of fuel right now and building all we can while it is still comparatively cheap!

Windfuture, first of all, the tax subsidy plantation industry should just leave Maine alone--period. There is no justification to blast away and ravage hundreds of miles of ridgelines, clearcut tens of thousands of acres of woodlands, destroy wildlife habitat, and ruin the peace and health of hundreds of people to prop up an industry that can't compete in a free market economy.

TIF is not a tax planning tool, it is yet another form of subsidy. If a sprawling industrial wind site is going to change the character of a community and destroy what people value, then not only should the company pay its full amount of taxes, there should be a substantial annual impact fee as well. Using TIF to prop up a company that many people do not want in their town is a #*&%@ization of the intent of TIF.

Regarding your perspective on subsidies and telling people to check the stats, here you go. According to the US Energy Information Office in 2007, wind energy was subsidized at a cost of $690 million, which worked out to $23.37 per megawatt produced. This compares to federal subsidies of 67 cents for hydroelectric and 25 cents for fossil fuel per megawatt produced. The industrial wind industry would not exist without tax equity financing, production tax credits, double balance 5 year accelerated depreciation, guaranteed access to markets from Renewable Energy Portfolio schemes from the states, and the ability to sell so-called renewable energy tax credits to companies that pollute. It is an incredible array of money making schemes and scams on the taxpayers and ratepayers.

Thus, the industry is not about creating "green" energy and saving the planet. It is about how to co-opt concerns about global warming and dependence on foreign oil, and slick propagandizing to position wealthy investors and corporations to get rich as "pigs at the public tax subsidy trough". If industrial wind sites had to be built with only the usual standards of the free market economic system, there would never be a single one built. God save us from this blight on rural Maine!

ClaireC, some good comments. I've seen some of those California wind farms myself and I think they are downright ugly. Of course the land they sit on is also ugly so I guess it doesn't make much difference. As you state, you can find problems with just about any source of energy. I'm not sure of your source for 30% capacity for nuclear but for most plants it's 90%. One of nuclear's drawbacks is the inability to rapidly turn it on and off so your grid has to be large enough to adjust other segments to variations in demand (the French have a good handle on this). The bottom line is: what's affordable AND practical? Wind and solar seem good solutions for individual use although both are not necessarily economical. Personally I would love to see the Passamaquoddy tidal project from the 1930's revived. It will never happen. The couple of thousand people it would directly affect, plus the environmental lobby, will insure it remains DOA. We could go back to living like we did in the late 1800's but somehow dying in one's 50's probably won't have universal appeal. The answer seems to be to keep plugging away, hope our questionably performing politicians make some correct decisions, and that the people stay informed and on top of the problem.

Yes, you are correct. That is the underlying theme to all of my posts.

ALL:

I hereby give up on all of you who have chosen

to totally ignore my posts concerning Hydrogen.

May you all wind-up shivering in the dark eating

cold tofu!!!!!!

At least say SOMETHING! The solution is right

under your NOSES!

OldBangor

Hey for those of you that think Windmills are a scam. If you voted for Obama you like scams so you should be happy. And I am willing to bet a substantial amount that you all voted for that scam man.

I'd rather be sitting by the wood-burning stove eating a delicious steak. Hydrogen is explosive.

Remember the Hindenburg!!

rojo and WR:

Gasoline is also explosive, and electricity can FRY you

just like a delicious steak. I'll bet you STILL haven't looked

at that clip, have you? Wood burning stove has a really

BIG carbon footprint. I'm not a name caller on here, so

just imagine a new screen name for yourself, okay?

One that more accurately reflects your limits.

OldBangor

We could try dare I suggest it conservation? I realize that the MassConn people love to turn all the lights on in their 200 room mansions. I mean what is the fun of a mansion if you can't show it off? Now the same wind is blowing across Maine that blows across the rest of New England. By siting these windmills closer to where the power is needed a lot of energy is saved and expensive power line increases are not needed. That cheap 80cent per pound copper wire is over 4.00 last time I checked. Vacationland will be destroyed if thousands of giant pinwheels are dumped on rural Maine.How many trees are clearcut and the ecology altered by vibrations and noise? It is not worth it! My neighbor leaves most of his lights on all winter, alternating to make evildoers think someone is home. They are in Florida! Get a clue . America hates to conserve or save. Americans are known for using the most energy per capita and creating the most household waste. A couple bloggers stated that antiwind folks are not putting forth any alternatives. Conservation and smaller houses are my 2cents worth. Wind produces less than 1/2 of 1% of our electricity so any oil saved is negligable. American Airlines burns 50 million gals. of jet fuel per week. 6000 jets are in the air at any one time. Imagine the oil that could be saved there.

C'mon a sales pitch? That is your evidence? A single experimental car running on compressed hydrogen and oxygen? Yeah, Mr. Old that's not dangerous at all. They didn't mention what would happen in an accident.

rojo:

Sorry, that's not a sales pitch. Top Gear is one of the

most-watched TV shows in the world, and they regularly

TRASH the auto industry. Also, those cars are available

for sale in California and the number of Hydrogen filling

stations, operated by Shell Oil, are expanding all the time.

The fuel containment systems, both onboard and for re-

fueling, have had big breakthroughs in the past few years.

Explosions? You can be certain that State of California and

NHTSA wouldn't allow them on the road if they were even

remotely prone to going "BOOM!" Oh, and BBC has no

commercial sponsors, so you can't accuse Honda or Shell

of buying favorable comments.

THE POINT: The technology already exists in an increasingly

sophisticated state. Transfer of the tech to heat for homes

and power generation is, at least to ME, obvious.

"There are none so blind..." etc.

Go watch it again only more closely this time....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J25S948uJPw

...except you probably won't, knowing everything as you do...

OldBangor

Maine’s "wind rush" an abuse of the public trust (from windaction.org)

Last week, First Wind (formerly UPC Wind) hosted a ribbon-cutting ceremony at its newest wind farm in New England, the Stetson wind energy facility located in Danforth, Maine. The event celebrated completion of the 38-turbine (57-megawatt) facility and was attended by 100 state and local officials including Maine's Governor Baldacci, construction company representatives, and local business owners.

The Governor addressed the crowd by praising his administration's proactive agenda on wind power development and the State's willingness "...to change for the future while safeguarding its natural resources."

Washington County Commissioner Chris Gardner thanked First Wind for its investment and called the company "tremendous stewards of our environmental resources and, most importantly, the public trust."

The public fawning by Maine's officials is typical of what we've come to expect from Baldacci and other politicos in Maine and its neighboring States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, but in this case one needn't dig too deep to realize the "feel-good" messages belie the harsh realities surrounding Stetson.

The Stetson wind project involved two separate permit applications submitted to two different State regulatory bodies. The primary application covering the wind farm itself was submitted to and approved by Maine's Land Use Regulatory Commission (LURC). The second, known as the "Line 56 Project", detailed construction of a 38-mile, 115 kV (Line 56) transmission line from Stetson Wind to the Keene Road substation in Chester, Maine and was approved by the State's Department of Environmental Protection (ME-DEP).

According to the "Line 56 Project" application, the 38-mile line involved impacts to 81.1 acres of wetlands including crossing the Penobscot River, the Mattagodus Stream Wildlife Management Area1, and the Mattawamkeag River twice! Windaction.org wonders whether Governor Baldacci was even aware of what his ME-DEP approved when he praised Maine for "safeguarding its natural resources". Impacts to the natural environment notwithstanding, First Wind described the aesthetic impact of building Line 56 as ‘Low' despite the fact that 173 dwellings were located within 300-feet of the line.

But the situation surrounding Stetson is more dire.

In June 2007, three months prior to First Wind submitting its application for permission to construct Line 56, the final draft copy of the Interconnection System Impact Study was released detailing the local- and grid- wide impacts to the New England power grid should Stetson feed 57 MW to the grid. The findings of study were clear.

The System Impact Study asserted Stetson would have "no significant system impact to the stability, reliability, and operating characteristics" of the New England transmission system but that conclusion tells only part of the story. The study also showed that the existing transmission Line 64, into which Line 56 would feed, was at full capacity (151 MW) servicing Brookfield Power's 126 MW hydroelectric system and Indeck's 25 MW biomass power plant - both base load renewable generators. With the introduction of Stetson energy into Line 64, energy output from Brookfield and/or Indeck would have to be significantly curtailed resulting in a 0 MW net gain in renewable generation for the region. Put another way, Stetson Wind, an intermittent unpredictable generator, could displace existing reliable base load renewables.

In its March 13, 2008 letter to the ME-DEP, Brookfield Power New England LLC correctly stated through its attorney Matthew D. Manahan that "It is not in the public interest for new intermittent renewable generation to be constructed and to pass over Line 56 if it simply displaces existing renewable generation - that can provide capacity to Maine - on another transmission line, Line 64."

Regardless the environmental, visual and transmission impacts of Line 56, ME-DEP granted First Wind the permit.

It's not certain how much, if any of Stetson's 57 MWs of wind energy will ever reach the New England power grid, but according to a recent article in the Bangor Daily News, the ISO-New England and Maine state officials assured Brookfield and Indeck that the established power generators' needs would come first when the Stetson Mountain project goes active. Brookfield Renewable Power Inc.'s general manager told the paper "In layman's terms, they [First Wind] were going to have to take a back seat to our transmission needs." That may be true, but Windaction.org wonders whether First Wind's bankers, HSH Nordbank, who wrote a letter endorsing First Wind and the Stetson proposal to ME DEP is aware of this fact. And did Governor Baldacci know this last week when he bowed before the massive towers.

Still, none of these issues have dampened First Wind's plans to build Stetson II, a 17-turbine 25.5 MW facility. According to published documents submitted to LURC in November 2008, Stetson II will connect to the same substation as Stetson I and has no need for additional transmission. (The same holds for First Wind's proposed 60 MW Rollins Wind project.)

First Wind's Stetson II (and Rollins Wind) will further exacerbate the congestion on Line 64, and its energy may never get to the New England grid.

But apparently, First Wind is confident it will still get Maine's permission to build Stetson II.

Windaction.org has learned First Wind has already taken delivery of Stetson II's seventeen turbines. These photos (photo1, photo2) dated December 20, 2008 show the turbine components on the Stetson Mountain leased property and at the old staging area for Stetson I.

With powerful wind proponents like Governor Baldacci and First Wind's Chief Development Officer Kurt Adams (former chairman of Maine's Public Utilities Commission, Maine's primary regulator of transmission infrastructure), First Wind has no reason to sweat the hard questions. But to be safe, Bill LD 199 was introduced in the legislature to squash all possible local obstacles. The summary of LD 199 states:

"The bill grants the state-level wind power siting authority, which is the Department of Environmental Protection or the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission depending on the location of a given wind power development, sole jurisdiction for approving the construction and initial operation of a wind energy development. Specifically, the bill prohibits any other state or local governmental entity from requiring any approval, permit or other condition for the construction or initial operation of a wind energy development that has been certified or permitted by the wind power siting authority."

Contrary to Washington County Commissioner Chris Gardner praise of First Wind as "tremendous stewards ...of the public trust", in fact, First Wind, and those Maine officials entrusted to protect the environment and the health, safety, and welfare of the residents have shown nothing but contempt for the public trust.

Unfortunately, it will be Maine's citizens and the greater New England region who pay the price for Baldacci's ignorance, Kurt Adams audacity, and First Wind's arrogance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1The Mattagodus wetland system includes one of New England’s most ecologically significant fens (groundwater-fed wetlands), at least ten endangered and threatened species including the Clayton’s copper butterfly (which only occurs at ten sites in the world), and a rare mayfly species whose only known occurrence is in Maine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

News

I don't know everything. I've never claimed that, oh, except for that time in 3rd grade when I one the spelling bee for the first time. But I was young then.

Where does the hydrogen come from? It can be formed with hydrochloric acid and magnesium (high school chemistry) but that yields a few moles of H2, hardly enough to power cars..

Last I knew (which doesn't mean much), it came from any number of thermochemical methods utilizing natural gas, coal (called coal gasification) and even from natural gas sources. Do you want a link from a peer reviewed journal (where we know-it-alls get our information, not YOUTUBE) Try a google search. Heck, I think Wikipedia may have a link as well. Look it up !!!

rojo:

For this first thing, I am profoundly sorry, but it's just too ripe to

pass up: I am very happy to hear you "one" your 3rd grade

spelling bee. Sorry! Sorry! I know......

I'll make you a deal: I'll go hunting around the next few days and

find out all I can about Hydrogen. Most of what I know currently

comes from the automotive press. Meanwhile, YOU go and do

the same while trying to find relatively new stuff from good

sources. Ought to keep the two of us out of trouble and off the

streets for a while, eh? Then we can re-connect on here later

in the week and overwhelm some unsuspecting thread with all

we've discovered, Okay?

Yeah, I remember high school chemistry and the little "TOOT" the

Hydrogen made when we touched it off.

MOST PLENTIFUL ELEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE!

ONLY EMISSION IS 100% PURE WATER!!!!!!!!

You've gotta admit it's an attractive proposition, no?

OldBangor

Yes I did when my spelling bee, stupid spell check. I am working on my thesis right now, so the only research I have time for is related to epidemiology. Why are we carrying this thread on, it seems we both believe in furthering the development alternate energy sources: you like hydrogen i like solar power...either way its a win win situation.

friends of Lincoln lakes, One of your members tried to burn down the town of Lincoln back in 2002. I will bet the smoke and flames that she created could be seen for miles around. Please keep the matches from her. We are still trying to clean up her mess from a few years ago...

Here's just a few thoughts.... What I'm reading and hearing consistently is how much these turbines are going to cost, so much so, there just isn't enough federal funds to go around. Has anyone wanted to ask where is this federal money coming from and was it intended to support Maine and it's tax paying residence as part of the annual revenue pie? I know I can't thinking how this is all getting paid for and what kind of backlash effect Maine is going to have take for the sake of the rest. When I think about the transmission lines and all these big thinkers saving the world, I can't help but to think what would happen if everyone started putting solar panels and small turbines at their own properties? The energy produced would go directly to ground zero and then into the grid. What I keep hearing people say is, "Well that would be great, but no individual or business can afford to go that route". Here's my answer to that, I'M DOING IT! My home is off the grid and no I did not spend BIG BUCKS to get there. I bought a generator to build the house and then to use it to charge up the battery bank for appliance use. Then I bought 4 /165 watt solar panels, and that got us through the days pretty good, but winter we had to run the generator more because the cut back on the daylight hours. Then last November, we put up a 1K turbine to assist through those winter months and it worked! Total investment in my power system, 11K and I claimed the entire wind turbine and two panels on my tax return and got it all back! Isn't this more cost efficient then what we are being offered as a quick fix? The only thing that is going to change environmental issues regarding energy, is how we use it as individuals. Our household energy demand is 4200, what is yours? And let me paint you a picture, we have a dishwasher, H3 washer and dryer set, internet and cell phones and the house is 1900 sq ft. Our hot water is heating by propane with an Aqua Star on demand heating unit, that paid for itself within a year with what it saves us. We bought a 1000 gal propane tank which holds a max of 800 gallons, every year when we have it filled, it takes maybe 6-700 gallons depending on how the previous winter went and it last us all year. Oh, and when you own the tank and have a couple of appliances using it, you pay about half what everyone else is paying. Okay, don't sit there and say, "well, not everyone can go that route". I disagree, We did all this just 7 years ago and I knew nothing about it at that point. Fast Learner? Maybe, but now I can offer to you what I have learned and make that process even easier for you. Who says that if everyone starts going this way, that companies can't establish themselves and offer maintenance service if your not willing to get that into it. They could set-up satellite babysitters on your system to know when your system needs attention. You can visit my website www.conscious-possibilities.org anytime and check out the other links on the site, I'll be getting into it a lot more after I graduate this semester and you will see a lot more leads on the site. www.backwoodssolar.com has a worksheet for you to calculate your household demand to get an idea of what kind of system you would need. I will also be at the Energy Forum in Pittsfield Maine on April 14th at the Vickery School Gym and will have a lot of this information available for you to view and talk with you. Kind Regards, Carolyn

Hey OldBangor I mean Perley. How do you know so much about everything??

DEW you remember the time?

Old bangor and Perley use to go at it pretty good a while ago. It was a race to who know's the most about Bangor. Never figured out who won. Perley I think was a little jealous.

I think they're one in the same.

Perley's got several people living inside him.