AUGUSTA, Maine — While environmental groups, business leaders and university officials continue to trumpet the long-term benefits of placing a wind farm off the coast of Maine, Gov. Paul LePage’s energy czar wants more answers about whether the effect on ratepayers and the proposed economic benefits justify the project.
If customers will have to pay more for their electricity as a result of the project, Ken Fletcher, director of the Maine Energy Office, wants assurances that more than 30 jobs will be created, as one analysis suggests.
As a pilot project for more extensive development of offshore wind energy production, Statoil North America proposes to moor four floating turbines in federal waters off the coast of Maine to generate 12 megawatts of energy. On May 2, 2011, Statoil North America submitted a proposal for the project, called Hywind Maine, to the Maine Public Utilities Commission, which had issued a request for proposals after the Legislature passed the 2010 Ocean Energy Act.
A separate federal process to determine competitive interest and environmental effects is underway through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
In documents dated Aug. 15, Statoil North America submitted to the PUC a term sheet, including economic impact projections, for a proposed 20-year contract to sell power generated by offshore turbines to one or more of Maine’s three major utility providers, Central Maine Power, Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service Co. Anticipated overall costs and how much Statoil North America expects to pay to Maine businesses for work related to the pilot project are blacked out of the documents made available to the public on the PUC website.
The term sheet elicited responses from dozens of Maine residents, state and national advocacy groups. businesses and government officials. Most are supportive.
Fletcher submitted written comments in response to Statoil’s proposal on Sept. 7, the initial deadline that the PUC set to accept comments. He expressed concern about the cost to utility company ratepayers, Statoil’s commitment to Maine beyond this pilot project and the relatively low number of jobs that Hywind Maine is projected to create.
“The proposal sets the electricity price at a minimum of $290/MWh which is significantly higher than historic and current prices,” Fletcher wrote. “Over the 20-year contract term, Maine ratepayers could be required to pay $203 million higher costs.”
“I don’t know if Maine ratepayers can shoulder $10 million per year without more assurance that this will work,” Fletcher told the Bangor Daily News on Friday. “I know pilot project costs are higher, but if you’re asking Maine ratepayers to pay $10 million per year, we need to see that we’re going to get a reasonable return on the investment.”
“By its very concept, the pilot park is not intended to optimize cost efficiency or to produce energy at costs that reflect current market prices,” attorney Patrick Scully of the firm Bernstein Shur wrote on behalf of Statoil in a Sept. 7 response to confidential comments submitted by CMP, Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service Co. “It is intended to be the first step in developing the capabilities, the technologies, the supply chain and the economies of scale that will result in a large scale, cost-effective offshore wind industry off the Maine coast.
“The rate impact associated with this important pilot project is not large,” Scully wrote. “For an average residential household consuming 500 kWh per month, a rate increase of 0.145 cents/kWh results in a monthly bill impact of 73 cents per month.”
In his letter, Scully also thanked the Maine Public Advocate’s Office, which represents ratepayers, for its support of Statoil.
Dr. Habib Dagher of the Advanced Structures and Composites Center at the University of Maine, where research and development of model floating turbines continues through a consortium known as DeepCwind, believes a system in which turbines are built on land then towed out to sea, where they would be moored, offers potential for great savings over the cost of energy produced by turbines that are fixed into the seabed as is the case in Europe.
But the experimental nature of the floating turbine technology — none exists in the U.S. — creates uncertainty for Fletcher. “It just can’t keep going forever,” he said. “That’s why price is so critical. If it can never get to that competitive point, then we’re committing to subsidizing it forever.”
“All the work we’ve done is pointing to the fact that we ought to be able to meet [a goal of getting the cost down to 10 cents per kilowatt hour by 2020],” Dagher said Thursday. “Our goal is to get the cost down to be competitive, to one of the lowest costs of energy in Maine by 2020.”
The three utility companies filed confidential statements, which based on Scully’s response, also expressed concerns about the cost of power generated by Hywind Maine.
“We raise this issue because these are costs that go back to ratepayers,” said John Carroll, a spokesman for CMP. “It’s important to consider that many of our customers are challenged by the cost of electricity and a contract that adds cost adds hardship for our customers.”
While Statoil North America would contract with the utility companies, “over-market” pricing for energy from the offshore wind farm would be borne by ratepayers as stranded costs, Fletcher said. He worries about the effect that could have on low-income Mainers and small business.
An analysis of jobs created directly and indirectly by the Hywind Maine project also troubles Fletcher. Economic impact projections by economist Charles Colgan of the Muskie School of Public Policy, commissioned by Statoil and submitted with the term sheet, reflect a gain of 30 jobs for the project’s maintenance and operation phase and an economic benefit of $63.33 million, according to Fletcher’s calculations.
“If the 20-year above-market electricity rate impact is $200 million, the economic benefit of an $63 million in regional earnings increase as compared to a cost of $200 million needs to be assessed to determine if there is a net positive gain in economic development in the state,” he wrote in the Sept. 7 comments.
Beth Nagusky, who served as co-chairwoman of Gov. John Baldacci’s Ocean Energy Task Force, said the broadest economic benefits will derive from manufacturing and creating a supply chain for the nascent offshore wind energy industry. She said that the project’s economic impact should not be judged simply on the number of jobs created for Hywind Maine, but as a potential catalyst for the state’s composites, boat building and manufacturing sectors.
“Yes, it’s expensive,” she said Friday. “But if we’re not willing to spend the money, we’ll never get the benefit of the buildout. The only way we’ll ever see huge benefits is if we’re willing to take the small risk.”
Fletcher emphasized that he’s not opposed to the project, but that the LePage administration wants to see more specifics and commitment from Statoil than the Aug. 15 term sheet reflects. The 2010 Ocean Energy Act’s intent is to “encourage the development of deep-water offshore wind energy in a way that enhanced economic development in Maine in a meaningful and measurable manner,” he wrote.
“I’m certainly not saying ocean wind should not be considered, but if we are going to make a $200 million investment, we need to see more,” Fletcher said Friday. “There needs to be a stronger commitment from Statoil. It need not be a contract, but it has to be a greater commitment.”
Annette Bossler, who identifies herself as a business development consultant for European and U.S. energy firms, in Sept. 6 comments submitted to the PUC, argues that Maine has more to lose by thwarting the project than by taking a chance on it. She warns that “a ‘no’ by the Maine PUC to the Statoil project will send the message around the globe that, while Maine with its deep-water offshore wind resources has a lot of potential, Maine does not make it happen when real opportunities present themselves.”
Support and funding from private sources also would ease the uncertainty, Fletcher said.
Comments submitted to the PUC in response to the Statoil term sheet indicate that such support exists within Maine’s business community. Among those who wrote to support the project are Peter Vigue, president and chairman of Cianbro, who wrote Thursday that “although Hywind Maine will be a small-scale project, Statoil’s commitment to Maine has been clear and consistent. They have repeatedly said they will not build a pilot project where there is no potential to build a commercial-scale project.”
Vigue further argued that Statoil “has both the financial capacity and technical expertise to get this project off the ground.”
Engineering firms, energy consultants and Reed & Reed, a Woolwich-based company with experience in constructing wind energy turbines, also filed statements in support of Statoil’s proposal.
“Statoil has designed a pilot R&D project to conform to the goals and standards outlined in the Ocean Energy Act,” Kristen Aamodt, project manager for Hywind Maine, wrote in an email Friday evening to the Bangor Daily News. “We believe that this project will be an important door opener for the development of commercial scale floating wind farms in the Gulf of Maine and worldwide. We are committed to working with the state of Maine and key members of the Maine business and research communities to ensure that the project provides the highest value possible for the state.”



It is completely obvious that Republicans serve oil companies, not the best interest of the people, the Maine environment, or the planet Earth.
Wrong again! Do you have a clue where that power will go once it’s so called “on the grid”?Right out of the State of Maine. Like the new wind project on Bull Hill, all power goes to Mass. . That’s right, someone profits on the power, we get the shaft. You’ll still be buying oil! Who you gonna blame for that?
And what of the wind power on Vinalhaven, and Mars Hill, and in western Maine…? All you TeaPublicans see is what you want to see. You despise science. You despise innovation. You despise potential. You certainly despise anything that might be good for the planet. All you TeaPublicans ever, ever, ever care about is what is good for your big flabby fatcat oil company CEO’s whose toenails you dream night and day about smooching. Right now the TeaPubs are dancing for joy that gas prices have been increasing because they just adore how much more money their plutocratic oil company CEO heroes are going to make. It is just disgusting. But that is where the TeaPubs are. PS: November 6 is a-comin’. And oh boy, it’s gonna be one bad day for the TeaPubs. A serious bruising at the polls is on the way.
# one no name calling! # Two, I am not a TeaPublican, whatever that is. # Three, are you on something? # Four, I buy fuel for four diesel trucks and I love paying $4.25 a gallon so I can work, and of course kiss some fatcats toes! Hopefully the guys in the white suits aren’t far behind you.
Here you go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/politics/fossil-fuel-industry-opens-wallet-to-defeat-obama.html
Read your own hand picked articles. If you believe everything you read on the internet read some of your crap sometime!
Front page of the New York Times. And everyone knows the Republicans take oil money. It’s legal. It’s on record.
What do you have? (answer: bad grammar)
Hey Spruce . . . . I read the article from the NY Times and basically it said the Solar and Wind companies were not buying ads for this year’s election. Guess why? They have NOTHING to show for the billions of dollars Obama has poured into them. They were just given huge amounts of OUR money, then folded up their tent, went bankrupt, and gave the cash back to the Obama CAMPAIGN…. That is the way it works. That cash NEVER got repaid to the people. So they have nothing to use for ads. Thanks to Obama, the oil industries have huge amounts of cash to spend. Gas was $1.87 when he took office . . . it is now $4.00. That makes for a lot of ads . . . . and a good November for us.
Maine is part of the Northeastern power grid. The electrons we excite here in Maine might go to New York or to Eastport but the point is. The money from their production satys in Maine in the form of high paying jobs.
Wrong Again!!! These projects produce almost NO jobs in Maine. The ones they do produce are temporary. The machines are made in Europe or China, and the towers are made overseas as well. The only jobs are putting them up, and most of that is done by out of state companies that bring their own workers in. JOBS – that three letter word Joe Biden likes. LOL
After 2000 and all the factories left rural Maine I was forced to reinvent my business to survive. One of the things that keeps my Maine company viable is the orders I get from the wind energy industry.
Since I am a local I spend that money locally which has a ripple effect.
You are kidding, right?
No
Clarification: Most of the money paid to the people building the project stays in Maine. Most of the money from producing electricity with wind turbines goes to the investors or shareholders of the company owning and operating the turbines. And in Maine, most wind project owners/operators are from out of state or out of country. Wind power developments create very few permanent jobs.
Well since all the major energy company’s are from out of state. The point is Maine wind is by it’s nature made in Maine. That is why Lepage hates it. He wants us to buy all our juice from his countrymen back in Canada.
Wind power might be made in Maine (over Maine), but that enterprise belongs to out of state or foreign companies and their global shareholders. In our infinite wisdom, we’ve given away some of our best assets to non-Maine entities in exchange for some temporary work – in my opinion.
As far as LePage is concerned, if wind power were competitive without government mandates, supports and subsidies, I suspect he’d have no opposition to it whatsoever.
Ever try to chase down electrons?
LOL
“It is completely obvious that Republicans serve oil companies…..” says SpruceDweller, commenting on an article about a Republican administration saying “not so fast” to corporate welfare for a company called StatOIL………… ZOMG. Why do I even read this comment section?
Here, just for starters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/politics/fossil-fuel-industry-opens-wallet-to-defeat-obama.html
Maine gets the new scenary on our mountains and ocean, someone else gets the benefits.
Do you ever wonder where this power goes, do you think you or your neighbors will get to use any of it? Power for Massachusetts is what you think is good for the Maine enviroment?Or are you just so politically biased you just want to shoot your mouth off?
Talk about being ‘politically biased’ and ‘shooting your mouth off….You’ve nothing but an opinion yourself. :-)
How about refined gasoline? I think those nice folks in Louisiana and Texas ought to stop letting us use “their” gasoline. Based on your viewpoint, we shouldn’t export blueberries or lobster either.
Keep chanting the mantra from George Soros and other anti-Americans who are trying to suffocate our economy and way of life with the war on fossil fuel.
Until Election Day. Then get yourself some Excedrin.
Gotta love the internet:
(“Fossil Fuel Industry Opens Wallet To Defeat Obama”)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/politics/fossil-fuel-industry-opens-wallet-to-defeat-obama.html
Only you Sprucie, only you believe everything they read on the internet. Try using your own brain for once.
Big oil doesn’t like wind power. Big oil controls the Republicans.
Think about it. Instead of just reflexively hurling insults, which puts you on the defense and makes you look weak–
Think.
How come Lepage gets an Energy Czar and if the President has a Czar he is called a Socialist without an energy policy?
What does wind power have to do with oil?
ANSWER: Nothing.
Answer: Big Oil doesn’t like wind power, and Big Oil controls the Republicans.
Think about it.
Actually, some big oil companies are investing in wind power. Statoil deals in petroleum. Wind power is no threat to the oil industry, so why would they care?
Just because “some” oil companies invest in wind, it doesn’t mean wind isn’t a rival energy source.
We don’t generate electricity with oil, dimwit.
Wind power makes a statement about global warming, which is a key issue for Big Oil–one they would rather avoid, and if not avoid, deny. Being rude doesn’t help you impress independent thinkers.
Wow, what logic. Spend billions in order to use an unreliable, unstorable, absurdly expensive, drop-in-the-bucket form of electricity that does nothing to lower emissions whatsoever, since it CANNOT result in the closing of a single power plant, to “make a statement about global warming”. Great, let’s all go bankrupt “making a statement”. That’ll show those big evil oil companies (who are responsible for virtually every technological advance made since 1840).
Your anger is interfering with your logic and objectivity.
Here is another example of how wind and oil are at odds, and the Republican bias for oil:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/07/809091/americans-for-prosperity-calls-wind-tax-credit-deplorable-but-defends-government-support-of-oil-companies/?mobile=nc
I invite you to supply a link, so maybe you can be more appealing to undecided readers.
A link to what? I’ll be happy to supply any references you’d like, if you’ll be more specific. Here’s a good one to start with, though:
http://www.friendsofmainesmountains.org/learn/20-facts-about-wind-power-with-citations
That’s a good link and I invite readers to check it out. The main problem with the arguments at the link, is this: they are not thinking about the long-term benefits of wind power; and, also, they ignore the fear that the oil companies have of anything that seems to be a solution for global warming. The oil companies, as you know, continue to deny that global warming is caused by human activity. Burning oil is one of the main sources of warming gases in the atmosphere.
Another problem with the link you provide is that it doesn’t consider the benefits of wind power for America as a whole.
I’m for renewables that work. Wind isn’t one of them, at least here in Maine. But look at Hawaii, stuck dead in the middle of the tradewinds, some of the most constant, reliable winds in the world. They have abandoned windmills rusting away, abandoned the last time the subsidies dried up. The companies run the second the taxpayers stop filling their pockets, because the wind industry can’t do what they claim with regard to generation, or stand on their own without the subsidies and inflated rates. As for the “good of the country”, nationwide wind turbines generate only about 25% of the nameplate capacity with which they’re sold. It’s like buying a Prius on the promise of 50 mpg and only getting 12.5. The machines will wear out long before they pay for themselves, if they ever can. It’s a raw deal, a scam of epic proportions, and we simply can’t afford it, even if it did any good.
Ever wonder why?
It’s just—–To Darn Expensive!
Who’s “we”? Got a turd in your pocket?
But, can you tell us how wind power is a rival to oil? Big Oil could probably buy the entire U.S. wind industry with one year’s revenue. So, can you tell us how Big Oil is threatened by an energy source with which it doesn’t compete? Natural gas is a more likely rival to oil and I’ve not heard that the oil industry is trying to kill the natural gas industry.
Here is an example of the competition between wind and oil, and also the Republican bias for oil:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/07/809091/americans-for-prosperity-calls-wind-tax-credit-deplorable-but-defends-government-support-of-oil-companies/?mobile=nc
I invite you to do some reading and research, or show that you have, by supplying some links. Otherwise, you’re just sitting in your armchair.
Please. Your link was for a blog that was voted “Best Liberal Blog” in 2006. Would you completely trust anything from a blog voted “Best Conservative Blog”? It’s hardly an unbiased source of information. You made the charge that “Big Oil doesn’t like wind power, and Big Oil controls the Republicans.” The onus of proof is on the person making the charge. You’re asking me to prove a negative rather than you having to prove your own charge. Your link is hardly proof of the charge. The article doesn’t make a case that there is competition between wind and oil as energy sources. It’s an article about a conservative group’s view of energy subsidies and tax credits. That’s pretty thin evidence.
There’s a big difference between subsidies and tax credits for oil as opposed to wind. It’s gravy for oil interests. It’s life support for wind interests. Need evidence of that? The American Wind Industry Association says preserving the PTC is their number one priority. They also threaten the demise of the U.S. wind industry if the PTC is not renewed. Do you think the oil industry would disappear if they lost their tax code favors? Operate anything with an internal combustion engine lately? The only similarity between subsidies for oil and wind is that both industries get them because of effective lobbying, not because they’re a good idea.
If I’m not the one making the charge, I DO get to sit in the armchair and wait for the person making the charge to prove that it is true. Still waiting…..
I’ve supplied two references already and your response is to commit the fallacy of ad hominen–that is, you ignore the arguments and information entirely. This is simply poor reasoning on your part. To hide your poor reasoning, you create a posture of offense. I don’t think independent readers will be fooled. Thank you, at least, for admitting that you are sitting around in your armchair, providing no links, no references.
Here is yet another link, for independent voters, showing the importance of wind power, how it separates Democrats from Republicans, and how Republicans are pro-Oil but not pro-wind:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/obama-to-hit-romney-on-wind-energy-in-iowa/
Here’s a quote from the article, from Obama himself:
“America generates more than twice as much electricity from wind than when I took office. That’s right. The wind industry supports about 7,000 jobs right here in Iowa. Without these wind energy tax credits, those jobs are at risk, 37,000 jobs across the country would be at risk.
“So my attitude is let’s stop giving taxpayer subsidies to oil companies that don’t need them, and let’s invest in clean energy that will put people back to work right here in Iowa,” he added. “That’s a
choice in this election.”
So, Obama agrees with you that the tax credits for oil companies are “gravy”–and that they should be stopped.
So your point is that Big Oil doesn’t like wind power subsidies? Your statement was that Big Oil doesn’t like wind power. That logic means that if one dislikes the subsidies for any given industry, they must then dislike the industry. I dislike farm subsidies, but I don’t dislike farming. I dislike fossil fuel subsidies, but I’m still using their products, albeit, as little of them as I can.
Someone asked the question, “What does wind power have to do with oil?” You responded. “Big Oil doesn’t like wind power…..” You also implied that wind rivaled oil as an energy source. If your point was actually that they don’t like wind power subsidies, then that’s what you should have said. In that regard, they’re far from being alone. I’ve talked with quite a few people who like wind power, but disapprove of wind power subsidies. One does not necessarily follow the other. You’ve not offered any evidence that I can find that wind is a genuine rival to or threatens oil as an energy source. I’ve looked at all your links and I don’t find anything. Did I miss it?Before you accuse me of ignoring the argument, you should first correctly frame the argument you intend to take up.
I’ve supplied three references so far. You none. You continue to sit in your armchair and do your best to avoid dealing with the arguments. Rather than continue this dog and pony show with you, I’m supplying one more link, not for you, but for anyone who is undecided and interested:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/romney-wind-energy-tax-credit_n_1726117.html
Quote:
“The American Wind Energy Association put the number of wind-industry supported U.S. jobs at 75,000 and said the industry drives as much as $20 billion in private investment. The trade group estimated the loss of 10,000 wind-industry jobs this year if the tax credit is allowed to expire.”
You’re smart, but you’re just being lazy and spinning your wheels in specious verbiage. Give us some references.
Keep in mind that Obama is for wind tax credits, and Romney is against them, and Big Oil is supporting Romney, as noted above, and:
http://www.denverpost.com/nationalpolitics/ci_21222427/romney-tilting-against-wind-tax-credit
Yes, you’re very taken with your references. In fact you hide behind them. You answer questions by pasting links and mostly unrelated quotes rather than actually answering them yourself. I looked back through your posts and you haven’t supported your argument in your own words yet. You don’t even attempt to articulate your logic and line of reasoning. You just paste a link or a quote and say, “see”, I’m right. An Obama quote about wind jobs in Iowa doesn’t support your statements. A New York times article about the fossil fuel industry spending money to promote the Republican candidate and themselves doesn’t support your statements. A liberal blog about a conservative group’s disdain for the PTC and acceptance of oil credits is not proof for your argument. A jobs estimate from the AWEA isn’t even related to the original argument. I can paste a lot of distantly related links too, it doesn’t prove anything. You left the original discussion a long way back and your logic is puzzling. (Romney is against tax credits for wind. Big Oil is for Romney. Therefore, Big Oil dislikes wind power. So, I guess, using that logic we can assume that if the Christian Right is for Romney, they also dislike wind power. And anyone else for Romney, also dislikes wind power. Actually, that’s not logic.)
As long as we’re abandoning any attempt to find logical support for your original statements, here’s a reference for you: The Brookings Institute says there were 24,294 wind jobs in 2010 – as opposed to the AWEA’s estimate of 75,000 in 2011. (They were claiming 85,000 in 2010.) Which do you think might be biased?
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2011/7/13%20clean%20economy/0713_clean_economy.pdf
How much weight would you place on an oil industry jobs estimate from the American Petroleum Institute? Be careful about trusting information from lobbying associations – whether it’s oil, wind or anything else.
Oil is not killing natural gas because oil owns natural gas. Oil is funding misinformation regarding renewable energy to protect the huge profits it makes.
Good point about oil and natural gas. Bad example on my part.
I’m curious though, do you have any specific examples of misinformation about renewable energy that oil is funding? I’m not doubting you, I’m just not aware of it. There’s a lot of misinformation about renewable energy put out there by both sides of the debate and I am just curious what the oil industry has been doing.
The Norwegian government owns 67% of Statoil.
Greed controls Republicans!
Greed alone!
To me the bigger issue is that taxpayers will pay MORE taxes not less and that energy costs won’t go down. Why should economically strapped people have to shoulder more for some “pilot”? Seems to me the better route would be to let the business who wants it pay for it and if it doesn’t lower costs to the consumer, screw them.
Ask Angus, he has an opinion! But I wouldn’t believe it…
Now that’ s a “Patten” Falsehood!
LOL
Within 10 years gasoline and oil will be over $15.00 a gallon… Electric cars by that time will be developed that are very efficient and will travel over 200 miles per charge… Wind power energy cost will be much less expensive than fossil fuels to produce since the price of wind never goes up, WIND is FREE… Think about our children’s future. Wind and solar do NOT pollute… The Greedy – owned by oil GOP, does not want competition from solar or wind because the GOP is not OWNED or supported by oil or wind…
What you just said about the cost of oil, electric cars and wind’s cost indicate you either have investments in wind or are living very far off the grid of reality.
Couple of points about the length of charge on EV’s:
First, most drivers on their daily commute don’t come close to exceeding the current charge limit.
Second, employers and even municipalities will learn to provide charging stations where EV’s are left for long periods of time – parking lots. Some employers may offer free charging to employees as a perk. In any case, for many workers, their vehicle sits for 8 or 9 hours unused while they are working – a perfect place to recharge it.
I don’t want to go to the middle east and die just so you can have your favorite energy .
So when will you be shipping off to Iraq to protect Wall st investments there?
What does the Middle East have to do with wind power?
What does + have to do with – ?
Can you answer the question without asking a question? Can you demonstrate that + wind turbines in Maine equals – oil from the Middle East?
U.S. imports of oil have been declining since 2005. Imports from the Persian Gulf region are in the single digits – around 7% of our total oil consumption. U.S. demand for oil has been flat or declining since 2005, as well. Neither of these favorable trends has been the result of more wind power development.
In New England, wind power, as a fuel, displaces natural gas, almost exclusively. So, I ask again, what does the Middle East have to do with wind power? If you can answer with facts, I’m ready to be educated. If you can’t, just say so.
Dlbrt, in case you haven’t noticed is the master of one liners but not capable of stringing two thoughts together to reach a logical conclusion. The extent of his caveman intelligence is “all republicans are bad”. Useless comments like Dlbrts are best ignored.
Look up Sophisticated in he Dictionary, the last that I looked the definition was
( Lacking the privledge of being simple)
The greatest equation’s are refined down to the simplest forms.
Thats why the “one liners” !
Occam’s razor doesn’t work too well on “stoneheads”. :)
Natural gas is a finate fossil fuel energy source, wind is an infinate energy source. Every Megawatt produced by an infinate energy source today is a Megawatt saved for a later date.
Where as time is infinate and the wind is variable, it is only prudent to use wind when it is at its peak an stabilize the downtime with fossil fuel.
It is the only logical solution to spread the use of energy out for the long run.
Every arguement that I have ever heard about the cost effectiveness of Fossil Fuel excludes “Time ”
This instant gratifiction mentality of NOW !
Will be the undueing of the world
I’ll assume that your decision to not actually address the question asked means that you can’t.
ASSUME
That says it all!
Again it isn’t hard to figure out the association between wind versus fossil fuels. One is Finate the other is infinate and regardless of the amount used that comes from the middle east as long as some comes from it there is an association between the aggreagte supply of fossil fuels and the use of wind.
This is grammar school math for &*&^ sake!
Five apples and two pears in the basket, is 7 fruits!
Your vigorous dodging of the question is really getting to be kind of funny. We started talking about oil, and now it’s ALL fossil fuels, most of which we don’t get from the Middle East.
Once more: What does the Middle East have to do with wind power? Show me some of that grammar school math rather than just alluding to it.
And, FYI, infinate is not in my dictionary. I believe the word you’re trying unsuccessfully to use is infinite. It’s grammar school spelling.
I failed spelling ,
LOL
No pretense there!
Critical thinking skills I was at the very top!
However!
I gave you your answer, go fish!
Edit; Here is a clue!
Infinite refers to time
Aggregate refers the sum of the parts.
It all about oils “tipping point” or so called “peak oil” .. Wind energy like all domestic energy sources help to delay the day when the world uses more oil then it can produce.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/02/29/has-the-peak-oil-tipping-point-arrived
Wind power does not heat your home of fuel your car. That is where the oil is used. Only natural gas can help in those cases. Wind is just for electricity, and we won’t have to go to war except here in the good ol’ USA.
Unless you happen to heat with electricity or drive a plug in electric vehicle. Which, by the way, a lot of folks sre starting to do.
Not smart ones.
All our energy sources are fungible. as in, being of such nature or kind as to be freelyexchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fungible
Fine. You can dazzle us with 25 cent words. But you can not seriously believe you can exchange gasoline or oil for wind. They perform two different functions with two different outcomes. If you want to compare wind to coal, ok. But coal is not putting our troops or economy in harms way. Coal comes from the USA. You are assuming all energy is the same. It clearly is NOT! That is simple 10 cent words.
Now, “THATS” a Patten falsehood!
LOL
And you keep chanting the mantra of the Kroch Bros and make this world uninhabitable for our kids! Just keep saying “Profit before Posterity!”
How is paying way too much for electricity helping Mainers???
The same way as paying to much for groceries!
Electricity is expensive in Maine because our state is larger than the rest of New England combined but we have the the 38th lowest population density.
Now if we let the power companies charge by the actual costs to deliver power rural Maine’s price would likely double while the more densely populated south and urbin centers would pay half what they pay for delivery.
If you gave a Republican a Dollar in Tax Cuts, will he follow you home and be your friend?
LOL
It is completely obvious that you have no real arguments to support wind power (since there are none), and have nothing else to rely on except name-calling. WHAT PART OF “WE DON’T GENERATE ELECTRICITY WITH OIL” DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
Your all-caps statement is worthy of a response…
http://www.powerscorecard.org/tech_detail.cfm?resource_id=8
One question was all caps, for a reason. You keep saying wind can get us off oil, when it can’t.
So New York, according to your link, gets a whopping 8% of their electricity from oil (“Though most oil is used for transportation or home heating purposes, a small percentage is still used as a fuel for electricity generating plants. “While oil continues to decline in popularity as an electricity fuel, in places such as New York, oil still comprises about 8 percent of the state’s electricity fuel mix). Let New York’s state government change that if they want to. Nationwide it’s less than 2%.
You mean we don’t generate electricity with oil “ANY MORE” We used to use #6 oil until it because too expensive to use compared to alternatives like Wind power.
Wow, the total ignorance displayed in these comments is why scams like wind power keep succeeding. Wind power costs more per kw than any other form of electricity. Wake the h–l up.
What business is Maine open to ?
Hopefully not businesses that require Mainers to spend $203 million more on our electricity so they can put $63 million back into our economy. Doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. You like that return on investment? No wonder Maine is so screwed…
Aren’t liberals opposed to “corporate welfare”?? Seems like LePage should be getting props from everyone for asking these questions…
That’s an obvious BS number that should only fool fools.
It is clearly the total cost of all the power over twenty years.
Subtract the cost of the alternatively generated power not just at its low low recession,
natural gas glut, current cut rate, but at what the dinosaur fueled power will cost in 19 years, too.
Then have your Buggy Whip Committee telegraph us the revised numbers.
We WON’T get the power locally. It goes on the grid and out of state! Jeesh, do a little research, read something, will you?
So ?
So? We subsidize electricity consumers in Massachusetts and you don’t see anything wrong with that?
We who ?
YOU pay for what YOU take from the grid.
At much higher rates than all but four other states!!!
Not all off the power goes out of state.
All the Wind power goes out of state. That is what the grid upgrades are for. And the upgrades are being done by out of state crews, not Mainers. And the construction jobs are being done by out of State crews. And the towers and turbines are made out of the country and shipped to Maine on ships. The whole thing is a scam, and we are paying for it through our increased rates.
I thought the point was that it all goes into the same grid.
And we gave the investors a guaranteed rate of return of over 14% on thier investmnet. Pretty damned liberal don’t you think?
News flash genius, the onus is on the company that wants the corporate welfare to provide the numbers, this is all they’ve provided.
You want me to go get better numbers for StatOil than they have provided to aid them in charging the Maine electrical ratepayers $203 million more in exchange for a whopping 30 jobs?
And FYI – the alternative power (electricity) does little to counter oil consumption/prices as we don’t use electric (especially the expensive alternative electricity) to heat homes or drive our cars, so, are you ready for this……? Your entire argument is…. Look… Look… over there ————————————–> worthless.
Yup, just keep spouting your corporate propaganda and keep on a-smooching the toenails of your oil corporation buddies who, while making record profits, still get BILLIONS of our tax dollars a year. But, aw shucks you say, they’re just some good ole boy billionaires trying to make another dollar along with another mansion. What foolishness you TeaPubs love to spout like vomit. It takes time and investment to development new energy sources for the long term. There is great potential here for our state to be at the cutting edge of this. Good things sometimes take some time. Are there any TeaPublicans who can see anything at all beyond the end of their noses?
Tourism, Maine is only open to tourists, anything else is… I don’t know, a good paying job???
How about those that can support themselves without taxpayer funding and government mandates guaranteeing them business?
Neanderthal TeaPublicans who do not believe in science, who do not believe in innovation, who do not believe in the future, who do not believe in what is good for the planet, and who exist solely to give pedicures to their corporate masters, are enough to make anyone want to throw up.
Do you think wind is effective?
If you do, you’ve not studied it.
Is fracking?
VERY.
Only as long as all that water, gone forever, is free.
Fraudulent scare tactic.
Nope. Fracking may help produce a lot more oil and gas but it’s not the perfect solution.
Only because you live where potable water is abundant.
Fracking isn’t taking government grants to do it, they make money the old fashioned way!
that is the funniest comment of the day.
Yes, by stomping on anything in their way. Read up on fracking, talk to real people who live in areas where fracking is common and if they think natural gas is worth their water and their health. We can live without gas, we can’t live without water.
Sorry lad. Useful amounts of gas from Fracking was developed with tax payer money by the USDepartment of Energy
“As far as shale is concerned, I don’t know that
industry would ever have taken a look at it
without the federal program, because it didn’t
look like it had the porosity to be reachable.
Government’s not going to step in and develop
anything all the way through, but working with
industry you have a different set of eyes. If you
keep an open mind the government can become
a real catalyst.”
Alex Crawley, former Associate Director for Research, National Petroleum Technology Office
For the complete interview with Alex Crawley, go to
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2012/05/
interview_with_alex_crawley_former_program_director_for_the_energ
Every Megawatt produced by wind is a Megawatt saved in the earth as oil for a later date!
Ever fiquered out what you childrens , children are going to do for power in 2034?
Then again ever think how “irrelevant” you are ?
Nobody really cares any more about you than you care about your grandsons future!
You do realize that WE DON’T GENERATE ELECTRICITY WITH OIL, don’t you? Wind has no potential to get us off oil whatsoever.
Fossil fuels , excuse me!
Finate Resources , have Finate Energy producing capability.
Is that real hard to understand?
Yeah it is kinda hard to understand, since “finate” isn’t a word.
Actually, we do generate a small amount in Maine and New England with diesel.
Less than 1%, from the Cousins Island plant, which only starts up during peak loads, when Boston is maxing their A/C usage, on hot humid, WINDLESS days.
Thank you for your acknowledgement. Next: from where do we import LNG in New England? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: LePage’s energy czar questions offshore wind plan; most PUC comments supportive cowcharge wrote, in response to Ninelake: Less than 1%, from the Cousins Island plant, which only starts up during peak loads, when Boston is maxing their A/C usage, on hot humid, WINDLESS days. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Actually, we do generate a small amount in Maine and New England with diesel. —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
Thank you for your acknowledgement. Next: from where do we import LNG in New England? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: LePage’s energy czar questions offshore wind plan; most PUC comments supportive cowcharge wrote, in response to Ninelake: Less than 1%, from the Cousins Island plant, which only starts up during peak loads, when Boston is maxing their A/C usage, on hot humid, WINDLESS days. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Actually, we do generate a small amount in Maine and New England with diesel. —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
The Southeast, the Midwest, and Canada.
Actually a sizable portion comes from Trinidad. All of the Suez gas imported by tanker comes from there. The US is pulling significant amounts from Qatar and Yemen as well. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: LePage’s energy czar questions offshore wind plan; most PUC comments supportive cowcharge wrote, in response to Ninelake: The Southeast, the Midwest, and Canada. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Thank you for your acknowledgement. Next: from where do we import LNG in New England? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: LePage’s energy czar questions offshore wind plan; most PUC comments supportive cowcharge wrote, in response to Ninelake: Less than 1%, from the Cousins Island plant, which only starts up during peak loads, when Boston is maxing their A/C usage, on hot humid, WINDLESS days. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Actually, we do generate a small amount in Maine and New England with diesel. —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
According to the EIA:
The natural gas pipeline and local distribution companies serving the
Northeast have access to supplies from several major domestic natural
gas producing areas and from Canada. Domestic natural gas flows into the
region from the Southeast into Virginia and West Virginia, and from the
Midwest into West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Canadian imports come into
the region principally through New York, Maine, and New Hampshire.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies also enter the
region through import terminals located in Massachusetts, Maryland, and
New Brunswick, Canada.
They don’t mention where any of the imports other than Canada come from. At any rate, I like natural gas. It works, and is relatively clean.
But importing it is essentially the same as importing foreign oil, and it has similar carbon emissions and nitrogen oxide by products. I am less concerned about warming than having an honest discussion about where energy dollars are spent in the long run. New England produces no natural gas. What energy can we produce? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: LePage’s energy czar questions offshore wind plan; most PUC comments supportive cowcharge wrote, in response to Ninelake: According to the EIA: The natural gas pipeline and local distribution companies serving the Northeast have access to supplies from several major domestic natural gas producing areas and from Canada. Domestic natural gas flows into the region from the Southeast into Virginia and West Virginia, and from the Midwest into West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Canadian imports come into the region principally through New York, Maine, and New Hampshire. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies also enter the region through import terminals located in Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Brunswick, Canada. They don’t mention where any of the imports other than Canada come from. At any rate, I like natural gas. It works, and is relatively clean. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Actually a sizable portion comes from Trinidad. All of the Suez gas imported by tanker comes from there. The US is pulling significant amounts from Qatar and Yemen as well. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: LePage’s energy czar questions offshore wind plan; most PUC comments supportive cowcharge wrote, in response to Ninelake: The Southeast, the Midwest, and Canada. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Thank you for your acknowledgement. Next: from where do we import LNG in New England? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: LePage’s energy czar questions offshore wind plan; most PUC comments supportive cowcharge wrote, in response to Ninelake: Less than 1%, from the Cousins Island plant, which on… —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
Natural gas burns much cleaner than either oil or coal, and we import much less.
But importing it is essentially the same as importing foreign oil, and it has similar carbon emissions and nitrogen oxide by products. I am less concerned about warming than having an honest discussion about where energy dollars are spent in the long run. New England produces no natural gas. What energy can we produce? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: LePage’s energy czar questions offshore wind plan; most PUC comments supportive cowcharge wrote, in response to Ninelake: According to the EIA: The natural gas pipeline and local distribution companies serving the Northeast have access to supplies from several major domestic natural gas producing areas and from Canada. Domestic natural gas flows into the region from the Southeast into Virginia and West Virginia, and from the Midwest into West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Canadian imports come into the region principally through New York, Maine, and New Hampshire. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies also enter the region through import terminals located in Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Brunswick, Canada. They don’t mention where any of the imports other than Canada come from. At any rate, I like natural gas. It works, and is relatively clean. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Actually a sizable portion comes from Trinidad. All of the Suez gas imported by tanker comes from there. The US is pulling significant amounts from Qatar and Yemen as well. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: LePage’s energy czar questions offshore wind plan; most PUC comments supportive cowcharge wrote, in response to Ninelake: The Southeast, the Midwest, and Canada. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Thank you for your acknowledgement. Next: from where do we import LNG in New England? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: LePage’s energy czar questions offshore wind plan; most PUC comments supportive cowcharge wrote, in response to Ninelake: Less than 1%, from the Cousins Island plant, which on… —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
“WINDLESS days ”
Now you got it! Without the wind we burn oil!!!!!Oil is one of the best instant stabilisers for windpower!Wind don’t blow, —Turn it on, Wind Blows—Turn it off!No more oil– Wind don’t blow, –tough luck!–Wait!Thats why you turn it off when the wind blows so you can save it for later!
DUH!
“Duh” is right. Once again, we don’t use freaking oil to generate power. We use coal and natural gas, primarily. And you can’t turn power plants on and off every five minutes. They must be kept running 24/7 whether the wind blows or not, which is one reason wind does almost nothing to help emissions. Windmills will never close a power plant.
Yes it produces electricity.
Effective???? Heck yes it’s effective..
The United States produced enough electricity from wind in the 12 month period before July 2012 to power over 11 million US households annually[4] or meet the total energy demands of the Netherlands.[5] New wind farms can produce electricity in the 5-8 cents per kWh range, making wind power competitive with the cost of fossil fuel electricity generation in many markets.[6] Fourteen states have installed over 1,000 MW of wind capacity, and a total of 37 states now have installed at least some utility-scale wind power.[7] Texas, with 10,377 MW of capacity, has the most installed wind power capacity of any U.S. state, followed by Iowa with 4,322 MW.[8] The Alta Wind Energy Center in California is the largest wind farm in the United States with a capacity of 1020 MW of power[9]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States
I call them Neo-Know Nothings.
I have a feeling Mitt Nival is a wind shill. He obviously has no idea what he is talking about.
Steal those U.S. subsidies Stattoil.
Grovel for those grants Habib.
Get some offa BP and Halliburton !
This may, or may not be on topic, however I have long thought that I wish there was a smaller home size wind power charger, for resistance heating in homes, it would just be a very simple wind mill, that would generate power for resistance heating, no regulators, no batteries, just a lock out of the blades so when it was warm enough, you would not need heat, you could lock it out.
Try solar. Mini split heat pumps run on electricity and cost much less to run than oil boilers.
Halliburton = Cheney
Kazak oil = Al Gore. Little known fact.
Meanwhile, the walls are beginning to close in on Angus King:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/more-questions-about-the-permitting-and-financing-of-angus-king-s
Lepage always seems to oppose anything that might help Mainers while he always support projects that help his countrymen in Canada.
Whoopie!!!!! They are talking private investment!!!!!! That certainly is a start. But it STILL does not address the transmission problem we have here in Maine. You can build all the wind turbines you want in Maine, but if you can’t get the energy produced reliably into the New England grid, it is a waste of money and engineering. The Spanish company that owns CMP, Ibradola, has stated that we have to put $19 -$26 BILLION into upgrading our current perfectly good grid to make Wind work. A $1.5 billion upgrade that is due to be completed soon just raised our rates 19.6%. We already pay higher electric rates than all but 5 states in the US, even though we produce the most renewable energy in the US. That’s right, 50% of our energy comes from renewables. And more than that would be produced if we would stop tearing down the dams that have been producing reliable cheap hydro electricity for over 100 years.
Our priorities are skewed. They have been pushed and pushed by “scientists” that have alarmed the public with falsified “facts” and called climate change “settled”. It is not. 2,500 scientists with the IPCC have done all this. The new “scientists”, 35,000 of them, have come foreward to rebuke those facts and have exposed the IPCC and the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit for the fraudulent data. They still have no idea why the climate since 1999 is COOLER, and will probably remain that way till 2030.
Please people. Do a little research on your own and find out just what these frauds have been doing to us in the name of saving the planet. They seek power and control, that is all.
Maybe there’s potential there, maybe not.
Most importantly, someone needs to start being more transparent about the financials. Everyone’s arguing over the price of the offshore wind energy, but no one’s talking about the cost of transmission. No transmission currently exists. Floating turbines are worthless without a means of transmission. Transmission for a small experimental project relatively close to shore is one thing. Transmission and the technology to handle thousands of megawatts of intermittent, variable power (20 miles offshore, no less) that has to be integrated into the grid is quite another. Who’s paying for that? I haven’t seen that addressed yet. Is that discussion being intentionally avoided? If it’s proponents believe it can work, they should start talking about ALL the associated costs.
What about jobs created constructing the turbines and building the transmission lines? The potential is enormous. If we don’t do it someone else will. Why not create the industry here in Maine?
Jobs are great. Economic development is great. But, the project, regardless of what it is, has to be able to justify itself and it’s expenses on its own merits. If you build a bridge, you do so because you need a bridge, and the post construction benefits outweigh the cost, not because it creates jobs in bridge construction or bridge component manufacturing. That would be the tail wagging the dog. Would you build a house in order to give a construction crew some work? More likely, you build it because you need it and you can afford it – and then you keep construction costs as low as possible regardless of how the construction industry feels about it.
But, when we stop having to actually write the checks ourselves, the rules seem to change. Construction costs are no longer on the expense side of the page. The people promoting these projects have somehow convinced us now that the costs of a public works project are no longer a cost, but a benefit, as if no cost exists. They’re turning the balance sheet on its head and I think that’s a troubling trend. It might be a reason we keep digging ourselves further into the debt hole. If the project is not economical or feasible on its own, then it’s a jobs program being paid for by someone else – or not being paid for and just increasing the size of the debt hole.
If wind power is going to be a meaningful part of New England’s energy supply, it’s offshore wind that would make that possible, not onshore. But, it has to make sense on its own, and, presently, we’re not being told enough about the overall expense (nor the energy and environmental benefits for that matter) to determine whether or not it makes sense.
Price oil so that the price includes all the costs that are incurred using it, such as health costs, military spending defending access, global warming such as drought, and the eventual rising sea level cost. Add all these costs to the current cost of oil, and wind will look damn attractive.
This is a great way to get the people of Maine to clear out and leave the place as a park for us NEW YORK CITY folks. Tax ’em out!
Oil is a whole lot cheaper then wind energy and is not subsidized by the goverment.
Oil is not subsidized by the government!!! You have got to be kidding. Do you actually think that the reason thousands of US troops were killed and TRILLIONS of dollars spent on wars in the Middle East is not an oil subsidy? W’s war with Iraq was/is an oil subsidy and it is costing us a hell of a lot more than a few billion here or there in support of alternative energy sources.
Oil has nothing to do with the Wind argument. There are very few power companies using oil for power generation. In Maine we have NONE! Until you can put a windmill on your car, or heat your home with one, the Oil argument is just hype.
Ken Fletcher opposes renewable energy period. He voted against a feed-in tariff bill as a member of the Energy and Utilities Committee while serving as a state representative.
Feed in tariff laws are in effect in more than 60 countries and are considered to be the most effective market based strategy to introduce technologies like wind and solar to produce electricity.
Ken is very short sighted. The cost of producing electricity from solar has dropped 60% over the past 6 years. In the same period the cost of energy produced from fossil fuels has averaged a yearly 7% increase. As our economy recovers the cost of dirty energy will rise at a faster pace.
The question I have is: Who is Ken Fletcher looking out for?
ROMNEY / RYAN 2012 !!!
Stop this foolish project please
What I would like to know is what is the guaranteed rate of return on the investmnet. For the latest upgrade of the transmission lines it was over 14% which was agreed to by the PUC. I assume this project probably has the same ROR so why wouldn’t they be pushing for it? I would love to have a ROR of +14% on my investments!
One way to stop our utility companies from making this rate of return is to go solar and small wind. If the don’t distribute they don’t get the money.
We are building infrastructure to handle a 20th century scheme. The future is in distributed production of electricity. Make it near where you use it. Keep the money in Maine. Create the jobs in Maine.
Why is Norway so interested in building floating turbines in Maine waters? Are they getting our tax dollars to help build their project? Are they receiving US grant monies? Why aren’t they focusing on their own country’s needs???
Why don’t you look into off shore wind power in Norway. Why is Europe so aggressive in its pursuit of renewable energy? Why is there so much skepticism regarding renewable energy in the US?
The fossil fuel industry is spending tens of millions to discredit the renewable energy industry in the USA. They are also spending big to discredit climate science.
Actually, the European models for wind are failing at this time. They are plagued with the same problems we are. Wind is not reliable or storable, and it crashes grids on a regular basis. To build out “smart grids” is so expensive, it raises the rates to four times the cost of gas or hydro power. Maybe, someday in the future, we will find a viable way to store the energy produced so it can be used when it is needed. Otherwise, lets go back to building new hydro plants at a fraction of the cost and are easily integrated into the grid.
Some recent articles suggests that Germany’s experience with renewables has not been all that positive as of late.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-energy-revolution-stalls-without-decisiveness-and-incentives-a-834565.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/merkel-s-switch-to-renewables-rising-energy-prices-endanger-german-industry-a-816669.html
http://www.tax-news.com/news/Germany_Eyes_Special_Levy_On_Eco_Energy_Providers____57124.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/28/germanys-new-renewable-energy-policy/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-19/merkel-s-green-shift-forces-germany-to-burn-more-coal-energy.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-s-energy-revolution-stalls-without-decisiveness-and-incentives-a-834565.html
In a recent Newsweek article by environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, he states that Germany’s investment in solar power would net CO2 emissions reductions that would delay global warming by just 23 hours by the end of the century. Exploring all of our energy options is a positive thing as long as we’re honest with ourselves about what we find.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/27/bjorn-lomborg-on-the-rio-green-summit-poverty-pollutes.html
When one is in bed with one industry, why would one support another? It works both ways and we need diversity and cooperation not name-calling in addressing our needs.
Consideration of cost for Maine’s foray into alternative energy (in this case offshore wind power) is, of course, necessary, but so is consideration of Maine’s reputation as being a place open to the exploration of new technologies and, perhaps, greater investment in the future. Whether or not offshore wind or tidal power can become a viable source of future energy is only one consideration, and maybe in the long run, not even the most important consideration for Maine’s economic future. Perhaps showing the world that Maine is willing to lead the way in new kinds of energy technology is the more valuable achievement. Is it worth the risk? I think so. One thing that is for sure, fossil fuels are a finite source which will eventually run out, and this cannot be argued – more drilling in the Gulf, pipelines of tar sands and the rest are only temporary solutions that leave the real work of solving the energy problems to future generations. Why not at least try to be part of the solution?
Regarding LePage: Make sure he is a ONE Term Gov…!!!
I voted for Paul LePage. I am okay with wind power, especially developing offshore wind power. This is a pilot project that is committed to spending about$40 million with Maine vendors and suppliers. Maine could lead the nation in developing offhore wind. As technology improves, costs are driven down and efficiency increases. Offshore wind in the US is sort of like the oil industry in 1895.
If this project gets built, my electric bill goes up about 3-4 cents per month, OMG! I may go broke…gimme a break!
And for my friends on the left, I am okay with LNG, solar, nuclear, hydro and natural gas pipelines…the jury is still out on coal, for me, anyway…
Yes, electricity goes into the grid, we send our lobsters and potatoes out of state, too…same with our lumber…
Let’s all study this proposal objectively before beating it to death for the sake of political posturing. Thank you!
This debate is not about Democrats or Republicans, Greens or
Independents. This is about science,
economics and integrity. Reasonable
people don’t throw out insults to people they don’t know (hiding behind screen
names makes it easier to do, of course)
Reasonable people look at the facts.
Look at the sources of their information. Look at each other and say ‘We disagree, but
surely, we share common ground…’
If grid-scale industrial wind was a viable energy source– dependable,
able to support itself, able to be easily integrated into our grid, able to be
stored, able to be built with more positive benefits than negative impacts,
able to co-exist in harmony with nature and human beings without causing harm—then
this conversation wouldn’t be necessary. But it is—because for years citizens have been
led to believe that ‘wind’ will reduce carbon by a significant amount, that it
will reduce our dependence on the Middle East, that it will counter the effects
of global warming, and that (because the ‘fuel’ is free) it will reduce energy
prices.
I once believed the mantras told us by the wind industry—but
that was because I never looked beyond the rhetoric. I wanted to believe that
wind was a panacea and that it held the key to solving some of these critical
issues.
Over the years, I’ve heard every argument and every ‘reasoning’
that exists for the massive build-out of industrial wind. I’ve read the information and the reasoning (and invective)
on these online blogs. I’ve stood face-to-face with many representatives of the
wind industry and asked them hard questions…and watched them vacillate, hedge
and change the subject when they are made to answer those questions
directly. They’ve changed their
tune. No longer do they talk about ‘getting
us off foreign oil’ (because wind won’t unless and until we are driving dependable, long-range electric cars and heating our homes with affordable and dependable electricity) or about ‘energy security’ (which it
won’t provide…because it’s not dependable or reliable or constant or affordable)
or about ‘countering global warming’ (because the carbon off-set from mining,
manufacturing, transporting and building the projects is almost non-existent,
and because the base-load and spinning reserve power needed to support the
vagaries of wind burns fuel inefficiently [meaning it pollutes more] while waiting to kick-in). Now, all the industry talks about is ‘jobs’. Jobs that are ephemeral and only exist
because the American tax-payer allows its representatives at the state and
national level to commit our hard-earned dollars for this energy source which
was abandoned 100 years ago for good reason.
Let’s have an honest, civilized debate. Let’s leave politics out of the conversation. We’re all in this together, and we all have
different levels of knowledge, different reasons for supporting or opposing
this ‘wind’ initiative and different ideologies. I think there are things we have in
common. We love our country and our
planet. We don’t want to cause harm to
our environment or to our neighbors. We
want to be able to afford to live with some level of comfort. We don’t want wars, we don’t want large
multi-national corporations setting policies and running the show and we want
to leave something good and decent –and worth saving—for our descendents.
There may come a time when grid-scale wind can support
itself, when it can be stored, when it can be built without making people sick
and without harming our last remaining undeveloped regions. Until that time, I will support research and
development, but I do not support our current policy of moving forward with a
high-impact, high-cost, low-benefit energy plan.
Respectfully,
Karen Pease
Lexington Township, Maine
Very well put, Karen
Mr. Lepage,
It is time to stop the scamming of Maine citizens by the wind cartel.
Place a Moratorium now,please establish Strict cost benefit analysis now.
Rein in the PUC Now.
Kill the Emera/First Wind/ Algonquin farce now, for your citizems benefit please.
Remember your “citizens first” pledge please…and act!
Maine made energy BADDDDD, foreign imports GooDDDDDDDDD..
Ken Fletcher opposes renewable energy period. He voted against a feed-in
tariff bill as a member of the Energy and Utilities Committee while
serving as a state representative.
Feed in tariff laws are in effect in more than 60 countries and are
considered to be the most effective market based strategy to introduce
technologies like wind and solar to produce electricity.
Ken is very short sighted. The cost of producing electricity from
solar has dropped 60% over the past 6 years. In the same period the cost
of energy produced from fossil fuels has averaged a yearly 7%
increase. As our economy recovers the cost of dirty energy will rise at
a faster pace.
The question I have is: Who is Ken Fletcher looking out for?
How Angus King’s Independence Wind helped shape Maine’s expedited wind law
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/4401701:BlogPost:42002