Opinions and Feedback
If you've written an editorial. letter to the editor, or just want to share some of your thoughts, email them to webmaster@ppdlw.org. Please include your full name and let us know if the piece has been published elsewhere.
Letter to the Editor of the Rumford Falls Times by Monique Aniel
Letter to Taxpayers of Maine by Paul Rudershausen
Letter to the Editor of the Bangor Daily News by Harrison & Marilyn Roper
Letter to the Editor of the Rumford Falls Times
The letter sent by Angus King and Rob Gardiner to Roxbury residents last week about the status of their wind project contained misleading statements . Particularly troubling is their attempt to convey a connection between wind projects and our consumption of oil or coal, and that events such as the oil spill in the gulf, which no one disputes is a monumental environmental disaster and human tragedy, or recent coal mine accidents will be avoided by the proliferation of wind turbines in Maine. In fact, it is the tragic nature of these accidents that makes King and Gardiner's self serving assertions particularly loathesome. There is no relationship between wind power in Roxbury or anywhere else in Maine and the oil spill or coal mine accidents. About half of the electricity in Maine is produced by clean, domestic natural gas and the rest is produced by reliable and efficient renewable generation in the form of Maine's numerous hydro electric and bio mass plants. Mainer's bear no guilt for the oil spill with their use of electricity.
The claims made by wind power hucksters like King and Gardiner are meant solely to gain public acceptance of a technology which is not only unreliable and environmentally destructive, but absurdly expensive. Electricity generated with mountain top turbines in Maine costs more than 3 times as much to produce as electricity currently sold in the New England grid. The greedily anticipated "national energy policy inititatives" King and Gardiner mentioned in their letter are simply additional subsidies taken from the taxpayer's wallets and transferred to King and Gardiner's wallets which will make their currently idle project profitable.
Now they tell us that they do not have a viable project without additional government subsidies and/or an improved market for electricity. So now we have a mountain that was stripped of hundreds of acres of trees and had a 35 foot wide superhighway blasted and filled to the top of the ridge. None of this work should have occurred until King and Gardiner demonstrated that they had a financial backer for the entire project, which means a long term contract with a buyer for their electricity, which they apparently have not been able to find due to "record low electricity prices" in this recession.
There was a very interesting editorial by chief editor Mike Harmon in the Portland Press Herald on June 25th. In a striking departure from the "pro wind" position we have seen over the past several years as the state's papers have linked arms with state government in championing wind power as a solution to Maine's economic future, Mr. Harmon boldly stated the truth about our country's seemingly blind acceptance of "renewable energy" as an alternative to oil and coal consumption. We are pouring hundreds of billions of our hard earned tax dollars into the widespread deployment of technologies such as wind power and solar power which have no hope of replacing the massive amounts of energy locked up in coal, oil and natural gas. Our tax dollars should be funding research into real solutions.
The state's goal of 2700 megawatts of wind power, for instance, will only replace about 1% of the fossil fuel generated electricity used by the New England grid due to the low capacity of wind turbines, transmission losses from wind generators far from loads, and the need for backup power that follows the everchanging output of wind turbines. Unfortunately for those who appreciate Maine's mountains landscapes and wildlife that make use of mountain habitats and the air space above the ridges, 2700 megawatts will require thousands of turbines on hundreds of miles of currently undeveloped mountain ridges. All told, these turbines will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture that will barely make a difference in the consumption of oil or coal yet the impact on Maine's long protected wilderness landscapes will be nothing short of disastrous. Worse, the subsidies directed at this goal, approximately $5 billion at current subsidy levels, if redirected to helping people reduce oil consumption with increased insulation and better heating systems would be equivalent to about $10,000 for every household in the state. Such an investment would put the construction industry back to work and actually achieve the laudable goal of reducing our oil consumption, which is something King and Gardiner's wind turbines will not do.
Perhaps most troubling is the state and the wind industry's denial about the health problems due to noise that have resulted from the first few wind projects in the state. Turbine noise is well understood to cause sleep disturbance for some people, and the impacts suffered by innocent citizens could easily have been predicted from experience elsewhere. If nothing is done to modify Maine's outdated noise regulations the health problems will be compounded with each new project. To their credit, some towns in the state have done their homework and adopted responsible turbine regulations which place these enormous machines at safe distances from homes. Hopefully Rumford and other river valley towns will pay attention to the science about turbine noise impacts and likewise adopt ordinances that protect citizens in quiet rural locations from the night time noise of turbines.
It's too bad the slim majority of Roxbury voters could not see beyond the empty promises of tax windfalls and other "tangible benefits" when it came time to vote on King and Gardiner's proposal. If King and Gardiner make good on their promise to destroy the peace and quiet and natural beauty of Roxbury with 22 turbines on 5 miles of ridgeline, the select board, planning commission,and voters who were blinded by the hype will be responsible. Those who understood the folly of this assault on Maine's landscape and citizenry, and fought against it, will be remembered as the folks who did the right thing.
Monique Aniel
June 30, 2010
Dear Taxpayer of Maine,
I request that you, as a taxpayer of Maine, ask yourself whether this is the Maine that you envision… one with strobe lights, shadow flicker, constant strong noise, possible adverse health effects, and threats to wildlife… and for power that will not even light your own lamps! If this kind of reckless development is not the Maine you envision, immediately voice your opposition to the board of select persons in Carroll Plt. (zip code 04487), and in nearby Kossuth Twp.
Here are some important negative aspects of wind turbine projects that you should consider. These nasty side effects are never mentioned by developers of wind turbine projects.
Noise. Wind turbines make low-frequency noise, like a drumming sound as the blades pass the towers. This noise can cause disruptions to sleep patterns.
Here is an example of the noise wind turbines make in nearby Vinalhaven. This low frequency noise has been associated with sleep disorders, irregular heartbeats, and anxiety.
Shadow flicker. This is the reflection of sunlight off windmill blades, which can create an annoying reflection in homes, roads, and properties.
Property values. There is widespread agreement that property values decrease in the vicinity (within sight or sound) of wind turbines. First Wind is trying to convince you otherwise. Do not let them fool you. Gardner Appraisal Group’s analysis for the American Wind Power Center found that, at 1.8 miles from wind turbines, property values decreased an average of 25%. Decreases in property values closer to turbines are even greater. Talk to residents in the vicinity of the Mars Hill project and ask them which direction their property values have headed.
Energy efficiency. Wind turbines are not energy- or cost efficient. According to the Energy Information Administration, wind produces only 1.3% of U.S. electricity but receives federal taxpayer subsidies 25 times as much per megawatt hour as subsidies for all other forms of electricity production combined. Wind power needs to be backed up by other sources of energy in order to avoid blackouts.
Cost. Wind turbine projects need your tax subsidies to survive. They are energetically inefficient. They leave very few permanent jobs in the communities where they are constructed. Neil Kiely, representative for First Wind, informed me that the proposed Bower’s Mountain Project would receive support from federal stimulus money. If wind power is so efficient, why can’t it pay for itself? First Wind in an out-of-state (international) corporation that simply does not have the welfare of Carroll Plantation, Kossuth, or of Maine in mind.
Residents of Carroll Plantation, Kossuth, and of Maine, wake up! Ask yourself: if wind energy is so good for the state, such a swoon for taxpayers, such an efficient source of ‘green’ energy, why is First Wind not trying to develop the top of Acadia National Park or Mount Katahdin? Further, why is First Wind not developing sites well offshore out of the site and sound of land? First Wind needs to answer these questions before they proceed with the Bowers proposal. An out-of-state development company is coming to beautiful eastern Maine and trying to cram a money-losing project down your throat. They are using taxpayer subsidies to try to balance their books. They are trying to woo residents with tax breaks but have no plans to offset the decrease in residents' property values.
We should not let First Wind’s hollow promises of financial benefits to Carroll and Kossuth taxpayers fool us, the people of Maine. First Wind is an aggressive international development company all too happy to tap into federal stimulus funds at the expense of the quality of life that Mainers have long cherished and protected. In addition to writing the Carroll Plantation and the Kossuth town offices, I also ask you to immediately voice your opposition against the Bowers Mountain Wind Project to:
LURC
Attn: Bower’s Mtn. Proposed Wind Project
22 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Paul Rudershausen
303 College Circle
Morehead City, NC 28557
Wind not the answer
The propaganda of First Wind (repeated in the BDN’s July 6 editorial) that inland industrial wind complexes in Maine are carbon-neutral is false.
Let’s start with the permanent elimination of many thousands of CO2-absorbing trees to make way for roads, turbine sites and transmission lines.
Add to that the fossil fuel needed to manufacture and transport the blades and turbines from foreign lands plus adding one ton of CO2 to the air while making each ton of concrete of the many thousands poured into huge holes blasted for the turbine foundations.
Natural gas turbines must be kept ready in “spinning” mode and ramped up and down to provide backup power to keep the grid stable as the wind fluctuates or dies. This pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere than natural gas turbines operating in normal mode.
Strong, constant wind is off-shore, not in the poor to moderate wind area of inland, eastern Maine. Because the power output of First Wind’s inland wind farms is secret, we have no idea how much it actually produces. But they certainly do not reduce our carbon footprint.
Since 1992 we have had whole-house electricity, get good mileage, limit travel and heat with dead-diseased wood. There are many ways to conserve energy without jeopardizing the traditional economy of Maine (such as tourists and “sports” at Grand Lake Stream) with visual scars, low frequency bombardments and large power cost increases that discourage businesses.
Harrison and Marilyn Roper
|
