Rumford selectmen extend wind moratorium 180 days

RUMFORD — Selectmen voted 4-1 Thursday night to extend the moratorium on wind development another six months.

Terry Karkos/Sun Journal

Carolyn Bennett of Rumford said she wants to see a wind power development law written "at a level we can all understand." She also said she supports extending the current six-month moratorium that expires Nov. 27.

Selectman Mark Belanger was the dissenter.

The decision came despite pleas from a few people, both during the 40-minute hearing that preceded the board's regular meeting and the meeting itself.

The current six-month moratorium ends Nov. 27. It was enacted to give town officials time to study wind farm issues and to draft an ordinance to regulate such development.

That ordinance, which was widely believed to ban wind farm projects, was defeated on Nov. 2 by a vote of 1,339 to 1,048.

Prior to the hearing and the meeting, Town Manager Carlo Puiia told the crowd of about 50 people that a special town meeting wasn't needed to vote to extend the moratorium, because selectmen have the authority.

The board then shared their opinions before seeking public response.

Selectmen Jeff Sterling, Jeremy Volkernick, Greg Buccina and Chairman Brad Adley all supported extending the development ban.

Sterling and Volkernick want selectmen to then develop an ordinance to regulate wind power.  Buccina said he believes the defeated ordinance has a lot of merit. Adley said he wants an ordinance, albeit one that's designed from the Maine State Planning Office wind development ordinance template.

Belanger said the board should follow the will of the majority of voters who defeated the proposed ordinance, conduct workshops with experts on wind power issues, and work with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to draft an ordinance.

Sterling said he believes people who voted against the proposed ordinance desire regulation, but want it to govern wind development and not restrict it.

Buccina told Adley he would not support an ordinance based on the state's template, because he doesn't believe it is protective enough.

From the public, an extension was sought by Monique Aniel, Ed Shurtleff, Len Greaney, Jo Elliot and Carolyn Bennett.

Aniel said there are possible health-related changes coming to sound regulations. Shurtleff said banks won't lend money to wind power companies “because they aren't viable.”

Greaney said more work was needed to define tax breaks and financing. Elliott said an extension would provide more time to study the issue, and Bennett wanted work on an ordinance done at a more understandable level.

Resident Candice Casey sided with Belanger, saying she believed the extension goes against wishes of the voting majority. She also believes any ordinance should regulate all development and not just wind power.

When selectmen next broached the topic during their regular meeting, Volkernick motioned to extend the moratorium by 180 days. It was seconded and then former selectman J. Arthur Boivin urged them to reconsider.

“The way I look at it, on Nov. 2 the voters gave you guys a job and I think they are expecting you guys to do it, and that is not necessarily to extend the moratorium or to come up with a new ordinance,” he said.

“Because the people that I have been talking to, they want some type of development that will create jobs. You are looking at over 1,300 people who said no, because they said, 'We want wind development.'”

“That is 1,300 people as opposed to listening to about 50 of them that are sitting here,” he said.

Boivin said selectmen should draft an ordinance to regulate wind power and work with a wind developer and state officials.

Buccina said he believed that the voting majority defeated the proposed ordinance, but didn't say the town shouldn't have one.

tkarkos@sunjournal.com

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

 's picture

False Conclusions

You have ignored one of the most basic laws of physics and thermodynamics in reaching your conclusion that "there is no inefficiency to compare to nuclear, coal, gas, or oil fired plants". That law is the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy may neither created nor destroyed, but may only change form. Moving air across a mountain or ridgeline is a source of potential or kinetic energy. The process of converting an axial energy source to rotational energy used to drive a generator has an intrinsic energy loss associated with it. Conversion of rotational energy to electrical energy is inherently lossy, because energy is changing form from mechanical to electrical.
Transmission of electrical energy from its source to its destination is lossy because some small amount is lost in the form of heat in the transmission conductors.

 's picture

Fossil fuel and nuclear have

Fossil fuel and nuclear have even more problems than wind since you have all of the problems of wind plus the problems associated with converting the potential energy in the fuel plus oxygen or nuclear reaction which converts the potential to heat. That heat must than be transfered to the fluid circulating in the closed turbine drive system to presurize the drive lines and move the fluid to dive the generators or alternators. Now in nuclear in particular we also know that not all of the heat is effectively used to drive the generators to the point that cooling water is pumped from nearby water ways and back which raises the temperature of the waterways leading to algae blooms, explosive growth of bacteria and fish kills, definitely not signs of efficiency. Wind on the other hand, whatever energy is not "captured" by the drive mechanism continues along and can drive another wind turbine, provide a cooling breeze in a home, spread the pollen to perpetuate plant species and so much more. In effect there is no waste of wind, was my point, what is not used continues on in its original form.

 's picture

I do apologize. I was

I do apologize. I was focusing on the fueling and driving supply ends. You are very correct and since we have the very same coverting of rotational energy to drive a generator or alternator that part is moot since both fossil fuel, nuclear and wind all utilize this same principles. I also pointed out that this occurs but wrote it off in the case of wind in my description stating this was of no cost since the energy source was free in the case of wind power unlike the others, big difference. I was attempting to show the difference not the similarity. The driving force source in wind is free, sustainable, and limitless as well as non-toxic, non-emitting and not polluting unlike the other generating systems which require a fossil fuel or nuclear material.

 's picture

Facts

The previous ordinance was voted down by the people. We cannot deduce from their vote what their motivation was, but the message was that they did not want THAT ordinance. There is nothing indicating the "will of the people" was anything more than to not use that ordinance. There was not question indicating what the board should or should not do, so anyone who is stating that the board is "going against the will of the people" is off base.

There have been a group of about 30 Rumford residents showing up at these meetings. They have expressed their opinion, but that is no mandate. Our country was built on rule by the people in the polls, not by mob rule. Just because a few choose to be vocal, it does not mean that the board should follow suit.

The board has indicated mixed views on how to proceed. Mr. Buccina has indicated that he wants to start with the failed ordinance proposal, but the remainder seem inclined to start with the template ordinance. After the problems that were experienced passing the General Assistance budget this year, it would be unwise for the board to waste people's time and town money proposing an ordinance that would be essentially the same as the failed proposal.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 's picture

You forget there have been two (2) votes

You are ignoring one very important factor Mr. Moderator, this vote on the ordinance/permanent moratorium is not the only vote that has been held in mass; the People of Rumford also voted on, "Do you favor wind power development in the Town of Rumford?" In response to the question, the response was an overwhelming YES with 1115 voters participating, 751 or 67% voted yes while only 364 or 33% voted no. That is a more than 2 to 1 margin, which leaves no doubt as to the will of the people. This makes the moratoriums imposed on the community and subsequent ordinance/permanent moratorium that was put before the voters double egregious. It is not surprise the ordinance was rejected and it is utterly disrespectful that the selectmen have once again over-ridden the obvious will of the people with yet another moratorium. I would have agreed with you had there been a sizable number of citizens voting on any one of the moratoriums, say 1000 voters by Australian ballot, but there has not been; these have been strictly forced upon us by 30 or so members of this anti-wind power special interest group and/or the selectmen.

Since 1115 citizens voted 2-1 in favor of wind power then, 2,387 turned out to vote down the permanent moratorium/wind power ordinance there can be no doubt as to the will of the people. What is lacking is in four members of the Board of Selectmen.

What you describe as "the board has indicated mixed views on how to proceed," the citizenry which turned out to vote would describe as follows. Mr. Buccina is a very vocal member of the anti-wind power special interest group who refuses to respect the will of the people or the office he holds. Instead he is using his office to perpetuate an agenda that the people have decisively rejected twice; decisively pronouncing it is in opposition to their will. Mr. Sterling is also a member of this special interest group though he is much more diplomatic about it, keeping his rhetoric at a much lower level than Mr. Buccina. He too demonstrates wanton disregard for the demonstrated will of the majority of his constituency. Mr. Adley says he believes the will of the people is to develop wind power, then as he so often does, votes opposite of what he says he believes is the peoples will. We know that Mr. Adley was threatened by members of the anti-wind power special interest group to get him to vote the permanent moratorium ordianance and only that ordinance onto the November ballot which makes his vote even more disgusting. He is not only voting against the will of the people he is sworn to represent and violating his oath of office, he is also protecting and backing the criminals who threatened him. Mr. Volkernick is like a deer in headlights. He just rambles on and votes along with Buccina, Adley and Sterling. It is pathetic. As was written by tongue in cheek nicknamed Special_Interest_Group earlier this week the final member of this board is the lone representive of the people, “Mark Bellanger, the one shining star on this board who seems to have respect for the will of the people." Yes, Mark has consistently voted in keeping with the vote of the people no matter what his personal beliefs may be on this and every other issue. Bravo, Mr. Bellanger for not only maintaining your own integrity but, also upholding the integrity office and demonstrating that it is possible for Rumford to have a selectman with integrity.

Those of us who have showed up at the polls twice to express our will to develop wind power in our community fully expect the "special interest serving four" selectmen to do some token "tweaking" of the permanent moratorium/wind power ordinance and put it before us in June so we can vote it down again. We fully expect if enough of them remain in office after the June elections they will unilaterally jam another 180 day moratorium down our throats while they do some more token "tweaking." We believe that this process is an end run around the will of the voters’ declaration with not one, but two votes to develop wind power in Rumford. Say what you will Mr. Moderator the people have spoken not once, but twice and they have been extremely clear as to their will.

 's picture

Hmmm

I agree that a majority of the voting public want wind power, but I believe that there is a split between those who want to regulate it and those who want it to have free reign. Based upon the experiences of other communities, it would seem that an ordinance of some sort is advisable. Although it seems easy to just have a meeting and get it done, the board now has to do the job the committee failed to do, including bringing in experts to discuss reasonable restrictions. They could throw together something in one night, but it wouldn't necessarily be sufficient to assure that the wind towers are managed responsibly.

 's picture

Aniel

I don't know if she is a citizen, I presume that she is based upon the fact that she has held public office. However, she spoke during a public hearing, which by definition is open to public comment, not just citizen comment.

 's picture

Confused

So, to those who disagree, are you saying that public hearings aren't open to public comment??

 's picture

[This comment has been edited

[This comment has been edited by the administrator]

It has been brought to my attention that the New Hampshire Channel 9 report was provided to the town manager and select board for inclusion in testimony in the public hearing and or select board meeting but that the video was not played until after the meeting. Why was this? This video is most relevant to the facts of wind power and dispels many of the myths perpetuated by the Anti-wind Power Special Interest Group and should have had a profound effect on any selectman with any degree of an open mind who had not personally visited a wind farm or personally made the effort to educate themselves on the realities since the "advisory" committee failed to fulfill to any degree its mandate to educate. There is no disputing the lack of negative visual impact of wind farms on ridgelines as demonstrated by this unbiased news report nor of the absence of the terrible noise claimed to be so pervasive at these facilities. This news report has interviews held at multiple locations surounding the windfarm from within feet of a turbine to 509 feet away at a home and greater where you hear at most a soft whoosh from time to time and the interview is conducted using normal speech that is in no way interfered with by the wind turbines. These are all facts that the selectmen and anyone else would learn for themselves visiting a windfarm or viewing this or similar unbiased reporting.

Celsius Admin's picture
staff

Admin warning

Part of your comment was removed for violating our commenting policy for being potentially libelous. If you violate this policy again your account will be banned for one week.

 's picture

Though I would normally

Though I would normally disagree with the selectmen on going against the peoples' votes, in this particular case I must agree with them on taking precautionary measures. I don't know about Rumford, but many citizens vote for wind power based upon the shallow promises that it will provide local employment. See the following link to see just where "going green" is actually going; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/9/green-jobs-no-longer-gold...

 's picture

Not to worry Bill

I can assure you Bill, you can put your mind at ease, the people of Rumford through the dilligence of CandiceAnn, Special_Interest_Group, Watchdog, myself and a few others, certainly no help from the "advisory" committee charged with the task, have been quite well informed and educated on the minimal jobs prospects. They also have an understanding on the tax implications. They understand that any TIFF to be granted or not not granted will be entirely up to them to decide in the voting booth. The People of Rumford see a number of pluses not the least of which is potential increases in and broading of the tax base which was hard hit last year with huge abatements given to both the paper mill in town and Brookfield Power which operates the hydro project. We also have a gas powered generating plant in town that went through bankruptcy shortly after construction which understandably depreciated the plant and effects the taxes they pay. The People of Rumford see the economic advantages of not standing in the way of progress; they are looking to welcome rather than discourage current and future economic development. The People of Rumford have come to understand that targeting every opportunity that comes our way only threatens and discourages existing operations from continuing or expanding here and definitely has an adverse effect on potential future ventures. The People of Rumford have a paper mill in town that has been in operation for more than 100 years. There are logging operations in the area as well as other noise producing ventures. The people live quite satisfactorily with these and consider the wind turbines to be equal to or less intrusive to what we consider common place and therefore is not an issue. We are also not hung up over the sight of these beauties with many having visited existing facilities or watched news and other footage such as the New Hampshire channel 9 report. So rest easy Bill, the people of Rumford are not expecting an explosion of long-term employment from the single wind power project proposed by First Wind. We are thinking much longer range and boader based economic development.

 's picture

too much power

Brookfield Power which operates the hydro project. We also have a gas powered generating plant in town that went through bankruptcy shortly after construction which understandably depreciated the plant and effects the taxes .

ok we need another power source in rumford. oh yeah the mill makes power

 's picture

It is about trade deficit.

We know this is difficult for you to understand. The State of Maine just like the United States desperately needs exports. We need money coming into our economy from outside. It used to be we made paper, shoes, matches, tongue depressors, Popsicle sticks, toothpicks, tanned leather, fabrics, towels and a whole lot more in the state of Maine for export out of the state; not any more. Now we just have stuff coming in still, like most of our food, all of it most of the year, clothing, electronics, chemicals for cleaning and personal hygiene, school supplies, furniture, medical supplies and on and on, basically everything we use personally, in our homes and in our businesses. This creates a trade imbalance the same as the country experiences. We are sending money out with everything we buy while having no money coming in because we have nothing to sell. This is also why we do not want to rely on Canadian power to make up for any shortage we have further shipping our money out of the state adding to our trade deficit.

The reason Brookfield Power had the big abatement had nothing to do with the Rumford operation. It is also something I have difficulty understanding. It seems that when Brookfield purchased the Rumford plant it included a clause committing them to a big maintenance expense at Middle Dam which came due last year. This expense greatly cut into their profit and apparently the property tax on power plants is based not only on equipment and structure but profitability. Other than that unanticipated, significant and not relevant to the Rumford operations charge the Rumford facility of Brookfield is doing just fine and the abatement is not an indication of lack of need for clean power.

The bankruptcy of the gas plant in the Rumford Industrial Park was right after construction and also was not the result of operational conditions since it had not even begun operation before it was in trouble. The builders were over extended before they even tried to start the plant up. However, when something is sold under distress, just as when it is sold in foreclosure, the full market value is never obtained which then results in lower tax value.

The Rumford Paper Mill does make power. The Bio Mass plant at the mill serves dual purposes. It provides direct steam power for Number 15 Paper Machine operations and it drives turbines to generate power for the mill with excess sold back to CMP under contract. Federal law requires that power companies buy any and all excess power from companies and homes that produce power for their own. This means that if you have a wind turbine, solar panels, geo thermal system or anything else at your home or business to supply power for yourself CMP is required to pay you for your extra if you want to cell rather than store it. The mill abatement had nothing to do with the power plant it was the result of the permanent suspension of operations of a many areas of mill operations and removal of the equipment. The mill is down to three paper machines for example and had the rest removed.

As to, “we don’t need the power,” that is a good thing because, if you didn’t notice from reading other papers last week which actually cover news beyond the trivial and sensational local news covered by SJ by going to other sources you may not be aware of some important events that occurred in New York and Vermont last weekend. Vermont Yankee, which is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2012, permanently taking it off the grid, was shutdown twice in one hour. The second time was for a 2 foot diameter pipe leaking radioactive water. To date, there has been no announcement that I am aware of as to when or if the plant will restart or if it will begin decommissioning early as did Maine Yankee many years ago after a radioactive water leak problem was going to be too expensive and too time consuming to repair to be cost effective. The second plant to have problems was north of New York City and one with a long history of problems. This time a transformer went out causing one of the reactors to go into emergency shutdown. Somebody has to make up for all this lost supply. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were Maine power generators!

Maine may not need the power from further energy sources at this time which is even more reason to develop it; ideally we would continue with conservation programs even with economic development and lower prices so that we can export this commodity to provide a revenue stream into the state into the future. We desperately need these turbines to produce an export to bring money into the state to replace all the money we send out for all our necessities. Just remember, among other things, the revenues generated on all the power that goes out is subject to state income tax.

 's picture

Since we all know CandiceAnne

Since we all know CandiceAnne is no longer part of the Sun Journal Forum she can't speak for herself. She obviously isn't alone however in her objection to the moratorium and continued obstructionist behavior. Anyone owning a business or with any business knowledge has to ask how would a failure of a wind power project that is a private venture failing fall on the shoulders of the people? It can't anymore than the local grocery store, gas station, or say the big oil compangy, Community Energy in Rumford failing. Any failure will be on the shoulders of the investors/owners of the company and project. As for wind power being an inefficient power source, I have yet to figure out how wind power can be inefficient since it consumes nothing. A gas fired plant such as the one in Rumford's industrial park has an efficiency because there is a measurable efficiency or inefficience in the use of the fuel, in this case gas, burned which is transfered into pressure to drive the turbines. We know that the fuel is not burned at 100% efficiency so we knock of right off to start. Then we know that the energy, heat, transfer to create the pressure is not 100% efficient, that much is lost up the stack and through transference to air and surrounding materials rather than to the fluid that is to be heated and create the pressure to drive the turbines. Then we know that we have more loss of efficiency do to friction, resistance of the turbines via inertia, and other impediments to the turbine side. Then the turbines have to drive generators which have additional resistance and also must produce power to overcome system resistance. All this adds up to efficiency lost in the consumption of the gas.

With wind turbines there is no fuel consumed. Mother nature provides free direct energy in the form of wind applied to the blades or fins of the turbines which in turn drive the generators. The wind then blows on through at no cost. There is no fuel up the stack, heat lost, etc that decreases fuel efficiency since there is no fuel consumed, therefore there is no inefficiency to compare to nuclear, coal, gas, or oil fired plants.

 's picture

Thank you northwoods for confirming my answer

Thank you northwoods for confirming my answer that neither question can truly be answered. It is especially effective since I am for wind power and you are against it that we are in agreement on this. There is no way to determine the cost to install a single wind turbine and there is no way to determine how many wind turbines would be needed to power Lewiston Auburn. There are just too many variables; a lot more information, specifics as to location, number in each farm, make/model in each farm, would be needed to calculate these. Again, thank you for supporting my response.

 's picture

This should help you to understand

I don’t claim to be an expert. I just have an understanding of physics, electricity, its generation and also a background in the combustion process. I have also done a fair amount of research on wind power and the processes of wind power driven electricity generation. I do understand and appreciate your frustration with this.

To answer your questions, there is no way to empirically and with absolute certainty answer either of them since there are far too many variables. Let me explain beginning with, how much does it cost to build each wind turbine? That depends on many factors beginning with the make and model just as it does with anything we buy. Some makes and models cost more, some less. The next consideration is transportation; how much does it cost to get the turbine from the manufacture to the place it will operate. Let’s look at two scenarios at opposite extremes of the spectrum. First, manufacturer is located at one harbor; the turbine arrives by ship in the destination harbor is unloaded and setup right beside the ship. Now, I know this would not actually happen, like I said this is just to show the two extremes. The cost of transportation of the turbine in this case is only cost of transporting on the ship. In the second scenario, the turbines trucked from the manufacturer to the shipping harbor, travel across to the destination harbor, are transferred to trucks which carry the components hundreds of miles. In addition a road has to be built to the site since no road previously existed. Let’s say the new road is 100 miles long for our argument. In this case you have to add the cost of constructing the new road and transporting the components all those hundreds of miles to the cost of the single turbine. Next in calculating construction is the varied cost of the site prep and variations in labor and other contractor charges, and permits, not to mention the cost of construction delays from moratoriums and litigation from obstructionist organizations and individuals. We all know that it costs a lot more to build in Portland than it does in Rumford for example. Also site conditions vary widely which changes costs greatly with variances in prep work to situate the turbine.

Your question was, “How much does each turbine cost to build?” The above discusses a single turbine installation. That is not a realistic expectation. Single turbines may be installed for home or commercial use with excess power sold back to utilities but, single turbine projects are not done as a standalone commercial wind turbine projects. The number of turbines in a project varies as greatly as we just saw the possible scenarios of make/model, local labor, permitting and other construction variables, road construction and site prep needs, and distance, conditions, and methods of transportation utilized to get the turbine to its destination vary greatly. Some of the costs such as road construction, associated with the turbines can be divided among the total number of turbines in the farm which results in potentially huge variations in per turbine cost. For example, if road construction cost $100,000 and there is only 1 turbine $100,000 must be added to the cost of that turbine. If on the other hand road construction is $100,000 and there are 10 turbines served, the cost to be added to each turbine is only $10,000. The more turbines served the smaller the amount charged to each for these costs. Other costs such as the cost of physically transporting the components are turbine specific. As you can see there is no set cost that applies to building every turbine.

Your second question was, “How many turbines will it take to provide total power to Lewiston and Auburn?” That too can’t be answered with certainty any more than the questions, How many hydro projects would it take to provide all the power for Lewiston and Auburn? Here is why the question can’t be answered with certainty starting with Lewiston/Auburn’s or for that matter any places power consumption. It would be wonderful if power usage were constant, consistent, and smooth 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, year in and year out. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. You may have noticed another article in today’s paper on Smart Meters and this has a lot to do with why Smart Meters are a really good thing for savvy electricity customers. I am sure that you have heard about peak usage periods. These are times of the day when demand for power spikes. In the winter, when we in Maine see darkness striking before we leave our offices, that spike hits about the time we all get home from work, when everyone bursts through the door, all the lights are turned on, the heat gets cranked up, clothes go in the dry, TVs, computers and all those other wonderful electronics get flipped on and we get down to the business of cooking dinner and taking long hot showers. All of these activities amount to a huge spike in usage which goes on until roughly 8 or 9 PM and puts a huge strain on available resources. Enter the Smart Meter. CMP over the years has encouraged us to not rush home and do all these things. We have been encouraged to hold off on the laundry, the cooking and whatever else we can until after 8 or 9 PM when the demand plummets in order to help smooth out the load. The Smart Meter rewards those who work with CMP and keep their 5PM to 9PM usage down and penalizes those who hog power during this peak time by tracking not only how much power is used but also when and giving discounts or rate increases for these hours depending on the cooperation of the user. In addition to the 5 to 9 PM winter peak hours, there are other times that we are all aware of, such as when the weather has been very hot and humid and some people get nuts about running air conditioners. There are also, of course variables built in as the result of changing economies. Slower economies tend to reduce usage while growing and booming economies will result in greater usage. Incomes also play a factor, wealthier households use more than poorer households, so when times are tough and everyone is feeling a pinch there is a drop and when times are good and people are feeling a bit high on the hog usage goes up. So there is a great deal of variance in the demand for power from hour to hour, day to day, month to month, year to year and economic cycle to economic cycle.
On the turbine side: Unlike fossil fuel driven or nuclear power, there is no absolute to the fuel supply when it comes to wind. Each location is unique in how much and the type of wind it receives. In addition, wind is a gift from Mother Nature that is not steady. Some days the wind blows 45 mph and takes out trees and power lines as we saw recently down here in the valleys. Other times there is no wind at all as in the dog days of summer. The mountain tops and ridge lines do not suffer from quite the extremes as the valleys they shelter which is why wind turbines are sited on peaks and ridgelines where there is always some wind and not in the valleys but, there is still considerable variance from location to location which leads to variances in potential output per turbine. The variables in conditions also result in different makes, models, and sizes of turbines being selected all of which effect output. As you can see with no stable demand for power and the variety of turbines and site locations and conditions there is no way to accurately state how many turbines would be needed to power Lewiston and Auburn.
I hope this helps you understand a bit more about wind power, the benefits it has to offer and the limits that exist in giving absolute answers to your questions.

 's picture

Name calling

Above, I see a comment from Special Interest which says, "The crazy lady Karen Pease from Lincoln Township brought her circus to Muskie auditorium." I did not see the removed comment. I'm all for the policy of prohibiting name-calling and personal attack, but wonder how Special Interest's comment escaped your policy. Perhaps my definition differs from yours.

 's picture

lisan, are you and karen

lisan, are you and karen pease, northwoods, spirit of the mountains . . . going to jump on the Smart Meters will kill you bandwagon too and push for moratoriums on them all over the state? Sounds like another cause with no bases in fact and totally irrational right up your alley.

 's picture

Funny

how the pro-wind folks always go off-topic and for the personal attacks when they don't have a leg to stand on.

 's picture

Truthfully, I didn't think

Truthfully, I didn't think there was a thing left to say, Special_Interest_Group did a brilliant job covering the issues. No reason to waste space. I did read the CMP Smart Meter story earlier and think of you thou and how it was right up your alley. Seeing your post, I just took advantage of the opportunity of asking if your group would be jumping on that band wagon is all. Again, Kudos to Special_Interest_Group very well done on hitting all the relevent points in this story, nothing to add.

 's picture

My town

has a reasonable, consicise small and large scale wind ordinance. Four pages. Passed at town meeting. Better protection than the DEP offers but does not give the appearance of banning wind. That said, I do strongly feel that industrial wind should be properly sited. I do not feel that the expedited wind law is fair or maybe even legal. I do not feel that mountains are appropriate sites for such large projects both for environmental and economical reasons. Particularly, when we see the cumulative impact of having so many ridgelines taken over in this one area. I think there will be a backlash once we reach critical mass. I've spent way more time researching this than I care to and after over a year of doing so, I haven't changed my mind. Probably won't, either.

And, no, I pick my battles. The CMP meter thing doesn't concern me. What does concern me are the transmission upgrades that were approved under the guise of "aging lines" when it was, in fact, all about wind power.

 's picture

What was the point in having the people vote?

Wow, this Board of Selectmen gives a whole new meaning to corruption.

 's picture

Hey Motormouth

[This comment has been removed by the administrator]

 's picture

Non-binding vote

The Rumford select board is within their right to increase the time limit and in my opinion the people of Rumford are lucky that their vote is non-binding. Every day we are getting more information exposing the inefficiency and uselessness of wind as an energy source. First Wind is a corrupt company, under investigation in New York state and could give a hoot less about Rumfords residents, the River Valley environment or anything other than getting these in before the citizens of Maine wake up. Rumford residents should stay as far away from the state model as it too is useless and is basically the equivalent of no ordinance.. Ordinances HAVE to be restrictive for the sake of all. It is interesting that the developers run when they have to dot their i's and cross their t's.

 's picture

recreational trails

wind turbines have a debris scatter of 1500' reported worldwide. Insurance companies will mandate 1500' closure of property around turbines.
There goes our ridgelines; physically and visually.

 's picture

no education

“Where is the promised education?”

The “advisory” committee did not fulfill its mission to “educate on the advantages and disadvantages of wind power.”

The press does not publish what is known. Give the people the simulated photos.
Show the power capacity of Presque Ilses' Wind Turbine. 11%
Investigate how much power is required when zero wind (89%). (I heard 20 kw @ turbine.)
new advisory committee of Rumford, please educate us. we want to know.

i am a citizen of Maine

 's picture

Windpower arrogance

Once again shows through. Two selectpersons want to tweak an ordinance that was voted down. Another is still remembering the threats of possible loss of business and the other is a tag along. A 4 to1 vote for another moratorium. At least Mr. Belanger listens to the people who voted; a poll in favor of wind power and a vote against a restrictive ordinance. Are the arrogant “4”acting in the best interest of the citizens? I think not! They are acting against the vote (will) of the citizens. It’s time to look-up the recall procedures; don’t you think?
What should have been done last night was to accept the states template and work with First Wind to tweak how the town will benefit and move on to a win-win situation for our town.
If our local access channel shows a news broadcast about the first wind project in Lempster, NH, which has been presented to them; be is sure to watch it. It points out the lies and misconceptions that anti winders are promoting.
WOOPS! It probably will not even be broadcasted because the anti winder is in charge of your local access channel.

 's picture

"Crazy Lady"

is not name-calling? Sounds like you can stoop low, but the rest of us are held to a higher standard.

 's picture

Well, There you go...

The voters speak and the Selectmen ignore them. Why am I not surprised? Monique Aniel isn't, as far as I know, even a resident of Rumford. What right does she have to put her two cents worth in at a Rumford meeting?
Greaney at least have good reasons for his concerns but Shurtleff apparently doesn't get the fact that that First Wind wouldn't be looking to build if they didn't have the financing to do it.
The idea of an ordinance that is understandable to the common person is a good one, just make sure that it is fairly implemented and not developed to regulate a single industry.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...