In her letter, May 2, Eileen Kreutz asked if the $4 billion oil subsidy should, instead, be used for alternative energy. I couldn't agree more, but would go further and urge a careful examination of all supposedly "green energy" projects. So far, few of them measure up once they get scaled from backyard to industrial size.
That is true whether you're talking about growing corn for biofuels, bulldozing California deserts for solar farms, or a lot of other "green energy" disasters. It is definitely true of mountaintop removal in Maine to build industrial-scale wind farms.
Green energy is small and it's local. A backyard wind generator can make a lot of sense. But whether you're talking about economic, social or environmental costs, the giant wind projects proposed for Maine make no sense at all. Sure, there are short-term construction jobs, but remember, Maine's economy is based on tourism, not on turning Maine into an industrial park to sell power to Boston.
Wind farms are built by public subsidies — the public's money. Cost/benefit studies have not been done (except by industry, which ignored the costs). Getting studies that address the real issues and real costs is essential before any more of the state's future is put on the line.
Until such studies are done, the only solution is a complete moratorium on wind projects.
Better late than never.
Sally McGuire, Carthage