An impassioned, diverse dialogue on wind power

Our online readers responded with vigor to Sunday’s editorial regarding major investments — infrastructure, jobs, consulting services, etc., — the wind industry has made in Maine in the past decade.

Most of the response — but not all — was critical of the industry — and equally critical of any acknowledgement of wind investment.

? ? ?

In the editorial, we quoted Reed & Reed CEO Jackson Parker’s analogy of a cement turbine platform and the mountain on which it is perched. “. . . what it amounts to is like a very small desk being placed on a football field,” noting that only about 400 of the available 6.5 million acres of qualifying, above-sea-level mountaintops have wind turbines on them.

Jon Cantin of Peru challenged Parker’s statement, asking “How about the surrounding thousands of acres that have to look at this ‘400’ acres? It’s a huge impact” on those doing the looking, he wrote.

Our editorial noted, based on polling done over the years, the overwhelming and continued public support for wind projects.

Brad Blake of Lincoln questioned the results of polling, and in particular, the efficacy of a recent Pan Atlantic poll reporting far-ranging support of wind development.

According to Blake, “There is no context in which this question was posed nor any reference to the sample size, the targeted demographics or any disclosure as to who paid for this poll,” which he characterized as a “push poll” designed “to elicit a favorable response for the people or entity that paid for it.”

Boston-based First Wind Corp. commissioned the sole question regarding wind turbines in the greater Omnibus poll commissioned by DownEast Magazine and the Bangor Daily News, which Pan Atlantic clearly disclosed in its report.

Pan Atlantic also disclosed the sample size, which was 400 Maine residents, with each of Maine’s congressional districts representing about half of the poll sample.

According to the poll, Democrats and independents are more likely to favor wind turbines in Maine than Republicans: 92.8 percent of Democratic respondents and 90.6 percent of independent respondents favor development, versus 78 percent of Republican respondents.

Ernest Labbe of Oxford voiced a question that has been asked by many, and that is one of curiosity: “How come there isn’t such a turmoil when developers cut away the sides of mountains clearing ski trails. Then waste tons of energy making snow. Just wondering, that’s all.”

Brooks Morton of Newry was quick to respond. “I do not think you realize the economic engine Sunday River Skiway is to this area. Look at the tax base alone. Compare that to some of the towns that have wind as a tax base.”

We’re not sure any town in Maine would point to wind development as a “tax base,” but Morton is right to point out that the potential property-tax revenue from the geography consumed by ski resorts versus the geography consumed by access roads and turbine platforms is vastly different.

Alice Barnett of Carthage, who joined in the dialogue several times, lamented what current development might look like in the future.

“Towers get bigger and louder and, yet, the DEP does not change its codes ... so we look at 2,000 bigger turbines. If you climb Tumbledown (Mountain) you see red flashing lights.”

And, “if you look around,” she suggested, “imagine turbines every where you look,” arguing that wind is not a wise investment in Maine and will cost more than it’s worth.

She’s not alone in making that assertion.

“Look,” wrote Blake. “This really boils down to economics. Wind power would not exist without heavy subsidies, tax breaks, mandates and Enron-inspired RECs. I say we drop every type of subsidy, etc., and let the market determine the sources of electricity.”

It’s an interesting challenge, and makes one wonder what kind of natural gas and oil markets we might have without federal subsidies, tax breaks, mandates, etc., on development and distribution.

Doesn’t it?

The chat attached to Sunday’s editorial is a tremendous example of community dialogue and (generally) civil disagreement over Maine’s future energy needs and development, and we urge you to check it out.

? ? ?

Have your say and get your voice heard on the Web and in print. Register to comment online at www.sunjournal.com.

Some of the above comments have been edited for length, punctuation and spelling.

jmeyer@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

Steve  Dosh's picture

An impassioned, diverse dialogue on wind power

Joyce , 12.02.10 21:30 hst •
That was one ballsy editorial ?
Y'all know where i stand already and i don't think T. Boone Pickens is wrong . i am all for windpower in ME and not just because i live in Hawai'i . Heck , i am for inmproved and more efficient hydropower on the St. John's and Adroscoggin rivers , too , and tidal power in the Bay of Funday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
As a amateur physicist , mini nuclear power plants would be great everywhere . After all , the fundamental fact of our nuclear age is that critical mass = 24 lbs of enriched plutonium -- about the size of a soccer ball . That's no big secret . The cat has been out of that bag since Enrico Fermi's U. of Chicago tests under the bleachers in 1 9 4 1
This happens to be right in our back yard --> http://www.punageothermalventure.com/ <--
Let's hear some cheers for renewable energy sources including biomass . Little red lights on hills don't scare us . Acid rain on hills and sterile fishing ponds do • h t h /s, Dr. Dosh

 's picture

red lights

thousands and thousands of them,

Watch the movie Windfall and see why the lack of information is what scares us.

listen to thousands of them

Windfall, the movie, plays in Dixfield Sunday March 4, 2012 1-5 pm. good food too

Steve  Dosh's picture

Stig . .er Jason 12.02.10 10

Stig . .er Jason 12.02.10 10 pm hst • 
We are with you 110% on this one , buddy
ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark
Happy Valentines day week , too . /s Steve Dosh and ohana in Hawai'i where we are stuck with 80% oil electricity generating capacity . At least it is mostly from Canada and Alaska :)

Sally McGuire's picture

Numbers and Nimbys

One gentleman asked for published, peer-reviewed information on wind power. He was told, correctly, that such information can be hard to get, although there is of course published work showing serious effects on bird and bat populations. However, one source does come to mind: the US Energy Information Administration. They publish information about how much money we spend as taxpayers to support various forms of energy, and it can be quite interesting. For instance, natural gas gets $0.25 per MWh; coal gets $0.44. The owners of industrial wind turbines get $23.37/MWh.
Does that answer anyone's questions about why Angus King et al are working so hard to get in on this racket?
If the SJ thinks that windpower is a valuable part of the mix, and that subsidies are important, perhaps the answer is to have a level playing field here. And incidentally, according to the head of ISO-New England, wind turbines are so spread out over the landscape as to require a massive investment in transmission lines with an estimated cost of $19-25 Billion.... we would be paying for that, of course, on our electric bills. And paying again in terms of lost tourism revenue.
Another item that has come up here is the usual accusation about anti-windpower people just being a bunch of NIMBYs. Well, I can't speak for others but I sure hope I'm one! Love, charity, and caring for one's neighborhood are virtues that begin at home, and then hopefully go out to encompass more and more of the world and its people. I think it's high time people quit using this as an insult-- it's like sneering at someone for loving his mother.
However there is a kind of NIMBY that deserves the perjorative use of the term, and that is one who supports an activity as long as it's in someone else's backyard, not his. Thinking of the Natural Resources Council of Maine here... I'm not a member any more!
I've read a lot of words from Maine people who are fighting industrial wind, but have never heard one say it was fine as long as somebody else had to suffer, not them. So please, if you want to use the term make sure you use it wisely.

Another View on Impact of Industrial Wind

Woodstock Site Plan Review
Page 15 , Number 18
Noise: the proposed development shall not raise noise levels to the extent that abutting and/or nearby residents are adversely affect.
A) The maximum permissible sound pressure level of any continuous, regular or frequent or an intermittent source of sound produced by any activity shall be limited by the time period and land use which it abuts listed below. Sound levels shall be measured at 4 feet above the ground at the property boundary of the source.
Sound pressure level limits using the sound equivalent level of one hour (leq 60 measured in dB(a) scale)
7:00 am to 10:00pm, residential 55 dB(a)
10:00pm to 7:00am residential 45 dB(a)
B) Noise shall be measured by a meter set on the A-weight response scale, fast response. The meter shall meet the American National Standards (ANSA SI-4-1961) American standard specification for general purpose sound meters.
My name is Leola Ballweber, I live in Woodstock, Maine. The town of Woodstock Planning board used the DEP guide lines for sound, yet, approved a waiver to raise the sound levels.
The wind project was appealed at the town level, DEP level, which Warren Brown suggested a NRO for 3 turbines starting at 7pm and adding 3 more from 10pm till 7am, 6 of 10 turbines would be restricted during this time and then it was off to the BEP. After the Supreme Court case was dropped, only 20% chance in the citizen’s favor. Patriot Renewable petitioned for the NRO to be removed. My understanding is that it was granted and the NRO was removed.
What was learned was that the state does not have regulations in place to protect the citizens from the unique infra-sound projected by industrial wind turbines.
The science is there to prove it exists, yet it is the citizens who are left to protect themselves.
The wind industry does and will not admit that these machines on top of Maine’s mountains make noise.
The sound maps that are computer generated are flawed and incorrect in these projects.
Bayroot, LLC owns land that is part of the Spruce Mount Wind Project, leases were giving. As soon as the Spruce mountain wind project began construction, Bayroot, LLC began removing timber between abutting properties and the wind project. If, the abutters had taken some consolation in the filtering of sound through the trees, it was made clear, it was not to be. The Logging Company came in and literally stripped the land. They paid the fines for their actions and continued to strip the 1000’s of acres around the Spruce Mountain Wind Project.
It is clear that the wind company, land owners of the logging properties, walk hand in hand on these wind projects.
There is no consideration for the ECHO Effect from the surrounding ridges and sound traveling down into the valleys.
It has been made clear that this is not a time for emotions. It is clear that the distress felt by the victims of these projects will not be considered.
I present to you some facts from Woodstock:
There are over 90 abutting properties to the Spruce Mountain wind project. Most of those are seasonal residents. The figures that I am submitting to you are taken from the Woodstock Map/Lot Index dated Tuesday, January 2008. I checked with the town manager and he assured me that this was the latest, up to date version.
Concord Pond Area-
• 75 properties,
• Towns value for buildings and land, $4,316,090.
• 1 local household considered year round resident of Woodstock
Shagg Pond Area-
• 67 properties,
• Towns value for buildings and land $4,507,390.
• 3 local households considered year round residents of Woodstock
Cushman and Perkins Valley Road-
• 54 properties,
Town’s value for buildings and land, $$3,241,030.
• 29 residents considered year round residents of Woodstock.
The Combined total,
• properties within 1.5 miles, 196
• property values to the town- $12,064,510.00
• The number of residential property owners considered year round residents- 33
It is clear that the properties involved are mostly seasonal owners who pay taxes and buy groceries when they come to Woodstock. They may be considered seasonal citizens, yet, spend summers, go skiing, snowmobiling or just get away from their busy lives on weekends, year round. They have no vote at town meetings and could not participate in the decision of this wind project coming to their neighborhood. Now they live with the blade flicker and the Whooosh Whooosh of industrial wind turbines. The wind turbines came to them and they are given a short list of alternatives in dealing with the noise. Please consider the impact this will have on the other small towns, who have or will have wind projects come to their town. Our small townships are now being put in the position no matter what they decide, for or against a wind ordinance; they can expect challenges from both sides of the issue. Law suits are costly, timely and can at times be indecisive in the outcome. (Moot) When the industrial wind projects are built in Canton, Carthage, Dixfield, Peru, Sumner and phase two of The Spruce Mountain Wind Project is put into motion, these figures, one town at a time, will add up.
I believe that the Maine Legislature put us in this position of Fight or Flee and I believe the legislation should send a strong message to the wind industry. It is time for educating yourselves on the dangers of infra sound and making regulations that protect the citizens of Maine. Distance is the only control factor when dealing with this industry. I believe that the BEP’s intents are good, but feel that the 42 dB(a) is still too high, yet, it is a beginning.
Industrial wind turbines have a unique sound, they are a unique industry and the citizens of Maine deserve to be protected to the fullest from industrial wind’s noise pollution. I have been following the PUC with First Wind and see a pattern with the challenge to ethics, along with morals. Business is business and we should all go by the same rules, with the same penalties. They say that Enron is dead, yet, we are still dealing with the ghost of Enron,
There are other alternatives to choose from and Maine is already 30% renewable energy. Remove the cap on hydro and let the waters run. In these economic times, we should be consolidating, rather than wasting federal dollars on rich man’s projects. The down fall is that until someone tells the rich guy, he can’t walk all over the little guy, there will be casualties. The seasonal residents, tax payers and abutters to the Spruce Mountain Wind project are caught in the cross fire of this warring power for dominance on Maine’s mountains.
Thank-you, for the time. and the opportunity to speak today.

 's picture

sound

as far as the eye can see is the visual impact of thousands of GRID scale WIND turbines.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Try to find sound modeling maps on the DEP web site.

I have seen 4 sound modeling maps and they all have a trend to show 35-45 dBa almost a mile away from turbine center.

One map showed 34 "receptors" within this zone; another map showed 19 "receptors".

I am not sure of logarithmic logistics but hearing 20 dBa in a rural setting is what we are used to. A jump to 42 dBa means we will hear four times as much.

Jason Theriault's picture

So Sad

So Sad for my heart
No Replies for my Haikus
Not even disagree

Steve  Dosh's picture

l o l , we get it Stig Just

l o l , we get it Stig
Just don't go and start posting nassty limricks about there once was a guy from _____ :)
Steve

 's picture

No replies

No replies because they are asinine. Glad to see you are having fun playing on line while the passionate citizens who are against wind are either working or attending today's legislative hearing regarding lowering the limits on dbA for wind turbines.

Jason Theriault's picture

Well, you replied twice.

Well, you replied twice - including an analysis of my use of communism.

They were meant to lighten the mood. I seriously want to discuss this, as if I'm missing something, I am man enough to admit. After it got heated yesterday debating with Frank, I decided that I was falling pray to trying to win the argument instead of get to the truth.

So this is my way of keeping a more open ear.

Steve  Dosh's picture

Stig , " Fix your Muffler ! "

Stig ,
" Fix your Muffler ! " - an old Midas ® ad for dba on loud cars and motorcycles :)
Q ; dba for car stereo systems ¿ " PLAY IT AS LOUD AS YOU WANT . I USED TO BE IN ARTILLERY ! " Robin Williams as Adrian Cronauer in Good Morning Vietnam , j/k , j\k :) /s, Steve
The thing with turbines is the birds who hit them in fog , clouds or nightime ( s e r i o u s l y ) , kinda' like radio tower guy wires and such . ...

Jason Theriault's picture

HAIKU!

Silent Guardian
Protect us from Oil cartels
Spinning blades of freedom

Electricity
Life blood of America
All thanks to First Wind

Communists hate wind
It’s too pure for evil hearts
Go America!

 's picture

Asinine

Less than 2% of electricity nation-wide comes from oil, so no connection.
First Wind is a company so heavily in debt that they failed twice to do an IPO and if the PTC is eliminated, they will go out of business.
Do not use the word communist unless you truly know what you are talking about. In a communist economic system, central planning creates mandates, quotas, etc. and that seems to be the only way wind power exists. People who oppose the wind folly favor free markets for energy, not heavy subsidies and mandates.

Gary Steinberg's picture

Laws cannot be violated because of "the deal"

In reference to the merger of Emera/First Wind/Algonquin / others , concerning PUC Doc 2011-170.

Guess what, even First Wind, (Enron's Bastard Son), bathed in special treatment in Maine by the expedited wind law, has to follow the laws of this state. The deal hopefully will be killed, as detrimental to all Maine citizens. It would result in increased costs of electricity for all, from feckless wind scamming. Fortunately, our Public Advocate, Eric Bryant, is doing his job, even if the Sun Journal, Portland Press Herald, as well as the Bangor Daily (BTW, part of the aboove case) are not.

So, look into the public minutes of this testimony. Fitst Wind is in big trouble, now under appeal by them as a sore loser. The appeal hopefully will be thrown out. They defied subpoena of documents as well, relating to Kurt Adams .

The deal should be dead, dead. In addition First Wind should be banned and sanctioned from any further business in this state.That may occur.
(from the transcript below, Jan 25, 2012,PUC Doc 2011-170)

" So there's a lot of violations here. Not just by the
non-parties but by the Petitioners themselves. This case is
not governed by the rule of the deal or the rule of corporate
profit or the viability of unregulated enterprise. It's
governed by the rule of law. The rules broken by Petitioners
and their counterparties to the pending transactions are not
about missing a deadline or failing to three-hole punch data
responses. They're rules of substance, integrity, and ethics.
It's the ex parte rule which rule should not be treated lightly
by the Commission or the Examiners. The rule was adopted, in
fact, in 1996 following a case in which NYNEX had others
interested in the outcome who were not parties attempt to
contact Commissioners after the Examiners' Report came out.
Rule 760-A was a reaction to that and, in fact, in the rule
adopting that new amendment, the Commission said, "Our primary
objective in addressing this issue is to prevent similar
behavior by parties to our proceedings in the future. The
purpose of the rule amendments is to make our ex parte
prohibition abundantly clear so there's no question about the
extent of its reach. And we seek only to ensure that
participation occurs at a time and in a manner that is fair to
all parties."

BROWN & MEYERS (transcriber)

11

The violations that I've discussed are egregious and,
in my practice, unprecedented by a utility subject to
regulation. Violations such as this must be dealt with firmly
and swiftly. The public demands that PUC process be one of
integrity. The public must be able to trust that their
interests are being handled by this Commission and that it
keeps its house in order.

Now Sun Journal, is this news?

Or does your clear bias prevent the truth from being disclosed?

Jason Theriault's picture

Really?

Ok, unless I'm missing something, this whole problem relates to First Wind joining forces with Algonquin because they needed some cash, but that would violate the Maine power deregulation law.

Did I miss the mark?

 's picture

Problems with First Wind

Problems with First Wind go way beyond just this dust-up over the deregulation law. Beneath the veneer of public relations lurks a company with huge financial problems, desperate to keep churning enough to stay afloat, using questionable ethics and tactics. This company is not good for Maine and its people.

Jason Theriault's picture

Fair argument

That's a valid point. However, does that mean you wouldn't have a problem if another company was building/running the wind turbines?

Jason Theriault's picture

Bottom line

Listen, I consider myself open to differing viewpoints. And if Wind Mills are a significant problem, then I have no problem with eliminating them.

But every study I have seen from government sources(be they US or UK) says this isn't a big deal and that the issue is more that people are annoyed by them, which leads to stress and aggravation.

If thats all you got, I'm sorry, I'm not going to take your side. Show me soemthing!

That said, I wrote some Haiku's about windmills.
(Yes, it is to goad you. I want to see proof of your claims)

So Gently Spinning
Powering America
Windmills are freedom

Fukushima Plant
Your Radiations kills all
Windmills emit no rads

Soaring through the sky
The blades of windmill power
Like the Eagles wings

Frank Heller's picture

Thumping of large turbine blades

are the modern day equivalent of Chinese Water Torture...one thump for each drop; and pretty soon all people with sensitive hearing will go crazy and leave Maine for quieter regions....first the musicians, then the artists, then the writers, and finally technical people like designers and architects.

It's not a dramatic erosion of the quality of life we fought for in decades gone by....anyone remember the FOREVER WILD quest?, but an erosion none the less.

If you want a sustainable, renewable, fossil free energy supply at a low cost then you should demand Hydro and tidal, either generated in state or purchased from Canada.

Jason Theriault's picture

Really?

Funny, I just posted how if someone can show me peer-review evidence, I'll read it, and maybe even change my mind. This is because I am open to logical discussion.

Then there's "are the modern day equivalent of Chinese Water Torture" arguments. It's hyperbole. You might as well compare the windmills to Hitler and the Nazi's.

 's picture

I stand by Everything

I stand by everything I wrote here and in all the other responses to LSJ stories regarding wind power in Maine. The Maine media have largely been complicit in pushing the wind industry in Maine. True investigative reporting doesn't exist in Maine with the exception of Naomi Schalit and John Christie.

LSJ owes it to their readership area to dig into the multitude of wind related issues, as the region is heavily targeted by an industry that exists only due to bad public policy that has created subsidies and mandates. The wind industry is steadily destroying what many of us cherish: the natural resources and Quality of Place, all for a folly. Please, LSJ, care more about Maine people and our wonderful western mounatains than a bogus industry!

Jason Theriault's picture

Destroying?

They are destroying?
Here's a picture from Mars Hill:

OMG - destroyed!

BTW - here is what destroyed looks like:

 's picture

that is a wetland

eye can see green in the spring...do you hate amphibians?

 's picture

Have you been there?

This home is on Mountain Road in Mars Hill. The owners were part of the group who sued First Wind over verifiable noise problems. The turbines behind this home are less than 1,000 feet, far closer than any turbines should be built to dwellings. I have stood in the yard of the next neighbor and seen dBA readings on a decibel meter go from 46 to 58 as I listened to the incessant roar, thumping, and creaking.

Mars Hill was originally licensed for 45 dBA and in response to neighbors' complaints, the DEP gave First Wind a variance to 50 dBA. Our state government sided with a failed project instead of enforcing its license provisions and protecting its citizens! At a hearing with the Lincoln Town Council, the First Wind representative was asked what lessons were learned from the project in Mars Hill. To my amazement, the response was (paraphrase, but it is on tape) "We learned that turbines should not be built so close to people." None of the 40 turbines of the Rollins project in Lincoln Lakes are as close to homes as Mars Hill, but as soon as the turbines began testing, there were noise complaints.

Lastly, your use of these two contrasting photos is preposterous.

Jason Theriault's picture

The photos serve a point

My point is that wind turbines do not destroy nature.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Sorry Jason, but they do destroy nature.

Just ask the birds, including eagles, and bats that fly into these spinning blades. Just ask the fish that die from the runoff of all the herbicides used to maintain the cleared sites. Ask deer and other large game who are poisoned by the herbicides when they browse. Ask all the small critters blown up by dynamite when the blasting of ridges and mountaintops begins. Ask people who get sick from poisoned well water. And, ask the trees, who give us oxygen in return for CO2s. They are living, breathing life forms, too.

All dead or dying from wind turbines.

 's picture

In theory industrial wind power is great, but

when you have to live with it, its still "industrial". Most states, cities, have zoning to separate industrial development from residential development. Not here and not with wind power. Many people complain about the visual degradation of rural undeveloped Mountains. That's a problem, but its the totality of problems (noise, low-level vibrations, wildlife impacts, the impact of upgrading the transmission lines because the power is generated at great distances from where it is consumed, and the huge corporate welfare needed to economically justify these projects) that suggest that industrial wind power development is not acceptable for every mountain in western Maine and in fact for any mountain in western Maine.
Since few people live with industrial wind power now, the polls only reflect the theory of wind power not the facts.

Jason Theriault's picture

The facts

The fact of the matter is that most people live near other people in more urban environments. You know whats louder that a windmill? Just about everything in Auburn. Be it the neighbor's dog, the randoms cars driving about or the sounds of the river, there is tons of ambient noise. And low level vibrations? Seriously?

Here's what the 80% see - you like your pretty view, and don't want to deal with this. So you will grab ANY study or counter viewpoint to make your case. But most of us can see through the BS.

 's picture

So sorry

First, as I said I'm not opposed to industrial wind power in a proper setting. Nor am I opposed to it 5000 feet directly in front of my front door which is the current plan. I am a member of various environmental groups that do support industrial wind power so I have a predisposition to support it.
Second, if you eliminate studies done or funded by groups that will financially gain by the development of industrial wind power, ANY study will oppose it in residential areas.
Third, yes seriously low-level vibrations have specifically been related to negative human impacts - in wind power situations and other industrial environments.
Fourth, what's louder than a windmill in Auburn almost nothing depending on set backs.

Jason Theriault's picture

I'm not saying the other side isn't biased....

I'm not saying the other side isn't biased, what I'm saying is that "5000 feet directly in front of my front door" has more to do with your passion than anything else.

How about this - show me a peer-reviewed study, and we can talk. I still may not agree, but I am open to logical debate.

 's picture

I know you want to believe that,

but its not true. I have approached this in this way. The NRCM supports industrial wind farms (they do). They are normally right and this question is a question of balancing alternatives. Now is there any reason why they might be wrong. The list is long for those who live in the shadows of the farms.
There is almost nothing peer-reviewed. Wish there was. it would make my decisions much easier. The industry will not fund peer-reviewed studies for fear of getting a result they don't want. The environmentalists don't have the resources to fund peer-reviewed studies (long term studies of the environmental impacts to humans of industrial changes in their living space are extremely expensive and even with rigorous controls difficult if not impossible to replicate and may require very long period of time (decades) to complete). So everyone has to take the info and apply their best guess as to the confidence that should be placed in any study conclusion.
I'm open to logical debate also. Industry will not comment on proposed facilities until they have been installed. Far too late for a logical debate.

Jason Theriault's picture

Some light reading

http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/talkwind/Wind_Turbine_Sound_and_Health_Effects.pdf

Their conclusions:

There is nothing unique about the sounds and vibrations emitted by wind turbines.
The body of accumulated knowledge about sound and health is substantial.
The body of accumulated knowledge provides no evidence that the audible or
subaudible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological
effects.

Their words, not mine.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

How about reading this?

"The Wind Farm Scam" by John Etherington. You can get a copy on Amazon. Or, a library might have a copy.

The bottom line in my own words: Wind power was sold to the public on the promise that it would replace other, dirtier forms of energy. And that it would reduce global CO2 levels.But, because wind can't generate steady output it necessitates back up power. Power that must be kept running at the ready to switch over to on a seconds notice. (You can't power up a coal fired plant to produce electricity within moments.) This negates any savings of greenhouse gas emissions.

Wind can't replace coal, gas, oil or nuclear - it depends on them to guarantee supply when needed. The people who work the grid, those people at the switches, must be ready at a moments notice to switch over to conventional power supplies, which must be run constantly to be able to give us constant power. And yet they are mandated to use wind power when available, which makes for much switching, back and forth, constantly. Their job must be like air traffic control on a larger scale.

Look at it this way -- it is a hot August afternoon. Not a flicker of breeze anywhere. You settle in the couch in your air conditioned room to watch TV. But there is no TV and there is no air conditioning. Why? Because there is no wind. So, without the constant backup (remember, wind power can't be stored to be used later) we would have brownouts and blackouts just when more power is needed most.

I, along with others on both sides of this issue debated Angus King in a public hearing. Let me just say that no matter how charming the man may be, no matter how pat he has his spiel, how glib he assures the public, the man is running scared. And that is because he knows the moment people get really educated to the scam, he is toast. And he and his subsidy sucking buddies will be left in the dust. This is precisely why Gov. Baldacci et al fast-tracked the legislation that allowed this to happen. The public was left blind-sided and out of any consideration. It became fact before the facts were known.

 's picture

agreed.

People can cherrypick studies.
We don't know who commenting here has a financial interest in wind farms going into operation so we don't know the credibility of anyone.
From what I've heard and seen and from the point of view of an affected home owner, Industrial Wind Farms have no place in Maine.

Jason Theriault's picture

Yo Dawg

I heard you like editorials about editorials, so I put an editorial in your editorial about editorials.

Advertisement

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

I'm interested in ...