J. Anderson: Reducing wind power impact

We appreciate the factual look at the issue of wind farms and bird safety in the Sun Journal (March 21), “Peru committee learns about wind turbine impact on wildlife.”

It sounds like environmental consultant Steve Pelletier did an excellent job conveying the fact that wind energy is far less harmful to the environment than any of the other more traditional sources of energy generation.

It is important to realize that the wind industry makes a point to set itself apart from other sources of energy production by collaborating with wildlife conservation groups to further limit its effect on birds and other wildlife.

An example of that is the three-and-a-half-year process in which the wind industry collaborated with a broad group of stakeholders, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife agencies, environmental organizations, and native American tribes to provide protections for migratory birds and other wildlife that go far beyond what is required by the various federal wildlife laws.

The good news is that those efforts are working to reduce wind’s impact on wildlife.

A recent report noted that repowering of old turbines in Altamont Canyon, Calif., site of the most conflicts between wind turbines and birds (golden eagles in particular), has reduced collisions by around 80 percent.

Wind energy is a growing industry that offers clean, inexpensive and environmentally friendly power for the citizens of Maine. The wind industry currently supports nearly 80,000 American jobs. The case for continuing to invest in it is very strong.

John Anderson, Washington, D.C.

Director of Siting Policy,

American Wind Energy Association

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.



Hart Daley's picture

Clean, Environmentally Friendly, INEXPENSIVE

I guess you have to take the comment with a grain of salt considering the person interviewed is trying to sell you their bid of goods. I have yet to meet a carsalesman or any other salesman for that matter that told you all of the bad things about their product right?

The truth is that industrial wind is THE MOST EXPENSIVE ENERGY TO PRODUCE do to it's inefficient nature and costy transmission lines, and relys on taxpayer subsidies to survive. The truth is it is NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY or CLEAN since it destroys thousands of acres of coniferous trees that absorb CO2, relys on fossil fuel backup, causes fossil fuel plants to increase CO2 output, destroys wildlife habitat and Lord forbid we forget the health impacts created by noise on humans and destruction of scenic beauty.

Oh by the way, unlike John Anderson, I am not a representative of the wind industry.

 's picture

Surely you jest

The wind industry spent 3.5 years collaborating to provide protections for wildlife. What were these miraculous protections? Are they "proprietaty information? There are no protections. Any ridge or mtn. is fair game to these rapacious developers. If there was one last pair of rare birds in existence, the wind industry might give a donation to a zoo as mitigation for erecting their turbines anyway. To them, people do not matter, much less birds or bats , or the viewshed. It is all about them and their subsidies and even better, cash grants. If Stantec wants their cut, they better toe the corporate line. The case to discontinue throwing bad money after good is very strong. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Gary Steinberg's picture

We Don't Forget! We know How Siting is Done by Wind Companies

Lies, More Lies, and More Liars!

This are the only way to describe the AWEA and the purveyors of ruinous, feckless, wasteful and uneconomic wind complexes.
The financial subsidy scamming of our tax system to destroy areas of Maine is now known, and being ordinanced out by all aware communities in Maine.

This process has only started.

From the perverted civil process, lack of transparency, squelch clauses, bribery and crony capitalistic process; wind power is a lie.

Abutters hear the complexes from miles around, yes miles!

It transforms rural areas into noise zones.

Loss of recreational area,loss of natural habitat, loss of property value, loss of sleep, loss of health.

An “illegal taking “with no financial recourse is occurring to citizens of Maine.

The abutters have had little legal recourse to date.

Desecration of Maine has occurred in several communities to date.

Civil action in communities has slowed down the wind destruction, and hopefully will kill the wind scamming process Anderson represents , before more harm is done to Maine.

The candidacy of Angus King for Maine Senate will bring this wind scamming even more to the public eye.

Many enemies have been made in Maine by the likes of Mr .Anderson, Angus King, and other wind scoundrels.

By their daily lies , and by the the despicable damage to the soul of Maine, more Mainers are now aware.

Now, many act, everywhere , everyplace , to this foul industry and to the perpetrators of the Wind Scam!

We Don't Forget.

 's picture

Wind Power in Maine is NOT Environmentally Friendly.

More misinformation from the propaganda machine of the desperate AWEA. What is environmentally friendly about blasting away and leveling miles of Maine uplands to put in 45 story machines? Wjat is envronmentally friendly about permanently clearcutting hundreds of acres for these sites and the transmission lines, replacing forest with gravel roads and turbine pads and using herbicides to keep down re-growth? What is environmentally friendly about fragmenting wildlife habitat and driving away animals with the low frequency sound waves? What is environmentally friendly about the silt and herbicide resideues washing into our waterways?

The destruction that happens with sprawling industrial wind sites in Maine is tragic, especially when there is no need for such a source of power to begin with. Mainers are being played for rubes by the thieves behind the industrial wind scam!

Alan Michka's picture

AWEA information not objective

I would have to express a little less faith than Mr. Anderson in Mr. Pelletiers' remarks to the town of Peru. Stantec, the company which employs Mr. Pelletier, conducted the EIS for the proposed project in Highland Plantation and gave its assurance that it was not going to present any undue impacts to wildlife.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, on the other hand, reviewed the proposed project and came to the conclusion that "...we believe that the substantial collective risk to wildlife resources indicates that the proposed site locality is not appropriate for intensive wind power development." They also said: "...we conclude that this project, as currently proposed, will likely have undue adverse impacts to multiple high value wildlife resources." The project application was subsequently withdrawn. So much for Stantec's assessment.

About 90 environmental and conservation groups have signed a petition to get the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to tighten up its standards and protections for wildlife from wind developers. Mr. Anderson didn't mention this, of course. Mr. Anderson organization, the AWEA, is a lobbying group that has one purpose, to serve its members' wind development interests. Objective information from this group will be hard to come by.

 's picture

An example of that is the

An example of that is the three-and-a-half-year process in which the wind industry collaborated with a broad group of stakeholders.

Yeah, and you left out the real stakeholder. The "receptors" on the sound modeling maps. The property owners with-in 2 miles of turbine centers. None of these people were involved in the process until they were told "It is a done deal" by their selectmen.

I thought Killing a Bald Eagle, or for that matter, possessing a Bald Eagle feather is against the Federal Law.

Canton Mountain Wind Project avian studies site bald eagles flying into the Rotor Sweep Zone along with another site of 80% of birds flying into RSZ. 50%, 60% fly into RSZ. Is IFW really going to accept this?

 's picture

DEP application

Approximately 60 percent of both night and day targets had mean heights within the RSZ and
approximately 80 percent of median target heights occurred within the RSZ heights during both nights
and days in the fall 2010 sampling period. page 24 7- avian studies CMWP dep


One of the adults flew within RSZ elevations. bald eagle page 26


 's picture

Wow, the AWEA must really

Wow, the AWEA must really feel threatened by Mainers who are doing their homework regarding industrial wind. At least the author didn't wave the global warming banner (the CO2 myth was debunked a while ago by the Bentek study) or the "weaning us off foreign oil" mantra (few of us in Maine drive electric cars or heat with electricity). The wind industry certainly does set itself apart from many other industries by making large monetary donations to environmental groups (and other groups and politicians as needed) in order to convince them that industrial wind is environmentally friendly. The truth is, it's anything but. And as for the jobs mantra, those federal subsidies being channeled into industrial wind projects (our tax dollars) could create thousands of jobs repairing our roads and bridges, which would be far more beneficial to all Mainers and to our biggest economic engine, the tourism industry. Keep Maine beautiful!

Alan Michka's picture

Educated consumer bad for AWEA

Yes, the AWEA probably sees Mainers becoming more versed in the realities of wind power development. The AWEA promotes the happy, smiley face angle of wind power and leaves out the untidy parts. More educated consumers and taxpayers are not good for the AWEA and their wind developer client/members. Look what it did to ethanol subsidies.

Steve  Dosh's picture

J. Anderson: Reducing wind power impact

ed. note --> Is this " the " John Anderson ( R - IL ) ? He's like Paul Simon ( D - IL ) was , a good guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson Who's that other former IL Senator ?
Yeah John ,
In reality the only adverse effects from wind power are birds hitting the blades and getting killed , much as they do when they hit all radio and TV guy wires and towers . Wind power is real in Maine and has been for a while , especially Mars Hill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Maine#Operating_wind_farms and Freedom
Water and tidal power next h t h /s, Steve


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

I'm interested in ...