The hypocrisy of Maine’s environmental community, when it comes to wind power, might be absurdly funny if it did not have the potential to cause such harm to rural people trying to make a living in this tough economy.
As a selectman in Eustis, I have seen environmentalists stand up at public hearings for 20-plus years and preach that clean, renewable resources were the answer. It never seemed to matter much what the project was, what the benefits to our people might have been, or even what the facts were on the environmental impacts — renewable energy was always the better choice.
None of us has ever wanted companies to come into the state of Maine to pollute or cause a devastating impact. For decades, environmentally-minded people have played an important role in reminding us to manage our resources responsibly for future generations. For quite some time, renewable energy was their rallying cry — their single positive message — even when it was uneconomical to implement.
Wind power is now a viable option, providing good jobs and clean energy. Instead of coming together to support appropriately sited projects, many of the same groups and individuals who pushed renewables for so long are working against them. Some of them want it both ways. “We support wind, but not here. This bird and that tree are more important.” Or, “Wind power is great, but let's put it offshore ten years from now instead of on this ridge today.” Or, “I would prefer not to look at it.”
Since wind power was first proposed in Maine, we have heard every excuse possible. I don't understand it.
We cannot just kick the can down the road anymore. Renewable energy is here, now, ready to create jobs and power our industry. Those of us who live in the real world always knew it would have its trade-offs and, sure enough, it does.
Reasonably minded people can see when the balance between impacts and benefits is appropriate.
People in my town have benefited from a wind project that has struck this balance once and hopes to be able to do so again with a modest expansion. These folks are wondering how their livelihoods got caught up in a game that the environmentalists seem to be making up as they go along.
There are no species that are going to go extinct or become endangered; the location is far enough from where people live that noise is not an issue; and the new turbines will be visible from the same ponds as the original project currently under construction. I fail to see the concern.
I invite any members of Maine environmental groups who are reading this to come visit Eustis. We’ll tell you about the good things wind power has done in northern Franklin County over the last few years. We could even arrange a tour of the project so that you can see and hear for yourselves that the impacts are minimal when the site is correctly chosen and developed responsibly.
Perhaps then you might be willing to talk some sense into the leaders of these organizations that supported renewable energy until it actually showed up to improve everyone’s environment and to help us pay our bills.
Earl L. Wyman Jr. serves as a selectman in Eustis, Maine.

All Well Said
I saw this article and said to myself, "this is one of those that begs for a response." But, you have all said it so well. I, like Penny live off the grid and also know of the real limitations of renewable energy and if you try to make it travel as is what these industrial units propose, then you loose what you produce. After all the investments are made by way of future tax payers pockets, as well as the continued need for high maintenance fees for moving machines and they wear and tare that that presents, what is the benefit to Maine and it's people? Especially when we do not even have the demand here. Maine currently lives within its means even projected out to 2016 and beyond, why is it all the sudden a 911 responsibility that Maine gets attacked and makes the sacrifice for people in lower regions? This will never change the way people use and demand energy. As I told John Kerry and and all the other Governmental officials of Maine in that meeting that day, "You have to put the responsibility in the hands of the people for them to change how they use and demand energy, they are ready to learn and Maine is perfectly aligned to show the rest of the Nation how to implement renewable energy responsibly, impact where you already have, on the roof tops of schools and municipal buildings, small businesses of Maine and residential. Then you will be creating real jobs at ground zero" and these businesses that maintenance these units will pop up all over Maine developing a real passion to be a part of the solution to energy and finally beginning to blend with our eco-system that we are a part of, acknowledging its need for homeostasis. What were we given such intelligence for? If you are to ask me, it was to choose well, to choose with an unselfish heart and to die in a comfort knowing you did.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Twenty years of public hearings
Great essay, Karen. I guess I don't understand Mr. Wyman's comment that as a selectman he's listened to environmentalists preaching about clean energy at public hearings for twenty years. What projects is he talking about? I've lived off grid for twenty five years in a town not far from Eustice and I guess I'm in the dark, literally, except that I do understand the limitations of alternative power. Not sure if I qualify as an environmentalist because I don't know what happened to all the environmentalists who fought so hard for the past forty odd years to protect one of Maine's most valuable and ecologically sensitive habitats, her mountains. But what it comes down to, in my opinion, is this. Are our mountains and ridgelines worth more as industrial parks for the next twenty years, or as a tourist draw for the next two thousand? And if we taxpayers are funding these projects, don't we have a right to see the real facts and figures? Show us the electricity! There should be a state wide moratorium enacted until the machines currently operating are proven to be cost effective, efficient and useful. Which might mean a permanent moratorium...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.ALSO Karen,
Thank you for helping me to articulate my own thoughts and readings on this issue. It truly helps. I will be carrying a copy of this to read and reread.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Katahdin
"If they are so great, lets put them on Katahdin!"
Katahdin sits next to many potential highly visible wind farms including what FIRST WIND plans for Oakfield, Dyer Brook, Island Falls, Patten, Sherman, Stacyville, Benedicta, Herseytown and Silver Ridge.
If Governor Baldacci and his gang of robotic bureautcartic appointees cared about not transforming Maine into this wildlife habitat fragmenting ugliness, they would not all be working feverishly to grant approvals before JOHN BALDACCI IS GONE IN JANUARY. They care not that a hiker who has hit the Tableland on Katahdin will now look at this industrial blight - all for a tiny number of pockets being lined with taxpayer money. Corporate Welfare, plain and simple, with our government servants serving themselves.
If you would like to protect Katahdin, please write to Baxter Park and Friends of Baxter Park:
http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/
http://www.friendsofbaxter.org/Pages/Baxter_About/contact
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.WOW
KP,
What a great response. Every wind advocate should read this!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.My Friend, Jay
I have nothing but the greatest respect and love for Jay Wyman. He has been a friend of mine for more than two decades, and we were co-workers on a rescue service in the early 90's. One of the things I love about living in Maine is our ability to disagree on issues while remaining friends. I'm not part of an 'environmental' group, which is what Jay references in his guest column, but I AM a member of the Friends of the Highland Mountains; a group of diverse citizens who have come together to oppose the wind turbine development proposed for Highland's five mountains.
While I am not an 'environmentalist', I do try to do my part to live responsibly. I try to take care of our natural resources, which give us so much bounty. And until I took the time to research the topic of mountaintop industrial wind, I was a proponent of 'wind'. I believed what the government and the wind industry told us: I thought wind energy was good for the environment... that we would be making great strides towards slowing climate change and stopping global warming if we used electricity harnessed from the wind. And for the record... while I believe that the Highland Mountains are a very poor choice for wind development due to its proximity to the Bigelow Preserve and the Appalachian Trail-- one of the few remaining places in the eastern Unites States where it's possible to have a 'wilderness' experience-- I personally do not oppose mountaintop industrial wind in general because of its scenic impact. If these generating plants did what they are purported to do, I would not oppose them due to visual impact. But that negative visual impact has many far-reaching consequences, and one of those is tied to Maine's economy, which is driven by tourist dollars. While I might swallow hard but adapt to the site of 400-500 foot tall turbines peppered across 350 miles of Maine's ridges, I don't believe that tourists looking to find a pristine wilderness would do the same. If we have nothing special to offer them, I believe many will choose to stay home or go elsewhere for their vacations.
I oppose MIW for many, many more important reasons than the change they would make in the view, however. I didn't become active in the opposition of the Highland project without giving it serious consideration. I knew this battle would be time consumming and that it would have me doing things that I would never, in other circumstances, be doing. I prefer a quiet life, and I abhor controversy. But there come times in each of our lives when we have to stand up and do what we believe is right... or when we must stand up to prevent something we believe to be wrong. I believe the plan to place wind turbines along Maine's mountain ridges is misguided. I believe it is detrimental to our environment and our economy. I believe many Mainers are having their health negatively affected by the high, low and ultra-low frequency noise these engines produce. I think our wildlife is and will be impacted by that same noise, which is so foreign to our quiet forests... and which does not come and go like other man-made intrusions into their habitat, such as skidders and log trucks. As long as the wind blows, that invasive noise is unnatural and pervasive. Instinct tells me that, but I would not publicly state my thoughts if scientists and biologists with nothing to gain and much to lose weren't saying the same things and raising the same questions. As well, my experience in the business world might lead me to believe that MIW would be bad for our tourist economy and our real estate values, but I wouldn't be so bold as to venture that opinion if experts in the field weren't saying exactly that. Those same economists are saying that wind energy will never be competitive... that we will pay many times the price for wind as we would pay for renewable hydropower-- something we could purchase from Quebec if we needed it and if we desired to electrify our homes with a power source that was not fossil-fuel dependent.
The fact is, Maine already exports power. We don't need what these wind tubines will produce. And yet, it will be our mountains which are altered and our high terrain ecosystems which are injured and our wildlife which is affected, and our residents who can be harmed if the Governor's plan moves forward. In addition, it is our money which will be paying the lion's share of the cost for these developments, in the form of government subsidies and and tax production credits. Yes, there is money flowing into the 'host' communities, which the developers and the state call 'tangible benefits'. Of course there is, for without it, the government and the industry know that Mainers would not permit these developments. Unfortunately, we all have a price. Every one of us. And the developers are working to discover just what price our mountains and our way of life are worth. Because we are a poor state, on the whole, they know that we citizens are desperate for relief. Many of us can barely make ends meet, so when someone comes along and offers the promise of that needed relief, it is very tempting for us to allow ourselves to believe their glossed-over version of the benefits of their projects and take what they hand out. The know for a fact that wind turbines don't reduce carbon emissions... that's why we are hearing very little about their 'green' factor these days. They know that even though they tout their wind generating capacity, these turbines produce only 10-30% of that capacity... and that's why they say their actual production numbers are 'confidential'. If they did what they are purported, the developers would be shouting those numbers from the very mountaintops they are altering.
If we took those same billions of dollars and invested them in conserving power rather than generating more, our economy would flourish, and for much longer than the temporary construction phases of these projects. Homes could be insulated, windows replaced, heating systems upgraded and made more efficient. Building, plumbing and electrical contractors could be put to work and kept busy, year-round. We would be reducing our greenhouse gasses. The difference would be... no 'tangible benefits'. No big, temporary infusion of money for the town coffers or to the civic groups which are the current beneficiaries of the wind companies. But we would have something else, instead. We would have wild mountains, and a viable workforce, and less pollution, and less controversy and maybe even... more pride. We'd REALLY be doing the responsible thing, in my opinion. You may disagree, and I do respect your own opinion. (But I'd like to reserve the right to try to change it!)
Jay, this is about so much more than what it appears to be, on the surface. I know that as a selectman, you are trying to look out for the best interests of your town, and I laud you for that. But please remember this... not every business in Stratton agrees with your assessment. You might be surprised to discover that some of them are appalled to find that they believed Trans-Canada and 'sold out'. Some of them don't believe it behooves them to say that publicly... and how sad is that? In America, we aren't supposed to be worried about what we say publicly. But we sometimes are. I know I am. For better or worse, I choose to speak my mind, anyway, even when I am on the side opposite those with all the money, power and influence.
I invite you and any others who are interested to take advantage of some of the many resources which are out there regarding the issue of mountaintop industrial wind. It is an issue that is gaining attention world-wide, as many of our friends in other states and countries learn the facts behind the hype and propaganda, too. I have promised to do my best to deal in facts... science and economics tell the story better than I can. I hope you'll avail yourself of the knowledge of experts other than those who are selling a product and mitigating their damage with 'tangible benefits'.
Happy Independence Day, my friend.
Karen
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If they are so great, lets put them on Katahdin!
Let’s do it! Let’s harness the “wind resource” within every park in all of Maine, on every mountain! Let’s not stop with a few. Since this is such a great idea, let’s REPLICATE this wonderful idea throughout the entire state! If it’s good enough for the Kibby Mtn, it’s good enough for Mt. Batte Mtn and Cadillac Mtn. We can’t afford to let all of those other “wind resources” go to waste!
o Surely, this is not too great a price to pay. Why, if we were just “forward thinking” enough to agree to ruin thousands of pristine habitats in Maine – or to convert the entire State of Maine into a wind farm, for example -- we could “replace” ONE nuclear power plant, right? Well, no, we couldn’t actually “replace” the power plant, since we would have to keep it running “just in case” the wind didn’t blow (or blew at the wrong time). But who cares: at least we’d be doing something, and we’d surely all feel a lot better about ourselves! No one could say we didn’t do our part.
And when the subsidies end, we could just scrap the stupid thing, because as you can see , you have been duped, THEY REALLY DON'T work.
Windmils are a federal subsidy money machine for a few , and you really are a fool if you don't look at the real facts.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mr. Eustis, can you count?
What about the economics? The average residential US customer pays 10¢/KWH for electricity. In Denmark (where they have installed many more wind turbines) the average residential customer pays 35¢/KWH. How will paying this huge 350% increase be beneficial to citizens? How does this jive with the marketing PR that says wind energy is inexpensive?
Will this wind project actually replace any conventional fossil-fuel electric plants? How many can we get rid of? Can we dispense with them entirely? Can we turn them on and off at will – like dimming the lights – to compensate for the unpredictable, skittering output from the wind mills? If we do a granular analysis of wind energy (not giving credit to useless gross production that is produced in the middle of the night, when nobody wants it, for example), what is the actual reduction in CO2 emissions that we can hope to achieve – starting from the assumption that consumers and businesses don’t consider availability of electricity “optional” and aren’t willing to put up with haphazard, unpredictable delivery of this miraculous form of energy that they take for granted?
To replace a single medium sized conventional electric power plant we would only need several thousands of these 410 foot behemoths covering hundreds of square miles of territory. Exactly how many square miles of land will be needed to appreciably reduce coal use? Since they aren't making more land, how is this a "renewable" or "green" concept?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Have the Snake Oil Liars of Wind answered these questions?
Please show me the independent, objective studies (using real-world data, not models) that show that wind energy actually is technically, economically and environmentally beneficial?
Please explain to me how we're going to get electricity if these things only produce power when the wind blows — and not too slow, or too fast? What are we going to do if the wind only blows at night – when we don’t need electricity – but doesn’t blow during the daytime in August – when it’s hot as hell where I live? Isn’t a lot of that “production” worthless? Has anyone ever invented a practical, affordable method of “storing” electricity for future use?
What do we do if we have three calm days in a row? Or a calm month? How do I watch the World Series? How do I use my computer?
How do we manage the wildly fluctuating flow of electricity produced – or not produced – by the wind turbines? Isn’t modern electricity essentially a river of current that needs to be predictably available to be useful – not a flood, but certainly more than a trickle and, heaven forbid, not a dry gulch? Isn’t that sort of a problem – especially if the oft-stated goal of “increasing alternative energy to 20% of our total output by 2020” is actually realized?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Mr. Eustis,are you another Snake Oil Wind Salesman?
Wind Liars are most obvious.
They are neither virtuous nor wise. The developers are mostly cynical profiteers out to make a buck, who pull the necessary strings and grease the necessary palms to win their approvals. They are opportunists who travel to financially stressed rural areas and entice unsuspecting Mainers to sign their lease agreements which neuter their rights to their own land. Most of the others are ill-informed and idealistic – and maybe a bit impulsive – who have no idea what they’re in for once the blades begin to spin. They reassure energy committees and the town fathers that everything will be fine. Talk is cheap!
Have you even asked a few basic questions?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Don't get it
Respectfully Mr. Wyman you really don't get it. Ever since the developers of wind "farms" succeeded in duping the people of Freedom, Vinalhaven and Mars Hill into accepting these monstrosities, people from those communities, many who were pro wind advocates, started to send an alarm. Their lives were being severely disrupted, so others of us, also pro large turbine industrial wind, started to check out the facts and what we found was extremely disturbing. Unfortunately, I disagree with your assessment that the environmental groups in Maine have stood down on their positions. They have backed off some, but not enough in my opinion. NRCM and Maine Audubon to name two. I suggest that if you use a computer that you go to the Dixmont website and check out some of the links. You are spouting rhetoric in your guest column and like all the others who want to ruin Maine for some perceived economic gain are very short on facts. In the three years that I have been looking at this issue I have not heard or seen one shred of evidence that these work as intended but have read tons of material that proves they don't. Economic hard times and oil spills are not going to improve their performance.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.