It's way past high time somebody did a serious review of cost/benefits of windpower in Maine. Maine's expedited wind law (written by those who stood to benefit, as mentioned above) was pushed through with minimal review, in record time: we married in haste and are regretting at leisure. I notice that Jeremy Payne of the wind developers thinks that stopping and considering all this is a bad idea, and maybe it is for him! For those of us who pay the bills it's more like "better late than never".
I urge the State government to consider ALL aspects of wind energy in any cost/benefit study. For instance, these installations are spread all over the landscape instead of concentrated in any one area, consequently the million-dollar-a-mile high-tension lines cost multiple millions more to build. There are clear economic downsides to affecting Maine's #1 economic driver, tourism, which need to be carefully considered. There's the question of who pays what, who gets reimbursed for their costs (hint: it isn't us), who pays more in their electrical bills and how much. Who is going to buy any wind energy that is produced? How much is set aside BEFORE any development to pay for removal once an installation's (short) lifespan is up? Who pays for fire suppression in remote areas since the towers do regularly fail and cause wildfires?
And as Penny said, the idea that windpower replaces other energy sources or saves on CO2 pollution has been very thoroughly debunked. The point of industrial windpower isn't to save the world, it's been to pour money into the pockets of such as Angus King. It's been a remarkably effective money machine and it's sure nice to think that maybe somebody will do a little investigating.
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.
Recent Comments
Assessing windpower
It's way past high time somebody did a serious review of cost/benefits of windpower in Maine. Maine's expedited wind law (written by those who stood to benefit, as mentioned above) was pushed through with minimal review, in record time: we married in haste and are regretting at leisure. I notice that Jeremy Payne of the wind developers thinks that stopping and considering all this is a bad idea, and maybe it is for him! For those of us who pay the bills it's more like "better late than never".
I urge the State government to consider ALL aspects of wind energy in any cost/benefit study. For instance, these installations are spread all over the landscape instead of concentrated in any one area, consequently the million-dollar-a-mile high-tension lines cost multiple millions more to build. There are clear economic downsides to affecting Maine's #1 economic driver, tourism, which need to be carefully considered. There's the question of who pays what, who gets reimbursed for their costs (hint: it isn't us), who pays more in their electrical bills and how much. Who is going to buy any wind energy that is produced? How much is set aside BEFORE any development to pay for removal once an installation's (short) lifespan is up? Who pays for fire suppression in remote areas since the towers do regularly fail and cause wildfires?
And as Penny said, the idea that windpower replaces other energy sources or saves on CO2 pollution has been very thoroughly debunked. The point of industrial windpower isn't to save the world, it's been to pour money into the pockets of such as Angus King. It's been a remarkably effective money machine and it's sure nice to think that maybe somebody will do a little investigating.
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.