We've been publishing hard data on this for many years. Where has everyone else been?
Wind promoter NRCM talks about transportation but for 10 years has made land based wind its priority - a generation source that does not and cannot do anything about emissions coming from transportation. If we were ever to move to all electric cars and trucks that would be powered with carbon-free electricity, we'd need nuclear. NRCM opposes nuclear just as it opposes big hydro. Absurdity squared.
Press Herald 12/16/18
......Between 2002 and 2015, emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide from power plants declined 73 percent due largely to a shift to cleaner-burning natural gas and Maine’s participation in a multistate regulatory program on greenhouse gases. Likewise, emissions from Maine’s business and residential sectors fell 37 percent and 14 percent, respectively, according to data from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection..............“It really is obvious that transportation needs to be an important part of our climate solution,” said Dylan Voorhees, climate and clean energy director at the Natural Resources Council of Maine..................
Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power:
Whether one believes in man made global warming or what one may believe may be the extent of man made global warming, a couple of things are certain:
1. Fighting climate change was a strong rationale for the Maine expedited wind law which is resulting in widespread wind industrialization throughout Maine. Industrialization which never would have or should have been permitted.
2. Massachusetts is requiring its ratepayers to use a large percentage of renewable energy and may be expecting Maine to supply a significant portion of this, much likely via industrial wind projects. This is about to explode onto the scene in 2018.
However, Massachusetts is basically not willing or is unable to site wind projects in Massachusetts. If this grates on you, it will likely grate on you more when you look at the EPA's data on CO2 emissions from Massachusetts and Maine.
The following table compares the CO2 emissions for each state, as reported by the EPA, by sector for 2015, the most recent year where these data exist.
Note: %'s down add to 100% for each state.
The lowermost section of the above table is based on the Mass data divided by the Maine data (then multiplied by 100 for improved readability). For example, the 183 figure which is highlighted in gold means Mass's 17.1% electric power as a source of its overall CO2 emissions is 1.83 times higher than Maine's 9.4% electric power as a source of CO2. In other words, if they have a CO2 problem stemming from electricity, pound for pound, it's almost twice as high as Maine's. Yet Mass is the state telling us WE have to do something.
At the same time that only 9.4% of Maine's CO2 emissions are a result of generating electricity, a whopping 52.5% comes from transportation. What this means is that the planned wholesale industrialization of Maine's wild areas and its # 1 asset "Quality of Place" (Brookings Institute study 2007) is all about trying to reduce the tiny figure of 9.4%, with quite frankly, a power source that is likely not capable of reducing any CO2. Meanwhile, whereas the Maine legislature in 2008 passed the nightmarish expedited wind law, they more recently upped the speed limits on our roads such as I-95, an action guaranteed to increase CO2 emissions.
The problem is not electricity folks. The problem is the wind industry and its plans to blight Maine with an incredible coming wave of wind turbine and attendant transmission. And yes, the problem is also Massachusetts.
And we haven't even addressed the fact that Maine is the # 1 forested state in the nation at 89%, while Mass has but 52.5% forest cover.
A more thorough 50 state and 26 year analysis (1990-2015) of the EPA data can be downloaded at: