NEW ENGLAND IS THE LEAST FAVORABLE FOR PV SOLAR, except areas near rainy Seattle

Please note, this article is a short excerpt, with references to tables and the Appendix, from this much longer article. Much additional information is provided in the longer article. Please, also read the longer article.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

EXCERPT:

 

VERMONT RANKS LOWER THAN 44th REGARDING SOLAR POWER POTENTIAL

 

Based on the sun index level, Vermont is ranked 44th regarding solar power potential, according to a sun index developed for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) using data provided by NREL's Renewable Resource Data Center. See table 2

https://neo.ne.gov/programs/stats/inf/201.htm

 

The sun index is defined as an index of the amount of direct sunlight received in each state.

The Index accounts for latitude and cloud cover. California is indexed at 1.0.

 

However, the index does not account for snow/ice cover of panels.

Most of Vermont PV solar systems are in the northwest, which also has frequent snows. See page 18 of URL

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/04/final_2020_p...

 

As a result, in the real world, Vermont ranks even lower than 44th.

That likely explains Vermont's low CF compared to other NE states. See page 36 of URL

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/04/final_2020_p...

 

NE SOLAR GOBBLED UP ABOUT $15.45 BILLION DURING THE 2000 – 2019 PERIOD

 

Capital Cost of NE Solar Systems During 2000 – 2019 Period  

 

The capital cost was 3432.4 MW x $4.5 million/MW= $15.45 billion, based on an average price of $4.5 million/MW for the 2000 – 2019 period. excluding any grid modifications and energy storage systems. See page 41 of URL

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/04/final_2020_p...

 

NOTE: A 2000 MW nuclear plant, capital cost $15.45 billion, would have produced 2000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.9, CF = 15,779 GWh/y of steady, 24/7/365 electricity (not variable, not just at mid-day) for 60 years. 

 

PV SYSTEMS

 

PV Systems on Distribution Grids: The vast majority of New England’s solar power is from about 183,500 small-scale (typically 5 MW or less) systems, including residential rooftop. These systems are typically connected to local distribution grids of utilities to provide electricity directly to homes and businesses, i.e., not to the NE regional grid.

 

This PV solar reduces the amount of electricity drawn from the NE regional grid. ISO-NE does not dispatch the variable electricity from these resources, but has to manage their impact: 1) as a variable reduction in NE grid load (less electricity needs to be fed to the NE grid, especially at midday), and 2) on the stability of the NE grid, i.e., managing midday “DUCK” curves.

The output from this before-the-meter, BTM, PV solar cannot be monitored in real-time by ISO-NE system operators.

 

PV Systems on NE Regional Grids: A number of PV systems are connected, via dedicated substations, directly to the NE regional grid.

The output from those PV systems is monitored in real-time by ISO-NE system operators.

ISO-NE has established two categories: Forward Capacity Market, FCM, solar and non-FCM solar.

The production data are used to pay the owners of these systems.

 

DISTURBANCES DUE TO VARYING PV SYSTEM OUTPUTS

 

PV system output variation, such as due to variable cloudiness and surging midday solar (“DUCK” curves), are “seen” by ISO-NE.

Traditional generators, primarily quick-responding, combined-cycle, gas turbine plants, would automatically counteract those disturbances by adjusting their outputs. In addition, other measures would be utilized, such as:

 

1) Curtailment

2) Connections to neighboring grids, i.e., NY, Canada

3) Demand management

4) Grid-scale storage, which is very expensive. It would add about 20 c/kWh to cost of electricity fed into the batteries.

 

NOTE: More wind and solar system capacity, MW, would require a greater capacity of counteracting traditional generators.

During wind/solar lulls, which could last 5 to 7 days, and occur any time during the year, traditional generators would supply almost all of the necessary electricity.

 

If wind + solar were 80% of electricity, with the rest from traditional sources, the entire electrical system would have almost two times the capacity than at present, to deliver the same quantity of electricity.

 

Such a large generator capacity would have much greater capital cost, especially with short-life wind and solar systems being part of the mix, than the capital cost of the existing generator capacity.

 

This study by MIT shows, the upper limit of wind + solar for the US grid is about 40%, largely because TWh-scale storage for seasonal shifting, even at $100/kWh, would be too expensive. Capital costs of current storage systems are about $400/kWh

https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/MITJPSPGC_Rpt338.pdf

 

NOTE: The owners of counteracting CCGT plants would need to operate at lower average outputs, say 75%, to allow for ramping up and down, as needed. Gas-turbines become unstable below 50% output.

Those plants would operate less efficiently, produce less electricity, and have more wear and tear.

Owners would need to add their extra costs to electricity prices, etc., or have less profits, or go out of business.

In some countries, such as Germany, Ireland, etc., with more wind and solar than the US, owners do get compensated by means of capacity payments.

ANALYSIS

PV Solar System Performance

In the real world, PV systems: 1) have various ages (output decreases with age), 2) likely are not oriented “solar south”, 3) are not at the correct tilt angle, 4) have dirty panels, 5) could be partially shaded, 6) could be snow/ice-covered, 7) could have fog conditions, 8) could be “down” for maintenance.

NE Solar Capacity, end 2019, MW

The installed MW values are from the ISO-NE 2020 CELT report.

Click on the URL to obtain the spreadsheet.

Go to sheet “3.1 Forecast of PV Resources by Category and State”. See table 1

https://www.iso-ne.com/system-planning/system-plans-studies/celt/

 

The Market capacity of 1355.7 MW was obtained from the 2020 CELT report

The NE total capacity of 3432.4 MW was obtained by ISO-NE from various NE utilities.

The BTM capacity = 3432.4 – 1355.7 = 2076.7 MW. See table 1

 

Table 1/NE PV Solar, end 2019

NE total

NE grids

BTM

Total

See URLs

 

resource mix

 

pv forecast

 

Capacity

Prod’n

Prod’n

Prod’n

 

MW

GWh

GWh

GWh

FCM

785.8

 

 

 

Non-FCM

569.9

 

 

 

Market; 2020 CELT

 1355.7

1644

 

1644

BTM

2076.7

 

2510

2510

NE total; NE utilities

3432.4

1644

2510

4154

NE Solar Production, end 2019, GWh

 

NE total solar production of 4154 GWh was estimated by ISO-NE. See table 1, 2 and pages 16, 17, 41 of URL

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/04/final_2020_p...

 

Production on NE regional grids (Market) was 1355.7 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.13834, CF = 1644 GWh, or 1.38% of electricity fed to grid. This electricity is monitored by ISO-NE. See Note and table 1

The 1355.7 MW (connected capacity), 1644 GWh (monitored production) and CF (calculated) are real-world numbers, that reflect panel aging, snow/ice cover, PV system outages, etc.

 

NOTE: The NE real-world CF, about 0.138, is less than the NE ideal CF, about 0.143, often mentioned in pro-RE literature.

Germany, with a lot of solar, has a similar CF reduction. See URL

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/ 

 

Capacity of BTM solar in 2019 was 2076.7 MW

Production of BTM solar in 2019 was 4154, total – 1644, market = 2510 GWh. 

BTM electricity is not monitored by ISO-NE, and only partially monitored by local utilities.

 

By calculating the CF, we can verify, if ISO-NE made the correct estimate of BTM solar.

CF = 2510 GWh/(8766 h/y x 2076.7 MW) = 0.13788

 

Because, the CF of Market solar (0.13834) and BTM solar (0.13788) are nearly identical, we can conclude:

 

1) The ISO-NE estimate of 2510 GWh for BTM solar was correct, and

2) The 2510 GWh is a real-world number, that reflects panel aging, snow/ice cover, PV system outages, etc.

 

Values are summarized in table 2. Also see pages 15, 16, 17 and 41 of URL

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/04/final_2020_p...

Table 2 /MW and GWh in 2019

2019

2019

2019

State

MW

GWh

CF

See pv forecast URL

pages 15, 16, 17

Page 41

Calculated

MA

2180.45

2693

0.1409

CT

566.53

681

0.1371

VT

364.24

408

0.1278

NH

105.24

122

0.1322

RI

159.75

181

0.1293

ME

56.32

68

0.1377

NE Total 

3432.53

4154

0.1381

2020 CELT report

2019 resource mix

Real-world CF

Market energy

1355.70

1644

0.13834

BTM energy

2076.70

2510

0.13788

Total

3432.40

4154

0.13806

PV Solar Percentage of NE Electricity Mix in 2019

 

NE total solar production was about 4154 GWh, or 4154/1644 x 1.38 = 3.49% of the 2019 NE electricity mix.

 

Renewables Percentage of NE Electricity Mix in 2019

 

Heavily subsidizing wind, solar, etc., renewables required many $billions of capital costs to build out during the 2000 - 2019 period, plus on-going subsidies (in the form of above-market feed-in prices) during their about 25-y operating life.

 

They have become only 9.36%, NE grid + 2.11%, Distr. grids = 11.47% of the NE electricity mix, which includes the 4.62% of refuse and wood burning plants existing prior to 2000.

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/ 

 

Thus, all the RE brouhaha and subsidies moved the RE needle about 12.85 – 4.62 = 6.85% during the 2000 – 2019 period. See table 4

PV Solar Capacity Factor; Residential Solar in Woodstock, VT

  

A new 4 kW, roof-top, solar system produces 4876 kWh/y.

My roof is oriented at 135 degrees (facing southeast)

My roof pitch is 9/12, or 37-degree tilt

My panels are clean

My CF = 4876/(8766 x 4) = 0.139

https://pvwatts.nrel.gov

 

I would have less production, and a lesser CF, with panels that are dirty, partially shaded (in the morning, in my case), snow/ice-covered (frequently in winter)

My real-world CF would be about 4600/(8766 x 4) = 0.131, excluding aging.

My CF would be 0.131 x 0.883 = 0.116, in year 25, due to aging at 0.5%/y

PV Solar Capacity and Production in Vermont End 2019

 

Vermont installed capacity of Standard Offer projects and Net-Metered systems (mostly rooftop), MW, and their production, GWh, in 2019 are shown in table 2A. See URLs

 

https://vermontstandardoffer.com/standard-offer/program-overview/pr...

https://vermontstandardoffer.com/standard-offer/program-overview/mo...

https://vermontstandardoffer.com/standard-offer/technologies/

 

The total capacity of 364.240 MW was supplied by Vermont utilities to ISO-NE

The total production of 408.1 GWh is estimated by ISO-NE. See table 2 and page 41 of URL

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/04/final_2020_p...

 

In the real world, PV systems: 1) have various ages (output decreases with age), 2) likely are not oriented “solar south”, 3) are not at the correct tilt angle, 4) have dirty panels, 5) could be partially shaded, 6) could be snow/ice-covered, 7) could have fog conditions, 8) could be “down” for maintenance.

 

All these factors detract from the ideal NE capacity factor for new systems.

Germany, with a lot of solar, has a similar reduction of CF.

Table 3 shows net-metered rooftop solar, at various tilt angles and orientations and field-mounted, large solar, new and aged 15 years, adjusted for shading, snow cover and dirt. The estimate in the table is nearly equal to the estimate of ISO-NE

 

Table 3/Burlington, VT, 2019

New

New

New

Aged

Aged

Shading

15y

Shading

Capacity, kW

Tilt

SE

CF

Snow cover

Snow cover

4

Dirt

Dirt

135

0.96

0.9279

0.96

Roof

Deg

kWh

"12/12"

45

4701

0.134

0.129

0.124

0.119

"9/12"

37

4758

0.136

0.130

0.126

0.121

"4/12"

19

4672

0.133

0.128

0.124

0.119

Average

4710

0.134

0.129

0.125

0.120

.

S

180

Roof

kWh

"12/12"

45

5083

0.145

0.139

0.135

0.129

"9/12"

37

5110

0.146

0.140

0.135

0.130

"4/12"

19

4892

0.140

0.134

0.129

0.124

Average

5028

0.143

0.138

0.133

0.128

.

SW

225

Roof

kWh

"12/12"

45

4751

0.135

0.130

0.126

0.121

"9/12"

37

4801

0.137

0.131

0.127

0.122

"4/12"

19

4698

0.134

0.129

0.124

0.119

Average

4750

0.135

0.130

0.126

0.121

.

Average

4830

0.138

0.132

0.128

0.123

.

S

Snow cover

Aged

Snow cover

Dirt

15y

Dirt

Ideal

kWh

CF

0.98

0.96

Large systems; field-mounted

44

5091

0.145

0.139

0.135

0.129

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard offer, online, end 2019, MW

58.797

58.797

58.797

Production, SO, GWh

71.841

69.438

66.661

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net-metered, online, MW

305.443

305.443

305.443

Production, NM, GWh

354.037

342.199

328.511

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total, online, MW

364.240

364.240

364.240

Production, total, GWh

425.877

411.637

395.172

Production, ISO-NE estimate, GWh

408.100

APPENDIX 1

Wind and Solar Conditions in New England are Mediocre 

New England has highly variable weather and low-medium quality wind and solar conditions. See NREL wind map and NREL solar map.

 

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/100m_wind/awstwspd100onoff3-1.jpg

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2009-01...

 

Wind:

- Wind electricity is zero about 30% of the hours of the year (it takes a wind speed of about 7 mph to start the rotors)

- Wind is minimal most early mornings and most late afternoons/early evenings (peak demand hours), especially during summer

- Wind often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- About 60% is generated at night, when demand is much less than during the late afternoons/early evenings

- About 60% is generated in winter.

- During winter, the best wind month is up to 2.5 times the worst summer month

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.262) of any US region, except the US South. See URL.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112

 

Solar:

- Solar electricity is strictly a midday affair.

- It is zero about 65% of the hours of the year, mostly at night.

- It often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and in winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- It is minimal early mornings and late afternoons/early evenings

- It is minimal much of the winter months

- It is minimal for several days with snow and ice on most of the panels.

- It varies with variable cloudiness, which would excessively disturb distribution grids with many solar systems, as happens in southern California and southern Germany on a daily basis. Utilities use batteries to stabilize their grids.

- During summer, the best solar month is up to 4 times the worst winter month; that ratio is 6 in Germany.

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.145, under ideal conditions) of any region in the US, except some parts of the US Northwest.

 

NOTE: Even if the NE grid had large capacity connections with Canada and New York, any major NE wind lull and any major NE snowfall likely would affect the entire US northeast, i.e., relying on neighboring grids to "help-out" likely would not be prudent strategy.

 

Wind Plus Solar:

ISO-NE publishes the minute-by-minute outputs off various energy sources contributing their electricity to the grid.

All one has to do is add the wind and solar and one comes rapidly to the conclusion both are minimal many hours of the year, at any time during the year.

 

Wind plus solar production could be minimal for 5 - 7 days in summer and in winter, especially with snow and ice on most of the panels, as frequently happens during December, January and February, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

 

If we were to rely on wind and solar for most of our electricity, massive energy storage systems (a few hundred GWh-scale for Vermont, multiple TWh-scale for NE) would be required to cover multi-day wind lulls, multi-day overcast/snowy periods, and seasonal variations. See URLs.

 

Wind and solar cannot ever be expected to charge New England’s EVs, so people can get to work the next day, unless backed up by several TWh of storage, because wind/solar lulls can occur for 5 - 7 days in a row, in summer and in winter. BTW, the turnkey capital cost of one TWH of storage (delivered as AC to the grid) is about $400 billion.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-l...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/seasonal-pumped-hydro-s...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electricity-storage-to-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pumped-storage-hydro-in...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

 

Shortcomings of Wind and Solar

 

Variable and intermittent wind and solar electricity cannot exist on any electric grid without the traditional, dispatchable generators performing the peaking, filling-in and balancing. Battery systems could be used, but the battery system turnkey capital cost would be about $400/kWh, based on AC electricity delivered to the high voltage grid. See Note.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

APPENDIX 2

COMMENTS ON TABLE 1:

 

Indirect subsidies are due to loan interest deduction and depreciation deductions from taxable incomes.

Direct subsidies are due to up front grants, waiving of state sales taxes, and/or local property (municipal and school) taxes. See URL.

 

An owner of ridgeline wind would have to sell his output at 18.8 c/kWh, if the owner were not getting the benefits of cost shifting and upfront cash grants and subsidies.

That owner could sell his output at 16.4 c/kWh, if his costs were reduced due to cost shifting.

He could sell his output at 9 c/kWh, if on top of the cost shifting, he also received various subsidies.

The same rationale holds for solar. See table.

 

In NE construction costs of ridgeline wind and offshore wind are high/MW, and the capacity factor of wind is about 0.285 and of solar about 0.14. Thus, NE wind and solar have high prices/MWh. See table.

 

In US areas, such as the Great Plains, Texas Panhandle and Southwest, with much lower construction costs/MW and much better sun and wind conditions than New England, wind and solar electricity prices/MWh are less.

 

Those lower prices often are mentioned, without mentioning other factors, by the pro-RE media and financial consultants, such as Bloomberg, etc., which surely deceives the lay public

 

Future electricity cost/MWh, due to the planned build-out of NE offshore wind added to the planned build-out of NE onshore wind, likely would not significantly change, because of the high costs of grid extensions and upgrades to connect the wind plants and to provide significantly increased connections to the New York and Canadian grids.

 

1) The subsidy values in table 1 are from a cost analysis of NE wind and solar in this article. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for...

 

2) The grid support values in table 1 are from this report. See figure 14 for 2.36 c/kWh for wind, and figure 16 for 2.1 c/kWh for solar
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019...

 

NOTE: For the past 20 years, Germany and Denmark have been increasing their connections to nearby grids, because of their increased wind and solar.

 

NOTE: The NE wholesale price has averaged at less than 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

NOTE: Importing more low-cost hydro (about 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP) from Quebec to replace “dangerous nuclear” and “dirty fossil” would be a very quick, smart and economic way to reduce CO2.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/gmp-refusing-to-buy-add...

 

NOTE: Owner prices to utilities are based on recent 20-year electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in New England.

These prices would have been about 48% to 50% higher without 1) the direct and indirect subsidies and 2) the cost shifting.

Similar percentages apply in areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW, than New England. The prices of wind and solar, c/kWh, in those areas are lower than New England.

 

Table 1/Vermont & NE sources

Total

Grid support

Subsidies

Paid to

GMP

 Added to

cost

cost

to owner

owner

adder

rate base

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered

25.5

2.1

5.4

18.0

3.8

21.8

Solar, com’l/ind’l, legacy, standard offer

34.4

2.1

10.5

21.8

?

21.8

Solar, com’l/ind’l, new, standard offer*

23.5

2.1

9.6

11.8

?

11.8

Wind, ridge line, new*

18.8

2.4

7.4

9.0

?

9.0

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lifetime Cost of Electricity, LCOE

Gas, combined cycle, existing

4 - 5

Gas, combined cycle, new

5 - 6

Gas, open cycle, peaking, existing

9 - 10

Gas, open cycle, peaking, new

 

 

 

18 - 20

 

 

Nuclear, existing

4.0

Nuclear, new, 60-plus-y life

7.5

Coal, existing

4.0

Coal, new

7.5

Hydro, existing

4.0

Hydro Vermont, net-metered, new

10.0

Wood burning Vermont, net-metered, existing

10.0

* Competitive bidding lowered prices paid to owners.

Views: 168

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on May 18, 2020 at 5:10am

Hi Penny,

Thank you for sharing your decades of experience living OFF THE GRID, having only a little quantity of PV solar at your proposal. We have a battery-powered vacuum. Works fine, no cord.

The monthly output of the worst winter month is only 1/4 of the best summer month in NE.

In Germany it is 1/6. 

It is off the charts idiotic to have so much EXPENSIVE, VARIABLE, INTERMITTENT, GIRD-DISTURBING solar in Germany.

However, we are paying for it by buying all their fancy cars.

Germany could not have that much solar, if it did not have robust connections to neighboring grids to absorb any midday excess.

Comment by Penny Gray on May 17, 2020 at 7:04pm

There are three major problems with solar.  Nightime is the first.  Cloud cover is the second.  Seasonal fluctuations in the northern hemisphere are third.  I only vacuum when the sun is shining and the battery bank is topped off.

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2020   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service