PPH - Monhegan residents voice concerns over proposed wind project

Comment

Comment by Kathy Sherman on December 29, 2013 at 10:36am

I would like to know the answer to Peter's question also, and it sounds like they have already found their backbone, and like Peter are not ready, willing or able to roll over. Keep it up and protect what is ours.

Comment by Peter Beckford on December 29, 2013 at 9:41am

Lannicelli is right on when she speaks of power and powerlessness. But if you're going to get rolled over, you might as well go down speaking the truth and exposing their lies, and at least making the greedy uncomfortable. Clearly the "save fossil fuels" lie lives on. Anyone planning an educational event on Monhegan ?

Comment by Kathy Sherman on December 29, 2013 at 3:19am

If this was not in ME you would call Monegan a "small" project, as you apparently do most Massachusetts projects affecting 100s living within 1.25 miles. Looks like you don't care about it either.

It is also smaller than Deepwater Block Island (5 of the Seimans 6 MW turbines meant for WAY offshore where "noise does not matter").

Looking into Block Is. and contrasting with practice in Europe indicates that yes, in so far as there is tourism, or a more importantly for many "wind-targetted" areas in NEngl -2nd home ownership, tax payers, summer residents, future buyers, all that economic base will suffer. 1st principle- no taxation without representation. (one man, one vote disconnected from property and RE tax much later).

Unlike U.S., offshore waters in the UK are "Crown Estate" and the Crown mandates 5 miles from shore, even when onshore is heavily industrial, not a precious island e.g., Monhegan in ME, or Block Is. in RI.
Vistor preference is even further away.

The Islanders who say out of sight and mind of the main Maine or RI coast are absolutely correct -- they have been chosen for that reason and the extraordinary expense of electricity on islands. Think Vinalhaven.

What is different is that other Maine ratepayers will pay, rather than unseen/unheard federal taxpayers (thinking of Vinalhaven and the cable and Rural Utility Service money that was supposed to make the deal profitable). I AM NEGLECTING HOW MUCH OF BOTH ISLAND DEALS DEPEND ON DOE for offshore demo funds. Also, where do those job figures come from?

But if it will be costing the average ME ratepayer $8.75, to reduce the electric costs for 45 islanders' from 70¢ to 30¢/kWh, doesn't it make more sense (& cents) to give them directly the f...ing money? Same with firetrucks for Oakfield, and Freedom/Beaver Ridge ('11 story- no expected tax reduction but developer would give $20k fire truck). Yes every town or unorganized territory should get many fire trucks from wind developers to offset the risks they impose (helicopters better), as well as road improvements for the damage they do. That is hardly community outreach.

For "near-shore" projects, the pitifully little research done by your fav Audubon re Cape Wind, and states such as RI and New Jersey is that for birds, the 3 miles from shore that the states own is by far the riskiest place to put wind turbines in marine waters. However, no research evaluates the risk for close to tiny islands. Looking at pictures from Monhegan, the first one I saw today was a proud pair of eagles. On Block Is., osprey - the most vulnerable raptor to wind turbines, the iconic raptor that much of New Engl. spends hoards of $$ to bring back from devastation by DDT-- returned in '06. Two juvenile osprey have been 'unofficially' killed by "small projects" in Mass. Whether the birds, or whales, or any element of nature that we love is killed here in MA or once it makes it to Maine should be immaterial to the lovers of nature and wild and free..

Main coast vs. small island - birds/bats have a much greater chance to avoid and get to the spread of habitat along main coast, and check ME Audubon, puts most of coast out of play.

The good news for the lobstermen of Monhegan is that pile driving for construction of the foundation will not drive away their prey, since it is a floating platform. The bad news for all of us is that this is just a 'demonstration'.
The feds and statehouses do not care about fishing grounds, let alone whether one or two lobstermen might move over to the grounds of the rest. And perhaps the issue for all should be where the cable goes. I read that fish care about electric fields and obviously no one is going to want the cable dug up.
This rant caused by the two islands fishermen who already seem to have been 'bought' for the federal leases for offshore wind to their south, by Cape Wind to north and seek to preserve 'rights' to destructive horseshoe crab/eel/conch etc.