UMPI Wind Turbine: 2011 Performance Log - Update 0n 9/4/11

September 4, 2011

 

We are stuck where we were two months ago - the data reporting is still broken.

The only thing new is that THE WIND TURBINE ITSELF IS BROKEN YET AGAIN.

 

 

 

July 3, 2011

 

We are still stuck where we were a month ago: No update to the data reporting. Apparently the turbine may have very recently started working again after being down for months, but the data reporting is broken. The turbine's capacity factor is well on its way to dipping into the single digits.

 

July 1, 2011 is the two year anniversary of the electricity production data recording. The goal is 1,000,000 KWH a year meaning 2,000,000 on July 1, 2011. However, as can be seen below, the actual figure is far closer to 1,000,000 KWH.

 

UMPI advises that the data reporting on the website is broken. For months now it just keeps saying that the problem will be fixed "this week". 

 

We suggest that rather than continue to publish such a grossly incorrect message, UMPI simply type in the KWH's produced to date in the space where they've been telling us "this week".

 

When is the university going to acknowledge the true magnitude of how greatly this ideologically-driven feel good waste of $2 million (and counting) has failed?  What a shame that this massive waste of funds wasn't used to lower tuition costs.

 


 

 

 

June 1, 2011

 

We are still stuck where we were a month ago: No update to the data reporting. Apparently the turbine may have very recently started working again after being down for months, but the data reporting is broken. The turbine's capacity factor is well on its way to dipping into the single digits.

 

 

May 1, 2011

 

Almost two years ago (May 14, 2009), the UMPI turbine was commissioned with much fanfare and an annual goal of 1,000,000 KWH was announced. It was a frighteningly low goal.

 

Wind turbine dedicated in Presque Isle

Posted May 14, 2009
 

"University officials anticipate the turbine will produce about 1 million kilowatt-hours of electricity a year and save the institution more than $100,000 annually in electricity charges. Once fully operational, the windmill is expected to save an estimated 572 tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere each year".

http://new.bangordailynews.com/2009/05/14/news/wind-turbine-dedicat...

The production of this turbine, the state's only experiment in wind power electricity production is barely over the 1,000,000 goal after TWO YEARS. The capacity is a miserable, but not atypical 11%.

 

The university said it would share its learning. WHAT IS THE LESSON WE HAVE LEARNED UMPI?

 

April 1, 2011

 

The UMPI wind turbine's data reporting went largely blooey on February 18th and is still in disrepair. Moreover, since at least March 16th, the UMPI website has been posting an advisory that "The wind turbine is currently down for repairs".

 

Small portions of the data reporting are still operating and it can be noted that "Current Power" shows NEGATIVE KWH, likely reflecting the turbine's draw from the grid. Yes, wind turbines use electricity, e.g., for heating.

 

The turbine was broken in January and now again in March. It's broken on this first day of April. Such breakdowns are common and usually go unreported in commercial wind complexes, where breakdowns of individual turbines occur while other turbines in the array continue to spin. The wind industry in Maine downplays the UMPI failure with the misleading argument that turbine breakdowns do not affect the performance of their large wind arrays. In fact, an industrial wind complex with 50 turbines will experience breakdown of individual turbines 50 times as often as a one turbine operation over time based on the law of averages. As virtually always, the wind industry doesn't tell the truth.

 

Although the UMPI site has stopped reporting project-to-date power, they have provided us with the necessary information to calculate this by way of their bar graph. By placing the cursor over the bars on their graph, monthly KWH produced come into view. One can then combine these with known observed figures that UMPI had reported before they stopped reporting project-to-date production.

 

1,057,220 KWH - Feb 1, 2011 reading from UMPI site

     68,068 KWH - Shown for February 2011 when cursor is placed over February on the UMPI bar graph

     17,564 KWH - Shown for March 2011 when cursor is placed over March on the UMPI bar graph

1,142,852 KWH - Project to date electricity prodution calculated by adding up the above three lines

 

As can be seen below, this production, dating back to the project's start in May 2009, equates to a capacity factor of only 11.55%, which is absolutely terrible, although not unexpected given the consistent bloatedness of virtually all claims by the wind power industry and its supporters.

 

This is the state's only experiment with land based wind power. The University of Maine has steadfastly said from the start that it would share all of its learning from the experiment with the people of Maine. Despite intense public relations efforts to publicize the building of the turbine, including a MOVIE MADE ABOUT IT, entitled "Wind 101", we have not heard a whisper from the University of Maine about what we have learned from this experiment.

 

The wind industry hides its production data under the banner of "proprietary information", despite the fact that the taxpayers fund their scam and the ratepayers,  including Maine businesses suffer from the resulting increases in electricity costs. Thus, the massive failure of the University of Maine's sole experiment with wind power electricity production is significant and has major implications for the future of wind power in Maine, as Baldacci's corrupt law slates Maine's ridges and mountains for about 1,800 turbines, most well over 400' in height, each double the size of the largest building in Portland.

 

Major environmental and human impact for wholly neglible electricity production along with higher taxes and higher electricity rates.

 

So please University of Maine, tell the people of Maine, in quantified scientific terms, what you have learned from your experiment which is well on its way to costing THREE MILLION DOLLARS.

 

Why such deafening silence as we approach the two year anniversary next month? Why is it that you have seen fit to host a wind industry "Wind Blade Challenge" http://www.mainewindbladechallenge.com/ and "Windstorm Challenge" http://www.deepcwind.org/windstorm/index-ws.php on campus for our high school students on May 13, 2011, the exact two year anniversary of the failed turbine, but you have yet to share what you have learned from your experiment as promised? Doesn't our youth deserve better than this? Don't the people of Maine deserve better than this?

 

Show us the learning.

 

 

 

 

March 1, 2011

 

Since February 18, the UMPI wind turbine's live data have been dead. For just about two weeks running now, the reported production to date is shown as zero. There has been no explanation posted, so one can only speculate as to why no project-to-date electricity production data are being shared.

 

A lack of interest in wind power by the university would certainly not appear to explain this reporting problem or lack of an explanation. For on Thursday, February 17, there was a TOP LEVEL "Renewable Energy Meeting" held at the university and according to a first hand account of this meeting, wind power is alive and well in the minds of the people who put this $2 million turbine on campus:

 

"I observed as 20 representatives from the University of Maine System laughed and hugged in complete agreement on the direction and material future in which students will learn.

From here on out, the University of Maine System will be indoctrinating our children into believing the myth of “free energy.”

At a meeting regarding energy, I figured I would hear mostly engineers talking about what incoming students will need to learn to be successful when they enter the work force. Instead, I heard economics and law professors discuss schemes to use taxpayer money to push their agenda through.

This meeting had one direction and they held a tight ship. There was no straying away from the consensus that students would be taught the benefits of renewable and alternative energy. By teaching only these benefits, there would be no room for children to question the efficiency of wind and solar technologies or the direction our lawmakers are pushing us in.

In fact, one brave man named Jim LaBrecque — from the UMaine Mechanical Engineering department — spoke up against all the suggested changes in the energy curriculum. He was the only person with a differing opinion in the group.

Before LaBrecque could finish his complete thought, he was rudely interrupted by Evelyn Silver, the senior advisor to UMaine President Robert Kennedy. Throughout LaBrecque’s moment on the floor, Silver shook her head and spoke with her neighbors. She was very close-minded on the issue, cutting off all naysayers."

http://mainecampus.com/2011/02/20/op-ed-renewable-energy-conference...

 

An energy expert weighs in

One of the noteworthy happenings over the last month was an editorial written by one of Maine's foremost energy experts, Gordon Weil. This editorial appeared in the Kennebec Journal/Morning Sentinel on February 24th. http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/columnists/lepage-can-reshape-utili...

 

In the editorial Mr. Weil wrote:

 

So LePage should select a new commissioner who is committed to paying attention to the impacts of regulatory decisions on people in the here-and-now. To be sure, utilities will have to be treated fairly, but simply justifying their spending because, for example, it promotes wind power is a costly and unwise policy.

In fact, LePage and his advisers ought to reshape the energy policies set by Gov. John Baldacci because they are costly and unrealistic.

 

Mr. Weil, is a former Maine Commissioner of Business Regulation, State Energy Director and Public Advocate.  He holds a PHD from Columbia University. Among his writings is the book "Blackout: How the Electric Industry Exploits America".

 

Some other interesting events of the past month

 

Freedom wind developers subject of federal investigation

http://waldo.villagesoup.com/news/story/freedom-wind-developers-sub...

 

US Dept of Energy send letter indicating that Angus King has applied for a Federal Loan Guarantee, a step that indicates that there is no financing in place for this project

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/king-and-gardiners-federal

 

Interesting financial insights from a UMPI wind turbine observer

Whether UMPI reports electricity production or not, the forces of nature continue to take their toll on the UMPI turbine and all turbines installed across our state. As a result of these environmental forces along with the wear and tear seen in all equipment with moving parts, we can expect to see even more mechanical failures and costly maintenance. On this subject, the following was provided to me by a UMPI wind turbine observer a number of months ago:

 

 
1) UMPI spent $2 million for the turbine. Total Annual Operating Cost equate to about 4%-5% per year of the purchase price for the first few years (These numbers are consistent with the First Wind Mars Hill numbers presented in their preliminary IPO filing). So assume out of pocket cost of $80,000 per year the first few years (maintenance, parts, insurance, energy, etc.).
 
2) UMPI is assuming about 1,000,000 kilowatts out of a capacity of 5,256,000 (600 x 8,760 Hrs) or a capacity factor of 19%. Not a good number. NMISA rates are about 80% of ISO-NE rates so let's assume 12 cents per kilowatt hour to buy or savings of $120,000 per year. However, in Maine 60%-65% of wind power is generated in "off-peak" periods (night time), so it is likely that a significant portion of power will be generated that UMPI can't use. They will then sell that power back to NMISA at the market "wholesale" auction rate. My checking's indicate that those rates have been around $20 Mw/Hr. If 25% of the turbine's output is excess power during off-peak periods, then 250,000 kilowatts will generate $5,000 in revenue instead of $30,000 in savings. They are now looking at $95,000 to the good (from savings) and $80,000 (annual maintenance, parts, insurance costs, etc.) to the bad. (Meaning $15,000 net savings annually)
 
3) I am sure that UMPI received all kinds of grants, subsidies, donations, et al. But there must be some portion of the turbine purchase price that must be paid to somebody. If only $500,000 needs to be repaid, say over ten years, that's another cash outflow of $50,000 per year if it is interest free. That puts them in the hole by $35,000 per year. ($50,000 annual payments minus aforementioned $15,000 annual net savings) If Maine taxpayers are paying for this we just learned an expensive lesson.
 
The first 600 and 660 KW turbines ever used were constructed by Vestas in Denmark in 1996-1997. They were all taken out of service after 11-12 years of TLC use due to the need for "massive repairs". The history of wind turbines has been that you cannot expose large equipment to the natural elements 100% of a 365 day year without major structural impairment. Moving parts mean structural mechanical problems unlike those of a motionless sitting bridge or tower which also need constant maintenance. You cannot expect to see an economic return from an investment that only performs 30% to 35% at best. This is a money losing endeavor like all new wind farms will be.

Although the above UMPI wind turbine observer estimates that the wind turbine is costing $35,000 a year, UMPI reports $100,000 savings per year. In other words, UMPI and the UMPI observer are $135,000 apart, a rather significant difference.

 

Please note that the above observer assumed that UMPI is hitting its oft stated goal of 1,000,000 KWH annually. Based on what we have observed, actual peformance equates to an average annual achievement of only 611,651 KWH.

 

 

 

February 1, 2011

 

One month ago, on January 1, 2011, the UMPI website had gone blooey, showing no data, so as a surrogate for 1/1/11, we'll use the KWH recorded on 12/29/10 - 1,029,982 (see Excel below from 12/29/10).

 

Today, project to date KWH's stand at 1,057,220, an increase of 27,238 for the month, or 879 KWH per day. That represents a capacity factor of 6.1% for January 2011.

 

The turbine was down for part of the month, but such is the real world. Project to date capacity factor stands at only 11.7%.

 

Hopefully the University of Maine's electricity and economic experts will one day soon reflect on this $2 million sole state experiment with land based wind and tell us its implications for the Baldacci administration's plan of placing 1,800 four hundred foot tall turbines all over the state, along with the requisite hundreds of miles of new wind-required costly monster transmission and roads. That plan is currently being carried out, so time is of the essence one would think.

 

 

 

 

January 15, 2011

Two weeks into the new year and after reporting all zeroes for these two weeks, the UMPI website finally tells us the turbine is broken and project to date electricity production is 1,029,659 KWH. That converts to a miserably low 11.7% of capacity.

 

In exactly four months we will hit the second anniversary. Perhaps the media will use such an occasion to ask the long overdue tough questions regarding the state's only official experiment with industrial wind electricity production.

 

 

 

Report from January 2, 2011

December 2010 wrap-up: When one visits the UMPI wind turbine website, there are presently no data reported. This was the case yesterday as well. As a result, the monthly update that follows will be based on the last available data I happen to have "screen grabbed" on 12/29/10.

 

OK, this $2 million (and counting) University of Maine experiment has now entered its THIRD calendar year of operation and it just met its long stated Year 1 goal of 1,000,000 KWH of electricity. 

 

The following screen shot from the 5/14/09 Bangor Daily News clearly documents this widely touted goal. http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/106065.html

 

 

This goal has since been wiped clean from the home page of the UMPI wind turbine website. Moreover, on their web page entitled "The Project", the 1,000,000 KWH annual goal has been changed after the fact to say: "The turbine is expected to produce about 700,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year".

 

We're not sure why this was done. There is no accompanying explanation for why a goal was altered by 30% after the fact. Although the 1,000,000 KWH goal received plenty of media attention, there has been ZERO media attention to the fact that the University of Maine has quietly altered the $2 million experiment's goals after the fact. We also cannot find any press releases from the University of Maine announcing this altered goal.

 

The website talks all about sharing information, so it is surprising why there is nary a mention marking the after the fact alteration of the goal by minus 30%. For example: "This website will serve as a major resource for anyone who wants to learn more about the University's alternative energy project. Information about the project, especially beyond installation and commissioning, will be added as it becomes available to the University".

 

Regardless of the after-the-fact altered goal, the big picture is that we are now into the turbine's third calendar year of operation and it has achieved only 12% of capacity.

 

The state of Maine is at a crossroads.

 

There is no question that the outgoing Baldacci administration did everything in its power to grease the skids for industrial wind power proliferation and its requisite costly transmission additions. Beyond joining RGGI (still headed up by our PUC commissioner David Littell in what is an arguably huge conflict of interest), putting in the "emergency" expedited wind law LD 2283, widely and constantly broadcasting the untruth that wind power will get Maine off foreign oil, the Baldacci administration even misled the public that the $1.5 billion CMP upgrade was required due to "aging lines", when in fact, nothing could have been further from the truth and the primary reason for said upgrade was to provide the wind companies with a way to transport their product to Mass and Ct -- at the expense of Maine ratepayers. (If blasting Maine's mountains and assaulting neighbors with noise was the crime, the transmission lines are the getaway car).

 

As we stand at this crossoads, there is also no question that Mainers and Maine businesses have been hurting from the economy and one of the top cited obstacles for true economic expansion in this state is the cost of electricity. This is of course significant to us in that without question, wind power will add grossly to our electricity rates. The aforementioned transmission upgrades alone could cost $4,000 to $5,000 per household. This calculation is based on Mainers having to pay for 8% of the estimated $30 billion in similar windpower-required transmission upgrades across ISO New England, "the grid".

 

But the reason that wind power is so expensive is that it is not compatible with the grid and such compatibility could be 30 years off, if that. The grid must line up in advance sufficient electricity to meet demand, which can be forecasted quite accurately the day before based on weather forecasts, historical usage, etc. Additionally, it must line up added standby electricity in case demand exceeds expectations. In lining up this electricity, the sources must be reliable and predictable – and wind thus cannot be included and is not included.



To ensure adequate supply in Maine, natural gas-made electricity is often lined up in the day ahead electricity market. Thus, when wind simply “happens” the next day, it is always an added and unnecessary layer over and above what has been already lined up. Until we can store it, this will be the case.


Ratepayers are forced to pay for this wind electricity, and because in doing so they are buying more than what is needed, they are wasting their money – this simple reality is what causes wind power to be so incredibly expensive.

 

Attempts can be made to cut back certain types of natural gas generators, but the practical reality is that the grid keeper just ignores wind’s contribution. And when they do try to mirror wind's ebb and flow with natural gas, the natural gas combustion produces excessive CO2, like an inefficient car in stop and go traffic. But in essence, the grid keeper, for whom wind is a worst nightmare, simply ignores wind's too little too late contribution.


The one place where it is not ignored is on our electric bills.
(Also, because of this incompatibility with the grid, claims about displacement of fossil fuel and CO2 emissions in Maine are patently false).
 
So the question at the crossroads can be boiled down to one of economics. Do we want to ensure that Maine becomes less competitive than it already is by marching in lemming like formation to the Baldacci administration's effective goal of 1,800 wind turbines and watching our electricity rates skyrocket?

 

Given that national cap & trade failed, bear in mind that any decision on the part of Maine to self impose such price prohibitive economic strangulation will be against a national backdrop that will not favor wind power via cap & trade.
Many of us questioning Baldacci's wind goals first became involved when we heard that he envisioned 1,800 turbines, each over 400' tall, dotting the countryside of Maine. Some right near our homes where we have chosen to carry out the pursuit of happiness. In fact, what made us stay in our parts of Maine or drew us here in the first place was a desire to have a tranquil existence. Had money been our prime motivator, we could have gone to Boston or NY or LA. But we stayed here for what is Maine's core essense, what some call its "Quality of Place".
So yes, if you would like to call our early membership NIMBY's, we won't argue. But just remember, you may not have a turbine in your backyard, but one will surely be coming to your electric bill. So heed our warnings, for we are your canaries in the coal mine. (Not to be confused with the raptors in the rotor radii - that is a different story).
Heed what your canaries have learned about electricity prices in the improbable electricity educations that none of us asked for. For they are coming your way.
Heed what we have to say about alternative energy solutions for Maine, such as the 800 pound gorilla called inexpensive Canadian hydro. There are clearly effective solutions to Maine's energy future, but wind is not among them.
The wind industry is great at hype, spreading lies and half-truths and shunning the facts. To this end, they almost never reveal how much electricity actually gets produced. They hide from this under the cover of "proprietary information". We take issue with such information being proprietary as they would not exist without the massive subsidies and other preferential treatment that we the taxpayers provide to them.
But short of getting their secret curtain pulled back revealing the charlatans that they are and their frightfully abysmal electricity production, we do have an official state experiment we can consult and that is the $2 million wind turbine experiment conducted by the University of Maine.

 

It is the only such official state experiment on Maine wind power electricity production.

 

We must say that we liked what we heard about Governor-elect Paul LePage's common sense approach to economics and energy. What we are hoping for is that after Paul LePage becomes Governor this week - and I might add, from what I can determine, he got the vast majority of our votes, that he simply pulls in economists and electricity experts to study wind power's effect on the economy, primarily from an electricity cost standpoint, but also with a longer range eye towards its potential effect on tourism dollars, not an insignificant contributor to the Maine economy.

 

We would of course like for Governor LePage to listen to many of our other problems with industrial wind ranging from our philosophical problems on relying upon subsidies to its effect on the environment and its effects on that one species ignored by most of the mainstream environmental groups, Homo Sapiens.

 

I will end by asking that one of the pieces of information that be included in any forthcoming analysis of Maine's electricity prices include the miserable 12% of capacity that has been attained by the state's only experiment to date. The UMPI president characterizes the experiment as "an 11 on a 1-10 scale". We see it as a 12 on a 1-100 scale. We'd sure like to see more empiricsim and less zealousness from state academia used in the interpretation of experimental data that frankly holds such huge implications for the state's energy decisions.

 

Thank you in advance LePage adminstration for any empiricism and common sense you can bring our way.

 

Unlike some of the prominent subsidy-seeking wind farmers who tried to derail your candidacy with last minute endorsements of Eliot Cutler, most of us supported you vociferously and with votes.

 

Good luck to Governor Paul LePage and to us all.

 

 

 

 

 

See earlier activity at:

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/umpi-wind-turbine-score...

 

 

Views: 407

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 Long Islander on June 25, 2011 at 10:41am

June 25 and still no data posted. The turbine itself may or may not be working, but the data reporting is not. So we continue to report the last project-to-date production figure that can be pieced together. Because UMPI's web-based data reporting system is not working, why not just manually post some of the key figures on the website?


The University owes at least this much to the people of the state it serves.


Maybe we need to contact UMS board member Kurt Adams about this.

 

Comment by Long Islander on June 19, 2011 at 7:03am

June 19 and still no data posted. The turbine itself may or may not be working, but the data reporting is not. So we continue to report the last project-to-date production figure that can be pieced together. Because UMPI's web-based data reprting system is not working, why not just manually post some of the key figures on the website?

 

Comment by Long Islander on June 11, 2011 at 12:33pm

Still no data posted. The turbine itself may or may not be working, but the data reporting is not. So we continue to report the last project-to-date production figure that can be pieced together. Because UMPI's web-based data reprting system is not working, why not just manually post some of the key figures on the website?

 

 

Comment by Long Islander on May 28, 2011 at 10:13am

May 28, 2011 - This week is just a repeat of last week's comment. We thought that UMPI was going to freely share their information. Why won't they at least manually note the project-to-date electricity production?

 

For months this year, the UMPI website stated the turbine itself was down for repairs. For the past week, the website has stated the DATA REPORTING is down for repairs. This means that perhaps over the last week or so, the turbine has started to produce electricity again, but they are not yet reflecting this. If this persists, we will take a look at last year's production for this year's period of missing data and perhaps use last year's figures as a surrogate. 

 

In any event, it is a safe bet that the capacity factor is around 11% and we are moving into the real wind doldrums as we approach the steamy weather.

 

Comment by Long Islander on May 21, 2011 at 5:36am

For months this year, the UMPI website stated the turbine itself was down for repairs. For the past week, the website has stated the DATA REPORTING is down for repairs. This means that perhaps over the last week or so, the turbine has started to produce electricity again, but they are not yet reflecting this. If this persists, we will take a look at last year's production for this year's period of missing data and perhaps use last year's figures as a surrogate. 

 

In any event, it is a safe bet that the capacity factor is around 11% and we are moving into the real wind doldrums as we approach the steamy weather.

 

Comment by Long Islander on May 9, 2011 at 3:22pm

A new "repairs" notice showed up today at the UMPI wind turbine site. It's not completely clear if the turbine itseld is still broken as was the case this paste weekend or whether just the data reporting is broken. If the latter, perhaps just have someone manually note on the website how much electricity has been produced. This is not terribly complicated.

 

Comment by Long Islander on May 7, 2011 at 8:43am

May 7, 2011 - Capacity factor has dropped below 11.0%.

 

Comment by Long Islander on April 23, 2011 at 11:16am

The experiment is almost two years old and the capacity factor across this time period now stands at 11.2%. It has been inching down steadily by week as the turbine sits idle. It has been shut down for repairs for over two months.

 

Presumably, the turbine will soon be up and running. However, we are now heading into the part of the year where wind "resource" becomes very scarce. So it is very possible that the project-to-date capacity factor will dip into the single digits at some point.

 

What has UMPI learned so far in light of these truly miserable (but expected) results and the tremendous cost that mounts by the year?

 

Comment by Long Islander on April 16, 2011 at 11:42am

April 16, 2011 - still not repaired and Capacity Factor is at 11.31%.

 

Hopefully there will be information shared on the cost of the repairs. Of course, the maintenance costs don't really even start hitting until another year or so when much more tends to start going haywire.

 

 

Comment by Long Islander on April 9, 2011 at 8:56am

April 9, 2011

Th turbine is still broken and it's now 50 days since it produced power. Other than the note on the website advising "the turbine is down for repairs", nothing else is known. Turbines break down all the time in commercial wind complexes, but this goes largely unnoticed as others continue to turn. But over time, the percentage of potential power lost is the same, i.e., a 40 turbine complex will experience breakdowns 40 times as often as a single turbine.

 

Looking forward to an explanation of what has gone wrong.

 

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!

© 2019   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service