Apalled Environment Maine Letter Writer Seemingly Involved in Typical Orchestrated Effort

Comment

Comment by Marie Jane on March 31, 2016 at 7:39pm

Marie Jane says:  We, well, not us, based on what I read here, but, rather, whoever is living in Maine and has an issue with snow (regardless of duration, amount, etc., etc.)..........are being supplied "kool aid"; some drink, some do not..........the only goal should be:  "Uncovering corrupt projects, political processes, and bad science & economics is only real way to turn around bad projects such as wind...and more. " (Robert Powers)  Convincing the media that there is a story here and they could save the world from further "corrupt" ..........  how do we get them to listen, investigate, write, report?

Comment by Robert Powers on March 31, 2016 at 7:25pm

What has this to do with Maine Wind project problems?  The weather events discussed here have absolutely nothing to do with "global warming pollution", per Paolo Capo.  Somebody drank some bad "coolaid" to think that.   There is corruption in almost all green Power project initiatives and Maine's wind projects & processes are just a small example....plus those of "solyndra" etc....

Uncovering corrupt projects, political processes, and bad science & economics is only real way to turn around bad projects such as wind...and more.

Comment by Long Islander on March 31, 2016 at 6:00pm

As these events continue to increase in frequency and intensity, we need states like Maryland to continue to act boldly in slashing global warming pollution. Maryland's next step should include strengthening the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to reduce regional power plant pollution by more than half in the next 15 years.

Paola Capo, Baltimore

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-emiss...

As these extreme weather events continue to increase in frequency and intensity, we need states like Maine to continue to act boldly in slashing global warming pollution. Maine’s next step should include strengthening the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to reduce regional power plant pollution by more than half in the next 15 years.

Paola Capo

Environment Maine

Washington, D.C.

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/03/30/letter-to-the-editor-extreme-...

Comment by Penny Gray on March 31, 2016 at 3:43pm

In 1956 my mom had to walk through waist deep snow to get to the road in order to be driven to the hospital to deliver my older brother.  It was the 25th of March.  Not sure what extreme weather events are being referred to in this letter, or why anyone would be appalled at a March snow storm in Maine.

Comment by Paula D Kelso on March 31, 2016 at 1:36pm

We had an April Fool's Day blizzard in '97. I remember it vividly as we drove the airline from Clifton to Calais hospital where our son was having an emergency appendectomy. Gee, and I never thought to blame either event on climate change. How dumb of me.

As to Mr. Heller's comments on wind ordinances, I told our Planning Board that if we couldn't have both a good ordinance and a good board that I'd rather have a bad ordinance and good board. It was my belief that a good board could figure out what to do about a bad ordinance; but a bad board could figure out how to screw up a good ordinance. Well, they bested me, bad board and bad ordinance. Especially, distressing after five years of work, they had no guts to write or enforce a financial capacity provision that had meaning. Pisgah submitted a letter from GE saying they like to help finance wind power projects. When you get ready to develop, let us know.  The Board voted 4-1 (me dissenting) to accept that as proof of financial capacity. And it's been all down hill since.

The latest episode of this fiasco [see blog entry on this site] is that Pisgah has given development rights to an Austrian/Canadian company for it's Maine community-based project. According to the BDN, no, not sold. Just some other kind of sleight of hand trick to get around the fact that the approval and permit for this 'community-based' project is for sale to anyone who wants to put up turbines without having to go through the permitting process.

 

Comment by Robert Powers on March 31, 2016 at 1:15pm

FYI, people who handle the "financing" of wind projects are very skilled and usually find "foreign" investors from Europe, Asia & middle east...as well investment groups like "Franklin-Templeton" and others.  Some are associated with owners/stockholders of turbine manufacturers as well.  They could not "sell" these investments without the wind "production tax credits", as well as having the "backdoor" political promises in advance, which are ultimately paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

General Electric, GE Financial and other subsidiaries, are also among the major payers.

Comment by Long Islander on March 31, 2016 at 12:08pm

Eric - in response to your question "Where are these people from?", the PPH letter writer states her/his address as Environment Maine,  Washington, DC. So it appears that this was lobbed from afar from a "central planning" type. Their one size fits all cookie cutter solutions are typical. For example, the writer names power plants as the "largest source of our carbon pollution", when in fact, electricity production accounts for only 11% of Maine's CO2 output while transportation accounts for 50% of Maine's CO2 output. I believe the latter would include any driving the writer does between Washington, D.C. and the People's Republic of Portland. See the data at:

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/epa-s-bad-news-for-wind...

Maine has 90% forest cover, the nation's highest, and is an exemplary "carbon citizen". We have the oldest and draftiest housing stock in the nation and a cold climate. So if the writer wasn't into cookie cutter solutions, she/he would see that there are much better ways to help the environment in Maine than covering our tourism-reliant state with grotesque turbines and transmission.

"It's the stupidity, stupid".

Comment by Frank J. Heller, MPA on March 31, 2016 at 11:56am

DESIGNING A WIND ORDINANCE....John Droz has a model ordinance; and I commented on it:

HI….I’ve been through the development of two wind ordinances—Lisbon Falls, and Portland Maine, and addressed a large forum of town planners on the elements of a ‘model’ ordinance, so it’s not without experience I suggest you take this one apart and break it into sections:

 

• Environmental Impact:

o   Acoustical

o   Migratory insects and birds

o   Loss of biomass due to site, access road and transmission line clearing

o   Loss of CO2 conversion consequent to loss of biomass

o   Long range impact of herbicide spraying in transmission line corridor

o   Water runoff and impact on drainage systems, loss of aquifer storage and water filtration,  and downstream water quality

o   Environmental habitat assessment and loss of valuable habitat for birds, small mammals, bees, bats, etc. 

• Energy Grid Impact:

o   Necessity to increase grid capacity to provide replacement power to match loss of power from wind fluctuations

o   Necessity to construct new switching and transmission lines,

o   Secondary impact of the cost of materials for transmission lines, esp. amount of copper needed to be mined/recycled,

• Maintenance and operation schedule and cost allocation:

o   Maintenance schedule

o   Allocation of a reserve to maintain turbine

o   Designated maintenance provider

• Economic viability of the owner/operator of the wind turbine(s):

o   P & L statements for past five years;

o   Annual submission of P & L statements;

o   Immediate notification of intent to sell all or part of the facility, name/location of buyer.

o   Competing sources, i.e. the emerging market including proposed solar, hydro and LNG generation facilities

• Economic viability of the manufacturer of the turbine; 

o   Years in business,

o   Foreign/domestic ownership, 

I could add more; but this format gives a legislator a nice check list to go down; your model ordinance is confusing and tedious.  K.I.S.S. is essential to a thorough assessment of a wind farm application

 

Fjh.

Comment by Robert Powers on March 31, 2016 at 9:30am

The world is full of ignorant people who are simply driven by any "agenda"....it is scarey because they are actually allowed to vote!  The humans of the world have NO significant impact on climate change etc...when I was in "previous life", career, etc...we were ordered to make everything relate to climate change, humans were bad, energy had too go green....and most professionals knew it was BS...but pay checks depended on federal, taxpayer "climate change" funding....many of us refused to drink the cool aid....

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on March 31, 2016 at 9:21am

Appalled at a March Snow Storm ? Really ? Where are these people from ? This is Maine, when there was a time that we had snow on the ground from early October to late April. Anywhere from 5 to 12 feet standing and in some areas of Maine even more with brutally cold winter months. Spring floods due to the rapid warming. They wish to give up our milder winters and return ? -- Where does the demand to create all this CO² come from ? People ! People that refuse to work and substitute their work with electricity and the devices they utilize to do the work for them. Lighting, for those that are afraid of sitting in the dark, or feel their homes are less secure in the dark, or their pets need a radio / TV playing to keep them company. Children that sit at the Boob Tube, as their entertainment vs engaging in activities for a better healthy body. There are many reasons why we use energy, though no one seems to want to do without "Their Share" including the environmentalists who preach one thing and still go on contributing to the CO² crisis they proclaim. They do not report that the CO² is only being displaced to other nations to create all these "Green Machines". Using energy more efficiently or God (if that word is allowed) forbid, not at all when it is not required is too sensible I suppose. When Oil Companies and other energy sectors invest in Green Energy, it should tell people they are being played. Reduce the Use not Abuse of Use.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page