New England experienced an unusual cold spell from December 24, 2017 – January 8, 2018

The image was created by the New England electric system operator, ISO-NE.


Fuel Shifts


Fuel oil consumption increased, almost instantaneously, from a normal annual average of about 0.3%, to an abnormal average of about 27%, of NE-generated electricity fed into the NE grid, during the cold period

Coal consumption increased from 2% to 6%, during the cold period

Gas consumption decreased from 46% to 24%, during the cold period, because gas was shifted to building space heating systems.


The next set of images were created by Warren Van Wijck, Ferrisburgh, Vermont


Link to Interactive page

The electricity sources, on the left side, can be clicked to display how the fuels stack up. 
Interactive display of Fuel Usage and Demand during Arctic Freeze

Conditions on January 7, 2018


Oil generation increasing from a normal of about 1,000 MWh/d (thin grey line) to a maximum of 129,912

MWh, equivalent to about 100* 129,912/430,000 = 30.1% of the system load!!


Wind and solar made minor contributions to the 430,000 MWh grid load.


Wind production was 13,591 MWh from 1,300 MW of wind turbines connected to the NE grid, at a capacity factor of 13,591 MWh/(1,300 MW x 24 h) = 0.436, i.e., a high capacity factor means favorable onshore winds.  See URL


Solar production was a minuscule 1,235 MWh


Misplaced Priorities of Government Bureaucrats


The fuel shift 1) caused at least several million ton of additional CO2 emissions, 2) would have been at least 50% less, if almost all buildings had been zero-net-energy, i.e., highly sealed and highly insulated, with high-efficiency space heating systems.


The governments of Connecticut and Massachusetts should have implemented energy efficiency measures several decades ago.

However, the career, renewable energy bureaucrats in those governments had sexier measures in mind.


They had been contacted, and wined and dined, and taken on sales trips, by the sales forces of European companies, for several years.

Those companies had been implementing about 25,000 MW of offshore wind turbine systems in Europe, during the past 40 years.

The virtues of offshore wind systems were played up, the drawbacks were hidden/not mentioned, as is the normal practice.


RE bureaucrats perceived an RE panacea. A “popular” groundswell was artificially created, with help of:


1) The gullible/non-technical media, always eager to use sensational news to sell newspapers, magazines, TV shows, etc.


2) Wall Street’s financial services firms, which would create many MULTI-BIILION-DOLLAR tax shelters, for high-income multi-millionaires, for decades. See Note.


As a result, career RE bureaucrats have been celebrating the building of highly subsidized, very expensive, offshore wind systems, that would produce expensive electricity at about 2 to 3 times the NE average wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh. See Appendix


That price has been constant starting in 2009, already for 12 years, courtesy of the NE dual-fuel gas plants and nuclear plants, that reliably, and efficiently, produce steady, low-CO2, low-cost electricity, at less than 5 c/kWh.

Both sources represented about 42.6% (gas) and 21.9% (nuclear) of the annual electricity loaded onto the NE grid in 2020.

This Article Sums up Most of the Follies NE Electricity Supply


New England is an Energy Crisis Waiting to Happen

NOTE: In 2021, the federal government proposed to subsidize the installation of 30,000 MW of offshore wind systems by 2030, just 8 years from now, which is a total impossibility, because the EU managed to install only 25,000 MW of offshore wind turbines from 1991 to 2020, or 39 years. See URLs



Warren Buffett Quote: "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate," Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit."


Obstructions by RE Folks: Pennsylvania is blessed with an abundant supply of gas, but the infamous Governor Cuomo, of NY, to polish his "climate-change-fighting” credentials, has been obstructing, the much needed, extension/augmentation of the gas pipe lines that are needed to provide reliable electricity service to New England. 


Various RE entities, in Connecticut and Massachusetts, were his allies. They have been obstructing, the much needed, augmentation of gas and oil storage capacities.


BTW, similar tactics had been used by such RE folks in California, which resulted in major havoc and blackouts, during a US southwest heat wave, i.e., no air conditioning with 115 F temperatures!!


As a result of these RE tactics, the NE dual-fuel gas plants, that reliably, and efficiently, produce steady, low-CO2, low-cost electricity (at about 5 c/kWh), did not have enough gas during the cold spell (temperatures were in single digits for 8 days, and as low as 4.2F), because much of the Pennsylvania gas supply was diverted for building heating in Boston and other cities.


Those dual-fuel plants were forced to use much more expensive oil, which is much "dirtier" than gas, i.e., it has much more particulate/kWh than gas, and much more CO2/kWh than gas.


Rolling black-outs, and 100% black-outs, were imminent, because the stored oil supply was almost used up towards the end of the cold spell.

Millions of people would have been freezing their butts off, in the dark, with leaking pipes.

Note the large amount of oil generation (grey area) from Dec. 26 to Jan. 9

Note the cold spell temperatures (thin line) from Dec. 26 to Jan. 9


RE folk obstructions:


- Required additional capital costs for 1) converting gas plants to dual fuel, 2) expanding oil and gas storage systems

- Worsened global warming by having 1) more particulate/kWh, 2) more CO2 per kWh


Bitter Fruits of RE-folk “Successes”: If RE folks had been successful to ban “dirty” oil, it would have taken the addition of 9,000 MW of offshore wind turbines, connected to the NE grid, to produce the same quantity of electricity, as was produced by oil, i.e., 9,000 MW x 24 h x 0.601, CF = 129,912 MWh (a high CF means favorable offshore winds), on Jan. 7, 2018.


That wind electricity would have been at least 2 to 2.5 times the cost of gas, on and “all-in” basis. See URL and Appendix


The turnkey capital cost of the RE-folk “success” would have been $36 to $40 BILLION, including grid expansion/augmentation. 
More of such RE-folk “successes”, and we would all be in the poorhouse!!


NOTE: If the 9,000 MW of offshore wind turbines would have had less favorable winds, the wind electricity production might have been 60,000 MWh, instead of 129,912 MWh, on Jan. 7, 2018.

Gas plants would have had to come to the rescue to reliably fill in the wind shortfall, if there had been sufficient oil or gas.


NOTE: If, per wishes of RE folks, gas plants had been shut down, and oil and gas storage systems had been empty, 100% black-outs would have been required to avoid shutting down the entire NE system.

BTW, using battery systems to provide 69,912 MWh shortfall to the grid would cost at least 69,912 x 1,000 x 1/0.8, use factor x $700/kWh = $61.1 BILLION, if the batteries would be discharging from 90% full to 10% full, which is allowed on rare occasions.


These URLs provide examples of similar wind/solar lull conditions in Germany and New England

This image shows the normal level of electricity generation with oil, and the greatly increased level, during the cold spell from Dec. 26 to Jan. 9;

Generation with oil was about 129,912 MWh, about 30.1% of the system load, on Jan. 7.

The normal oil contribution is almost invisible.

Also shown is the daily temperatures, degrees F, which were below 10 F for 8 days, followed by a second cold spell that also required increased electricity generation with oil.

This image shows the normal level of electricity generation with gas, and the greatly decreased level, during the cold spell from Dec. 26 to Jan. 9

The gas was diverted to building heating. Electricity generation with oil was highly essential, as otherwise the building heating systems would have been inoperable.

This image shows a decrease of net imports from Canada and New York, likely because these states needed the electricity for their own users during the cold spell.


Turnkey Capital Costs of Grid-scale Battery Systems


Starting in 2015, EIA has prepared annual reports regarding site-specific, custom-designed, grid-scale battery systems.

The average duration of delivering electricity increased from 0.5 h in 2015 to 3.2 h in 2019.


Excluded are: 


1) Financing costs

2) Benefits of subsidies, such as grants, tax credits, accelerated depreciation, loan interest deductions, waiving of state and local taxes, fees and surcharges, etc.

3) System aging/degradation costs, because the systems had been in operation only a few years.


EIA 2020 Report


The EIA graph, based on surveys of battery system users, shows slowly decreasing costs after 2018

It appears, the range of values likely would become $900/kWh to 450/kWh in 2025.

The values would be near the high end of the range in New England.


The US average turnkey capital cost of battery systems was about $590/kWh, delivered as AC, in 2019.

The NE average turnkey capital cost for such systems is about $700/kWh, delivered as AC, in 2019


Those prices will not decrease much for at least the next 5 to 10 years, per US EIA, unless major technical breakthroughs are discovered, and subsequently implemented on a large scale. See URL


EIA 2021 Report


Table 6 combines the data of prior reports and the 2021 report. See table 6 and page 18 of URLs 


Such battery systems operate 8766 hours per year

About 65% of capacity can be used to achieve 15-year lives


Such battery systems are entirely different from the battery packs in electric cars, which operate about 700 hours per year, last about 8 years, and cost about $10,000 for a 60-kWh battery, or $165/kWh. 

That cost may become $125/kWh with more mass production in future years.


NOTE: Various financial services entities, such as Bloomberg and Lazard, issue reports that project lower battery system costs/kWh, delivered as AC, than the EIA, likely to hype their financial services business interests. It would be prudent to ignore those reports.

Table 4/Battery system turnkey cost





 $/kWh as AC


 $/kWh as AC


 2500 to 1750




 2800 to 750




 1500 to 700




 1250 to 500




1050 to 475




 900 to 450






Battery Systems for 1) Arbitrage, 2) Midday Solar Surge and 3) Utility Peak Shaving


Arbitrage mode relates to charging at night, when rates are low, and discharging during peak demand hours, when rates are high

Midday solar mode relates to reducing the daily midday solar surge to avoid destabilizing the grid

Utility peak shaving mode relates to reducing a utility’s peak demand to lessen ISO-NE transmission charges and forward capacity charges.


The owning and operating cost of a house includes the cost of the mortgage and various other costs, such as heating, cooling, electricity, taxes, upkeep/repairs, etc.


The owning and operating cost of a battery system is similar to that of a house, except:

1) A house likely would have a greater value in year 15, than in year 1; the battery system would have minimal financial value.

2) The energy efficiency of a house likely would not degrade with age, compared to a battery system.


Turnkey Capital Cost: The turnkey capital cost of New England battery systems, in 2021, would be about $700/kWh, delivered as AC to a high voltage grid.


This cost does not include 1) disposal costs of the batteries, and 2) owning and operating costs

Much of each battery system would need to be replaced every 15 years.

Battery systems would be used year-round, i.e., 8,766 h/y. See URL and Appendix


Analysis: This analysis is for three alternatives: 


Alt. No. 1: 100% borrowed from a bank; the amortizing of the capital cost was at 3.5%/y for 15 years.

Alt. No. 2: 100% investor money; the amortizing of the capital cost was at 9%/y for 15 years.

Alt. No. 3: 50% borrowed from a bank and 50% investor money, which is a more likely condition.


The calculations in table 1 assumed:


- A battery system able to deliver 1 MW of power for 4 hours, i.e., a rating of 1 MW/4 MWh

- Battery normal operation from 15% full to 80% full, to achieve a 15-y life.

- Battery real-world annual capacity factor at 50%

- Daily charging at:

70% from the grid at night, at 3.5, wholesale +1.6, ISO-NE charge = 5.1 c/kWh; the all-in wholesale cost. See table 4

30% from mid-day solar, at 19.84 + 1.6 = 21.44 c/kWh; the all-in cost of solar. See table 4

- Rate during peak demand is 8 c/kWh

- System efficiency 80%, A-to-Z basis. See Appendix 

- No battery system aging/degradation at about 1.5%/y, compounded

- No State and federal subsidies, such as 1) tax savings due to depreciation and loan interest deductions; 2) cash grants; 3) tax credits; 4) waving of various state and local taxes, fees and surcharges, etc., which politically shifts the cost of solar to other entities, to make solar electricity appear less costly, and to enable an owner to sell his solar production at a politically palatable cost of about 11.0 c/kWh, instead of an expensive-looking cost of about 17.74 c/kWh. See table 4


NOTE: In the real world, the battery owning and operating cost/kWh would be reduced by various subsidies.

However, no cost ever disappears, per Economics 101

Costs are merely shifted to ratepayers, taxpayers, and added to government debts


The analysis shows the cost of using battery systems to reduce the midday solar surge would be far greater than the gains of arbitrage. 

BTW, the cost of the solar surge reduction would not be charged to solar system owners.


RNS and FCM Charge Reduction


If a utility would have an average peak demand of 800 MW, a 1 MW/4 MWh battery system could reduce the demand by 800 kW (battery discharging from 90% full to 10% full), and thus reduce the RNS and FCM charges imposed on utilities by ISO-NE. The potential savings from peak shaving are estimated below.



2020 RNS forecast = $129.26/kW-yr /12 = $10.77/kW-month. See page 7 of URL

If a utility could capture 800 kW during the peak hour of a month, the savings would be 800 x 10.77 x 12 = $103,408



2020 FCM forecast = $5.30/kW-month. See URL

If GMP could capture 800 kW during the yearly peak hour, the savings would be 800 kW x $5.30 x 12 = $50,880
This value multiplied by the reserve margin of 1.2, yields $61,056


Total savings = $164,464


Regional network services, RNS, are based on the utility peak demand occurring during a month

Forward capacity market, FCM, are based on the utility peak demand occurring during a year.


What about all the other costs?


Any additional battery costs, due to the costs of: 1) system aging/degradation at about 1.5%/y, 2) power electronics, 3) thermal management, 4) HVAC of enclosures, 5) control and monitoring, 6) staffing, 7) miscellaneous items, such as site protection, lighting, insurance, taxes, etc., likely would be in excess of the net gain of $58,972 (on a $2.8 million investment), i.e., the battery system would operate at a loss. See table 4


Table 4/Alternative

No. 1

No. 2

No. 3









Amortizing at




15y life

15y life

15y life

Battery rated output, kWh @ 4 h




Battery cost, $/kWh as AC




Turnkey capital cost, $




Amortizing cost, $/y




Operating range, %




Cycle per day




Daily output, kWh/d




Efficiency, HV to HV, %




Daily input, kWh/d




Annual output, kWh/y




Amortizing cost, $/kWh





Charging from grid, $/kWh




Grid proportion




Grid cost, $/kWh




Grid cost, $/d





Charging from solar, $/kWh




Solar proportion




Solar cost, $/kWh




Solar cost, $/d





Total charging cost, $/d




Peak rate, c/kWh




Total revenue, $/d




Loss, $/d




Loss, $/y




Total loss, $/y


RNS + FCM gain, $/y




Net gain, $/y






Energy Losses of Battery Systems


The electricity loss of battery systems, i.e., efficiency, is much greater than generally understood.

Some energy systems analysts assume a loss for only the battery, such as 10%, but omit 1) Power Electronics, 2) Thermal Management and 3) Control and Monitoring.


1) This article identifies 18 losses of a battery system, totaling about 20% for a round-trip, excluding step-down and step-up transformer losses. See Note.


The system model has four coupled component models: BatteryPower ElectronicsThermal Management and Control and Monitoring.

Open URL and click on “View Open Manuscript”

See figures 3, 4 and 17 of article.


2) Per EIA survey of existing battery systems, the efficiency is about 80%, AC to AC basis, excluding step-down and step-up transformer losses.


Aging had only a minor effect, because the battery systems were only a few years old.


Battery System Losses, A-to-Z basis: Usually, AC electricity from a distribution, or high-voltage grid, has to pass through a step-down transformer, about a 1% loss, to reduce the voltage to that of the battery, then the AC is converted to DC, then inside the battery. The DC energy from the battery has to be digitized, then made into a sine wave with the same phase and 60-cycle frequency as the grid, then via a step-up transformer, about a 1% loss, to the distribution, or high-voltage grid, for an overall efficiency of about 78%, much less with aging at about 1.5%/y




European Companies Building Offshore Wind Systems


Almost the entire physical supply of US East Coast offshore wind systems would be by European companies, because they have the required expertise and the domestic onshore and seagoing facilities, due to building at least 25,014 MW (end 2020) of offshore turbine systems, during the past 35 years.


Those companies would hire qualified US labor, as needed. 
Those companies would build US facilities, as needed. 
Those companies would not be interested in training a potential competitor.


The EU vs the US


The US, with a low-cost, self-sufficient, energy sector would attract European, Korean, Japanese, etc., energy-intensive, heavy-industry and industrial product production to the US.


Europe is interested to make sure the US has a high-cost electrical sector, with lots of high-priced wind and solar and batteries, to handicap the US, and to enhance its competitiveness vs the US.


The UN is helping out by urging the US to expensively reduce its CO2 by 50% by 2030, which is not possible. See URL.


- Europe desperately needs more low-cost gas from Russia to remain competitive on world markets

- Europe has to build out wind and solar to limit energy imports from unstable countries; the US does not need to.




NE Utilities Doing Grid Load Shaping with EVs


If an EV originally drew 100 kWh AC from a wall outlet, about 85.0 kWh DC would end up in the EV battery, and about 1.5 kWh DC would have been sent to the EV’s 12 V battery to power various auxiliary systems during charging, for a net of 83.5 kWh DC in the EV battery.


A utility drawing electricity from the EV battery, such as during peak demands, as part of Grid Load Shaping, would cause a loss of about 10%, due to: 1) battery discharge losses, 2) converting the DC to synchronous AC, and 3) feeding the AC into distribution grids via a step-up transformer.


If 100 kWh AC were originally drawn from the grid, about 75.2 kWh AC would be returned to the grid, for a loss of 24.9%. See table 3


Would the EV owner be properly compensated by the utility, including additional wear and tear of the EV battery? See URL


Table 3/From outlet

kWh AC


Charging loss



In EV battery

kWh DC


To 12 V battery during charging

kWh DC


Net in EV battery

kWh DC


Discharge loss



To grid

kWh AC


AC to AC loss





European Offshore Wind


Denmark installed the first offshore wind system in 1983; Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, etc., followed.

National grids were connected with high-voltage DC lines.

The wind turbines feed to the national grids.

Wind turbine output is curtailed, during high winds, as needed.


EU companies have the required expertise and the domestic onshore facilities and seagoing facilities, due to building at least 25,014 MW (end 2020) of offshore systems, during the past 39 years.

Currently, EU companies have capacity to install 8 to 10 MW, offshore wind turbines, at a rate of about 1,500 MW/y


Massachusetts, Connecticut


It took several years for Massachusetts and Connecticut to sign contracts with EU/US wind consortia for about 1,000 MW of NE offshore wind systems

Almost all of the NE offshore wind systems would be supplied and installed by European companies, during the next 20 years.




Maine is moving forward with an Aqua Ventus demonstration project consisting of two 6 MW

The two floating wind turbines, provided and installed by Mitsubishi, will have support structures designed by the Advanced Structures and Composites Center, at the University of Maine.


Unlike conventional offshore wind turbines, which are supported by pedestals moored on the ocean floor at depths up to about 200 feet, the support structures of floating wind turbines are attached to cables anchored to the seabed. They are seen as a possible solution to building wind systems in the deep waters off Maine and California.


However, that approach would be much more expensive per MW, than normal offshore wind systems, and would require major extension/augmentation of the NE grid.


At present, there are no major wind companies with any floating wind turbine experience, other than minor experience by Norway having a small demonstration system off the coast of Scotland.



Exorbitant “All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England


Pro RE folks always point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories. The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:


1) Above-market-price paid to Owners 

2) Subsidies paid to Owners

3) Owner return on invested capital at about 9%/y

4) Grid extension/augmentation

5) Grid support services

6) Future battery systems


Comments on table 5


- Vermont legacy SO solar systems had greater subsidies, up to 30 c/kWh paid to owner, than newer systems, about 11 c/kWh


- Wind prices paid to owner did not have the drastic reductions as solar prices.


- Vermont utilities are paid about 3.5 c/kWh for various costs they incur regarding net-metered solar systems


- "Added to the rate base" is the cost wind and solar are added to the utility rate base, used to set electric rates.


- “Total cost”, including subsidies to owner and grid support, is the cost at which wind/solar are added to the utility rate base


- “NE utility cost” is the annual average cost of purchased electricity, about 6 c/kWh, plus NE grid operator charges, about 1.6 c/kWh

for a total of 7.6 c/kWh.


- “Grid support costs” would increase with increased use of battery systems to counteract the variability and intermittency of increased build-outs of wind and solar systems.



1) NE wholesale grid price averaged about 5 c/kWh or less, starting in 2009, due to low-cost CCGT and nuclear plants providing at least 65% of all electricity loaded onto the NE grid, in 2019.


- Wind, solar, landfill gas, and methane power plants provided about 4.8%

- Pre-existing refuse and wood power plants provided about 4.6%

- Pre-existing hydro power plants provided about 7.4%

- The rest was mostly hydro imports from the very-low-CO2 Canada grid, and from the much-higher-CO2 New York State grid

2) There are Owning costs, and Operating and Maintenance costs, of the NE grid

ISO-NE charges these costs to utilities at about 1.6 c/kWh.


3) ISO-NE charges are for: 

Regional network services, RNS, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a month

Forward capacity market, FCM, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a year.

Table 5/VT & NE sources

Paid to











paid to



to rate





















Solar, rooftop, net-metered, new










Solar, rooftop, net-metered, legacy










Solar, standard offer, combo









Solar, standard offer, legacy









Wind, ridge line, new









Wind, offshore, new










Sample calculation; NE utility cost = 6, Purchased + 1.6, (RNS + FCM) = 7.6 c/kWh

Sample calculation; added to utility base = 17.4 + 3.5 = 20.9 c/kWh

Sample calculation; total cost = 17.4 + 5.2 + 2.1 + 3.5 + 1.6 = 29.8 c/kWh


Excludes costs for very expensive battery systems

Excludes costs for very expensive floating, offshore wind systems

Excludes cost for dealing with shortfalls during multi-day wind/solar lulls. See URL


“Added to rate base” is for recent 20-y electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in NE.

“Added to rate base” would be much higher without subsidies and cost shifting.

Areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW have lower c/MWh, than NE



Eastern US has Major Heat Islands


Many temperature measurement stations are in those heat island areas.
They all read high temperatures, which ups the average for the whole world.
China, India, Japan, etc., have very large heat island areas


The US population increased from 23 million in 1850 to 329.5 million in 2020, 14.3 times

The US energy consumption increased from 2.3 quad in 1850 to 100 quad in 2020, 43.5 times

The energy consumption per capita increased about 3 times from 1850 to 2020


The combination of deforestation and urbanization increased the average temperature of the Eastern US, especially in urban areas.

This increase is independent from any increase due to CO2.

In 1850, the US population was about 23 million, and energy consumption was 0.2 quads of coal and 2.1 quads of wood

In 2020, the US population was about 329.5 million, and energy consumption was about 93 quads, of which 79%, oil/gas/coal, and 21% non-fossil; it was down from 100 quads due to COVID, in 2019



These URLs are for your information

Views: 287


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 Thinklike A. Mountain on November 22, 2021 at 10:08am

DO NOT COMPLY: Thousands of New Yorkers Flood the Streets to March for Freedom As WORLDWIDE RESISTANCE Against Covid Tyranny Continues to Grow – (Video)

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."


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


(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 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?" 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.”

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!

© 2022   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service