View Full Version : Wind Power in the Appalachains.
Some wind farms are proposed for different areas of the Appalachain Mtns up and down the East. Some of these mtns. provide adequate annual wind speeds For wind turbines to operate efficiently. In the northeast, 1 small wind farm operates in SW Vermont. Two other farms are proposed for Equinox in VT and Reddington in Maine. This is not new news to many of you but would like to hear hikers current thoughts on this issue.
Thanks for your comments
woodsy
Lone Wolf
02-22-2006, 11:24
Build them.
A few dozen on Mt Rogers and Grayson Highlands would probably power Damascus.
Build them.
yeah great:cool: neo
Build them.
i totally agree!
i've stood next to several Wind Generators (out West) & they are more quiet than a passing car...
BUILD THEM NOW!:D
i've stood next to several Wind Generators (out West) & they are more quiet than a passing car...
I've walked by hundreds of them on the PCT and it sucked.
Twofiddy
02-22-2006, 11:52
Some wind farms are proposed for different areas of the Appalachain Mtns up and down the East. Some of these mtns. provide adequate annual wind speeds For wind turbines to operate efficiently. In the northeast, 1 small wind farm operates in SW Vermont. Two other farms are proposed for Equinox in VT and Reddington in Maine. This is not new news to many of you but would like to hear hikers current thoughts on this issue.
Thanks for your comments
woodsy
The first job that I had out of college a few years back was working for Dominion Virginia Power. I learned a he!! of a lot in the 27 months that I worked there. I am completly anit corporate America now. Why do we even build wind power generation. It has nothing to do with the enviroment. It has everything to do with the fact that Dominion makes millions, billions, maby even trillions of dollars off of dirty coal power plants. The clean energy credits that one company gets for producing green power, can be sold to another company. So wind power is all about profit, profit for the dirty coal burning utilities.
I personally have watched as wind farms have poped up in the most scenic places in the laurel mountains. You can see and hear windmills now while hiking on the Laurel Highlands Trail, while paddling on the Yough River and while climbing on state forest land. It sucks!! Why does it suck, because it is all about profit. Any individual company should not be allowed to trade its clean air credits for cash to another company. The king of all of this is the company at the top of the green energy kingdom. I wont name them, but they make almost as much money of selling the clean energy credits to the dirty companies as they do making electric. How in the he!! does that make them a clean company.
The only thing green about the energy business in the color of the money they take by raping our environment.
At no time in the near future do I see any cutback in the amout of energy that is used by Americans. After my own AT HIKE I became reall concious about leaving lights on and using hot water and turning down my thermostat. I have business needs now, I too have to make money to survive, and a few of my business needs use electricity and cause pollution. I struggle every day with the idea of weather or not I am a hippocrit just like the clean energy producers.
Every one of us is sitting here right now using a computer that is probably on 24hrs a day using power....
What we need is for our federal government to repeal any laws deregulating electricity and energy. They need to start construction on new nuclear power plants that do not pollute the atmosphere with green house gasses, and they need to start to force business to cut it energy usage by making investment in efficiency. Wal-Mart has built three buildings in my home town that are cheap, uninsulated, pole barns, to do business out of, then they move on to build another cheap building in 7 years when the tax abatement runs out. A responsible walmart would build 1 energy efficient building that was built to last many years beyond 7 and stay in it.
Every time I get on this subject I just rant and rave.... It is sick what the western world is doing to the planet.
Lone Wolf
02-22-2006, 11:52
I've walked by hundreds of them on the PCT and it sucked.
So we'll keep mining and burning coal or building nuke plants to keep your computer powered up.
I think wind power is the way to go I have been researching wind power for my future home in the hills along with wood heat or some other form of energy,I also would consider solar and wind power combined,a clean pratical form of being tied into the mainstream.ky
Twofiddy
02-22-2006, 12:00
So we'll keep mining and burning coal or building nuke plants to keep your computer powered up.
We have not had any progress on building any nuclear plants in American since North Anna Power Sation #2 construction project was shut down six months after the 1979 Three Mile Island Accident. In 27 years look how far everything has come. Take cars for example, how much safer are they today with air bags, and cruch zones, and crash testing etc. Just think about how much safer a nuclear plant would be.
We are killing the planet by burning fossil fuels. Unless we want to destroy every windy ridge top in America with wind farms we must build nuclear power. Even if the by product of certain kinds of reactors is something that we dont exactly know what to do with yet, we can store it in a container till we do. The only container we are using for storage of fossil fuel emissions is the largest container any of us earthlings are ever going to touch, our own atmosphere. I dont want my lungs being the filter for the worlds money hungry energy business.
Twofiddy
02-22-2006, 12:06
I think wind power is the way to go I have been researching wind power for my future home in the hills along with wood heat or some other form of energy,I also would consider solar and wind power combined,a clean pratical form of being tied into the mainstream.ky
Just FYI, wet wood heat, is probably one of the worst forms of energy production other than burning garbage. It is not clean at all, combustion is usually never complete, wood heating devices like fireplaces and wood burning stoves are not efficient, they put more heat out the chimney than they leave in the house because of the draft that they pull, and unless you have a very expensive catalytic converter on your chimney that would need changed at least once every 24 months even in the south east united states, in order to be clean it is not cost effective either.
Dont get me wrong, we all enjoy the ambience of a fire place in PATC cabin or cooking over a camp fire on the trail. If everyone in america heated there home that way, you would not be able to breath on most of the AT. COAL is more than 1000 times cleaner than firewood, except for the heavy metals part.
Twofiddy
02-22-2006, 12:09
I think wind power is the way to go I have been researching wind power for my future home in the hills along with wood heat or some other form of energy,I also would consider solar and wind power combined,a clean pratical form of being tied into the mainstream.ky
Just FYI everything else that you said here is great.
What if each of us had our own windmill and solar panels on our own house and had to figure out how to make due with what we had. That would mean no spot light outside that burns 24/7, no cable TV boxes that suck power even when the TV is off, no lights on in other rooms of the house, no XMAS lights outside at the holidays... Sounds like a great concept to me.
I'd have to get me an excercise bike with a generator on it to charge the LAP TOP battery.
Hey wait... that sounds like a great idea, get off my A$$, and ride a bike to power the one thing that I am addicted to... The computer.:-?
Twofiddy
02-22-2006, 12:13
Build them.
I'll be sure to let the ATC and the other folks fighting to save places like the Greyson highlands know that you are opposed to the agenda.
That would be great.... after they get them built can we change the names down there from Rhodidenderon(sp) Gap to Wind Farm Alley, and they could build an energy trading outpost at The Scales crossroads.
Twofiddy
02-22-2006, 12:16
So we'll keep mining and burning coal or building nuke plants to keep your computer powered up.
The reason that we mine and burn coal is because it is profitable. It has nothing to do with anything other than turning black into green.
The reson that we dont build Nuke Plants is because of liability insurance. Any company in the business, would go out of business, and be completly bankrupt, if they built a new nuclear plant that had an accident.
Companys are about taking calculated risks to make greenbacks. Since the goverment is not willing to subsidize new nuke plant construction. The calculated risk, and in how much money they will lose, has been to great for a long time. It is all about the money
Twofiddy
02-22-2006, 12:17
OK sorry about the RANT..
I have business meeting to goto now.
Happy Trails
I'm OK with nuclear power but I'd prefer it if they could find a way of harnessing tidal power or another alernative which isn't unslightly as 100's of windmills. Maybe if they put them offshore 7 miles.
Twofiddy
02-22-2006, 12:27
I'm OK with nuclear power but I'd prefer it if they could find a way of harnessing tidal power or another alernative which isn't unslightly as 100's of windmills. Maybe if they put them offshore 7 miles.
OK 1 last tidbit...
I need to find the website that talks about tidal power and post the linky here. There is some great info there, but there is 1 problem. Hydro power is all about head, it is about how much force gravity can apply to water that is suspended in battery form. When the water is released, the number of feet that it drops creates the pressure needed to produce energy.
Tidal power would only see head changes of less than 10 feet is alot of circumstances. All the water in the world lifted up just ten measly feet is not going to create enough power to supply us. Most hydro plants that were designed for efficiecny in production of large amounts of power in mind have upwards of 100 feet of head or more.
Little dinky low head dam power plants dont make enough electricity to light up a small town.
I agree that money is involved in wind farming, like any other form of power whether it be hydro, nuclear, solar, coal/oil, natural gas and whatever else makes the meter spin. Most of us use electricity for everday living and cutting back is helpful. Reality is that the population is expanding in most areas of the U.S and Canada and new sources need to be developed to keep up demand. If we keep pouring coal and oil into the boilers the skies will continue to blacken with harmfull particles. Ever check out Vermont/NH Haze in the summer months? It's black haze.. not purple haze . I stood on Mt Equinox last summer and looking around was pretty disturbing. I dont't have all the answers..That's why I asked for your thoughts.
Woodsy
I agree that money is involved in wind farming, like any other form of power whether it be hydro, nuclear, solar, coal/oil, natural gas and whatever else makes the meter spin. Most of us use electricity for everday living and cutting back is helpful. Reality is that the population is expanding in most areas of the U.S and Canada and new sources need to be developed to keep up demand. If we keep pouring coal and oil into the boilers the skies will continue to blacken with harmfull particles. Ever check out Vermont/NH Haze in the summer months? It's black haze.. not purple haze . I stood on Mt Equinox last summer and looking around was pretty disturbing. I dont't have all the answers..That's why I asked for your thoughts.
WoodsyI have seen the haze looking out from the sierras like a purple haze,smog glaze:( ky
OK 1 last tidbit...
I need to find the website that talks about tidal power and post the linky here. There is some great info there, but there is 1 problem. Hydro power is all about head, it is about how much force gravity can apply to water that is suspended in battery form. When the water is released, the number of feet that it drops creates the pressure needed to produce energy.
Tidal power would only see head changes of less than 10 feet is alot of circumstances. All the water in the world lifted up just ten measly feet is not going to create enough power to supply us. Most hydro plants that were designed for efficiecny in production of large amounts of power in mind have upwards of 100 feet of head or more.
Little dinky low head dam power plants dont make enough electricity to light up a small town.
There's no magic energy bullet. Canada made a serious effort a few years ago to dam the northern end of the Bay of Fundy. A small pilot plant was built and promptly began chopping up fish in its turbines.
The Bay of Fundy is one of the most productive fisheries in the world. Environmental studies showed that by changing the tidal regime, much of that productivity would be destroyed. The bay has some of the highest tides in the world -- around 50 feet -- which is why it was so attractive for generating energy. But 50 foot tides produce great mud flats also. Other studies showed that northern birds use these flats to gain the protein needed for flights to winter ranges in South America. The conclusion? Millions would die. Some species seemed likely to become extinct.
More serious, scientists and mathemeticians began pondering why such high tides existed. There conclusion: The natural rhythm of the great and nearly enclosed water body bordered by the upper reaches of the Bay on the North, Cape Cod in the south, and shallow under water ledges to the east almost exactly matched the gravity pulls from the moon.
By cutting off the top of the bay with a tidal dam they figured the natural rhythm would be even closer to the pull of the moon -- making the tidal range even higher at both ends. I was the first to report the story. A mathematician from the University of Maine tipped me off on a canoe trip. He said the joke among Canadian researchers was that the tidal dam would result in the flooding of Logan Airport during monthly peak high tides, especially if coastal storms occurred at the same time.
I wrote the story for the tiny Maine paper I wroked for. The Boston Globe picked it up, and the tidal scheme was quietly dropped.
As for Redington, except for possibly Georgia, the trail from Gorham, NH through the Bigelows now ranks as about the wildest section of the AT. Until you reach the Sugarloaf Ski area, the only signs of civilization are the occasional house or corner of a town deep in the valleys and an occasional road crossing.
Redington would change all this. It would become instantly the section of the trail with massive industrial turbines 410-feet tall less than a mile away.
I believe in alternative enery. I just don't believe we need to damage the last of the world's wild places to achieve it. Surely a less damaging site can be found.
Weary
Just FYI, wet wood heat, is probably one of the worst forms of energy production other than burning garbage. It is not clean at all, combustion is usually never complete, wood heating devices like fireplaces and wood burning stoves are not efficient, they put more heat out the chimney than they leave in the house because of the draft that they pull, and unless you have a very expensive catalytic converter on your chimney that would need changed at least once every 24 months even in the south east united states, in order to be clean it is not cost effective either.
Dont get me wrong, we all enjoy the ambience of a fire place in PATC cabin or cooking over a camp fire on the trail. If everyone in america heated there home that way, you would not be able to breath on most of the AT. COAL is more than 1000 times cleaner than firewood, except for the heavy metals part.
Anybody with half a brain left knows wet wood doesn't heat worth beans.
Where did you say you was from?
Woodsy
saimyoji
02-22-2006, 18:21
Actually, the technology exists, though I'm not familiar with it, to cost effectively heat your home with a wood burning stove. There is some kind of indirect flue that channels the heat around the house but allows smoke and gasses to escape. It does require frequent cleaning, and it requires you to obtain (buy or cut down) the wood.
I have a friend at work that uses this to heat his house. He says the only expense he has is cleaning, as he harvests his own wood from a local lot. I think he said he burns about 4 cords each winter. Not sure about that though. He definately pays less to heat his home than I do (oil burner).
....wood heating devices like fireplaces and wood burning stoves are not efficient, they put more heat out the chimney than they leave in the house because of the draft that they pull, ....
That's true for fireplaces. I don't think it's true for most modern stoves. A lot of people in Maine heat their homes exclusively with wood stoves, which means some of the heat must remain inside.
I suspect early 1900s kitchen ranges may be the most efficient heating devices though I've never done any formal testing. With the draft closed all the energy in the exhaust has to circulate around five or six feet of a cast iron oven before escaping. It beats the heat exchanging surface of any modern stove. Anyway. It is what I now use for wood heat.
It supplements an array of solar devices on the south side (some call them windows) I call them passive solar collectors.
And yes I also burn 550 gallons of fuel oil to heat 3,600 square feet of house on a blustery midcoast Maine peninsula.
For 18 years or so, my supplement to the solar windows was a wood-burning boiler that claimed 90% efficiency. It burned dry cord wood under forced draft. The only escape for the draft was through a 2,000 degree F. firebox and into an array of heat exchangers. After the two or three minutes that it took to reach peak temperature, no smoke ever escaped from my chimney.
The heat generated was all piped into a thousand gallon tank of water. That water was circulated through the baseboard, not the heat directly from the boiler. The heat generating process was totally divorced from the heat distribution process. That meant I could fire it heavily on weekends and coast during the week. It took just a few minutes a day on average to keep my house as warm and at as constant a temperature as the most modern oil, gas or electric system.
Mine was one of six prototypes. Unfortunately, few were purchased after oil prices slumped after 1973-74 OPEC boycott and the company went out of business. My system needed a major rebuild after 18 years. Parts were no longer available. We were getting older. So we reluctantly switched back to an oil boiler.
WEary
Tha Wookie
02-22-2006, 18:55
I use a wood stove. Heats very well. The passive solar design of the farm house helps tremendously.
You know how much we pay? Not a nickle. Considering the fact that we hardly even use the stove due to the house design, we pollute far less air than what our property's trees clean every day.
I found it really funny to hear Bush talk about the potential for homes to be covered in solar panels to be their own little power stations. Where has he been? If we could get the tax breaks and subsidies that loggin, oil, and mining companies get to supply our own solar power, then we wouldn't need them. It's kind of like: If our teachers were paid as well as our military, we wouldn't need as much military. It's smarter from start to finish.
I use a wood stove. Heats very well. The passive solar design of the farm house helps tremendously.
You know how much we pay? Not a nickle. Considering the fact that we hardly even use the stove due to the house design, we pollute far less air than what our property's trees clean every day.
I found it really funny to hear Bush talk about the potential for homes to be covered in solar panels to be their own little power stations. Where has he been? If we could get the tax breaks and subsidies that loggin, oil, and mining companies get to supply our own solar power, then we wouldn't need them. It's kind of like: If our teachers were paid as well as our military, we wouldn't need as much military. It's smarter from start to finish. well said wookie:banana ky
No Oil In my house thank you, Wood is the choice of heat here. Till the day I die' we will burn dry wood . It comes from the back 20 acres and is cut 1 year ahead of time. Passive solar compliments the wood heat and we only burn 3-4 cord per year. Is that polluting the world? Don't think so.
woodsy
icemanat95
02-22-2006, 20:06
I have excellent Southern Exposure at my house and am now actively considering converting a lot of my home heating, hot water, etc. to Solar. I may even put up some solar for power generation, but I have to see how the dollars and cents play out. I'd like to get completely off the grid power and heat wise sometime in the near future.
The fact of the matter is that it is not too far out of reach. At some point in the future, combinations of solar power, wind power, geothermal heat storage, etc. will become very common for detached housing in the US. Building solar panels into roofing systems and setting up windows that can selectively filter solar heating so that in the Winter, solar energy is passed through the windows, while in the Summer it is kept out. All this stuff is technically possible today, but financially out of reach. As fuel prices continue to rise, the costs will seem a heck of a lot more attractive and the higher production values and competition in these markets will drive down prices a bit. Governmental support in terms of substantial tax credits to encourage implementation and use of these technologies would also go a long way toward getting people to implement them.
Twofiddy
02-23-2006, 00:22
Anybody with half a brain left knows wet wood doesn't heat worth beans.
Where did you say you was from?
Woodsy
Wood even if it is "dried" or "seasoned" is still a large percentage of water that intefears with its ability to fully combust. That is why the used to make chared coal out of wood, to remove the water from it and create a fuel that would burn much hotter for blacksmith work. That was before the times of some what productive coal mining. I was not talking about burning soaking wet wood.
Twofiddy
02-23-2006, 00:27
Actually, the technology exists, though I'm not familiar with it, to cost effectively heat your home with a wood burning stove. There is some kind of indirect flue that channels the heat around the house but allows smoke and gasses to escape. It does require frequent cleaning, and it requires you to obtain (buy or cut down) the wood.
I have a friend at work that uses this to heat his house. He says the only expense he has is cleaning, as he harvests his own wood from a local lot. I think he said he burns about 4 cords each winter. Not sure about that though. He definately pays less to heat his home than I do (oil burner).
I agree with you 100% that wood is cheap. As cheap as it is, and as efficient of a system that you may have, it still pollutes the air much worse than any coal, or heating oil, or natural gas system would under normal circumstances.
Wood stoves may provide great amounts of heat for little cost, but if everyone used one instead of another kind of furnace, we would already be dead from poor air quality.
Twofiddy
02-23-2006, 00:29
That's true for fireplaces. I don't think it's true for most modern stoves. A lot of people in Maine heat their homes exclusively with wood stoves, which means some of the heat must remain inside.
I suspect early 1900s kitchen ranges may be the most efficient heating devices though I've never done any formal testing. With the draft closed all the energy in the exhaust has to circulate around five or six feet of a cast iron oven before escaping. It beats the heat exchanging surface of any modern stove. Anyway. It is what I now use for wood heat.
It supplements an array of solar devices on the south side (some call them windows) I call them passive solar collectors.
And yes I also burn 550 gallons of fuel oil to heat 3,600 square feet of house on a blustery midcoast Maine peninsula.
For 18 years or so, my supplement to the solar windows was a wood-burning boiler that claimed 90% efficiency. It burned dry cord wood under forced draft. The only escape for the draft was through a 2,000 degree F. firebox and into an array of heat exchangers. After the two or three minutes that it took to reach peak temperature, no smoke ever escaped from my chimney.
The heat generated was all piped into a thousand gallon tank of water. That water was circulated through the baseboard, not the heat directly from the boiler. The heat generating process was totally divorced from the heat distribution process. That meant I could fire it heavily on weekends and coast during the week. It took just a few minutes a day on average to keep my house as warm and at as constant a temperature as the most modern oil, gas or electric system.
Mine was one of six prototypes. Unfortunately, few were purchased after oil prices slumped after 1973-74 OPEC boycott and the company went out of business. My system needed a major rebuild after 18 years. Parts were no longer available. We were getting older. So we reluctantly switched back to an oil boiler.
WEary
Sounds like a great system. There are very efficient wood setups out there like this. Many people in very cold, very wooded areas use them, and they are great, but really, we are talking about so few people here that it almost does not make a difference.
Twofiddy
02-23-2006, 00:32
I use a wood stove. Heats very well. The passive solar design of the farm house helps tremendously.
You know how much we pay? Not a nickle. Considering the fact that we hardly even use the stove due to the house design, we pollute far less air than what our property's trees clean every day.
I found it really funny to hear Bush talk about the potential for homes to be covered in solar panels to be their own little power stations. Where has he been? If we could get the tax breaks and subsidies that loggin, oil, and mining companies get to supply our own solar power, then we wouldn't need them. It's kind of like: If our teachers were paid as well as our military, we wouldn't need as much military. It's smarter from start to finish.
Again, I agree that a wood stove heats well, I have one. I use it on the coldest few days of the year here in PA to cut my own heating bill and to enjoy the ambience of the orange glow it puts off. But it is still bad for the environment. The flu gasses are dirty and the over all efficency of the thing when you look at heat created, retained, vs pollution emitted, vs cost, there are serious things to conisder.
Twofiddy
02-23-2006, 00:33
No Oil In my house thank you, Wood is the choice of heat here. Till the day I die' we will burn dry wood . It comes from the back 20 acres and is cut 1 year ahead of time. Passive solar compliments the wood heat and we only burn 3-4 cord per year. Is that polluting the world? Don't think so.
woodsy
Nothing that any 1 individual does pollutes the world. The world is polluting it self, and every day that affects every 1 individual.
Twofiddy
02-23-2006, 00:38
And just since I decided to come here and rant again on this subject.
Dominion Virginia Power's number 1 electrical customer is WestVaco Paper Mill in rural Virginia near Allegheny and Buena Vista near I81 and I64 Junction.
They use 1 million dollars worth of electricity there every single day. They actually have electrical holidays at the plant, mostly in the summer, when the load demand in the region is to high due to heat, they give the employees days off work to conserve power.
1 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY.
I was surfing the billing system one night at work looking for big customer and I almost gagged when I saw the bill. I had to ask some one if it was correct and got busted for snooping around.
Think about that the next time that you use nine sheet to wipe your arse.
Twofiddy
02-23-2006, 00:44
I dont usually rant on this site because you guys are all my customer and fellow hikers, but I struggle with this subject every single day in my own life.
Use energy or not?
I try in every way not to.
I refill my coffee cups (its been 2 years since I used a foam cup)
I try to drink beverages that are not in plastic bottles or metal cans like water with a lemon wedge or lime wedge or orange wedge to conserve on cans. I use canvas bags when I goto the grocery store even if they dont give me 5cents per bag, or if I do take plastic I re-use it to put the small amounts of house hold garbage in them that I make. I compost all organtic waste in my back yard that my dog can not eat, and when shopping I consider the packaging that an item comes in. It kills me to buy thousands of business cards for my business because I know that 90% of them will wind up in the trash, but I need the other 10% to stay in business.
I just wish that more people would consider the energy consumption that they create.
I have excellent Southern Exposure at my house and am now actively considering converting a lot of my home heating, hot water, etc. to Solar. I may even put up some solar for power generation, but I have to see how the dollars and cents play out. I'd like to get completely off the grid power and heat wise sometime in the near future.
The fact of the matter is that it is not too far out of reach. At some point in the future, combinations of solar power, wind power, geothermal heat storage, etc. will become very common for detached housing in the US. Building solar panels into roofing systems and setting up windows that can selectively filter solar heating so that in the Winter, solar energy is passed through the windows, while in the Summer it is kept out. All this stuff is technically possible today, but financially out of reach. As fuel prices continue to rise, the costs will seem a heck of a lot more attractive and the higher production values and competition in these markets will drive down prices a bit. Governmental support in terms of substantial tax credits to encourage implementation and use of these technologies would also go a long way toward getting people to implement them.
It's much simpler than people think. I figure 40 percent of my energy needs come from the sun. None of which cost me anything. I just designed my house so that most of a skimpy complement of windows are on the south. The sun is high in the summer causing the heat from the sun to bounce off the glass; low in winter, when the heat shines directly through the glass to provide warmth.
Spring and summer sometimes cause a problem. I'd like more heat from the sun on a few chilly June days; less some bright sunny fall days.
It's a hard concept to get people to accept. But the key to low cost/no cost solar gain is fewer south-facing windows, not more. Amateur designers figure that if some windows provide useful warmth, more windows will provide more. Not so. More windows allow more energy to escape at night, and more overheating during the day time.
Yes. There are ways to store daytime heat. But they are both costly and inconvenient.
Weary
Again, I agree that a wood stove heats well, I have one. I use it on the coldest few days of the year here in PA to cut my own heating bill and to enjoy the ambience of the orange glow it puts off. But it is still bad for the environment. The flu gasses are dirty and the over all efficency of the thing when you look at heat created, retained, vs pollution emitted, vs cost, there are serious things to conisder.
The gases (pollution) produced by burning are identical to the gases emitted by the eventual decay of the wood -- and all wood eventually decays. Therefore burning wood does not contribute to greenhouse gases. Wood remains cheaper than oil and is renewable.
Yes, the exception, of course, is the fine particles in smoke, which are unhealthy to breathe. But these are controlable in a good stove, properly operated.
Weary
mambo_tango
02-23-2006, 02:21
I am all for alternative energy sources. Some neigbors of mine have a small wind mill and some solar panels and they manage quite well with the electricity they get (they even have a computer lol). I was thinking today that it seems almost impossible to change the way America thinks about conservation (if any of them think of it at all). I am not an all-out enviromentalist but I do believe in stewardship. It is my duty to take care of what I can and support what I think is efficient and wisely planned. Hopefully America will figure out that consuming so much of our resources will only end in disaster before it is too late.
mambo_tango
02-23-2006, 02:23
(if any of them think of it at all)
Sorry- I should of said 'some' instead of 'any' - that was a little rude:D
Build them.
This is from the man that wants to tear down all the shelters. Replace an enviromently friendly shelter with a 300 foot tall lighted spinning bird and bat eating monster. At the Redington project the California developer has announced that the wind farm will be off limits to the public. At least if Lone Wolf could sleep under the turbine he could eat the dead robins that fall to the ground when the blades hit them. Wind is good but not on the AT and not at Redington where the wind farm will force closure of a very enviromently friendly biomass plant in near by Eustis. There is no market for the surplus power in western Maine. It is being built for tax credits. It would better serve the enviroment if it were built near a metropolitan area like the the mountains north of New York City or off the coast of southern New England. The reason it is proposed for Redington is the mountain ridge was for sale cheap and the developer saw a chance to make a profit with a minimum real estate investment.
Of course Redington is very close to The Crockers and the developer that wants to build it is a member of the Maine Applachian trail Club. Where it is so close to Redington perhaps we could get Harley, the developer, to run a short line over to the low spot between the Crockers and we could build a new shelter with electric heat, lights, a TV dish and internet connection. We could also provide lighting on several miles of trail to accomidate night hiking. If we can't preserve the wilderness experience of the trail we should bring in whatever technology provides for comfort of the next generation of hiker.
Hey Moxie 00, neighbor,
I have to wonder just how friendly that Biomass plant in stratton is.
Obviously we have both spent a fair amount of time hiking in that area.
I am not sure what all is fed into that boiler but many days there is a green cloud hanging over the area. Have you seen this and do you know what causes it? It's kinda eerie.
woodsy
If we're building turbines on high places, why not on the tops of buildings?
Seems a better way to go to me.
http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/05-6om/Weil_FT.html
This is an article outlining the forefront of the urban wind industry. It's a bit long, but interesting if you like that sort of thing.
About the Redington/Black Nubble Wind Power Proposal from the MATC Wind Power Committee
First MATC has never taken a position against all wind power development. The Club is opposed to this particular development because of its location in the heart of one of the finest wild mountain complexes in the Eastern United States. Industrial development of any kind simply does not belong on the summits and high ridges of Redington (a 4000-footer) and its near neighbor, Black Nubble.
Visual Problems with the Proposed Generating Facilities
1) The Enormous Size of the towers. Each of the thirty proposed towers with their rotating blades will stand over 400 feet high, about as tall as a forty-story building.
2) The proximity of these towers to the Appalachian Trail. The closest tower will be a bit less than one mile from the trail corridor on South Crocker Mtn. The facilities as a whole will be visible from numerous points along twenty miles of the Trail (as well as from many other scenic locations throughout Franklin County).
3) Strong "flicker" from the rotating blades by day and glare from red blinking beacons by night will destroy the wild and beautiful mountain realm. The night stars will have substantial competition. The huge spinning blades will produce a flickering reflection of the sun that will call attention to them from miles away. The same will be true of the red lights (required to warn pilots) that will be visible for miles at night. They will let all know that these are no longer wild lands.
Environmental Problems with the Proposed Plant
1) Damage to the environment from road building. Eleven and a half miles of wide, heavy gravel roads (capable of accommodating long trailer trucks, cement trucks, and other large equipment) will have to be constructed up steep, wooded mountainsides and through the fragile boreal forest on the ridges. A great deal of blasting and bulldozing will be necessary.
2) Blasting and Drilling will be necessary to anchor the turbine towers deep in the rock of the ridges and large concrete pads will have to be poured. Approximately 3/4 of an acre of fragile mountain top forest will have to be clear cut around each of the 30 bases for construction and maintenance. Trucks and other vehicles will be prominently visible and easily heard moving along the high mountain ridge lines.
3) Harm to birds and bats. The 150-foot blades will produce blade tip speeds of up to 204 mph. Bird and bat kill cannot be estimated until the results of studies have come in, but there will certainly be some degree of kill, including eagles, other raptors, neo-tropical songbirds, and perhaps large numbers of bats. The higher elevations of Redington and Black Nubble provide habitat for the rare Bicknell’s thrush which, of course, will be forced out.
4) A 150-foot wide right of way for a transmission line will have to be cleared from a point near the tops of the mountains all the way to Route 27, a distance of more than ten miles. This line will pass through the relatively wild area north of the Crockers and will involve a significant fragmentation of the habitat for wildlife.
5) The Facility will produce few environmental benefits to balance these damages. Contrary to the developer’s claims, there will be no significant reduction of air pollution or greenhouse gases in Maine as a result of the Redington/Black Nubble project. The fossil fuel plants that may be cut back in Maine, because of the introduction of wind power, will not be dirty coal or oil plants as we have very few of these, but rather relatively clean natural gas plants.
6) Even these gas plants will not be cut back much. Because wind power is unreliable (depending on whether the wind blows), it is likely that the gas plants will have to be kept running in order to supply back-up electricity at a moment’s notice when the wind falls. As a result those “throttled back”gas plants may not reduce their fuel use or their emissions to any significant degree. In any case, the developer’s own optimistic projection of the emissions his plant will prevent–600, 000 pounds per day--comes to only a tiny fraction of 1% of daily emission in the United States, and less than half of 1% daily emissions in Maine.
3) Maine’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (a state planning goal) requires that 30% of our electricity come from renewable sources. This is the highest amount in the nation, and one of the reasons that we have some of the most expensive electricity in the nation. Moreover, Maine already possesses enough renewable generating capacity to provide far more than the required goal of 30%. As a result, if the Redington wind facility was built and added to the mix, it could end up displacing other renewable sources such as the Stratton biomass plant. There can be no certainty about this at the moment, but it is a serious possibility.
4) Maine already has nearly twice the electrical generating capacity (from all sources) as it consumes, so the Redington/Black Nubble plant will not fill any need for new power in our state.
5) Taxpayer subsidizing of wind power. Everyone should be aware that one of the main reasons wind plant proposals are so common now is not their environmental usefulness but rather the fact that they are vehicles for federal tax sheltering. Wind power developers profit from a rapid depreciation allowance–60% of capital costs in the first year--and from a very generous production tax credit of 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour.
Finally, and most important, the common sense suggests that building a huge industrial complex of any kind on the tops of Maine mountains makes no sense. This is especially true because if Redington is approved, this project may be only the first of many such intrusions into our high mountains, destroying what we treasure and what is becoming increasingly rare in our crowded world.
To help stop this project, please speak pointedly and often to explain why it makes no sense. It would be especially useful to talk with local, county, and state officials as well as elected representatives.
MATC Wind Power Committee
The committee is assembling a $50,000 war chest to fight the project. Contributions can be sent to Barbara Clark, PO Box 1256, Auburn, Maine 04211. Send checks to MATC. Put “Redington” on the envelope or on your check to ensure your donation will go to the right MATC account.
Weary
TJ aka Teej
02-23-2006, 16:43
Be sure to let us know when the LURC public hearings are announced, Weary. I like the 'on top of buildings' idea - they'd look great in Bar Harbor, on Munjoy Hill or looping around Baxter Boulevard, don't you think?
Be sure to let us know when the LURC public hearings are announced, Weary. I like the 'on top of buildings' idea - they'd look great in Bar Harbor, on Munjoy Hill or looping around Baxter Boulevard, don't you think?
All are better than Redington. But there is also a mile-long, state-owned island a quarter mile across the bay from my house. I would much prefer an array of wind towers there than on Redington and Black Nubble.
There is also a church with an 80-foot steeple a little less than a mile from my living room window. Whenever I look out I am reminded of the terrible lie the developer is promulgating.
Alleged photo simulations circulated by the developer to get hikers to agree that the towers would have no visual impact show fuzzy gray streaks where the towers would be installed. Yet the steeple, just a fifth as high, dominates my view. The human eye and a photograph never perceive the same thing, as every thru hiker taking pictures of landscapes surely knows.
Weary
Twofiddy
02-23-2006, 23:43
The gases (pollution) produced by burning are identical to the gases emitted by the eventual decay of the wood -- and all wood eventually decays. Therefore burning wood does not contribute to greenhouse gases. Wood remains cheaper than oil and is renewable.
Yes, the exception, of course, is the fine particles in smoke, which are unhealthy to breathe. But these are controlable in a good stove, properly operated.
Weary
While the first part of this statement is true to some extent, the decay of wood does not cause smog or smoke, and it does not cause a cloud of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide to loom over a valley where a house is burning wood. The problem with wood is the temperature at which it is burned. Unless you have one of the aforementioned awesome geothermal systems that is super efficient and nearly every drop of heat is transferred over to the water that heats the space, then burning of wood causes more pollution than any of the other fuels.
Twofiddy
02-23-2006, 23:44
I am all for alternative energy sources. Some neigbors of mine have a small wind mill and some solar panels and they manage quite well with the electricity they get (they even have a computer lol). I was thinking today that it seems almost impossible to change the way America thinks about conservation (if any of them think of it at all). I am not an all-out enviromentalist but I do believe in stewardship. It is my duty to take care of what I can and support what I think is efficient and wisely planned. Hopefully America will figure out that consuming so much of our resources will only end in disaster before it is too late.
I think that we would have a better chance of just consuming every damn last drop of avaliable energy resources that we have right now, so then we will be able to design better more efficient ways to harness energy today.
While the first part of this statement is true to some extent, the decay of wood does not cause smog or smoke, and it does not cause a cloud of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide to loom over a valley where a house is burning wood. The problem with wood is the temperature at which it is burned. Unless you have one of the aforementioned awesome geothermal systems that is super efficient and nearly every drop of heat is transferred over to the water that heats the space, then burning of wood causes more pollution than any of the other fuels.
Your right. These are complicated matters. But I didn't want to write a book about the subject on this forum.
I did write a book on the subject 25 years ago, which I offered free on this and another forum. A few took me up on it. Conservation is the most critical part of any heating system. Common sense comes second.
The most polluting form of wood heat is the attempt to make a fire last all night, which requires the wood to be burned in the absence of much oxygen, i.e. in the ways that generate maximum CO2 and CO.
On sunny days my solar windows gather all the heat my house needs. Often there is enough extra to allow me to coast through to bedtime without a fire, though the bit extra that escapes from cooking supper helps.
Cold and stormy days require a day long fire -- or in my case several short bursts of fire, partly by design, and partly because I'm usually bustling around doing things and forget to put another stick in the stove.
Weary
tlbj6142
02-24-2006, 12:57
3) Harm to birds and bats. The 150-foot blades will produce blade tip speeds of up to 204 mph. Bird and bat kill cannot be estimated until the results of studies have come inDon't under estimate the damage to bats (though I'm not sure there are that many bats in ME). I have been following the windmill issue in WV in the monthly newspaper I get from WV Highlands (http://www.wvhighlands.org/). While they originally thought the bird kill was a bigger issue, they soon discoverd that bird kill was less than what is caused by a typical "tall" building. However, the bat kill is very signifcant. And has been the primary focus of all further studies. Unfortunately, bats are not "purdy" so they don't get much public support. Even though they eat an ungodly amount of bugs every night.
It might be worth checking out the information that WV Highlands has collected on their windmill studies. I think there is a link somewhere on their site. If not, contact them directly.
Also, you didn't mention the annoying hum and swoosh you hear from the blades if you are "near" them. Its far more noticable than you might expect. I hiked past a much smaller windmill in western PA a couple of years ago, and it was quite loud.
i have worked in both residential and industrial sized wind and pv (solar) projects for the last 7 years. i have also hiked the appalachian trail. one thing is for sure. both are needed. there are many wind sites being studied right now in the northeast, as a matter of fact 11 sites were studied just last fall. the "maine" wind power of concern, redington, is going to go up. i personally much prefer wind power there than a ski resort or a clear cut for private industry. i know we've gone on about this subject on another thread, so i'll reiterate what i said there. wind power is not solely an AT issue if it is brought to the forum as an AT issue, it undermines it's importance to the rest of the country, which maybe why the AT lost the battle of redington.
Some wind farms are proposed for different areas of the Appalachain Mtns up and down the East. Some of these mtns. provide adequate annual wind speeds For wind turbines to operate efficiently. In the northeast, 1 small wind farm operates in SW Vermont. Two other farms are proposed for Equinox in VT and Reddington in Maine. This is not new news to many of you but would like to hear hikers current thoughts on this issue.
Thanks for your comments
woodsy
"would like to hear hikers current thoughts on this issue"
Some of you managed to slip in organizations thoughts here and that is not what the thread was meant for. I respect what MATC does for the trail and hikers as well as the ATC. What I am hoping to find out is whether or not the ATC/MATC agenda is represenative of hikers thoughts on this issue.
Thanks for your cooperation
woodsy
....i personally much prefer wind power there than a ski resort or a clear cut for private industry. i know we've gone on about this subject on another thread, so i'll reiterate what i said there. wind power is not solely an AT issue if it is brought to the forum as an AT issue, it undermines it's importance to the rest of the country, which maybe why the AT lost the battle of redington.
All your assumptions are wrong. Ski areas all through the northeast are closing, not being developed.
There are no new clearcuts on high mountains of Maine. Maine law forbids all serious timber harvesting above 2,700 feet.
The AT has not YET lost the battle. The application has only this month been deemed "complete" enough to even be considered. The hearings are still a couple of months away.
The battle is just getting underway, though I agree that chances of defeating the measure is weakened if we can't even get trail "supporters" to understand the issue.
Weary
"would like to hear hikers current thoughts on this issue"
Some of you managed to slip in organizations thoughts here and that is not what the thread was meant for. I respect what MATC does for the trail and hikers as well as the ATC. What I am hoping to find out is whether or not the ATC/MATC agenda is represenative of hikers thoughts on this issue.
Thanks for your cooperation
woodsy
Well, the proposed developer has said MATC is out of touch with its membership. He has shown photo simulations of what he says the towers will look like to hikers and claims most see no problem.
I explained some posts ago why such simulations are always wrong. If you can't find it, let me know and I'll try again.
But regardless of the simulations, MATC is a tiny club. We have just 600 members, of which a 100 or so are hardcore. The rest come and go and constribute their $15 dues but otherwise we rarely hear from them.
I know all the leaders personally. All have either spent years working to protect the trail in Maine or are active maintainers of the trail in Maine. AT maintenance in Maine isn't easy. We have to sometimes hike miles just to reach our sections -- sections that range between two and six miles in length.
I've been associated with and observed scores of orgasnizations over the years. I doubt if there is any group anywhere, where a relative handful of active members do more solid work year after year.
MATC has around 20 members on its executive committee. It's a diverse group, dedicated to making the trail in Maine the best they can achieve.
We meet five times a year, including an all day planning meeting each January. It's not a recreational organization. All we do is maintain trail. Our only social activity is an annual pot luck supper (tomorrow evening by happenstance. My beef and noodle concoction is cooking on my wood stove as I write) and even then we have speakers reminding us of the critical issues facing the trail.
When the issue of Redington came up several years ago, the vote was unanimous to oppose the construction and to appropriate $25,000 of very scarce funds to finance the experts needed to make our voices heard.
These are the people who spend many days a year devoted to maintaining the trail and raising the money needed for professional trail crew leaders and lean-to caretakers, and Baxter Park and gulf hagas ridgerunners.
They are far more qualified to judge the impact of this giant industrial development less than a mile from the trail, than a casual hiker, passing by, often for the first time, and looking at doctored photographs.
Weary
TJ aka Teej
02-24-2006, 18:38
What I am hoping to find out is whether or not the ATC/MATC agenda is represenative of hikers thoughts on this issue.
This hiker's agenda is well represented by the MATC position as articulated by Weary.
Twofiddy
02-24-2006, 19:33
i have worked in both residential and industrial sized wind and pv (solar) projects for the last 7 years. i have also hiked the appalachian trail. one thing is for sure. both are needed. there are many wind sites being studied right now in the northeast, as a matter of fact 11 sites were studied just last fall. the "maine" wind power of concern, redington, is going to go up. i personally much prefer wind power there than a ski resort or a clear cut for private industry. i know we've gone on about this subject on another thread, so i'll reiterate what i said there. wind power is not solely an AT issue if it is brought to the forum as an AT issue, it undermines it's importance to the rest of the country, which maybe why the AT lost the battle of redington.
I am against a number of the places that the ATC and other organizations have tried to close like saddleback mountain and other places.
I am against this wind farm, not only because I am a hiker and because it is going to be near the AT, but because Wind Farming is a JOKE, on the hottest blistering humid sweltering dog days of summer, wind does not blow, and that is when we need the most electricity to run everyones air conditioner. I have hiked past the wind farms on the Laurel Highlands trail in PA and they are loud and noisy and the small wind farm does not produce enough electiricty to light a small town like Uniontown PA.
When you look at the pros cons benifits rewards and consequences of a ridge top windfarm espicially the one in Maine, Wind Farming is a JOKE. It all about tax credits, pollution control credits, and corporate america making money of the backs of regular Americans.
STOP BUILDING WIND FARMS!! START BUILDING NUKE PLANTS!!
Windfarming subsidies are WELFARE for the RICH
TJ aka Teej
02-24-2006, 19:38
I am against a number of the places that the ATC and other organizations have tried to close like saddleback mountain and other places.
Neither the ATC nor the MATC tried to close Saddleback.
Twofiddy
02-24-2006, 19:43
Well, the proposed developer has said MATC is out of touch with its membership. He has shown photo simulations of what he says the towers will look like to hikers and claims most see no problem.
These are the people who spend many days a year devoted to maintaining the trail and raising the money needed for professional trail crew leaders and lean-to caretakers, and Baxter Park and gulf hagas ridgerunners.
They are far more qualified to judge the impact of this giant industrial development less than a mile from the trail, than a casual hiker, passing by, often for the first time, and looking at doctored photographs.
Weary
Weary,
This is 100% accurate, and it has to be the best arguement agains the windfarm that exists. Every single hiker, except the one that works on wind turbines for a living that might like to live in or near the Maine project, is against this project when you consider the consequences. The land near the AT in Maine is some of the most remote, due the large tracts of undeveloped land, lack of paved roads, donut shops, and gas stations, the land there is not worth much the the deep pocket wall streeters and the suburban american howmuchamonthers...
That is why we are in the battle. The land near our trail in Maine is Cheap.
I would love to come to Maine and speak at the Hearings on behalf of 1 of the other trail organizations, to bring the view from another region to the table, and to present facts about the energy industry that people need to hear on the record.
There are a million other places in Maine where the wind blows.
I'd be 100% in favor of a wind farm on the ridge top in Palmerton PA where the superfund project is at. It would be a way to bring in some kind of developement that might actually help the pollution problem there.
Ok enough babble
Twofiddy
02-24-2006, 19:47
Neither the ATC nor the MATC tried to close Saddleback.
Let me re-state my statement, since I realize it sounds un-educated on the subject...
Saddleback closed because of bad business by its ownership.
Agencies worked to purchase and or trade for some of its land in order to protect the wilderness area that surrounds the resort and to lock any future mountain top developement or back side mountain developement from taking place.
Saddleback was a good thing for Raingly and other towns in souther main, and other than a chair lift or 2 and a gondola, any skiing there, and lower mountain developement, was not going to change the veiw shed much, or and any more pollution to the enviroment than any other ski area does.
Many parties including goverment and non-profit, worked to secure the trail corridor in that area and worked on the land sale/swap.
Twofiddy
02-24-2006, 19:51
Common sense comes second.
Weary
This is 100% true statement.
Most people must have been so excited to come out of the woomb when they are issued a life, they ran off without being issued there common sense.
I think I stayed around long enough to get about half of mine.
Twofiddy, have another drink... Saddleback is up and operating better then ever and it's in western Maine not suthen maine.
woodsy
weary, you're right. but the project is predicted to go forward. maybe i was wrong to use ski resorts as an example because it made you miss the point. the land is/was for sale. (the point is if a conservation organization wasn't able to buy the land, the private seller then opts to sell his private land elsewhere to whomever he chooses whether the AT likes it or not). the wind company in question here has very good reason to go forward, this is not the first time a wind farm has been opposed and redington is definately not the most fiercly opposed wind site ever either. other than here on whiteblaze. weary, please don't get me wrong. i personally would like to see it elsewhere.
two fiddy, sorry dude but the argument for tax cuts is pretty weak, just ask any energy industry if they get tax cuts. The oil industry would silently pat you on the back for that one. as for you're love of nuclear energy, i'd like to remind you that no matter how "safe" they have made the production. there is still a waste product associated with it, they try to dress that up too but it's not good. i promise.
"making this solely an argument based on the AT really undermines it's importance to the rest of the country"
however, since this is whiteblaze "a community of appalachian trail enthusiasts" i'll stop posting on this subject cause all i'm doing is aggravating it. sorry.
Twofiddy, have another drink... Saddleback is up and operating better then ever and it's in western Maine not suthen maine.
woodsy
Techically true. But Saddleback, which had been purchased many years ago by a chemist associated with some outfit to the south, spent almost nothing on maintenance or development of the area.
Some of us suspect he simply wanted to cash in on the then new effort to acquire a trail corridor. If so, he succeeded. The settlement he achieved without any appraisals by working the political process, was outrageous.
But past is past. We are now facing an even more enormous threat. Please contribute to the effort. We need many thousands of dollars more. We especially need contributions of $500, $1,000, $10,000 and higher. But every penny helps. Both because many pennies quickly grow to many dollars, and, because evidence that many concerned people are contributing, will help persuade the regulatory agencies.
Weary
In California, especially seen from the PCT, they suck big time. Someone needs to harness the waves from the ocean and convert this energy to power. I know its been tried and failed but maybe one day. Also, nukes of any kind suck worse than anything including pollution generators like oil and coal plants. Oh well, I guess when they figure out what to do with old car tires, they'll have an answer.
"making this solely an argument based on the AT really undermines it's importance to the rest of the country"
however, since this is whiteblaze "a community of appalachian trail enthusiasts" i'll stop posting on this subject cause all i'm doing is aggravating it. sorry.
Me too, Questionare turned fund raiser. It's all yours
woodsy
Twofiddy
02-25-2006, 01:16
Twofiddy, have another drink... Saddleback is up and operating better then ever and it's in western Maine not suthen maine.
woodsy
It is not the same as it was before.
There might be a ski area there, but in no way is it the ski area that used to be there. If I was to goto Maine for a ski trip. I would goto Sunday River and Sugarbush before going to Saddleback.
mambo_tango
02-25-2006, 01:20
I think that we would have a better chance of just consuming every damn last drop of avaliable energy resources that we have right now, so then we will be able to design better more efficient ways to harness energy today.
The only problem is men can be greedy...war anyone? I think ideally (sigh) people need to straighten out before that all goes down.
Twofiddy
02-25-2006, 01:23
.
two fiddy, sorry dude but the argument for tax cuts is pretty weak, just ask any energy industry if they get tax cuts. The oil industry would silently pat you on the back for that one. as for you're love of nuclear energy, i'd like to remind you that no matter how "safe" they have made the production. there is still a waste product associated with it, they try to dress that up too but it's not good. i promise.
I would rather have a large concrete container in the ground a mile from my house that is holding the nuclear waste fuel rods that have trillions and trillions of tons of coal burning every year spewing pollutants into the atmosphere.
Wind power in theory for an energy concious society is a great thing. However we are not an energy concious society. They can make coal plants with scrubbers on the stacks that cause virtually no pollution at all. They dont do it because of the expense, so they build wind farms to score pollution control credits to shift over to the other dirty coal plants. The wind has been blowing around the face of the planet for millions of years. If wind power was a good thing, trust me every place the wind blows on the face of the earth people would have wind mills. They dont because it is not efficient, or reliable, and when you need the power most, the wind is not blowing.
Twofiddy
02-25-2006, 01:31
In California, especially seen from the PCT, they suck big time.
Did you know that the US Goverment actually built some of those wind farms out there to study wind power many years ago. The department of energy actually owned the wind mills.
They gave them away to So-Cal Edison and other electrical companies in California because they were determined to be a wast of money to continue to operate. As in not profitable.
Everyone is missing the big point here. We need smart energy solutions. We need ways to make electricity on the hottest days of the year when weather is stagnent and no wind is blowing. That power, is not going to come from Wind Mills. It must come from clean combustion, or Nuclear Power. They can build breeder reactors that have no waste, rather the byproduct is more fuel. The problem with them is that the reaction can be tweaked to create WMD nukes.
Twofiddy
02-25-2006, 01:31
Does anyone have the linky to where you can donate to fighting this cause??
Tha Wookie
02-25-2006, 03:33
Does anyone have the linky to where you can donate to fighting this cause??
Look back to Weary's post.
Does anyone have the linky to where you can donate to fighting this cause??
The committee is assembling a $50,000 war chest to fight the project. Contributions can be sent to Barbara Clark, PO Box 1256, Auburn, Maine 04211. Make out the checks to MATC. Put “Redington” on the envelope or on your check to ensure your donation will go to the right MATC account.
I've been trying to get a website where contributions can be made for a month. But this is a volunteer effort. Everyone is scrambling to find technical experts to testify at a fair price, talking with lawyers and regulatory agencies and recruiting money from possible major contributors and arguing with other environmental groups to help.
Not everything gets done at once.
Weary
i hope you are able to purcahse the land near the AT so the wind towers don't go up in a place that disrupts magnificent views from saddleback. i would contribute but it would be a difference in interest at the workplace.
two fiddy, i hate seeing bad information being tossed around. it makes uneducated people repeat it and then it becomes more like a virus than anything. as far as your support goes for all things non-renewable:
nuclear: remember love canal and the cement containers they had? i'd love it if you personally volunteered to have them all a mile from your house.
coal scrub stacks: are a great improvement, yes, but not zero pollution producers
government wind power: it was sold as not because it was "not profitable" it was "not profitable enough" for a government's department of energy. there are several reasons for this but if you look into profitablity of the actual sale and also take in other reasons such as government profitablity with oil at the time, you might be able to understand the process a little more.
just a question, two fiddy, do you really care where wind generators are proposed to go up? or does it annoy you that they are being built in general?
Twofiddy
02-26-2006, 10:20
just a question, two fiddy, do you really care where wind generators are proposed to go up? or does it annoy you that they are being built in general?
I am not going to say that I am 100% anti-wind power.
I am just looking at what the needs are, and wind power is not a favorable choice to serve the needs.
The popular choice now to serve the needs is building natural gas turbines that are being pitched to many localaties as only being used when needed kind of things. Then what we are finding is that they find excuses to run them all the time and the government lets them by re-writing the laws on state and local levels to allow these "temporary use" power plants to run all the time. This in turn drives the prices of natural gas through the roof that the rest of America uses to heat there homes and cook with.
I am against the Wind Farm near the AT. I am against Wind Farms that are not placed in lets say, "blighted" locations. For an example. I would be in favor of Wind Farms being placed on the summit of every single reclaimed mining site, in the state of West Virginia. The landscape is already destroyed, and it would be another way to genererate Revenue. It might also be a way to generate funds to help re-claim some of the other mine pits that exist. West Virginia would never go for all those wind farms though because it West Virginia, Coal is king.
Here is what I would be in favor of. On a small scale basis, I would not have a problem with a small wind farm (a few units) being placed in small towns all across america where the wind blows. I would also be in favor of some one producing a meter to hang on your wall in your house that shows how much $$ you are spending per min on energy consumption, and ways that you can reduce it.
So no I am not against all wind farms
.......... I would be in favor of Wind Farms being placed on the summit of every single reclaimed mining site, in the state of West Virginia. The landscape is already destroyed, and it would be another way to genererate Revenue.............
Unfortunantly, the only wind in this area is from the Mining Co. owners saying how beautiful it now looks!!!!
SalParadise
02-26-2006, 17:20
I would also be in favor of some one producing a meter to hang on your wall in your house that shows how much $$ you are spending per min on energy consumption, and ways that you can reduce it.
So no I am not against all wind farms
Those meters already exist, there just isn't much use for them right now. And the few businesses that are experimenting with distributed generation, if they are completely self-reliant, actually get paid for whatever excess energy they can put back into the grid.
But natural gas only amounts to about 10 percent of the country's power generation--it's almost all coal. Plus it's been estimated that we've got 200+ years worth of coal in this country alone. Until we all can buy home hydrogen generators, coal is definitely the way to go.
Those meters already exist, there just isn't much use for them right now. And the few businesses that are experimenting with distributed generation, if they are completely self-reliant, actually get paid for whatever excess energy they can put back into the grid.
But natural gas only amounts to about 10 percent of the country's power generation--it's almost all coal. Plus it's been estimated that we've got 200+ years worth of coal in this country alone. Until we all can buy home hydrogen generators, coal is definitely the way to go.
true they are called "tie in meters" they can be attached to the meter on the outside of the house (however, you need an inverter to invert the power to feed it back into the grid. there are also meters you can buy that measure power consumption of individual appliances as well and will measure it over time to let you know if you are getting your moneys worth on efficient appliances.
Does anyone have the linky to where you can donate to fighting this cause??
Weary, myself, and some allies were able to convince our fellow directors of The Maine Applachian trail Land Trust to set up a link on our web site where anyone can make an electronic contribution to fight the Redington, Black Nubble wind farm. Weary is working up the wording and the trust web supervisor is making arrangements. All money will go to fighting Redington. Watch for a post by Weary when the site is set to recieve contributions in a day or so.
No wind turbines within sight of the AT is a topic which brings out the hypocrisy in many of us. I actually enjoyed watching the turbines on Mt. Equinox (Vt.) making electricity without pollution. The only possible objection one should have on a rational basis for wind powered electric turbines within sight of the AT (or anywhere else, for that matter) is that they've been known to hack up unwary migratory birds.
No wind turbines within sight of the AT is a topic which brings out the hypocrisy in many of us. I actually enjoyed watching the turbines on Mt. Equinox (Vt.) making electricity without pollution. The only possible objection one should have on a rational basis for wind powered electric turbines within sight of the AT (or anywhere else, for that matter) is that they've been known to hack up unwary migratory birds.
Some of us prefer a wild trail to a trail surrounded by development. The trail from the New Hampshire border to Bigelow ranks among the sections with the least development of the entire 2,175 mile trail. If the massive industrial wind energy complex is built, the area would become the opposite. It would be by far the most intensively developed regions, with massive 40-story high turbines less than a mile away and in full view of every trail ridgeline and overlook.
These are simply facts. Some may truly prefer to walk through an area with industrial development on the closest ridgeline. Most I suspect will not.
FWIW, your comments about bird kills reveals that you also know very little about wildlife.
Weary
Some of us prefer a wild trail to a trail surrounded by development. The trail from the New Hampshire border to Bigelow ranks among the sections with the least development of the entire 2,175 mile trail. If the massive industrial wind energy complex is built, the area would become the opposite. It would be by far the most intensively developed regions, with massive 40-story high turbines less than a mile away and in full view of every trail ridgeline and overlook.
These are simply facts. Some may truly prefer to walk through an area with industrial development on the closest ridgeline. Most I suspect will not.
FWIW, your comments about bird kills reveals that you also know very little about wildlife.
Weary
I do know very little about wildlife. Apparantly you know much about me, though you've never met me. Sorry to touch a nerve.
No wind turbines within sight of the AT is a topic which brings out the hypocrisy in many of us. I actually enjoyed watching the turbines on Mt. Equinox (Vt.) making electricity without pollution. The only possible objection one should have on a rational basis for wind powered electric turbines within sight of the AT (or anywhere else, for that matter) is that they've been known to hack up unwary migratory birds.
If you enjoy watching technology why don't you hike past the cigarette filter factory the trail passes on the banks of the New River. The town passes through several towns, Duncanon, Hot Springs, Dalton, Cheshire. to name a few. If you want to see lights, neon signs, roads,and development you have plenty of places to hike. In Maine we take great pride in the wildernes experience hikers find here. I think that unlike you, most hikers appreciate the wilderness and that in the reason they come to the trail.Hikers would be supprised to learn that only 6/10ths of 1% of the States land area is above 2700 feet and there are on;y three areas in Maine where we have mountains over 4000 feet. Our wilderness trail visits each of these areas. What will Redington do to the wilderness? In one of these rare 4000 foot peaks next to the trail and on miles of ridgeline they will strip off all trees. (these peake are wooded now). Their plans call for over 30, 40 story tall structures on this stripped ridge line. They plans call for 24 miles of road and cutting 11 miles of high transmission lines. No traspassing will be allowed closing a 4000 foot peak to hikers. Sited in good places wind energy could and should be a part of our energy mix but this wilderness place is not the right place. There are many wonderful humming transmission lines you can hike under near Daleville, Virginia but there is a much bigger reason than dead birds and bats that Redington should be preserved. Thousands of people hike in Maine for the wilderness but if you hike because you enjoy watching turbines go to Vermont instead.
:welcome To Maine, one of the last true wilderness experiences in the east.
tlbj6142
02-28-2006, 11:41
30, 40 story tall structuresI wonder if many folks have actually seen these large versions of windmills. Most of those I have have seen are 1/3 this size. Like those along the PCT near Palm Springs. And those in Western PA. The only place, I think, I have been somewhat close to the larger variety is in Mackinaw City, MI (just before the bridge). And those freakishly huge ones in Bowling Green, OH (http://robertpence.com/clev_ssp_2005/050902-010.jpg) (though I've only looked at those from the highway which has to be at least a mile or two away.)
The "little" ones aren't all that "bad", but those big ones are quite an eyesore.
TJ aka Teej
02-28-2006, 11:58
The only possible objection one should have on a rational basis for wind powered electric turbines within sight of the AT (or anywhere else, for that matter) is that they've been known to hack up unwary migratory birds.
The lumber liquidators, condo developers, and Putnam Mine folks love people like you, Tinker.
i'm just trying to keep this thread straight on the facts i'm not trying to argue...
weary, tinker is right migration is a problem for wind sites that's why they have to wait and do eis (environmental impact statements) for five years prior to development. however, you right as well, tinker didn't explain the effects of clearing a footprint area (a removal/relocation of species w/in the area), loss of den an nest sites, and the associated effects of edge habitat creation. however the main concerns are migratory birds and bats. both of which tend to follow wind corridors that the industry is interested in harvesting. the truth is, only three sites have had problems with migration, altamont, a place in west virginia, and one in wisconsin.
moxie, the entire top would not be cleared. there are footprints that wind generators require that are about 100x100' there would also be a road built between the windtowers for access. i just want to get the facts out. i'm not arguing with the point that there would be habitat change.
If the coal fired powerplants in the midwest and Canada continue to increase energy production, you probably won't be able to see these proposed wind turbines anyway...through the thick black haze.
i'm just trying to keep this thread straight on the facts i'm not trying to argue...
weary, tinker is right migration is a problem for wind sites that's why they have to wait and do eis (environmental impact statements) for five years prior to development. however, you right as well, tinker didn't explain the effects of clearing a footprint area (a removal/relocation of species w/in the area), loss of den an nest sites, and the associated effects of edge habitat creation. however the main concerns are migratory birds and bats. both of which tend to follow wind corridors that the industry is interested in harvesting. the truth is, only three sites have had problems with migration, altamont, a place in west virginia, and one in wisconsin.
.
Well, since Mdionne wants to deal with facts. We'll certainly be pushing for maximum years of research and a federal environmental impact statement. But the application filed with the Land Use Regulation Commission contains no such documentation. And LURC has not required such things in past wind power approvals.
My reference to birds was only to contradict the claim that migrating bird impact is the "only" reason to be opposed. In fact, it is the least important reason to be opposed.
There is one rare, and little-known bird, the Bicknell Thrush, that nests in these high peaks, which we will concentrate on, I suspect. Wind towers are dangerous things to place in such a fragile environment populated by such fragile creatures.
Any unnecessary killing of wild creatures is to be deplored. But it is not individual bird deaths that are important, but preservation of habitat. Humans have long demonstrated their ability to kill off species if they choose to do so, or accidentally, do so. But lacking such deliberate or inadvertent happenings the wind tower impacts are unlikely to be decisive.
Death is a constant in nature. As long as habitat is preserved most species will survive quite well.
The rarest environments in the east are not bird habitat, but wild places for humans and creatures to live, visit and enjoy. The contention that the last of these wild places should be sacrificed for insignifcant scraps of energy is absurd.
Weary
i'm just trying to keep this thread straight on the facts i'm not trying to argue...
Moxie, the the entire top would not be cleared. there are footprints that wind generators require that are about 100x100' there would also be a road built between the windtowers for access. i just want to get the facts out. i'm not arguing with the point that there would be habitat change.
At the annual meeting of The Maine Applachian trail Club in Farmington, Harley Lee, the main player in the Redington project asked for time to make a presentation in support of his project. The club granted him time even though the official position of the club is in opposition to it. A photo simulation of the completed project seemed to indicate a clear cut ridge. I asked if it was necessary and the answer I was given was a cleared ridge was necessary as tall trees would cause the wind to swirl and decrease the efficency of the turbines. A 100 by 100 foot feetprint would be more desireable than a complete stripping of the mountain but in both cases a wonderful wild mountain would be removed from the wilderness. If any peak baggers want to include Redington in their 4000 footers do it now because Harley says NO TRASPASSING once the monster is built.
TJ aka Teej
03-01-2006, 18:50
MAINE VOICES: Bob "Weary" Cummings
<!-- IF EDITORIAL --><!-- headline follows. -->Wind power's fine, but not in Western Maine
But this truism doesn't mean that 30 giant wind turbines should necessarily be approved for the western Maine mountains within a mile of the Appalachian Trail. These mountains are among the wildest and most remote regions of the entire 2,175-mile trail that connects Springer Mountain in Georgia with Mount Katahdin in Maine.
HAVING A WILD TIME
From Shelburne, N.H., to the Bigelow Preserve and beyond, the only signs of civilization are occasional road crossings and an occasional building or corner of a town located deep in the valleys. Through-hikers, those who walk the trail from beginning to end, are nearly unanimous in their praise of the trail in Maine.
Entire story: http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/viewpoints/mvoice/060301mv.shtml
fiddlehead
03-01-2006, 22:00
for all the folks here claiming that the windmills will be ugly, I would like to remind you what i said before that we live near a huge (maybe 70' in diameter) windmill here in thailand and i see it everyday and am reminded of the nice,pleasant fact that we are enjoying clean energy. Also, we can (and do) eat the fish here because the waters are not polluted either. We also don't make our bullets out of depleted uranium which is a by-product of nuclear reactors and causes over 1000% more birth defects in areas where they have been used. clean energy is much more important than something you don't like to look at.
for all the folks here claiming that the windmills will be ugly, I would like to remind you what i said before that we live near a huge (maybe 70' in diameter) windmill here in thailand and i see it everyday and am reminded of the nice,pleasant fact that we are enjoying clean energy. Also, we can (and do) eat the fish here because the waters are not polluted either. .....
Windmills are not inherently ugly, just out of place on a wild section of trail. There are seven windmill projects near the trail. ATC opposes only one of these -- Redington. Major industrial developments of all kinds should not be located adjacent to the trail corridor.
By the way, a 70-foot diameter windmill blade is tiny compared with those proposed for REdington.
Weary
freefall
03-02-2006, 03:40
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-01-bat-wind-power_x.htm
Found this website about windmills in VA, possibly visible from the trail. http://www.vawind.org
for all the folks here claiming that the windmills will be ugly, I would like to remind you what i said before that we live near a huge (maybe 70' in diameter) windmill here in thailand and i see it everyday and am reminded of the nice,pleasant fact that we are enjoying clean energy. Also, we can (and do) eat the fish here because the waters are not polluted either. We also don't make our bullets out of depleted uranium which is a by-product of nuclear reactors and causes over 1000% more birth defects in areas where they have been used. clean energy is much more important than something you don't like to look at.
I'd probably be more supportive of non-nuclear energy too, especially if I lived that close to the Limerick nuclear power plant.
Twofiddy
03-04-2006, 01:02
I am suprised at the number of people who post in such a way that they are not 100% opposed to this project. I dont care what facts you look at folks, I dont care what opinions you read, every single one of them makes this Maine project look awful and bad for the trail.
BUILD IT SOME PLACE ELSE!!
BUILD IT ON THE TOPS OF RECLAIMED MOUNTAIN TOPS IN WEST VIRGINIA where the landscape has already been destroyed.
BUILD IT IN MY BACK YARD
Just dont build it in one of the last wilderness like places that we have left in the eastern US.
I am dont with this thread now.
Lots of people, me being one, sees that giving an inch of trail will usually end up being a mile of trail. I support NOT giving an inch!!!
icemanat95
03-04-2006, 13:31
400 foot towers are HUGE. That's a massive visual impact in my opinion. Too massive for such a location. I'm generally for alternative energy, but siting is important. There are a lot of windy plains in the midwest that used to be tilled land, that would make excellent wind farms I think. There are probably plenty of abandoned fields in eastern Maine that would likewise serve.
icemanat95
03-04-2006, 13:57
How tall are the towers going to be? for comparison, from the ground level foundations of the pedastal of the statue of liberty, to the top of the torch is only 305 feet. these towers would be almost 25% taller than the statue of liberty. Each blade would be about 65 yards long, or about 190 feet from hub to tip, creating a path about 380 feet in diamter spinning at 200 mph. When you are talking about a circumfrence of 1193 feet, it requires only 4.42 rotations to cover 1 miles, so 200 miles is 885 rotations in one hours, or about 14.7 rotations per minute. A single rotation takes about 4 seconds.
That's a huge structure. That's 1/10th of the altitude from the summit of Mt. Washington to Pinkham Notch. HUGE.
How tall are the towers going to be? for comparison, from the ground level foundations of the pedastal of the statue of liberty, to the top of the torch is only 305 feet. these towers would be almost 25% taller than the statue of liberty. Each blade would be about 65 yards long, or about 190 feet from hub to tip, creating a path about 380 feet in diamter spinning at 200 mph. When you are talking about a circumfrence of 1193 feet, it requires only 4.42 rotations to cover 1 miles, so 200 miles is 885 rotations in one hours, or about 14.7 rotations per minute. A single rotation takes about 4 seconds.
That's a huge structure. That's 1/10th of the altitude from the summit of Mt. Washington to Pinkham Notch. HUGE.
Impressive math Icemanat95.
Would it be more acceptable if the were say 100' tall? No matter how tall they are you would still be able to see them providing you could see through the pollution haze. Is it different to be able to see industrialization than it is to hear it? How come nothing is said here about the skidders and other logging equiptment just beyond the beauty strip. Is that an acceptable form of industrialization? Is there some hypocrisy going on here?
I have to wonder. Hear it but not see it?
Impressive math Icemanat95.
Would it be more acceptable if the were say 100' tall? No matter how tall they are you would still be able to see them providing you could see through the pollution haze. Is it different to be able to see industrialization than it is to hear it? How come nothing is said here about the skidders and other logging equiptment just beyond the beauty strip. Is that an acceptable form of industrialization? Is there some hypocrisy going on here?
I have to wonder. Hear it but not see it?
Well, Woodsy. Wise people fight one battle at a time. Ten years ago I fought the skidders and clear cutters. We partially won. The laws and regulations are stronger against clear cutting than they were. I'm now fighting an even bigger battle -- the industrialization of the ridges surrounding the Appalachian Trail.
Are you suggesting that because we failed to win a total victory before, we now have to accept whatever any one wants to do to make money in the "wilderness."
Weary
Well, Woodsy. Wise people fight one battle at a time. Ten years ago I fought the skidders and clear cutters. We partially won. The laws and regulations are stronger against clear cutting than they were. I'm now fighting an even bigger battle -- the industrialization of the ridges surrounding the Appalachian Trail.
Are you suggesting that because we failed to win a total victory before, we now have to accept whatever any one wants to do to make money in the "wilderness."
Weary
Weary,
I am not suggesting that at all
Could it be that someone is trying to create clean power for all of us in location that has sufficient annual wind to operate economically? Unfortunately, The Appalachian mtns. in Maine are one of the few places that provide adequate wind, 4,000ft. Suck smog or see? A tough choice.
weary, i thought your article was decent and well said. however a good part of your article is dedicated to wind power tax relief. this is where you move off target and take "cheap shots" at the wind industry. i notice you don't mention how common it is for ALL energy industries to recieve huge tax breaks. my brother in law's first reaction after reading your article was that he was pissed about not getting tax breaks on the gas and heating oil he was buying. "why do they get tax breaks when i don't". actually, gas and oil companies do get huge tax breaks, especially for exploration. and no, consumers don't see any of it. people tend to care an awful lot more about their money than they do about an undisturbed view. i like to compare this article with thru hikers themselves. "thru-hikers okay on trail, but not in towns" and follow up with how they are an inspiration to others and a wlking lesson in self determination. however in town they are an eye sore, dirty, smelly, are loud drunks and expect everything for free (some even beg). i would purposely leave out those that saved enough money and don't drink to hike to get my point across. kind of cheats the community (either the AT or your local community) when you leave out important details, doesn't it?
weary, i thought your article was decent and well said. however a good part of your article is dedicated to wind power tax relief. this is where you move off target and take "cheap shots" at the wind industry. i notice you don't mention how common it is for ALL energy industries to recieve huge tax breaks. my brother in law's first reaction after reading your article was that he was pissed about not getting tax breaks on the gas and heating oil he was buying. "why do they get tax breaks when i don't". actually, gas and oil companies do get huge tax breaks, especially for exploration. and no, consumers don't see any of it. people tend to care an awful lot more about their money than they do about an undisturbed view. i like to compare this article with thru hikers themselves. "thru-hikers okay on trail, but not in towns" and follow up with how they are an inspiration to others and a wlking lesson in self determination. however in town they are an eye sore, dirty, smelly, are loud drunks and expect everything for free (some even beg). i would purposely leave out those that saved enough money and don't drink to hike to get my point across. kind of cheats the community (either the AT or your local community) when you leave out important details, doesn't it?
The piece appeared on a special page devoted to "community voices." The rules set an upper limit of 750 words. I gambled and sent 1,140 because I needed that many to complete my argument.
The editor did a pretty good job, cutting around 200 words, but left out was technical information on why even accurate photo simulations are inherently inaccurate compared with what the human eye sees.
I could write a small book on this country's silly energy policies. But it would take many, many times my allotted 750 words.
Weary
i believe the article was partly entitled "wind power is fine,...". and then a "good part" of the article is dedicated to wind industry tax breaks. maybe i'm not getting it. how does this make wind power "fine" to the uneducated reader? remember my brother-in-law is uneducated on the subject, he walked away from reading it only concerned about wind power companies getting tax breaks. many other readers probably did too. i know the editor may have left some of your arguments out against wind, but i highly doubt he made the article any more slanted than it already was when you submitted it. it's possible you didn't intend the article have that effect on people, but it did. you're article's emphasis on tax breaks has only made it more difficult for renewable energy to flourish, regardless of where it's being built. well done.
icemanat95
03-05-2006, 17:17
Question:
Would anyone here want to see wind towers on the summit of "Half Dome" or ringing The cliffs above Yosemite Valley? How about piching them all along the ridges on the Continental Divide, or along the rim of the Grand Canyon?
Pretty absurd, but that's pretty much what they are doing by putting this new development right alongside the AT.
We fight for viewshed all up and down the AT from mines in North Carolina, to Ski areas in Maine. We fight logging and the development of recreational retreats. We fight race tracks and highways and anything else that imperils our viewshed, but this is somehow viewed as being less of a problem than those because it purports to be a clean energy project. I can't help feel that the cost here is greater than the benefit. I think there are a lot better locations for these things in already highly impacted areas. What comes next, hundreds of square miles of solar collectors in Death Valley? Is that a good thing? Do we know what the impacts of that would be?
If we open up our wildlands to this sort of "green power" development, excusing it because it is "green" aren't we setting the stage for a whole new era of wildlands despoilment at the hands of green power profiteers? After all, if you can make money at it, and you can do so in such a manner as to avoid negative press and significant oversight, people are going to do it, and just because it is "green" doesn't mean that the people doing the developing, running the programs and reaping the profits, give a damn about the environment and the impact of what they are doing on the local ecology. If the Reddington Wind Power project sails through without opposition and with the encouragement of outdoor groups now, I suspect the developer and potential investors will be encouraged and will seek a similar model elsewhere (out in the undeveloped backcountry where land can be had cheap and local populations that might fight are sparse and ill-organized). Next thing you know these things are going to pop up on every available ridgeline if they can make a profit at it. I don't think we want that.
Another unintended consequence of these sorts of projects goes with the ongoing maintenance of these facilities. Vegetation is the enemy of power stations and transmission systems. Visit a local transformer station and look at the ground. The entire are is dead ground. The only plants allowed are dead plants and very small. They want nothing growing in there because growing plants pose fire threats. How do they kill the plants? Real simple, herbicides. Mostly Round Up or a similar Glyphosate, but other chemicals may be used depending upon the needs of the site. If responsibly applied, this isn't a problem, but there are some real hacks out there in the business who substitute different chemicals from specs, put them on at different or improper rates, or apply them in unsuitable conditions (high wind, rain, etc.) which may encourage the chemicals to go where they aren't needed. We are talking about a huge installation here that will be highly controlled in this manner. Do you want that out there and at every one of these installations? And don't forget, the transmission lines leading from these sites to the main trunk lines must also be controlled to prevent vegetation from threatening the lines. Lest anyone think I am anti-industrial weed control, it is my father-in-law's business. He'd be happy to bid on these sites and he'd do a good job on them as well, using an integrated management system combining mechanical, chemical and natural controls to get the job done, but he frequently gets outbid by organizations that aren't nearly so conscientious.
Clearly alternative energy generation is a critical need for our country and for the world, but we have to be careful about where we site it, so that we don't prostitute values in the short sighted pursuit of other values. It's not whether the project is desireable, but rather is the project needed there? Can it be done as successfully somewhere else where other critical values are not impacted as much?
icemanat95
03-05-2006, 17:29
i believe the article was partly entitled "wind power is fine,...". and then a "good part" of the article is dedicated to wind industry tax breaks. maybe i'm not getting it. how does this make wind power "fine" to the uneducated reader? remember my brother-in-law is uneducated on the subject, he walked away from reading it only concerned about wind power companies getting tax breaks. many other readers probably did too. i know the editor may have left some of your arguments out against wind, but i highly doubt he made the article any more slanted than it already was when you submitted it. it's possible you didn't intend the article have that effect on people, but it did. you're article's emphasis on tax breaks has only made it more difficult for renewable energy to flourish, regardless of where it's being built. well done.
Never ever assume that an editor cannot or would not completely re-spin an article away from the original intent of the author. Editorial policy is the ruling value at newspapers. My brother-in-law used to be a business writer for the Portland Press-Herald and ended up resigning in protest after one too many articles was completely re-cast by the editors to support a policy that was not supported by the facts of the story. Those facts were "adjusted or simply editted out so that the story met policy.
I'm not saying that this was what happened here, only that editorial power is profound. The difference between a best selling book and a dime store-straight-to-paperback novel is not in the writer, but in the editor. A good editor can completely change the tone of a piece, shifting emphasis with a few well placed words, turning innocent commedy into black satire, or taking a weak, lackluster passage and turning it into a gripping piece that inflames emotions and keeps you reading. Likewise a bad editting job can suck the life out of a piece of prose, gutting it of all energy and making it read like a dictionary.
As for tax-breaks...they are a useful tool for getting investors to put money into alternative energy projects. Starting one up is a huge and somewhat risky undertaking. Tax breaks reduce that risk and allow the developer the potential to actually make some money from it. Tax breaks can also turn people from fence-sitters into early adopters, driving a new technology from expensive infancy into efficient mass-market where tax breaks are no longer required to help it compete. They have got to be administered well however, to make certain that the tax breaks are not the profit-goal of the organization, but are merely a stepping stone to true profitability.
Thanks mdionne and Iceman for your comments. I'll be testifying at the hearings and I need all the ammunition I can get. The Appalachian Trail in Maine is truly our Half Dome, Yosemite, and Grand Tetons -- and if anything superior to these well publicized parks. My wife and I spent six weeks last summer touring these western landmarks. I was a bit disappointed. They were all too civilized. Maine remains wild. It's critical that we keep it that way.
As far as my piece goes, I had three main points:
1. These are important mountain assets that deserved protection.
2. The photo simulations that had convinced many hikers that the complex of industrial towers would do no harm were inherently misleading.
3. And that the impetus behind the development was not "green" energy but dollars.
I thought all except the photo simulation part came through.
The piece was handled by the four person editorial staff, not the news room. The guy who edits the "community voices" piece is by far the most conservative of the generally liberal editorial board.
But he was also a good editor in the newsroom where I worked for 25 years. I covered nothing but environmental and energy issues. He never changed anything I wrote during those years -- except for space requirements.
And though I was disappointed that he left out my convincing argument about the phoniness of photo simulations, I understand that he had only so many column inches available and that something had to go.
As for the headline. I didn't write it.
And as to the fundamental issue. Iceman is totally right. It is not necessary and totally wrong to destroy the last wild places in the name of alternative energy. That will not only will not solve the energy problem. But it will destroy things of immense value.
Twofiddy
03-14-2006, 14:17
As for tax-breaks...they are a useful tool for getting investors to put money into alternative energy projects. Starting one up is a huge and somewhat risky undertaking. Tax breaks reduce that risk and allow the developer the potential to actually make some money from it. Tax breaks can also turn people from fence-sitters into early adopters, driving a new technology from expensive infancy into efficient mass-market where tax breaks are no longer required to help it compete. They have got to be administered well however, to make certain that the tax breaks are not the profit-goal of the organization, but are merely a stepping stone to true profitability.
Right!!
Tax Breaks for Hybrid Cars great idea, except for 1 thing, Hybrid cars are causing more pollution in a city like Washington DC because Northern Virginia and Maryland allow 1 person commuters in the HOV lanes in Hybrid Cars. Trust me, some lowlife scum of an elected official got a few free Hybrid SUV's to drive in order to pass that bill. Now you have 5 to 10 more miles of Bumper to Bumper Traffic on the 5 lane highways like 95 and 66 because all of the Hybrid comuters are running up the HOV Lane and then cutting in. The Hybrid vehicles need to sit in the traffic for hours on end, that is when they are most efficient. The big gas guzzling SUV's and VAN's and Trucks need to be in the high speed HOV lane because they get better gas mileage when they are moving at 50mph than when they are sitting in bumper to bumper traffic. FLAWED TAX BREAK in my Opinion.
TAX BREAKS SUCK. Especially when it comes to Energy. How about enforcing a gross profit tax on Energy Producers. They are wrecking the planet for every human being, in the name of profit.
If we were all about Tax Breaks, why did we not take the 100 Billion Dollars that we have spend on this war, along with the 40 Billion that we spent on that worthless scum Tom Ridge and Homeland Security a few years back, and just give it to the automakers and oil producers and mandate that every single car in American get 50-75 MPG. Talk about fighing terriorsim. If we were not sending all of our money to OPEC nations to pay for Oil, they would not have any money to buy the things needed for Terror Attacks.
Wind power is not the answer! While it may be a cool idea right now, it just is not the answer. We need to improve all efficiency, offer tax breaks to the bottom end of all consumers to do stuff like Insulate there homes. How about a 100% write off three years in a row, on the amout spent in 1 year to insulate ones homestead, or install new windows, or use mass transportation instead of driving, or for purchase of a bicycle when your employer fills out an afidavit that you ride it to work at least 5 miles round trip every day. Now those are good tax breaks. Tax breaks for things that would actually make a different.
The 2.6 Billion in Tax Break Incentives that were offerd in just 1 energy bill that was passed in 2005 when to the Oil Companies, who in the wake of Katrina, and all the other rising oil costs, still posted billions and billions and billions of dollars worth of profit in 2005. That is right, a few public investor owners of those companies are making the big bucks of wrecking the air that we breath and the earth that we live on.
Here are the comments of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, the state's largest and most politically influential environmental groups. Essentially, the group's "preliminary" report to the agency that has the power to say yes or no suggests REdington is too valuable for such development, but Black Nubble might be suitable. It is the contention of the Maine Appalachian TRail Club that both sites would have an equal impact on the Appalachian Trail.
Weary
Initial Comments to Land Use Regulation Commission
From the Natural Resources Council of Maine
Concerning the
Application for Development of the Redington Wind Farm
By Maine Mountain Power
Submitted by Pete Didisheim, NRCM Advocacy Director
April 17, 2006
The Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) has a strong interest in the development of cleaner forms of electricity generation that will help reduce the environmental and public health harm caused by existing forms of power production. As such, we support wind power development in Maine and support a goal of the state providing at least 5% of its electricity needs from wind power by 2010.
NRCM also strongly supports land conservation in Maine’s North Woods, interior mountains, and areas with remaining remote resource characteristics. The State of Maine is endowed with spectacular mountain resources and large tracts of forested habitat that provide opportunities for remote recreation. Wind power projects can pose a significant disruption to some of the important values in these regions.
Because of these two equally strong priorities, NRCM will weigh each wind power project on a case-by-case basis. The organization has not yet reached a position on the Redington Wind Farm permit application, which is proposed for one of the most significant mountain regions in Maine.
The area surrounding Redington Pond Range contains seven of the 13 highest mountain peaks in Maine and the largest contiguous area above 2700 ft. elevation in the state. Approximately 12 miles of the Appalachian Trail lie within three miles of Redington ridge. The section of the AT from Saddleback to Crocker Mt. is frequented by thousands of hikers annually.
NRCM and many other organizations do have significant concerns about this location, and the developer has known of these concerns for more than a decade. In 1993, the Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC), Maine Appalachian Trail Club (MATC), Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) and others formally opposed the developer’s request for a permit from the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission to install meteorological towers on Redington. In 1998, the ATC announced its opposition to a wind farm on Redington.
Redington is an ecologically sensitive and significant mountain located in the heart of an area that many people and organizations have identified as a high priority for land conservation. The Maine Natural Areas Program has mapped the presence of an exemplary Subalpine Spruce-fir Forest community on top of Redington Pond Range. The proximity of Redington ridge to the Appalachian Trail, a national scenic corridor, raises significant issues.
The Land Use Regulation Commission, within its Comprehensive Land Use Plan, identifies the importance of protecting scenic and remote values. With regard to the impact of projects near recreational resources, the Commission has stated that “Potential impacts include not only adverse effects on natural resources that provide the recreational opportunity, but diminishment of remote values that enhance the recreational experience.”
Some of the impacts caused by the proposed project could be mitigated, in part, if the project was only slated for Black Nubble and if the developer agreed to a significant land conservation strategy in the project area (including protection of Redington). To more fully understand this option, LURC staff should request that the developer present an alternative project configuration comprised of only the 18 turbines proposed for Black Nubble. Assuming the use of turbines with 3MW capacity, a Black Nubble-only project would have a capacity of almost 50MW – which is as large or larger than the scale of the Mars Hill project and most other wind power projects currently being pursued in New England.
We note that over the past seven years, the specifics for this project have evolved many times. In 1998, the developer announced that he would be pursuing a 20MW project involving 30 towers with 660kw turbines on Redington Pond Range only. On January 17, 2002, during a pre-application meeting with LURC staff, the developer described a 50MW project involving 15 towers on Redington Pond Range and 14 towers on Black Nubble. The advance of technology would appear to now make it possible for as much or more power to be generated on Black Nubble alone than was the case with earlier proposed iterations of this project on the two ridgelines.
Although NRCM does not yet have a position on whether it would support a project on Black Nubble, with Redington placed in permanent protection, it is a project reconfiguration that should be of significant interest to LURC staff. According to LURC regulations and policies, the Commission, when it reviews the permit application for this project, will be required to “ensure that the proposal utilizes the best reasonably available site for the proposed use” and also that it result in “no undue adverse impact on existing uses.” We believe that these regulatory and statutory provisions strongly support a request by LURC staff of the developer to present information about the viability of a Black Nubble-only project.
Those that say alternative energy is worth it at the expense of the AT may remember a few years ago when a company got a permit to mine gravel near Big Bald just south of Elk Park,NC. Everyone was up in arms writing to their legislatiors, congressmen and the State of North Carolina. America needs gravel but within the viewshead of the trail was not the place to take it. Please explain to me you "wind power at any cost people" why the trail community should fight to save the viewshead in the south but let it be sacrificed in Maine. A project clearcutting miles of wooded ridge and placing over thirty lighted spinning towers, each taller than The Statur of Liberty, within the view of over twenty miles of the trail is much more of a threat than a gravel pit over a mile from Big Bald.