View Full Version : Maine's Redington windpower update
Not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers here as I know it 's a touchy issue
FYI only, it's not over yet. The people will ultimately decide.
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/3451240.html
30 towers. each 250 feet tall with 150 foot blades. That is supposed to be environmentally benign?
this will be one sad day for protection, or lack there of, of AT lands.
why don't we build a bunch of nuclear power plants instead?
David
It sucks, but my opinion hardly matters.
On a personal level, my wife managed to cut our electical consumption in half simply by going to all compact florecent bulbs, adjusting the temperature setting on the hot water heater, and washing in cold water rather than hot. And a few other things, like unplugging computers and unused TVs an such.
We are now at about 200 KWH per month and still looking to go lower. We are now the proud owners of the only clothes line in our neighborhood!
We still have a short string of Christmas lights on the tree, however :-).
fiddlehead
12-23-2006, 11:29
This year they put up about 30 huge windmills near where i come from in PA. I feel good about seeing those.
I've stated on here plenty of times how i feel about oil dependency, USA's pollution levels, and depleted uranium. No need to start bad vibes again on this. Merry Christmas.
This year they put up about 30 huge windmills near where i come from in PA. I feel good about seeing those.
I've stated on here plenty of times how i feel about oil dependency, USA's pollution levels, and depleted uranium. No need to start bad vibes again on this. Merry Christmas.
I'm with you here, fiddlehead. I think windmills are beautiful. They make me smile.
Not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers here as I know it 's a touchy issue
FYI only, it's not over yet. The people will ultimately decide.
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/3451240.html
The decision is a tragedy for Maine if it's upheld by LURC commissioners on Jan. 24. It establishes a terrible precedent. The law, which was basically written in 1971 makes no mention of exceptions for energy. The basic requirement is that new projects in what was then considered the "wildlands" of Maine was that new developments must fit "harmoniously" into the natural environment.
If this staff draft is upheld -- a massive development within a mile of the 2,000 mile long Appalachian Trail national park and one of the wildest sections of that park -- it is hard to imagine what development of any kind could possibly be rejected.
Weary
On a personal level, my wife managed to cut our electical consumption in half simply by going to all compact florecent bulbs, adjusting the temperature setting on the hot water heater, and washing in cold water rather than hot. And a few other things, like unplugging computers and unused TVs an such.
We are now at about 200 KWH per month and still looking to go lower. We are now the proud owners of the only clothes line in our neighborhood!
:-).
If only all the households in America would be so energy efficient we might not be considering windpower:-?. And then there's the business industry.......
Way ta go rickboudries.
I'm with you here, fiddlehead. I think windmills are beautiful. They make me smile.
Me too. But not when they are located within a mile of one of the wildest and most beautiful sections of the Appalachian Trail in Maine. Only a sick society would argue that we have to destroy the last and best of our wild places in order to continue our wasteful ways.
I'm with you here, fiddlehead. I think windmills are beautiful. They make me smile.
40 story windmills on top on mountains make you smile? Yeah, about as aesthetically pleasing as a strip mine. :rolleyes:
40 story windmills on top on mountains make you smile? Yeah, about as aesthetically pleasing as a strip mine. :rolleyes:
Pfft. I've seen windmills, and I've seen strip mines. Please.
Pfft. I've seen windmills, and I've seen strip mines. Please.
Well, if I'm not mistaken, you haven't seen 40 story windmills on top of mountains, these are 1st of a kind.
And where have you seen windmills, how close? The ones on the PCT, about half this size, are OK until you get close and start walking under them...
I'm not against windmill power, I just think they're are better places for them, like off shore and on rolling hills AWAY from National Scenic Trails
And where have you seen windmills, how close? The ones on the PCT, about half this size, are OK until you get close and start walking under them...
Along Rte. 20 in upstate New York, driving home to Boston after visiting my dad in the hospital. I turned off the road and took a side road to get a closer view and a photo. Here ya go:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/route20_windmills.jpg
And you know, that view really lifted my spirits. I love it when technology is put to good use, like that.
As I said, I don't mind wind projects such as the above, but we're talking about windmills over 400 ft tall on top of mountains within close proximity and view of a NST. If you can't tell the difference, nothing I say is going to matter.
I need a clarification. I read somewhere the proposed windmills would be over 400 ft tall. On the ATC site which, not surprisingly, is against the measure says the windmills will be 330 ft with 260 ft blades (still behemoth compared to most).
Anyone know the actual size?
I need a clarification. I read somewhere the proposed windmills would be over 400 ft tall. On the ATC site which, not surprisingly, is against the measure says the windmills will be 330 ft with 260 ft blades (still behemoth compared to most). Anyone know the actual size?
The original proposal by the developer called for 100 meter towers, which figures to about 330 feet, topped by 240 foot blades.
I believe the applicant shrunk the towers to 80 meters, but increased the radious of the blades, so the overall height remains about the same, i.e. the height above the top of Redington Ridge and Black Nubble will be the same as a typical 40 story building.
Some have speculated that the facility will be obscured by trees. Trees on Redington ridge -- most of which will be removed to facilitate the construction -- are mostly stunted fir and spruce ranging in height between 30 and 50 feet.
Though the story refers to Maine Audubon as an opponent, Maine Audubon along with AMC were niche participants. Both groups sent a couple of staff people to testify in opposition to some parts of the project.
The primary opposition came from the Maine Appalachian Trail Club and the Appalachian Trail Conservancy which together invested more than $150,000 to employ consultants and a law firm to mount a comprehensive opposition. Also helping greatly were several people from the National Park Service, including director Pam Underhill and a visual impact expert.
One specialist spent weeks on the mountain documenting the environmental damages and ran up a bill of $90,000. MATC collected only about half the money it needed to fight the project and had to dip into scarce reserves to pay it's legal and environmental consultants bills.
The staff recommendation clearly violates the plain language of the law, but I doubt if the club is in a position to appeal a favorable vote on the project on Jan. 24, unless a batch of donations come in quickly.
Weary www.matc.org
Must be a little brain dead today. A 330 foot tower with 260 foot blades= 460 ft at top dead center. How they could lift any hikers spirits is beyond me.
WILLIAM HAYES
12-23-2006, 14:35
It is unfortunate that we allow people to continue to rape the land soon there will be nothing left but concrete and walmart stores
Hillbilly
fiddlehead
12-23-2006, 14:39
Ironically, i have a good friend who just moved to Thailand from Hawaii who worked on a huge windmill project there.
His home in PHuket now has a view of the only windmill around. It is about 1/2 mile from his place and dominates the view. It is an experimental station and provides the electric for about 40-60 homes. He says he is being paid back for all the work he did to get the windmills in Hawaii.
He is not bitter, just thinks it's ironic and a payback.
I respect both Sly and Weary on most of their posts i see here on whiteblaze. However, i must say i thought those windmills on the PCT where a great idea. I never saw a dead bird near them, I didn't think they were ugly, I thought that they took advantage of a very windy area and it was smart. i realize it's called pollution of another sort. But it won't kill people with it's pollutants the way nuclear power, oil, coal burning does.
It won't take our rapids away for the whitewater enthusiasts, fishermen, and naturalists. It's only drawback seems to be the view it is taking away. I guess the only way to see how damaging that is is to see it??? in person!
Must be a little brain dead today. A 330 foot tower with 260 foot blades= 460 ft at top dead center. How they could lift any hikers spirits is beyond me.
I don't have a snappy answer to that, Sly. It would be nice, I suppose, if these towers could go elsewhere. But it wouldn't be the end of my world. How many people traverse that ridge in a year? How many people would benefit from the energy? Every form of energy has its cost in terms of the environment. It seems to me that wind energy is one of the least costly, in this regard. Coal, gas, nukes, dams. Nobody wants to think about it. Hell, the folks in Hawaii got all bent out of shape about a geothermal project.
We need to stop pumping more CO2 into our air. If we don't start dealing with that issue, soon, the loss of the AT "viewshed" will be the least of our problems. I know this is a contentious topic, and I'll say no more.
Fiddlehead, not disagreeing with windpower, just where they put it. It's not even NIMBYism, but rather keeping the wild, as wild as possible and the scenic trails as scenic as possible.
:mad: One sad fact is that Maine will live with these towers but not get any real benifit from them. We have a glut of energy in Maine now. With out hydro and biomass we produce one heck of alot more electricity than we can ever use. Those of you that have seen the warning signs on the Kennebec at Caratunk should be aware that every watt of power produced at Harris Dam is being exported to the Boston area as 'peaking power" when the demand goes up during the day. It is my humble opinion as a simple country boy from Mount Vernon, Maine that Harley Lee would better serve the wilderness if he put his windmills closer to where the power will be used. Land on mountaintops produces no timber, has little value for development, so Harley bought it cheap. A site for windmills closer to the metropolitan areas where the power is needed is more expensive so it will be built on Redington, in one of our last great eastern wilderness areas, and sent many miles over wires hundreds of miles where it actually is needed. Maine will suffer, Boston and New York can add a few more lights, and hikers from strip mine States can admire the beautiful wind farm in the wilderness.
It's all about conservation ladies & gentlemen. I hope that those of you concerned about these windmills have changed over to compact fluorescent lightbulbs, lowered the thermastat, sold the SUV, and taken every other reasonable step to save energy.
Let me recommend a film entitled Kilowatt Ours (http://www.kilowattours.org/).
And for those of you who still think strip mining is equivalent to wind farms. watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPixjCneseE).
It's all about conservation ladies & gentlemen. I hope that those of you concerned about these windmills have changed over to compact fluorescent lightbulbs, lowered the thermastat, sold the SUV, and taken every other reasonable step to save energy.
Let me recommend a film entitled Kilowatt Ours (http://www.kilowattours.org/).
And for those of you who still think strip mining is equivalent to wind farms. watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPixjCneseE).
There are many wrongs in this world that need correction -- including the destruction of mountains in West Virginia and other states, and the proposed destruction of a mountaintop in Maine.
Maine passed a law 35 years ago designed to keep Maine wildlands wild. It's nonsense to imply that ignoring the law that was passed to protect the largest block of unbroken forestland in the east will in anyway protect mountaintops a thousand miles to the south.
The initial Redington decision sets an unlawful precedent that unless reversed will rapidly destroy that 10 million acre forest. Bulldozing the top of a Maine mountain for giant wind towers will at most displace only a few minutes, a few days, or at most a week of strip mining production.
Developers who have bought virtually all of the Maine wildlands are the winners here. For evermore they will cite this approval as they seek to build their condominiums.
Weary
I don't argue with your point Weary. The problem is still consumption, no matter how you slice it.
One more thing. I spent about $30 on compact fluorescent bulbs. They'll probably save us 10x that over thir life. It's a no brainer. If everyobe did that, we'd be a lot better off.
I still own a Jeep Cherokee, but instead of putting 150,000 miles on it in 3 years (like I did in New York), I've put 50,000 miles on it in the last 4 years in Tennessee. It helps to live 8 miles from your job. In New York I lived almost 40 miles.
One more thing. I spent about $30 on compact fluorescent bulbs. They'll probably save us 10x that over thir life. It's a no brainer. If everyobe did that, we'd be a lot better off.
I still own a Jeep Cherokee, but instead of putting 150,000 miles on it in 3 years (like I did in New York), I've put 50,000 miles on it in the last 4 years in Tennessee. It helps to live 8 miles from your job. In New York I lived almost 40 miles.
I began replacing my light bulbs 15 years or more ago -- back when florescents cost $16 each. One day I returned home from work to a house filled with the stink of an electric fire. My wife greeted me with. "Don't ask. One of your $16 lights exploded."
Undeterred I continued my replacement. The price of the last and final bunch was only about $2 each. No incandescent has illuminated my house in years. I did weaken a few years back and bought a Subaru Forester with AWD and 25 mpg -- the better to get up a steep driveway on snowy and icy mornings.
My favorite car of recent years was a Toyota Tercel, 40 mpg, but the infirmities of aging, both me and my wife, prompted a change.
WE can all do more, most especially me. But I don't know of anyone who is more conserving of energy than we are. This year our trees, inside and out, are illuminated with LED bulbs--which are the future of home lighting, I suspect. According to the claim on the package they use less than 1 percent of the energy needed by incondescent decorative bulbs.
Weary
Tipi Walter
12-23-2006, 19:51
It's only drawback seems to be the view it is taking away. I guess the only way to see how damaging that is is to see it??? in person!
People seem to forget about the roads that need to be cut to reach these mountain tops and where there is a road there is near complete and permanent destruction. On my backpacking trips I try to get as far away from these roads as possible but it just ain't working out, my home culture has declared war on Nature and refuses to hear that meek little voice suggesting we consider the future consequences of our present actions.
And for those of you who still think strip mining is equivalent to wind farms. watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPixjCneseE).
I said they were about as "aesthetically pleasing" as strip mining. **** is ****, no matter how you box it.
Does the AHS break ranks with the ATC and approve the wind farm?
Only a sick society would argue that we have to destroy the last and best of our wild places in order to continue our wasteful ways.
That we are a sick society became evident when it elected a sick pres.:-?
That we would destroy the last and best of our wild places in order to continue our wasteful ways, well, there just aren't enough people in todays society willing to conserve and live with less . Time for another back to the Earth movement, big time.
That we are a sick society became evident when it elected a sick pres.:-?
That we would destroy the last and best of our wild places in order to continue our wasteful ways, well, there just aren't enough people in todays society willing to conserve and live with less . Time for another back to the Earth movement, big time.
The irony is that conservation saves money and results in more comfortable homes, at least I've found that to be so. And it's the central theme of a book I wrote many years ago.
Weary
The irony is that conservation saves money and results in more comfortable homes, at least I've found that to be so. And it's the central theme of a book I wrote many years ago.
I have one!
If I ever built or buy another home it would be Eco friendly using solar power and possibly a windmill in my own back yard.
I like these...
TheEarthship (http://www.earthshipbiotecture.com/gallery/index.php)
In the meantime, I drive a car that gets 30 mpg, recycle, use fluorescent bulbs etc.
TheEarthship (http://www.earthshipbiotecture.com/gallery/index.php)
Sly, we visited those a couple months ago, out near Taos. Way cool. You'll see a few photos of them in this album:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/cpg143/thumbnails.php?album=7
Yeah, pretty neet. It reminded me of The Shire without trees....
Yeah, pretty neet. It reminded me of The Shire without trees....
;) I'm not sure they would meet the building codes here in Bedford. To be honest, I'm not sure they'd work at New England latitudes, in the winter. We were there on a perfect autumn day, and (not suprisingly) the model home was perfectly comfortable.
But curse the building codes in Bedford, anyway. The lot next door has been turned into a clear-cut. Sad, way sad. It will soon be bearing a McMansion. Even sadder.
An Earthship in Bedford would look like a pink house in Edgartown, completely out of place. Still, insulated 2 x 6 construction, proper southern alignment with passive solar, along with other energy saving devices, would pay for itself well before the mortgage was due.
An Earthship in Bedford would look like a pink house in Edgartown, completely out of place. Still, insulated 2 x 6 construction, proper southern alignment with passive solar, along with other energy saving devices, would pay for itself well before the mortgage was due.
There's still no earthly justification for these 3500 square foot, 3-car-garage McMansions. I've read too much stuff from this guy...
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/cluster****_nation/
Damn, URL censored. Google on James Howard Kunstler and you'll find it.
The tragic landscape of highway strips, parking lots, housing tracts, mega-malls, junked cities, and ravaged countryside that makes up the everyday environment where most Americans live and work [is]...a land full of places that are not worth caring about [and] will soon be a nation and a way of life that is not worth defending. -James Howard Kunstler
Yup, I agree, yet you want to junk up the mountains...
Yup, I agree, yet you want to junk up the mountains...
Not exactly, Sly. But I said I'd lay off that topic, and I will.
Fly By Mike
12-24-2006, 10:03
As a pilot I hate new towers on the tops of mountains. I would also imagine that in that area there are a lot of float plane pilots transporting folks to and from remote lakes and ponds. To be able to operate and make a living they sometimes have to fly low under the cloud deck and just above the mountain tops. Towers are a real pain in the **s! It's a pity there isn't an airport nearby or the FAA might weigh in on the issue and declare the towers an aviation hazard and stop the project.
There is also the visual pollution. I've flown quite a few people to and from northern Maine and they often remark how beutifiul it is to see miles of forests, lakes, and mountains free of man-made intrusions. These towers and going to be visible for 50 miles or more on a clear day at 5,000 feet. Ugggh!
As a pilot I hate new towers on the tops of mountains. I would also imagine that in that area there are a lot of float plane pilots transporting folks to and from remote lakes and ponds. To be able to operate and make a living they sometimes have to fly low under the cloud deck and just above the mountain tops. Towers are a real pain in the **s! It's a pity there isn't an airport nearby or the FAA might weigh in on the issue and declare the towers an aviation hazard and stop the project.
FAA does weigh in by requiring lights atop ANY tower over 200 feet.
are the atc and their corporate allies supporting a lawsuit? if not, why not? it's a sensitive area with conservation concerns and several species of concern. have the local chapters been left to fend for themselves?
are the atc and their corporate allies supporting a lawsuit? if not, why not? it's a sensitive area with conservation concerns and several species of concern. have the local chapters been left to fend for themselves?
It's my understanding that ATC is under severe financial constraints these days. The reorganization apparently did not spur the increase in membership needed.
However, no decision has been made on an appeal. The staff recommendation is supported by scores of pages of argument that has to be reviewed. Plus the decision making board won't act until Jan. 24.
AS I mentioned earlier, MATC ran a massive deficit in the fund-raising needed to pay the cost of participating in a useful way at the hearings. Lawyers and technical experts are expensive. The local club and ATC split the cost of the hearing. Without a lot of unexpected donations, I doubt if MATC can contribute much towards the cost of appealing.
I'm putting a $100 check in the mail Tuesday to add to the kitty but it will take a lot of similar donations to make an appeal possible.
If you want to help open www.matc.org and make a contribution.
Weary
If others can take time maintaining the trail, the trail orgs need to find a few lawyers willing to work pro bono.
TJ aka Teej
12-24-2006, 13:33
The decision is a tragedy for Maine if it's upheld by LURC commissioners on Jan. 24. It establishes a terrible precedent. The law, which was basically written in 1971 makes no mention of exceptions for energy. The basic requirement is that new projects in what was then considered the "wildlands" of Maine was that new developments must fit "harmoniously" into the natural environment.
If this staff draft is upheld -- a massive development within a mile of the 2,000 mile long Appalachian Trail national park and one of the wildest sections of that park -- it is hard to imagine what development of any kind could possibly be rejected.
Weary is absolutely correct on the issue.
One point being overlooked here is this: Maine already generates much more electricity than it uses. Since this surplus power is an export product the windmills should be closer to consumers. Putting the poles along Rtes 93, 95, 128, and 495 in Massachusetts makes much more sense.
Teej
Weary is absolutely correct on the issue.
One point being overlooked here is this: Maine already generates much more electricity than it uses. Since this surplus power is an export product the windmills should be closer to consumers. Putting the poles along Rtes 93, 95, 128, and 495 in Massachusetts makes much more sense.
Teej
Not sure I buy the argument; generation and consumption of electrical power are often widely separated -- there's nothing unusual about that. I'd have no problem with windmills in the settings you suggest -- but it'll never happen because the real estate is far too valuable.
TJ aka Teej
12-24-2006, 13:44
I'd have no problem with windmills in the settings you suggest -- but it'll never happen because the real estate is far too valuable.
Median strips, exit ramp enclosures, shoulders - the land is already publically owned, and is easily accessed for construction and maintainence. Along highways makes good financial sense. Stick 'em in Casco Bay and Boston Harbor, and on Cape Cod too.
Median strips, exit ramp enclosures, shoulders - the land is already publically owned, and is easily accessed for construction and maintainence. Along highways makes good financial sense. Stick 'em in Casco Bay and Boston Harbor, and on Cape Cod too.
These are all good ideas. So why isn't it happening?
jmaclennan
12-24-2006, 20:52
i'm no biologist, but the visual impact is not the only environmental problem. this windfarm really should go somehwere else. no to mention the fact that any energy created will be sucked up by increasing demand and, thus, won't really do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
we all need to increase our efficiency and adopt lifestyles with lower energy demands. each of us should have a sense of urgency about this. support a local group doing something about the issue; write a letter; educate your friends and relatives. DO SOMETHING!!!!
Fly By Mike
12-24-2006, 21:29
It's my understanding that ATC is under severe financial constraints these days. The reorganization apparently did not spur the increase in membership needed.
However, no decision has been made on an appeal. The staff recommendation is supported by scores of pages of argument that has to be reviewed. Plus the decision making board won't act until Jan. 24.
AS I mentioned earlier, MATC ran a massive deficit in the fund-raising needed to pay the cost of participating in a useful way at the hearings. Lawyers and technical experts are expensive. The local club and ATC split the cost of the hearing. Without a lot of unexpected donations, I doubt if MATC can contribute much towards the cost of appealing.
I'm putting a $100 check in the mail Tuesday to add to the kitty but it will take a lot of similar donations to make an appeal possible.
If you want to help open www.matc.org (http://www.matc.org) and make a contribution.
Weary
Weary I went to that site but don't see (or couldn't find) anything specific to this issue. Also I'm inclined to think this is more than just a Maine issue. From what I've seen here on this thread there is a lot at stake and it affects people all over the country who enjoy what they find in Maine because it is one of the last places in the county that is still relatively unspoiled by visual pollution. Is there a way we can get some kind of national campaign going here to stop this. And does anyone know which county it is? How about those of us registered to vote in Maine at least contact our Reps and the two Senators and let them know what we think?
Weary I went to that site but don't see (or couldn't find) anything specific to this issue. Also I'm inclined to think this is more than just a Maine issue. From what I've seen here on this thread there is a lot at stake and it affects people all over the country who enjoy what they find in Maine because it is one of the last places in the county that is still relatively unspoiled by visual pollution. Is there a way we can get some kind of national campaign going here to stop this. And does anyone know which county it is? How about those of us registered to vote in Maine at least contact our Reps and the two Senators and let them know what we think?
Go to the bottom of the home page, www.matc.org Between two heavy red lines will be a "donate now" button. To support Redington choose the second of the three choices.
Weary
If others can take time maintaining the trail, the trail orgs need to find a few lawyers willing to work pro bono.
Sly. I long ago stopped worrying about what others should do. I write about the things I find important, donate money to projects I find important, and physically work on things I find important. Sometimes these efforts succeed. Sometimes they don't. But one thing that never produces anything useful is fretting about what others "should" do.
I belong to several trail organizations. Most get free help from lawyers from time to time. But in my experience established organizations find it necessary to hire lawyers and technical help for important matters like Redington.
Only a tiny minority of trail users, most of whom profess a love of trails and the outdoors, ever contribute a dime or a minute of work to support the things they profess to love.
This is a fact of life. Things get done only when individually and as groups we do them.
Weary www.matc.org
fiddlehead
12-26-2006, 21:03
Median strips, exit ramp enclosures, shoulders - the land is already publically owned, and is easily accessed for construction and maintainence. Along highways makes good financial sense. Stick 'em in Casco Bay and Boston Harbor, and on Cape Cod too.
The truth is, there is MUCH more wind on tops of mountains. After a big windstorm on the PCT in 2002, we talked to the windmill service people there and they told us it is they had 100 mph winds one day when it was listed at 50 on the news in that area. They told us the windmills on top always product more electric than the rest.
Windmills are one of the best things going in my mind. But I agree that we must all do our best to conserve electricity.
Once again, i ask the question: Which form of producing electricity to YOU prefer? (only got one answer last time i asked that on WB)
It sucks, but my opinion hardly matters.
On a personal level, my wife managed to cut our electical consumption in half simply by going to all compact florecent bulbs,
We cut our concsumption by 35 percent by switching to these. Just a note, if you have an IKEA in your area buy your bulbs there. Normally expensive, IKEA sells bulbs made in Sweden that go for far far less than bulbs you buy at Home Depot, Etc.
As for the wind farm..you'll note that "global warming" was used as a defense for the construction of these. There you go...for all the global warming kool-aid drinkers ...the cause celebre of the left is now being used to hurt the environment rather than help it. In the final analysis these towers are about the same thing that any other power plant or development is about and that's money. Someone makes money building them and someone makes money selling the power they generate.
Which form of producing electricity to YOU prefer? (only got one answer last time i asked that on WB)
I'm starting to lean towards nuke. Yes, there are some very serious issues regarding waste, but we are fouling our own nest with coal burning plants. I lived for years just 45 minutes from Indian Point in NY, and live within an hour of 2 plants today (TVA's Watts BAR & Sequoya plants). Nuke plants emit no heavy metals or greenhouse gases.
As for the wind farm..you'll note that "global warming" was used as a defense for the construction of these. There you go...for all the global warming kool-aid drinkers ...the cause celebre of the left is now being used to hurt the environment rather than help it.
What did he say? :confused::(
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-27-2006, 10:17
If wind power can be done without wrecking the environment (like windmills atop buildings in towns instead of on pristine mountain tops) then I favor them. I also support the nuclear power plants because they are more envoronmentally sound than many of the other alternatives. Hydro power also works in areas with the water to make it work.
Tipi Walter
12-27-2006, 10:20
From 1980 to 2001 I lived in a Tipi without electricity, without "running water", without flush toilets, without the debt and despair that comes with our modern "improved" standard of living. It is possible and fulfilling to find and purchase a small piece of land and to set up a temporary tent, tipi or nonelectrical structure, to chop wood and carry water and to take a periodic backpacking trip to the next level: Permanently living out. And why not? I assume that most of us here at Whiteblaze love the outdoors.
Our collective human history has 200,000 years of living out in tipis, hogans, witus, pit houses, igloos, longhouses, wickiups and earth lodges. Only recently have we divorced ourselves(by choice)from nature and it's easy to see the consequences of this, there's no need to list the crazy confusion and toxic technologies of modern Syphilization.
I think most people especially when they are young could find a small piece of land(their uncle's back acre, permission from a friend, etc)or buy a half acre and set up a simple camp outside the mainstream of society. Without having electiricity and by using what most counties consider to be a "temporary" structure, this would be possible. Sadly, the same culture that is destroying nature is the same culture that is brainwashing its youth to constantly consume more, to stay in constant debt and all the rest. But there is hope in Nature and there is hope in our hearts when we remember we are animals and we are fellow mammals in and a part of Nature.
The truth is, there is MUCH more wind on tops of mountains. After a big windstorm on the PCT in 2002, we talked to the windmill service people there and they told us it is they had 100 mph winds one day when it was listed at 50 on the news in that area. They told us the windmills on top always product more electric than the rest.
Windmills are one of the best things going in my mind. But I agree that we must all do our best to conserve electricity.
Once again, i ask the question: Which form of producing electricity to YOU prefer? (only got one answer last time i asked that on WB)
Those windmill service people spoke a partial truth, but the implications of what they said was a lie.
These industrial-sized wind power generators operate through a narrow band of wind speeds. All automatically shut down long before winds reach 100-miles an hour.
The most consistent winds, i.e. the winds that produce the most valuable energy tend to be along the coast, according to all the surveys I've seen. Along the coast of Maine the sea breezes come like clock work most afternoons all summer long -- the period when electricity demand is the highest.
I live on the coast. My property fronts on a tidal estuary three or four miles from the open ocean. I'd far rather see windmills from my windows that overlook the water, than on Redington. The reason is obvious. The coast is already developed and clogged with human artifacts -- mostly homes and cottages of seasonal residents with the cash to buy coastal land. (I was lucky -- or maybe wise. I bought my two acres cheaply when the estuary stunk from industrial pollution flowing from rivers upstream. I gambled against all predictions that Maine's clean water law passed a year before I bought would be enforced.)
Weary
From 1980 to 2001 I lived in a Tipi without electricity, without "running water", without flush toilets, without the debt and despair that comes with our modern "improved" standard of living. It is possible and fulfilling to find and purchase a small piece of land and to set up a temporary tent, tipi or nonelectrical structure, to chop wood and carry water and to take a periodic backpacking trip to the next level: Permanently living out. And why not? I assume that most of us here at Whiteblaze love the outdoors.
What made you leave your tipi?
Tipi Walter
12-27-2006, 11:16
In 2001 I met a Cherokee woman at a Roanoke Powwow and we danced in our regalia and the rest is history. She let me set up a 12 by 12 Cabelas Extreme Weather tent down by a creek on her 2 acres(propane heat!)and so I switch back and forth from the Tipi in North Carolina, the tent here in Tennessee and long backpacking trips into the Citico/Slickrock Wilderness. With a little headgear adjustment and some attitude tweaking, I find the nomadic life in a pristine wilderness area to be even better than staying in a permanent lodge and so the backpacking tent has become the nylon tipi. I miss the woodstove in the winter, dangit, but if I ever upgrade to that Western Mountaineering Puma bag I'll be set.
Our collective human history has 200,000 years of living out in tipis, hogans, witus, pit houses, igloos, longhouses, wickiups and earth lodges. Only recently have we divorced ourselves(by choice)from nature and it's easy to see the consequences of this, there's no need to list the crazy confusion and toxic technologies of modern Syphilization.
.
Of course, it's also true that our history has 200,000 years of limited life expectancy, vulnerability to disease, vermin and high levels of infant mortality. All these go hand in hand with living in the dirt. Perhaps we should strive for a modern life-style that utilizes stand-alone eco-friendly energy sources. Also, we should stop packaging food and other products in plastics and wrappings that persist in the environment for years on end.
Not to justify the location of this project(in my backyard) but it may not be as "pristine" as some here may want to believe. A navy base and survival training area are at the SW base of Redington mtn., large ski areas on both AT Saddleback and Sugarloaf mtns., heavy logging (currently) and logging road networks throughout the area. A recent hike to Crocker mtn.(next to Redington) from rt 27 shows the area north of trail heavily logged and the" roar" of tree size log chipper heard all day. A 150' tall stack in nearby town of stratton from Biomass plant(the construction of this plant was heavily contested in mid 80's by many trail and enviromental groups and some members of these groups now consider it a enviromentally friendly plant:confused:)which spews unknown clouds of haze to the area.
The area does not have human habitation but other than that the area has been repeatedly raped for timber resources which continues today.
IMO, the location controversy is all visual asthetics. Ya'll complaining should go off the grid, It's demand that creates these projects and if you are on the grid you are a part of the problem, not a solution to it, probably too late now.
The other factor involved here is that some states are required (within a limited timeframe) to implement sources of renewable energy and I suspect Maine is "under the gun" to do so. Hence, the recent LURC recommendation.
If every new house built in America were required to as energy self-sufficient as possible..including tax incentives to build solar and dis-incentives not to then we would begin to turn the tide in the energy struggle. Unfortunately, the average person doesn't even know that he/she can sell power to the grid. Heck, most people don't even know what a compact flourescent or LED lightbulb is.
Not to justify the location of this project(in my backyard) but it may not be as "pristine" as some here may want to believe. A navy base and survival training area are at the SW base of Redington mtn., large ski areas on both AT Saddleback and Sugarloaf mtns., heavy logging (currently) and logging road networks throughout the area. A recent hike to Crocker mtn.(next to Redington) from rt 27 shows the area north of trail heavily logged and the" roar" of tree size log chipper heard all day. A 150' tall stack in nearby town of stratton from Biomass plant(the construction of this plant was heavily contested in mid 80's by many trail and enviromental groups and some members of these groups now consider it a enviromentally friendly plant:confused:)which spews unknown clouds of haze to the area.
The area does not have human habitation but other than that the area has been repeatedly raped for timber resources which continues today.
IMO, the location controversy is all visual asthetics. Ya'll complaining should go off the grid, It's demand that creates these projects and if you are on the grid you are a part of the problem, not a solution to it, probably too late now.
The other factor involved here is that some states are required (within a limited timeframe) to implement sources of renewable energy and I suspect Maine is "under the gun" to do so. Hence, the recent LURC recommendation.
Maine has more alternative generating facilities than all the rest of New England put together. At one time half our energy was produced by such sources. The percentage has shrunk as utilities bought out expensive biomass plants, but it remains high compared with the rest of the nation.
Wind power is competitive only because massive federal subsidies exist. Essentially the entire cost is paid by taxpayers and every kilowatt of electricity produced is rewarded with a subsidy that approaches the wholesale value of the energy.
The Land Use Regulation Commission law makes no exception for energy generation. That is why this recommended approval of Redington is such a dangerous precedent. If this industrial project can be construed to fit
"harmoniously into the natural environment" as the law requires it's hard to imagine any development that could be denied.
The law was designed to keep the wildlands of Maine wild. This recommendation is a flagrant violation of that goal.
Weary
nuclear power creates a byproduct that causes cancer. i've said this before, if anyone that supports nuclear power will allow the industry to bury the waste in their backyard, then i'm good with it. love canal anyone?
this is an at website, so the argument here is asthetics. as is the stance of the atc and matc against the proposed project. i can tell you, this project shouldn't go through because of impacts on the local community of that area (i.e., krumholtz, bog lemmings, bicknell's thrush...). and personally think that is a stronger argument for any proponent to a particular wind site. that said, i've seen wind sites rejected for less. just recently, a wind site in cherry valley, ny was scratched due to public opposition. the area? 1700 foot elevation, farmland, high winds, existing satellite and cellular towers on site, migration counts were minimal, no species of concern detected. why? it would destroy the view for the locals.
if i wasn't too young to remember, i'd think this debate is reminescent of the oil crisis of the 70's. when carter installed solar hot water on the roof of the white house and reagan took them down upon entry. it's a shame we never learned.:(
fiddlehead
12-27-2006, 13:46
Those windmill service people spoke a partial truth, but the implications of what they said was a lie.
These industrial-sized wind power generators operate through a narrow band of wind speeds. All automatically shut down long before winds reach 100-miles an hour.
Weary
They told us that the windmills were designed to shut down at 50 mph., which we knew that it had reached the day before and had seen them not running. The only reason i mentioned the 100 mph is to point out that the windspeed had doubled from the town at the bottom, to the windmills on top of that mtn. I do live near the coast in Phuket, Thailand and agree that there is normally a constant wind there, although perhaps not as strong as on the tops of the mtns.
I too like the area around Saddleback, so much so that it had a lot to do with my moving to the Carrabassett valley back in 1989/90. But, i hate coal burning, oil burning, nuclear power and dams (like the Glen Canyon dam that take away natural features) more than the disadvantages you come up with for these windmills. It is clean energy, and I like seeing and thinking that smart people put those up when i do see them in action.
For the folks who think nuclear power is good, please google depleted uranium and see what it is doing to babies. horrible stuff. imagine living in a war zone and having a pregnant wife. Especially with the present war zone coming from an energy related war. Who wins? Who loses?
For the folks who think nuclear power is good, please google depleted uranium and see what it is doing to babies. horrible stuff. imagine living in a war zone and having a pregnant wife. Especially with the present war zone coming from an energy related war. Who wins? Who loses?
Well, whose idea was it to use the stuff (depleted uranium) for ammo? Blame the sick mind(s) that came up with that.
30 towers. each 250 feet tall with 150 foot blades. That is supposed to be environmentally benign?
this will be one sad day for protection, or lack there of, of AT lands.
why don't we build a bunch of nuclear power plants instead?
David
Are you serious? :confused:
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-27-2006, 15:06
As I understand it, there is now a process called transmutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmutation) available to greatly accelerate the rate at which the most dangerous radioactive wastes deteriorate to the point that they are no longer dangerous. Prior to this development, I was stanchly against nuclear power for the reasons noted by mdionne and fiddlehead.
Burying a waste product that has a radioactive half-life of 100,000 years is not a viable option because mother nature is the ultimate recycler and it would wind up in everything. However, storing a radioactive element with a half-life of 2 years for about five years and then burying it would alleviate this problem.
[quote=weary;292595
The law was designed to keep the wildlands of Maine wild. This recommendation is a flagrant violation of that goal.
Weary[/quote]
Appears to be grounds for legal argument or grounds to overturn their recommendation.? Were there is corruption there is generally money involved.
Is this what's happening here? Are our officials being bought by big business and federal subsidies? I agree we produce more power here than we consume, and pay more for it than the people receiving it "from away":confused:.
What did he say? :confused::(
Uhmm...he is blaming it all on the Liberals. :rolleyes:
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-27-2006, 19:17
For the folks who think nuclear power is good, please google depleted uranium and see what it is doing to babies. horrible stuff. imagine living in a war zone and having a pregnant wife. Especially with the present war zone coming from an energy related war. Who wins? Who loses?Holy {bleep} I had no idea this was still going on.
Fiddlehead, depleted uranium is a byproduct of producing bomb-grade urainium (enrichment) - it is never produced in nuclear power generation in this country to the best of my knowledge.
Well, whose idea was it to use the stuff (depleted uranium) for ammo? Blame the sick mind(s) that came up with that.Amen
TJ aka Teej
12-27-2006, 19:46
Weary, you're twenty times the writer I am, so I know you'd do better at this than I've done. I've spent the better part of an hour trying to write up A Modest Proposal To Build 1000 Giant Windmills in Portland and in Casco Bay (and what I wrote stunk). I think it needs someone more familiar with the subject matter, and should be submitted to the Press Herald. Won't hurt to have it come from a well respected Mainer like Weary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
TREE-HUGGER
12-27-2006, 21:09
But as environmentalist Bill Mc- Kibben says, we are long past the point where appearance and even local environmental considerations can trump the demands of fighting global warming: "The choice is not between wind power and unspoiled nature. The choice is between wind power and the destruction of the world's biology." We need to change the way we generate energy, away from carbon-based fuels and toward renewable power. Maine Mountain Power's 30 turbines represent a major -- albeit painful -- step in that direction.
We need to change the way we generate energy, away from carbon-based fuels and toward renewable power. Maine Mountain Power's 30 turbines represent a major -- albeit painful -- step in that direction.
No one is arguing that point, but where you put them. Maine's a big state and has a hundreds of miles coastline, I don't see the necessity to build them along a NST.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-27-2006, 22:20
Has any research been done on locating these windfarms atop large buildings or along interstate highways?
It is well known that windmills work best when they are located above most surrounding structures and natural features - atop tall buildings on a tower should accomplish this without locating these items on mountain tops.
The traffic moving along interstate highways generates an enormous amount of air movement. It would seem windmills could use this currently wasted energy. Locating the windmills along interstates would also locate them away from most mountain tops.
But as environmentalist Bill Mc- Kibben says, we are long past the point where appearance and even local environmental considerations can trump the demands of fighting global warming: "The choice is not between wind power and unspoiled nature. The choice is between wind power and the destruction of the world's biology." We need to change the way we generate energy, away from carbon-based fuels and toward renewable power. Maine Mountain Power's 30 turbines represent a major -- albeit painful -- step in that direction.
I can partially agree with this post except the claim that REdington would be a "major" solution to the problem of switching away from carbon-based fuels.
It's absurd, I think, to claim we have to damage one of the wildest and most beautiful sestions of a 2000 mile long park for a relatively infintesimal amount of energy. Air pollution everywhere is measured in tons. The developers of this project talk about pounds of pollution averted. To those of us who know anything about such things, this is simply a deliberate way of exaggerating the benefits in hope of confusing a gullible public.
Weary
Jim Adams
12-27-2006, 22:49
windmills can not just be put anywhere. there are specific areas around the world where they will work. the generating turbines produce alot of drag resistance and the wind must be maintained to turn them. the site on this mountain range was probably chosen because it meets all of the criteria for favorable power production by wind. yes the coasts get wind but it usually is not steady enough to produce electricity by windmills.
yes I have highly efficient flourecent light bulbs throughout my 920 sq. ft. house. i don't have a dish washer or cloths dryer. my heat is turned off until december 1st and turned back off on march 1st and it is set at 60* when it is on. my car (mini van) gets 34mpg on the highway and i get 25 around home. i wash cloths in cold water and use passive solar as much as i can. i grow a garden every summer. i don't buy newspapers, i don't use a phone any more than i have to and i take human powered vacations such as backpacking and canoeing instead of Vegas etc.
i grew up and still live in a heavily industrial area of the U.S. (Pittsburgh) and have seen and lived around steel mills, coal fired electrical plants and coal mining all my life. the closest backpacking trail in the area has windmills along it and it makes me feel good when i hike near them because i feel that they are helping to save the environment. i don't feel as though they are ugly or interfering with the environment. THEY ARE HELPING TO SAVE IT! twenty years from now you will be able to hike this area of the A.T. and point out to your grandchildren that those windmills were one of the first steps taken in history to protect the trail.
Trail Hugger is right, look to the future not just the next mountain.
geek
the goat
12-27-2006, 22:55
windmills can not just be put anywhere. there are specific areas around the world where they will work. the generating turbines produce alot of drag resistance and the wind must be maintained to turn them. the site on this mountain range was probably chosen because it meets all of the criteria for favorable power production by wind. yes the coasts get wind but it usually is not steady enough to produce electricity by windmills.
yes I have highly efficient flourecent light bulbs throughout my 920 sq. ft. house. i don't have a dish washer or cloths dryer. my heat is turned off until december 1st and turned back off on march 1st and it is set at 60* when it is on. my car (mini van) gets 34mpg on the highway and i get 25 around home. i wash cloths in cold water and use passive solar as much as i can. i grow a garden every summer. i don't buy newspapers, i don't use a phone any more than i have to and i take human powered vacations such as backpacking and canoeing instead of Vegas etc.
i grew up and still live in a heavily industrial area of the U.S. (Pittsburgh) and have seen and lived around steel mills, coal fired electrical plants and coal mining all my life. the closest backpacking trail in the area has windmills along it and it makes me feel good when i hike near them because i feel that they are helping to save the environment. i don't feel as though they are ugly or interfering with the environment. THEY ARE HELPING TO SAVE IT! twenty years from now you will be able to hike this area of the A.T. and point out to your grandchildren that those windmills were one of the first steps taken in history to protect the trail.
Trail Hugger is right, look to the future not just the next mountain.
geek
amen. nothing will ever get done to help the environment by promoting clean energy with all the nimby arguments. no matter where you try to put wind turbines, somebody, somewhere will be pissed off. just do it.
TJ aka Teej
12-27-2006, 23:04
Maine Mountain Power's 30 turbines represent a major -- albeit painful -- step in that direction.
So put them on top of the already developed ski resort mountains.
Fly By Mike
12-27-2006, 23:13
I can partially agree with this post except the claim that REdington would be a "major" solution to the problem of switching away from carbon-based fuels.
It's absurd, I think, to claim we have to damage one of the wildest and most beautiful sestions of a 2000 mile long park for a relatively infintesimal amount of energy. Air pollution everywhere is measured in tons. The developers of this project talk about pounds of pollution averted. To those of us who know anything about such things, this is simply a deliberate way of exaggerating the benefits in hope of confusing a gullible public.
Weary
In a nutshell Weary, you've got it. Is it worth destroying something as beautiful as the "wild" of Maine for a little bit of "political correctness" in terms of alternative energy? I don't think so.
amen. nothing will ever get done to help the environment by promoting clean energy with all the nimby arguments. no matter where you try to put wind turbines, somebody, somewhere will be pissed off. just do it.
I'm agreeing with goat? :eek: Oh, geek and Bill McKibben, too. Guess that makes it ok. :D
Jim Adams
12-27-2006, 23:23
In a nutshell Weary, you've got it. Is it worth destroying something as beautiful as the "wild" of Maine for a little bit of "political correctness" in terms of alternative energy? I don't think so.
to me the windmills would not be destroying the "wild" of Maine however IMO the "political correctness" aspect is the people fighting against the windmills.:-?
geek
...the site on this mountain range was probably chosen because it meets all of the criteria for favorable power production by wind. yes the coasts get wind but it usually is not steady enough to produce electricity by windmills.,,,,
Well, the site certainly had to meet some minimum requirements of wind direction and velocity, but as near as I can figure the site was chosen mostly because it was cheap. A small business that makes it's money from harvesting wood sold the top of the mountain cheaply because it had no potential for commercial wood harvesting.
Other than being one of the 12 or so peaks in Maine over 4,000 feet in elevation, and being in the viewshed of the AT, Redington had little or no commercial value. As I noted several times previously, all the surveys I've seen by both private and government agencies show the coast has more potential for wind power -- other than the high cost of land.
The summits of Redington and Black Nubble were probably purchased for $200 an acre. It was a pretty good gamble for the two-person team that put the project together and survived for two decades pedaling the dream of government alternative energy subsidies to gullible investors.
Their idea suddenly has traction only because the price of crude oil has doublerd or tripled since the invasion of Iraq.
The same thing happened in 1973-74 when suddenly the dream of harnessing the power potential of the wild St. John River in Northern Maine bounced back in the headlines after Arab nations boycotted the delivery of oil to this country.
Like Redington wind turbines, St. John dams would have only increased the supply of energy by less than 1 percent. But the politicians and no nothings, all jumped on the St. John bandwagon as they are doing now on Redington. We managed to defeat that effort and thus saved the largest undeveloped and most spectacular canoe river east of the Mississippi.
With enough support from the hiking public, we can still defeat Redington. But that remains to be seen. If you want to help, open:
www.matc.org
and make a contribution.
Weary
Fly By Mike
12-27-2006, 23:45
to me the windmills would not be destroying the "wild" of Maine however IMO the "political correctness" aspect is the people fighting against the windmills.:-?
geek
Understand Jim. Sometimes I get a little carried away. What I'm saying is that its very trendy and PC these days to support anything that has to do with alternative energy. To oppose this project might be seen by some as selling out to the oil interests.
twenty years from now you will be able to hike this area of the A.T.
Twenty years from now I'll most likely be dead. You want to dot pristine landscapes with towering windmills instead of looking for alternatives, fine. Do what you want, I do give a **** any more.
Jim Adams
12-28-2006, 00:12
although that area is very "well kept" under the circumstances, it is by no means prestine wilderness. there are roads in the area and developement that is just not easily seen as well as uses of other resources and the area is just not remote enough to be unaffected by encroachment.
geek
Did I say pristine wilderness? I know Maine is a illusion of wilderess, but doting the landscape certainly wont help keep a scenic trail scenic.
One thing I have noticed living up in Alaska is that we build SMALL houses that are very VERY efficient. The cabin we live in is 20 by 20 and our little toyo stove keeps us plenty warm and costs next to nothing ... compared to what you pay. I can pretty much gaurantee we are way colder too. Why we think we need the huge houses down there ... with all the bedrooms and gigantic septics..and all the lights. It is astonishing to see al the waste after being up here for awhile. there are hints of change here now... sad to say... but still plenty of folks living without power and water. They do just fine.
Tipi Walter
12-28-2006, 09:17
One thing I have noticed living up in Alaska is that we build SMALL houses that are very VERY efficient. The cabin we live in is 20 by 20 and our little toyo stove keeps us plenty warm and costs next to nothing ... compared to what you pay. I can pretty much gaurantee we are way colder too. Why we think we need the huge houses down there ... with all the bedrooms and gigantic septics..and all the lights. It is astonishing to see al the waste after being up here for awhile. there are hints of change here now... sad to say... but still plenty of folks living without power and water. They do just fine.
This is more like it. I guess Alaska still has that frontier mentality that makes people rough and ready, danged happy to live simply and therefore free. It IS astonishing to see the waste we as Americans produce by living large. There are cultural dynamics at work here, myths of a "chosen people" with a City On The Hill illuminating the rest of humanity with our self-appointed moral righteousness. What we call freedom and democracy others call toxic technologies and unbridled capitalist fascism resulting in unchecked development and sprawl, resource and oil addiction, the obliteration of individual species on a near daily basis, all in the name of maintaining our accepted standard of living.
I don't think changing light bulbs or adjusting the fine points of where to put windmills even comes close to addressing the underlying problem and deep-seated philosophical worldview responsible for this mess in the first place. Drastic individual changes in lifestyle, whether by choice or my chaos, will probably be the only real solution. Doing it by choice and with a thinking reflective mind has to be better than doing it under duress.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-28-2006, 09:28
For the record - I was the one who said 'pristine wilderness'.
::: bites Jim Adams on the toes for confusing me with Sly :eek: :::
As a newspaper reporter I covered these issues for 35 years -- squabbles between developers and their opponents.
I quickly stopped using the word environmentalist, because the battle was almost always between people who wanted to make a profit and those who wanted to protect something they owned from being devalued by that development or simply to protect a special place they loved. Calling one side "environmentalists" made about as much sense as accusing parents with a thing about having their kids educated "educationalists." Unfortunately, no other newspaper followed my lead so society has a new bogeyman "environmentalists."
My role was basically to report what both were saying and to keep the debate honest by reporting the facts when one side or the other resorted to falsehoods.
This debate is a bit different. There are still those who seek profits and those who seek to protect a place they love. There are the usual falshoods, such as the claim the 400 foot high lighted towers and turbine blades will be virtually invisible from a trail located a mile away. But in this debate there is the added complication of global warming.
Global warming is a fact that needs to be dealt with. But we do not need to destroy this earth in order the save it in my opinion. This particular project will do so little to reduce global warming that it really should not be an issue. On the other hand approval sets a terrible precedent that opens Maine's forest land to virtually unlimited development of all kinds.
Nor I suspect do most people realize how monstrously disrupting just the installation of the machines will be. Each tower will be planted in a hole blasted out of the ridgeline 20 feet in diameter and 35 feet deep with the excavated rock dispersed around the mountain sides. Miles of access roads need to be built to get the towers on site, and miles of power lines to get the energy to market.
No, the area isn't pristine, but the nearest public roads are miles away. It's 36 miles between Route 4 near Rangeley to Route 27 near Stratton -- one of the longest such stretches on the entire Appalachian Trail.
Yes, the forest has been harvested heavily. But trees grow back. The wind turbines and the disruption of the mountains' natural environment remain forever.
The development is proposed in the largest cluster of 4000' plus peaks in Maine. Together the peaks have more land above timberline, and a more uncluttered viewshed than Katahdin, as well as more fragile and rare mountain plants, more endangered wildlife....
Weary
www.matc.org www.matlt.org
Global warming is a fact that needs to be dealt with.
While I'll agree that warming is occurring, the debate comes when we try to ascribe it's causes entirely to man's activities. We're still well shy of the temperatures the Earth achieved during the Medieval Warm Period, and that wasn't caused by anything mankind was doing. Actually, we've only just emerged from a prolonged cyclical cold period. I just think we need to avoid letting politicians proclaim a "crisis" just so that they can then claim to have the "solution"; which is what is happening IMHO. These towers will do NOTHING to alleviate global warming or help the environment. They will only negatively impact our enjoyment thereof.
Tipi Walter
12-28-2006, 16:25
While I'll agree that warming is occurring, the debate comes when we try to ascribe it's causes entirely to man's activities. We're still well shy of the temperatures the Earth achieved during the Medieval Warm Period, and that wasn't caused by anything mankind was doing. Actually, we've only just emerged from a prolonged cyclical cold period. I just think we need to avoid letting politicians proclaim a "crisis" just so that they can then claim to have the "solution"; which is what is happening IMHO. These towers will do NOTHING to alleviate global warming or help the environment. They will only negatively impact our enjoyment thereof.
The problem with this argument is that it seems to excuse all of man's actions for any kind of environmental problem. If man is not causing global warming and we agree that he is not, then of course he is also not causing sprawl, clearcutting, mercury in the air and water, smog pollution, extinction of species and all the rest. If we can't agree on global warming let us at least agree on one specific problem and try to fix it.
Within the global warming problem are many other problems that are occurring and cannot be denied, denying global warming does not automatically deny human participation in what is obvious(and what is linked to global warming), such as the current quality of air in the Smokies. Phew, I'm spent. Log out.
The northeast has poor air quality too and acid rain,high mercury levels in much of the water(fish eating advisories). Not too hard to figure out the cause of all of these pollutants.
On a lighter note, someone needs to go into the Redington Navy base and teach the young Navy Fly Boys how to properly dispose of their spent parachutes after landing in the woods. This past fall, game wardens , biologists and other animal rescue personell had to go in there and release a BULL MOOSE from his encounter with a parachute. Seems the poor guy was all tangled up in the thing and the chute was snagged on trees . It took some sedation and time to get him freed up. A small clip in the local paper about it but pretty hushed up news, otherwise I'd post the story. The moose was some happy after being freed up and ran off knowing well enough to stay away from future encounters with parachutes.
And while whoever goes in to straighten em out, wanna tell em to hold the noise down in there.....machine gun fire, grenades goin off, sirens wailing....this is suppose to be wilderness.
And if your hiking in the Redington area, keep an eye out for these guys on their survival missions, they are hungry, stealthy and desperate for anything to eat so watch your packs!LOL
While I'll agree that warming is occurring, the debate comes when we try to ascribe it's causes entirely to man's activities. ...
No one who knows anything about the issue ascribes the cause of global warming "entirely to man's activities."
There is no realistic way for humans to change the natural cycles of temperature changes. There is overwhelming evidence that humans are causing much of the temperature increases of recent decades, and that if we don't change our practices we will be the cause of serious impacts on the liveability of the earth during the coming decades.
There is also some evidence that were it not for a natural cooling cycle and some other harmful pollutants we dump in the atmosphere which filter out some of the sun's energy, our contribution to greenhouse gases would already be causing major damage to life on this planet.
Weary
jmaclennan
12-29-2006, 18:39
things will only be getting worse in terms of the urgency with which we need to site wind farms and develop alternative energy on a larger scale. if not because of global warming, because of the impending oil peak. for a good introduction to this issue, i recommend the film, "The End of Suburbia." off-the-grid living (which i am trying to put myself into a position to be able to do) seems like a necessity after seeing this film. PLEASE PM me if you have any ideas or resources that would help me speed my family's transition from the grid. i'd be more than happy to share my personal situation with you if that would help you instruct me.
Tipi Walter
12-29-2006, 19:16
things will only be getting worse in terms of the urgency with which we need to site wind farms and develop alternative energy on a larger scale. if not because of global warming, because of the impending oil peak. for a good introduction to this issue, i recommend the film, "The End of Suburbia." off-the-grid living (which i am trying to put myself into a position to be able to do) seems like a necessity after seeing this film. PLEASE PM me if you have any ideas or resources that would help me speed my family's transition from the grid. i'd be more than happy to share my personal situation with you if that would help you instruct me.
I've known several families scattered across the NC mountains that have built alternative shelters off the grid and lived for years this way. In Celo, NC there is a community indirectly associated with an old Quaker landtrust that has many members exploring different energy ideas. For them necessity is the mother of invention, etc.
What I've seen are two main approaches: High tech and low. My journey was low tech but many people take the high tech road with solar panels, composting toilets, woodstove water heaters, the werks. I've been out of the loop research-wise but a resource I used in the 1970's and 80's was Mother Earth News magazine, the back issues go back to around 1970 and pretty much cover everything relevant to simple living. I think they are available on CD now.
I've known several families scattered across the NC mountains that have built alternative shelters off the grid and lived for years this way. In Celo, NC there is a community indirectly associated with an old Quaker landtrust that has many members exploring different energy ideas. For them necessity is the mother of invention, etc.
This what you're talking about Walter? http://www.ravenrocks.org/What_is_RR/overview.htm
Looks pretty interesting.
Tipi Walter
12-29-2006, 23:54
Thanks for the added information. Part of the Celo influence I am speaking of includes the Mountain Gardens of Joe Hollis who has done some pretty incredible things on just 3.5 acres of mountainside land, and people associated with the Arthur Morgan School by the Toe River.
Close to Celo near Asheville is Warren Wilson College which teaches many alternative technologies and sends its students out better equipped than the students most colleges graduate. There are many small enclaves of people trying to live in simplicity, I've met them and have been to their communities. Some are old hippies and some are young families scrapping by and living out their dream of designing their own homes and growing their own food. Most want to live off the grid and do.