PDA

View Full Version : Black Nubble Wind Project Defeated



weary
01-14-2008, 13:05
A victory for the protection of the trail! Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission this morning rejected for a second time placing 400-foot high wind turbines on Black Nubble Mountain, located about three miles from the Appalachian Trail near Saddleback and Crocker Mountains in Maine.

The proposal had been pending for more than a decade. The primary opponents of the project had been the Maine Appalachian Trail Club, though the Appalachian Mountain Club, local mountain protection groups, and Maine Audubon also joined in the opposition.

The project was first rejected last year when the developer also wanted wind towers on Redington Mountain, located just a mile from the trail. The developer later revised the plans for a Black Nubble only project.

Commission members cited scenic impacts on the Appalachian Trail.

I wasn't at the meeting because my ride cancelled out at the last minute because of a major coastal snow storm, but the proceedings were available over the internet.

MATC raised and spent around $80,000 fighting the project, which would have been visible along many miles of the trail between Saddleback and the Bigelow Preserve.

Technically, the seven LURC commissioners cast two votes. A motion to ask the commission staff to prepare an order approving the project was rejected. Then a motion was offered to ask the staff to prepare an order for rejection and it passed. I couldn't tell what the final margin of rejection was. The chair simply said, "well, that ends this discussion. Let's go to lunch."

Weary

Sly
01-14-2008, 13:10
Great. Maybe they can try a potato farm in Aroostook County or non fishing grounds off shore.

mudhead
01-14-2008, 13:23
Cape Cod is a prime location.

neighbor dave
01-14-2008, 13:28
:-?there's alot of great off trail 'whackin' to be done in that area.:-?
black nubble is a nice summit along with sw black nubble. potato nubble, n. horn, poplar ridge,the redington range.

JoeHiker
01-14-2008, 13:28
"scenic impacts"

Translation: "I'm all for clean energy as long as my pretty views aren't disrupted by the horror of something man-made". At that point, screw the environment.

Sly
01-14-2008, 13:30
Cape Cod is a prime location.

Yeah, they're working on it but where it's proposed is a fishing ground.

4eyedbuzzard
01-14-2008, 13:31
Where should we locate relatively clean alternative energy?

NIMBY:-?

Sly
01-14-2008, 13:33
Where should we locate relatively clean alternative energy?

NIMBY:-?

I lived less than a mile from Pilgrim Nuclear Station and had no problem. :sun

woodsy
01-14-2008, 13:37
*****! I was hoping to land a job on that project. Now I'll have to drive 20 miles further to work the Kibby windpower(MATC approved) project, dang it all!

Sly
01-14-2008, 13:39
*****! I was hoping to land a job on that project. Now I'll have to drive 20 miles further to work the Kibby windpower(MATC approved) project, dang it all!

Woodsy, maybe you can car pool. ;)

woodsy
01-14-2008, 13:45
Woodsy, maybe you can car pool. ;)
Yeah, that or saddle up one of them maine swamp donkeys (http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/showimage.php?i=16212&c=member&imageuser=7914), they come with gas included. I clocked one @ 30 mph in a full gallop running ahead of the rig on a back road. Those long legs are made for covering some serious ground. back to regular scheduled program, windpower defeat.

mudhead
01-14-2008, 13:49
"scenic impacts"

Translation: "I'm all for clean energy as long as my pretty views aren't disrupted by the horror of something man-made". At that point, screw the environment.

Last I checked, most of the juice would be headed for MA.

Less streetlights in ME to power up.

I think tidal may be more interesting in the future.

Until then, I keep the stereo unplugged.

weary
01-14-2008, 13:49
Where should we locate relatively clean alternative energy?

NIMBY:-?
Maine has more approved wind power projects than all the rest of New England combined. Until a few years ago half of Maine's energy consumption came from alternative energy.

Unfortunately, some proved uneconomic even in this era of expensive oil and were closed for economic reasons. But we still get more of our energy from alternative sources than any other state in the northeast. Possibly more than any state east of the Mississippi. I haven't seen the statistics recently.

Alternative energy is important. But wise people know that you don't have to destroy the last wild places in order to save the world.

Weary

Sly
01-14-2008, 13:52
Last I checked, most of the juice would be headed for MA.


I think that's BS. When power hits the grid is goes any number of directions. It's not a trunk line to any one customer.

mudhead
01-14-2008, 13:55
The grid is "south" of here, some even comes from New Brunswick.

Wind power is a romantic notion, but a drop in the bucket.

Sly
01-14-2008, 14:11
The grid is "south" of here, some even comes from New Brunswick.



Yeah, every state is south (or west) of there but you only mentioned MA. Correct me if I'm wrong but much of ME power comes from Canada.

dessertrat
01-14-2008, 14:12
Where should we put it? If it is in an area too remote (such as ANWR) it is "pristine wilderness" and therefore shouldn't be touched. And if it is nearer to civilization, it is nixed because of "scenic impact".

In other words, it's no good if someone can see it, and it's no good if nobody can see it. How about putting a windmill on top of every building in New York City?

dessertrat
01-14-2008, 14:13
Maine has more approved wind power projects than all the rest of New England combined. Until a few years ago half of Maine's energy consumption came from alternative energy.

Unfortunately, some proved uneconomic even in this era of expensive oil and were closed for economic reasons. But we still get more of our energy from alternative sources than any other state in the northeast. Possibly more than any state east of the Mississippi. I haven't seen the statistics recently.

Alternative energy is important. But wise people know that you don't have to destroy the last wild places in order to save the world.

Weary

Does alternative include hydro power, which was approved back in the day, but would never be approved today?

Sly
01-14-2008, 14:14
Where should we put it? If it is in an area too remote (such as ANWR) it is "pristine wilderness" and therefore shouldn't be touched. And if it is nearer to civilization, it is nixed because of "scenic impact".


I've already mentioned two spots in ME. Aroostook County and off shore.

weary
01-14-2008, 14:50
Does alternative include hydro power, which was approved back in the day, but would never be approved today?
The basic environmental protection laws in Maine were passed in the 1970s. Since then scores of hydro projects have been approved. Many are no longer working because the energy costs more than competing sources.

But yes, hydro power is an alternative source of energy. Most of the good hydro sites have been built. Those that remain would damage vast landscapes for minimum energy benefit.

But new hydro turbines are still being installed in Maine. One is pending on the Penobscot River.

But like wind, hydro power is not always necessarily wise. During the 1970 energy crisis an effort was made to dam the St. John River in northern Maine. Some think my stories helped to defeat that project.

Though the politicians trumpeted the project as providing "unlimited cheap energy" I pointed out that the hydroelectric dams would incease New England's supply of electricity by just eight/tenths of one percent and would turn the wildest river east of the Mississippi into a 100,000 acre storage basin with wildly fluctuating shorelines.

Weary

Bob S
01-14-2008, 15:03
People scream about oil pollution and want us to find alternative energy. But when someone tries to use another energy producing source everyone complains and slaps an injunction on the project.

The theme seems to be. Let’s just keep using oil and throwing carbon into the environment because I don’t like nuclear power (the safest power we have) wind power, solar power, who would want a bunch of ugly solar panels on their roof?

You can’t have it both ways, either we embrace alternative energy and encourage investment in it or we keep burning fossil fuels. Our world is built on using energy to do things. This is never going to change. But we can change how we get that energy.

But windmills are ugly; I don’t want to look at them while I’m hiking, sounds very selfish and a bit childish. OK a lot childish!

JDCool1
01-14-2008, 15:18
I do not have all of the academic research but I would put my money behind solar. Each roof should have enough space for a colletion of solar panels, enough to generate power for the building upon whose roof the panels are placed and then some. Not hearing that much about solar hear recently.

Sly
01-14-2008, 15:22
I do not have all of the academic research but I would put my money behind solar. Each roof should have enough space for a colletion of solar panels, enough to generate power for the building upon whose roof the panels are placed and then some. Not hearing that much about solar hear recently.

Solar is cool. If I were to buy some land to build a house, it would have to have to be facing the south.

Rocinante
01-14-2008, 15:42
Great news!

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/01/14/maine-rejects-wind-power-project/

Maine rejects wind-power project

Just as they did a year ago, Maine land use regulators voted Monday to turn down a wind-power projects on Black Nubble Mountain in western Maine, one of two such projects before them.


The Land Use Regulation Commission voted 4-2 to recommend rejecting Maine Mountain Powerís plan for an 18-turbine project in Redington and Wyman townships, saying the wind farm would mar the view in the western Maine mountains.


ďIím disappointed,Ē said Harley Lee, president of Endless Energy, one of the two companies comprising Maine Mountain Power. Lee said he was not surprised, given the commissionís decision a year ago to overturn a staff recommendation and reject a much larger version of the project that also included turbines on Redington Mountain.


Lee said he was not giving up on the project, and expressed hope that a new process thatís being discussed to review future wind projects can revive Maine Mountainís proposal.


On Monday afternoon, the commission was to consider a preliminary plan by TransCanada Maine Wind Development and Plum Creek Maine Timberlands to rezone more than 2,300 acres for a 44-turbine project in Kibby and Skinner townships. That project is also in Franklin County.


Maine already has one major wind power project on Mars Hill and another one is under construction on Stetson Mountain in eastern Maine.


Maine Mountain, a joint venture of Endless Energy Co. in Yarmouth and Edison Mission Group of California, said its Black Nubble project was an improvement to an earlier, 30-turbine project that would have also included towers on Redington Mountain.


A year ago, LURC rejected the previous project as too intrusive on sensitive environmental areas and unsightly from the Appalachian Trail. Some doubts remained on LURC membersí minds Monday.


Commissioner Edward Laverty opened Mondayís session by questioning how the project became financially viable after it was scaled back from 30 turbines last year. He also raised the issue of funding for decommissioning.


Commissioner Gwen Hilton said she was concerned that approval of the Black Nubble project would suggest LURC is also poised to give a ďgreen lightĒ to other western Maine wind projects. Others said they still had questions about the visual impact on the nearby Appalachian Trail, and said they were puzzled by contradictory testimony on some issues before them.


By Glenn Adams
BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8U5QMDG0.htm)
14 January 2008

weary
01-14-2008, 15:42
People scream about oil pollution and want us to find alternative energy. But when someone tries to use another energy producing source everyone complains and slaps an injunction on the project.

The theme seems to be. Let’s just keep using oil and throwing carbon into the environment because I don’t like nuclear power (the safest power we have) wind power, solar power, who would want a bunch of ugly solar panels on their roof?

You can’t have it both ways, either we embrace alternative energy and encourage investment in it or we keep burning fossil fuels. Our world is built on using energy to do things. This is never going to change. But we can change how we get that energy.

But windmills are ugly; I don’t want to look at them while I’m hiking, sounds very selfish and a bit childish. OK a lot childish!
Are you saying that whenever a developer thinks he can make a profit with wind power, it should automatically be allowed? I think that is absurd, especially since the federal government pretty much guarantees a profit.

The money behind Black Nubble came from one of the nation's largest coal-fired electricity developers. Had the project been approved the developer would have earned tax credits he could apply to reduce the cost of his next coal plant.

Weary

Lilred
01-14-2008, 15:43
No one ever mentions the impact that windmills have on wildlife. They kill birds by the tens of thousands every year. You'll find hundreds of dead birds at the bottom of most windmills.

woodsy
01-14-2008, 16:01
No one ever mentions the impact that windmills have on wildlife. They kill birds by the tens of thousands every year. You'll find hundreds of dead birds at the bottom of most windmills.
Not nearly as bad as at the bottom of glass skyscrapers and other glass buildings? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4134773/)
Maybe we should start tearing these buildings down to the 2 story level, and let the birds own the skies?

mudhead
01-14-2008, 16:14
Yeah, every state is south (or west) of there but you only mentioned MA. Correct me if I'm wrong but much of ME power comes from Canada.
My sore spot. Martha's needs a wind farm. Say visible from ted's finger floats.

Where should we put it? If it is in an area too remote (such as ANWR) it is "pristine wilderness" and therefore shouldn't be touched. And if it is nearer to civilization, it is nixed because of "scenic impact".

In other words, it's no good if someone can see it, and it's no good if nobody can see it. How about putting a windmill on top of every building in New York City?

This is a tough question. Nothing pristine about Sugarloaf. That stuff up there hums pretty loud, too.

I think rooftops offer many opportunities. Solar cell shingles. Panels.

Rocinante
01-14-2008, 17:41
Unfortunately, Kibby Mountain will be sacrificed for the "need" for additional sources of electricity.

But hey, no sweat. It's "green" electricity, right?

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/01/14/maine-oks-rejects-wind-projects/

Maine Oks, rejects wind projects


Maine land use regulators voted unanimously to approve TransCanadaís wind-power project in western Maine, but rejected a second poject by another group that had been scaled back after being turned down a year ago.


The Land Use Regulation Commission voted to allow a 44-turbine project near the Canadian border in Franklin County, saying TransCanada Maine Wind Developmentís application answered its concerns that roads would be built properly, and birds and bats would be protected.


Commissioners also said the developerís project would not present the same kind of intrusion on the highlands scenery as the project proposed by Maine Mountain Power, whose 18-turbine project south of TransCanadaís was turned down by a 4-2 vote earlier in the day.


ďIt doesnít rise to the same level of uniqueness,Ē said Commissioner Gwen Hilton. ďThe (TransCanada) wind farm fits better with the landscape,Ē which she said features rolling hills that are lower than those where Maine Mountain wanted to put its windmills.


While approving TransCanadaís plan, commissioners said they want assurances enough money will be available for the removal of the towers at the end of their useful life. Those concerns will be expressed in a document to be written by the LURC staff recommending the projectís approval.


TransCanada, based in Calgary, Alberta, owns or has interests in North American pipelines and claims a power portfolio that includes nuclear, natural gas, coal, hydro and wind generation. It says its Maine project would turn out enough power to supply the needs of 50,000 average homes.


LURC turned back Maine Mountain Powerís scaled-back plan for a wind farm on Black Nubble Mountain in Redington and Wyman townships.
ďIím disappointed,Ē said Harley Lee, president of Endless Energy Co. of Yarmouth, which partnered with Edison Mission Group of California to form Maine Mountain Power. Lee said he was not surprised, given LURCís January 2007 decision to overturn a staff recommendation and reject a larger version.


Lee said he was not giving up on the project, and expressed hope that a new process thatís being discussed in state government to review future wind projects can revive Maine Mountainís proposal.


ďIt may not be LURC that reviews wind farms in the future,Ē Lee said.
In his State of the State speech last week, Gov. John Baldacci cited Maineís ďtremendous potential for wind powerĒ as he announced a public-private initiative to develop Maine-made sources of heat and energy.


In turning down a 30-turbine proposal last year that also included towers on
Redington Mountain, LURC said it was too intrusive on sensitive environmental areas and unsightly from the Appalachian Trail. Some of those doubts remained on LURC membersí minds Monday.


After some environmental groups that opposed Maine Mountainís original plan advanced a scaled-back version, the company said in 2006 that the 18-tower project would not be viable because it would reduce the projectís power-generating capacity and increase capital and operating costs.


On Monday, LURC Commissioner Edward Laverty questioned how the project could have become financially viable in its new form. He also raised the issue of funding for decommissioning.


Hilton said she was concerned that approval of the Black Nubble project would suggest LURC is also poised to give a ďgreen lightĒ to other western Maine wind projects. Others said they still had questions about the visual impact on the nearby Appalachian Trail, and said they were puzzled by contradictory testimony on some issues before them.


The commissionís action drew criticism from Conservation Law Foundation, which supported both projects.


ďBy approving only the Kibby project and not the Black Nubble project, the commission sends a mixed message and has unfortunately elevated subjective aesthetic interests above the impending catastrophe of climate change,Ē said CLFís Sean Mahoney.


Another environmental group, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said in a statement that LURC ďcould have taken two steps forward on clean energy for Maine; instead they took one.Ē


Maine already has one major wind power project on Mars Hill in the northern part of the state and another one is under construction on Stetson Mountain in eastern Maine.


By Glenn Adams
The Associated Press
businessweek.com (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8U5SSQ82.htm)
14 January 2008

Peaks
01-14-2008, 17:48
Before anyone starts bashing AMC, just remember that this club, along with a few others, paid for the lobbying to stop this project.

Appalachian Tater
01-14-2008, 17:56
We are orbiting a giant nuclear fusion plant that requires no maintenance on our part and causes no pollution, although exposing ourselves to the energy for too long can be harmful to our skin. To make it even better, the energy is transmitted to us without any effort or expense on our part.

This energy plant has been the ultimate source of almost all energy on earth since the beginning of life on the planet. We've been using the stored form of this energy but it pollutes our air and the stored energy will eventually run out if we don't kill ourselves using it first.

Now, all we have to do is figure out a way to gather the energy and use it in a sustainable way.

Bob S
01-14-2008, 17:57
No one ever mentions the impact that windmills have on wildlife. They kill birds by the tens of thousands every year. You'll find hundreds of dead birds at the bottom of most windmills.


Unfounded?

I donít think this is the case. Letís see you post proof of this.

Going into Michiganís UP from the lower part of the state there is 2 very big (like 150 ft wing span) wind generators. I spend a lot of time in this area and I have never heard of lots of birds lying dead at the base of these generators. If you watch them, they donít spin that fast (yes I have watched them while waiting to get across the bridge and from time spent in the area) , the birds could easily see and avoid the blades. They donít spin like a fan. I would guess 1 revolution every 20 seconds. They generate power, not from high speed but through a transmission (like in a car) that speeds up the slow speed to something the generator can use.










Are you saying that whenever a developer thinks he can make a profit with wind power, it should automatically be allowed? I think that is absurd, especially since the federal government pretty much guarantees a profit.

All Iím saying is we as a people like energy, itís the force that drives our world. It has to come from someplace. If you want a greener planet we have to develop energy sources other then fossil fuel. It seems you donít want any of these projects built around you.

By the way, No profit is really being made, if the government takes money from all of us (itís called taxes) and gives it to him. We become a sugar daddy with deep pockets, but itís not real profit, itís a government give away program. Germany does a lot of government subsidized programs for solar electricity. While itís not commercially profitable yet, they have hopes that by subsidizing solar energy production. Prices for solar energy production will come down as more people get into this field. And that it will become profitable without the government having to support it.



Had the project been approved the developer would have earned tax credits he could apply to reduce the cost of his next coal plant.

Unless he said he was going to take the money to build more coal plants you canít say that other then to diss the wind project you donít like. Who says he would not build more wind farms with the government money? I donít think you know any more then I do, and I donít know.




Tell me how do you think we should get alternative energy going? It seems clear you donít want wind power to be used, or is it you donít want it used around you, but you are OK with it as long as you donít have to see it? In order for it to work, they have to be put someplace, in your state is as good as mine or anyplace else.

All the green talk is great, but it seems to only be great when it doesnít spoil your view. One could easily come to the conclusion that pro-green people are less then honest in their green views when they fight and shoot down projects like this.

Sly
01-14-2008, 18:16
My sore spot. Martha's needs a wind farm. Say visible from ted's finger floats.


Your sore spot is endangering off Cape & Islands fishing grounds, Cape & Vineyard fishermen and to get back at Ted K? Odd.... :rolleyes:

peakbagger
01-14-2008, 18:37
FYI, there is a 100 MW windfarm being permitted for Northern NH in the Phillips Brook Area (North of the Whites), NH has a lot easier permitting and doesnt have LURC so they expect that the farm will be going in late 2008 or early 2009. There is an additional 150MW farm proposed by the same developer once the transmisssion system to Northern NH is upgraded.

neighbor dave
01-14-2008, 18:46
FYI, there is a 100 MW windfarm being permitted for Northern NH in the Phillips Brook Area (North of the Whites), NH has a lot easier permitting and doesnt have LURC so they expect that the farm will be going in late 2008 or early 2009. There is an additional 150MW farm proposed by the same developer once the transmisssion system to Northern NH is upgraded.
:-?lots of great bushwhackin' 'round there too!:-?

Tin Man
01-14-2008, 18:52
Weary, Where do you stand on nuclear power?

Critterman
01-14-2008, 19:07
Unfounded?

I donít think this is the case. Letís see you post proof of this.

Going into Michiganís UP from the lower part of the state there is 2 very big (like 150 ft wing span) wind generators. I spend a lot of time in this area and I have never heard of lots of birds lying dead at the base of these generators. If you watch them, they donít spin that fast (yes I have watched them while waiting to get across the bridge and from time spent in the area) , the birds could easily see and avoid the blades. They donít spin like a fan. I would guess 1 revolution every 20 seconds. They generate power, not from high speed but through a transmission (like in a car) that speeds up the slow speed to something the generator can use. ....

Over Christmas I was up in Texas panhandle north of Amarillo. There are dozens of these giant windmills just outside the town we were in. Trust me they can and do spin much faster than 3 rpm. They are a hazard for birds and in West Virginia they had some on mountain tops that diced up hundreds of bats.

Critterman
01-14-2008, 19:11
....The money behind Black Nubble came from one of the nation's largest coal-fired electricity developers. Had the project been approved the developer would have earned tax credits he could apply to reduce the cost of his next coal plant. Weary

Or maybe he won't put up that next coal plant because he has a wind plant instead.

Jim Adams
01-14-2008, 19:30
Before anyone starts bashing AMC, just remember that this club, along with a few others, paid for the lobbying to stop this project.

EXACTLY!!!!

this is just another kick in the teeth against anyone who truely cares about our environment.

keep the coal fired plants...the weather travels toward Maine...won't be able to see those views anyway in a few years. then no one will object to building wind mills because no one will even know that those windmills are there.

BTW, if the windmills are SO objectional, why are they so interesting that they are included in EVERY PCT slide show?
this is just another case of NIMBY.:mad:

geek

Bob S
01-14-2008, 19:35
Over Christmas I was up in Texas panhandle north of Amarillo. There are dozens of these giant windmills just outside the town we were in. Trust me they can and do spin much faster than 3 rpm. They are a hazard for birds and in West Virginia they had some on mountain tops that diced up hundreds of bats.


Thatís why I had a question mark after unfounded.

Really I have never seen the ones in Mackinac spin very fast, even on a very windy day they donít seem to go fast. I donít see it as a big deal that a few birds get in the way. More birds get killed because they fly in front of cars and trucks, do you propose we donít drive? Of course not, itís part of the way things work.

I have a small wind generator, but itís not really a major energy producer, itís only a 4-foot diameter sweep and puts out 12-volts, not 110-volts. Itís a fun project to play with, but thatís all.



I donít think wind farms will ever be a big source of energy; they are not consistently reliable for energy. When the wind stops, so do they.

I was told that the ones in the Mackinac straits were almost 1,000,000 each to put up.They are nice looking but for 1,000,000 they should be.


Solar could work once we get the prices down. Nuclear power also works and I read itís the energy with the best safety track record (in The USA & France.) Russia doesnít have the safety procurers we do in the USA.

Hydro-electric power is better. But then people scream whenever there is talk about a dam being put in.

If we are going to get off our dependence on oil, we have to actually build the other energy ideas. And it will have to go in someoneís back yard.

Sly
01-14-2008, 19:36
BTW, if the windmills are SO objectional, why are they so interesting that they are included in EVERY PCT slide show?



I have a few windmills in my PCT sideshow and always explained how much they SUCKED being on a National Scenic Trail. :D

mudhead
01-14-2008, 20:14
Your sore spot is endangering off Cape & Islands fishing grounds, Cape & Vineyard fishermen and to get back at Ted K? Odd.... :rolleyes:
More the stick it up in Maine attitude. But Ted will always be a slug in my mind. I will not judge him.

Over Christmas I was up in Texas panhandle north of Amarillo. There are dozens of these giant windmills just outside the town we were in. Trust me they can and do spin much faster than 3 rpm. They are a hazard for birds and in West Virginia they had some on mountain tops that diced up hundreds of bats.
Just north of Amarillo you have Pantax (Pantex?) which is very scary. Further up you get oilfields, the smell of diesel, industrial yuckiness. But the wind does blow. People I met there were very "extractive."

EXACTLY!!!!

this is just another kick in the teeth against anyone who truely cares about our environment.

keep the coal fired plants...the weather travels toward Maine...won't be able to see those views anyway in a few years. then no one will object to building wind mills because no one will even know that those windmills are there.

BTW, if the windmills are SO objectional, why are they so interesting that they are included in EVERY PCT slide show?
this is just another case of NIMBY.:mad:

geek

After you see the windfarm a few times, the shine wears off. The first time I saw it I thought it was kind of cool. How much AC do you figure Palm Springs requires? I am glad this is not about golf courses.

weary
01-14-2008, 22:24
Before anyone starts bashing AMC, just remember that this club, along with a few others, paid for the lobbying to stop this project.
It wasn't lobbying that stopped Black Nubble but economic and environmental facts, and persuasive legal argument based on Maine law.. AMC sent one of its staff scientists to the hearings and he presented solid testimony.

But the group that caused the defeat was the MATC, with financial help from the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. Together MATC and ATC spent around $160,000 for scientific experts and legal assistance. AMC sent its staff. Aside from travel and hotel costs, it invested very little.

The developer spent many times this over many years in a public relations effort to negate the scientific and legal facts. Somewhat to my surprise it didn't work.

Neither MATC (Maine Appalachian Trail Club) nor ATC are very skilled at lobbying. They did go to one of the best law firms, who gave us a break on the firms usual fees.

The lawyer, Bill Plouffe, is also the unpaid vice president of the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust and a member of the ATC board of directors. Several land trust members testified during the public phase of the hearings, but we were not official intervenors in the case.

Aside from MATC not being especially skilled at lobbying, the LURC commissioners are a semi judicial board. Like a jury, the seven commissioners are forbidden to take notice of any information that is not presented as a part of the formal hearings.

Only six voted because the seventh had cited information and conversations gained outside the hearings and was forced to recuse himself from the decision -- a lucky break for us.

Weary

Critterman
01-14-2008, 22:57
Thatís why I had a question mark after unfounded.

Really I have never seen the ones in Mackinac spin very fast, even on a very windy day they donít seem to go fast. I donít see it as a big deal that a few birds get in the way. More birds get killed because they fly in front of cars and trucks, do you propose we donít drive? Of course not, itís part of the way things work. .....

I think the wind mills are fine. The only problem is they are made in Europe!

Critterman
01-14-2008, 23:06
Just north of Amarillo you have Pantax (Pantex?) which is very scary. Further up you get oilfields, the smell of diesel, industrial yuckiness. But the wind does blow. People I met there were very "extractive."...

If you want nuclear weapons ( pantex plant assembles them ), natural gas, oil, wheat, cotton or cattle, the panhandle has them all. Would be a lot of cold frozen yankees in the dark without that natural gas.

Tha Wookie
01-15-2008, 10:04
Where should we locate relatively clean alternative energy?

NIMBY:-?

You are welcome to put in my back yard.

JAK
01-15-2008, 12:03
Generally speaking, forests are not good place for wind farms.

weary
01-15-2008, 12:18
You are welcome to put in my back yard.
Or my backyard on the coast of Maine. Just not on my (AT) trail.

Weary

Sly
01-15-2008, 12:36
If you want nuclear weapons ( pantex plant assembles them ), natural gas, oil, wheat, cotton or cattle, the panhandle has them all. Would be a lot of cold frozen yankees in the dark without that natural gas.

I didn't know folks from NoVA were considered Yankees these days. :p

weary
01-15-2008, 12:37
*****! I was hoping to land a job on that project. Now I'll have to drive 20 miles further to work the Kibby windpower(MATC approved) project, dang it all!
MATC didn't approve Kibby. It just decided it was so far from the trail that it was outside our concern as a group with only one mission -- protection and maintenance of the trail in Maine.

I personally oppose all development in wild areas. I would much rather have wind turbines in areas already developed like the coast. Destruction of wild places may become inevitable. But for now I'm promoting less waste, fewer frivolous uses of energy, and less intrusive alternative energy.

I find, for instance, the failure to speak put against mega yule displays irresponsble for an administration that now claims to be working to avert global climate change. Jimmie Carter, for all his alleged failures, spoke strongly and effectively against such displays during the energy crisis of his presidency.

Weary

JAK
01-15-2008, 12:42
There is a lot more wind shear in the Northeast in Southwesterly winds than wind farm developers have been willing to admit to. Causes increased maintenance costs and unavailability. Our terrain is rough and complex. Our land and water surfaces are cold. When the wind is from the South or Southwest the temperature gradient causes the vertical wind shear to be even more extreme, especially at night. I really don't think suitable large wind turbines and towers have been developed for our region yet. Even our offshore projects can have excessive wind shear, Southerly winds because of the temperature gradient and Northerly winds because of the land.


First thing we should be doing is measuring the wind well above 80m.
Second thing we should be doing is developing our own turbines and towers.

JAK
01-15-2008, 12:50
That was pretty funny.

woodsy
01-15-2008, 12:53
weary: MATC didn't approve Kibby. It just decided it was so far from the trail that it was outside our concern as a group with only one mission -- protection and maintenance of the trail in Maine.
What was that deal I read about between opposition groups and the Kibby windpower people that gave you a mountain top in Sunday River/Grafton Notch area in order to keep the opposition out of their face? Sounded a bit like a bribe to me.

weary
01-15-2008, 12:57
Weary, Where do you stand on nuclear power?
Nuclear power is great, but it may not be a long range solution. I've read that the known sources of commercial-grade uranium are likely to be exhausted before we run out of oil.

The disposal of wastes is also a dilemma, though it's still unclear whether this is a scientific problem or a political problem. As much as I hate despoiling the few semi-wild places that remain, people of all political persuasions seem to be even more NIMBY about the storage of radioactive wastes near them.

WEary

JAK
01-15-2008, 13:07
My main concern about alternative energy such as wind power and nuclear power is that we are currently treating it for all practical purposes as additional energy, rather than alternative energy. We need to reduce our energy consumption, regardless of the source.

weary
01-15-2008, 13:24
Or maybe he won't put up that next coal plant because he has a wind plant instead.
You don't understand. These wind turbines only generate piddling amounts of electricity. They are only built to get the massive federal tax subsidies, that allow the owners to write off profits from other investments.

It would probably take a wind turbine facility a thousand times bigger than proposed for Black Nubble to equal the energy produced by one coal plant.

A precise comparison isn't possible because developers only talk about megawatts -- which is the theoretical capacity of the turbines. The useful figure would be megawatt hours expected to be generated, taking into consideration of the percentage of time the wind would be of the right speed for the turbines to operate. Your house doesn't run on megawatts (capacity), but on megawatt hours.

That was the problem 30 years ago with the proposed damming of the St. John River. The capacity was touted as being larger than that of a modern nuclear plant, but the energy actually produced turned out to only five percent of that produced by a nuclear plant.

Why? The Saint John River only flowed enough water to run at full capacity about 3 weeks a year. The huge lake was needed to store the spring run off, so it could be run parceled out during periods of peak demand over 12 months.

Weary

weary
01-15-2008, 13:49
What was that deal I read about between opposition groups and the Kibby windpower people that gave you a mountain top in Sunday River/Grafton Notch area in order to keep the opposition out of their face? Sounded a bit like a bribe to me.
I don't have a clue. There's a new loop trail in the Grafton area. And recently the state acquired some of the land through which the trail runs with the help of federal forest legacy funds.

And just in time. The owner of some of the land wouldn't let part of the trail be used until he got his money. As a result the trail just sat there for a couple of years unused. That wasn't any gift.

Nor did it have anything to do with MATC. I'd wager 100-1 that that is just another conspiracy theory with no basis in reality. Aside from everything else MATC has no one with either the authority or probably the ability to engineer such a plan.

We basically like to cut brush, remove blowdowns and build shelters. We aren't into land deals. We worried we couldn't even sell the membership on spending money to protect Redington, right alone swap mountain tops for a new side trail.

WEary

Critterman
01-15-2008, 13:56
You don't understand. These wind turbines only generate piddling amounts of electricity. They are only built to get the massive federal tax subsidies, that allow the owners to write off profits from other investments............Weary

Other than your opinion what do you have to back this up ?

Bob S
01-15-2008, 15:24
My main concern about alternative energy such as wind power and nuclear power is that we are currently treating it for all practical purposes as additional energy, rather than alternative energy. We need to reduce our energy consumption, regardless of the source.


That argument doesnít make any sense. No society or country in the history of man became more prosperous by reducing itís energy consumption. It did it by producing more energy to cover itís expanding needs. Yes we can make the things we use more efficient (cars homes and the like). But we as a people will never use less energy then we do now. Our energy needs are going to continue to grow. You canít go backwards and be a prosperous nation.


Every day there are more things being made and invented that consume energy, every year millions of people come into this country, many illegally. All these people are going to suck up more of our energy production.

We need to embrace all kinds of new energy ideas to fill the need, not all of them will pan out as practical or profitable. But some will, and while even the ones that will work probably will not be profitable at first. Everything invented needs to have the bugs worked out and time to allow creative invention to make it work right. We need to allow this to happen to solar, wind, fuel cell and any other emerging power producer.

Sly
01-15-2008, 16:08
That argument doesnít make any sense. No society or country in the history of man became more prosperous by reducing itís energy consumption. It did it by producing more energy to cover itís expanding needs. Yes we can make the things we use more efficient (cars homes and the like). But we as a people will never use less energy then we do now. Our energy needs are going to continue to grow. You canít go backwards and be a prosperous nation.



Your argument doesn't necessarily make sense either. There are multiple ways of making energy more efficient, saving and making our current needs less. While needs may continue to grow, we could conceivably use less.

Tin Man
01-15-2008, 16:16
Don't worry guys. Bush just asked the Saudi's to open the spigot a little further, so we can have more oil and prices can come down...and we can run out a little sooner.

Has anyone seen technology that can burn carbon credits? :-?

JAK
01-15-2008, 16:18
We can't keep repeating the same mistakes indefinitely and be a prosperous nation either.
What part of sustainability do we not understand?

Bob S
01-15-2008, 16:20
Your argument doesn't necessarily make sense either. There are multiple ways of making energy more efficient, saving and making our current needs less. While needs may continue to grow, we could conceivably use less.

Lets say that today we are using 1,000,000 watts of power (or whatever measurement you want to put here) do you really think we will ever go down in our consumption. My other argument was that no nation remained prosperous by cutting it.s use of energy, it produced more energy to meet itís expanding needs. If this is not true please point out the country that grew and became more prosperous by cutting itís energy needs. You canít, because it never works that way!


All Iím saying is we should embrace new ideas on how to produce clean safe energy so we can get off oil. And to do so the new ways of making energy will have to be built someplace and we should allow that.

Sly
01-15-2008, 16:21
We can't keep repeating the same mistakes indefinitely and be a prosperous nation either.
What part of sustainability do we not understand?

The part where we'll most likely be dead before the **** hits the fan. Apparently some seem to think oil is unlimited.

JAK
01-15-2008, 16:22
Our energy consumption is non-sustainable.
It has to go down.
That's part of what non-sustainable means.
That is why a Green Recession is inevitable.
I never said it would be pretty.

rafe
01-15-2008, 16:24
The world's already consuming 1000 barrels of oil per second. Think about that for a moment...

JAK
01-15-2008, 16:24
The part where we'll most likely be dead before the **** hits the fan. Apparently some seem to think oil is unlimited.There is a fair chance the **** won't hit the fan for another 50 years.
I was never very good at timing the inevitable.

Sly
01-15-2008, 16:25
Lets say that today we are using 1,000,000 watts of power (or whatever measurement you want to put here) do you really think we will ever go down in our consumption. My other argument was that no nation remained prosperous by cutting it.s use of energy, it produced more energy to meet it’s expanding needs.


I'll use one simple example. Rather than burning a 75 watt incandescent bulb you burn a 15 watt fluorescent, saving 80%

You need to start thinking more outside the box.

Tin Man
01-15-2008, 16:25
We can't keep repeating the same mistakes indefinitely and be a prosperous nation either.
...

Agreed, but sustainability is only now being translated into economic benefit, until then it is just talk.

Sly
01-15-2008, 16:27
There is a fair chance the **** won't hit the fan for another 50 years.
I was never very good at timing the inevitable.

Yeah, you and me and everyone on this website will be dead. We'll just pass on the problem, like our national debt.

JAK
01-15-2008, 16:27
The longer we put it off the worse it will be, not that we have much control over it.
Our politics has become an inevitable part of the carbon cycle, a matter of physics.
Whether or not we are responsible for our actions, that is a matter of metaphysics.

Tin Man
01-15-2008, 16:28
I'll use one simple example. Rather than burning a 75 watt incandescent bulb you burn a 15 watt fluorescent, saving 80%

You need to start thinking more outside the box.

Done. Turn back the thermostat even more than you already have. I sleep at 58 degrees now.

JAK
01-15-2008, 16:29
I'm hedging my bets though, and assume I am responsible for my actions. ;)

JAK
01-15-2008, 16:31
Done. Turn back the thermostat even more than you already have. I sleep at 58 degrees now.What would you do if your wife didn't believe in living more sustainably?
How would you convince her? Just looking for some suggestions.

JAK
01-15-2008, 16:33
Fun spin on a good old song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FknxIkLbn7E&feature=related

Alligator
01-15-2008, 16:35
What would you do if your wife didn't believe in living more sustainably?
How would you convince her? Just looking for some suggestions.Programmable thermostat. Take the temp down when she's not at home at least.

JAK
01-15-2008, 16:36
Got one of those. She's onto me. Like's it warm when she comes in the door. :)

Tin Man
01-15-2008, 16:39
What would you do if your wife didn't believe in living more sustainably?
How would you convince her? Just looking for some suggestions.

She stays home for the kids and has the news on all day. She has watched Gore's flick with an open mind. She is very informed. She actually trained the entire Cub Scout Pack, which she lead, to do an ecology project to see who could change out the most light bulbs to reduce wattage and had them translate that into dollars saved from the electric rates here. ... That and I sneak around and adjust the thermostats a little cooler each day going into winter so she doesn't notice. ;)

Now if I could get her off the damned bottled water.

Alligator
01-15-2008, 16:42
Got one of those. She's onto me. Like's it warm when she comes in the door. :)I was doing pretty well until she figured out the override:(. I won the flourescent bulb battle though.

Newb
01-15-2008, 16:46
We can't keep repeating the same mistakes indefinitely and be a prosperous nation either.
What part of sustainability do we not understand?

Didn't Einstein say that the definition of insanity is to repeat the same process over and over again and expect different results?

Mad Max is looking more and more prophetic.

Tin Man
01-15-2008, 16:48
You are probably aware that CFLs are not without issues as they contain mercury, so you have to handle carefully and dispose properly. From the GE website...

What do I do with a CFL when it burns out? What is the proper disposal of a CFL bulb?
Follow these guidelines to dispose your CFL properly:
<LI style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px">Like paint, batteries, thermostats, and other hazardous household items, CFLs should be disposed of properly. Do not throw CFLs away in your household garbage if better disposal options exist. To find out what to do first check www.earth911.org (http://www.earth911.org/) (where you can find disposal options by using your zip code) or call 1-877-EARTH911 for local disposal options. Another option is to check directly with your local waste management agency for recycling options and disposal guidelines in your community. Additional information is available at www.lamprecycle.org (http://www.lamprecycle.org/). Finally, IKEA stores take back used CFLs, and other retailers are currently exploring take back programs. <LI style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px">If your local waste management agency offers no other disposal options except your household garbage, place the CFL in a plastic bag and seal it before putting it in the trash. If your waste agency incinerates its garbage, you should search a wider geographic area for proper disposal options. Never send a CFL or other mercury containing product to an incinerator.
ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs (http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/products/energy_star.htm) have a two-year warranty. If the bulb fails within the warranty period, return it to your retailer.

Tin Man
01-15-2008, 16:50
Didn't Einstein say that the definition of insanity is to repeat the same process over and over again and expect different results?

Mad Max is looking more and more prophetic.

Unless, of course, we melt all the ice first and are in Water World.

JAK
01-15-2008, 16:52
Have there been any studies done that suggest that women are more adverse to sustainable living? Or if it's not a gender thing, what sort of personality type might be more open to it? I'm guessing that some folks that might be more adverse to change initially will become stalwart converts later, once it becomes mainstream. You know, a few centuries from now as a few remaining humans battle to take back our landfills from the cockroaches. :)

JAK
01-15-2008, 16:55
I've been wondering whether it would be more environmentally sentitive to sell my house and build or move into a more eco-friendly one, or convert the one I have. Same with the wife. ;)

Tin Man
01-15-2008, 17:00
I've been wondering whether it would be more environmentally sentitive to sell my house and build or move into a more eco-friendly one, or convert the one I have. Same with the wife. ;)

Let's examine that. If you build something new, you have probably cleared some land and used a lot of new raw materials and carbon emitting services. If you fix your current house, there is no new owner to continue your current houses inefficient ways.

Tin Man
01-15-2008, 17:02
Oh, and you cannot change a wife. They are done changing after you leave the church and all change from then on is on you.

JAK
01-15-2008, 17:08
Got it. I'm pretty sure I'm stuck with the house also, or I guess its also stuck with me. :)

Tin Man
01-15-2008, 17:10
Got it. I'm pretty sure I'm stuck with the house also, or I guess its also stuck with me. :)

And that is why hiking was invented.

Critterman
01-15-2008, 21:10
Your argument doesn't necessarily make sense either. There are multiple ways of making energy more efficient, saving and making our current needs less. While needs may continue to grow, we could conceivably use less.

There were 164,000,000 million Americans in 1954 when I was born. There are over 300,000,000 million now. I think conservation and energy efficiency are important but the way the population is growing by about 3,000,000 people per year I don't think it will be enough.

Appalachian Tater
01-15-2008, 22:42
In most instances it is definitely better to retrofit an old house. You can also build a new house with recycled materials--it's getting easier to find reclaimed or otherwise "green" building materials every year.


There were 164,000,000 million Americans in 1954 when I was born. There are over 300,000,000 million now. I think conservation and energy efficiency are important but the way the population is growing by about 3,000,000 people per year I don't think it will be enough.

The U.S. population may peak in about 50 years at about 400,000,000.

rafe
01-15-2008, 22:48
In most instances it is definitely better to retrofit an old house. You can also build a new house with recycled materials--it's getting easier to find reclaimed or otherwise "green" building materials every year.


http://earthship.net/

Montego
01-16-2008, 01:55
Oh, and you cannot change a wife. They are done changing after you leave the church and all change from then on is on you.

It's interesting how much time and energy is spent by ones wife to change the way you dress, how you cut your hair, what you eat, how you act..........and then she says "your not the same person I married" :-?