Maine's Redington windpower update

[woodsy]

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.co...l/3451240.html

[DavidNH]

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

[rickb]

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]

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.

[rafe]

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.

[weary]

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.co...l/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

[woodsy]

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.

[weary]

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.

[Sly]

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.

[rafe]

40 story windmills on top on mountains make you smile? Yeah, about as aesthetically pleasing as a strip mine.

Pfft. I've seen windmills, and I've seen strip mines. Please.

[Sly]

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

[rafe]

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.

[Sly]

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.

[Sly]

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?

[weary]

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

[Sly]

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]

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]

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!

[rafe]

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.

[Sly]

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.