It would not change the "wilderness" except for the view...you know...basically the same view where you can see ski resorts and airports.
geek
THIS IS NOT A WILDERNESS AREA!!!!
It was a bright sunny day on the coast of Maine. I needed no heat despite temperatures that hovered around the zero mark and a brisk wind. Why? I live in a properly insulated house I designed and partially built. When the sun shines through my south-facing windows, I need no fossil fuels. When the sun goes down, I heat mostly with scrap wood. So faR this winter I've heated my home with the sun, a few scraps of wood, and 100 gallons of fossil fuel oil.Originally Posted by terrapin_too
I was an early experimentor in energy efficient housing. I have since built a second house on coastal Maine that has yet to use 75 gallons of fuel oil this winter, both for domestic hot water and home heat, even without a wood stove. This free solar energy cost nothing extra in my house. I spent maybe $2,000 extra in my second house to save a thousand dollars a year in heating and hot water costs.
All I'm suggesting is that given the ease by which incredible savings in green house gases, scarce energy, money, and war inducing petroleum usage can be achieved, I don't think a sensible society needs to destroy its last bits of wildness.
Rather, the NIMBYs are those who are too lazy or too ignorant to make the slight effort needed to conserve. The real NIMBYs are those who grasp at any excuse to maintain their effortless comfort.
Weary
Last edited by weary; 01-26-2007 at 00:01.
Oh well, to put the final nail in the coffin, lets add a few dozen windmills, 1200 condos and a few huts..
Weary, I'm not looking to argue with you. I certainly won't deny the importance of energy conservation. But we disagree over the aesthetic impact of windmills, and maybe on the rules, procedures, priorities, ethics (etc.) for siting windmills. You've dutifully explained the "official" ATC/MATC outlook on the matter, with which I respectfully disagree. That's all. I'm happy for you. I am not displeased with the outcome. I'd not have been displeased with the other outcome, either.
Hey, I love windmills. I would welcome them on the uninhabited, state-owned island, a quarter mile from my living room window.
Just not a $150 million complex of windmills on one of the few really wild sections of a 2,000-mile-long scenic trail.
Weary
Sly,
If you believe that all of these small pockets wouldn't add together to help then why count ounces in your pack?
geek
Weary,
I TOTALLY AGREE, I live very similar but use only a very small amount of wood for my heat. I meant no disrespect and do applaud your efforts for the trail and your beliefs but what most people don't understand is that there are very few places in North America where the wind is strong enough for most of the time to drive a windmill. The turn around has to start somewhere.
geek
The best places are along the shores on both coasts and the Great Lakes. Wealthy people live there so these are considered off limits. I consider the trail to be off limits. Thanks to a decision I made a half century ago, I live on the coast. It's my judgment that windmills fit far more harmoniously into the natural environment on the already developed coast line, than in wild mountains near a National Scenic Trail, which is why I've devoted many hundreds of hours to opposing the Redington Project.
A few miles to the west developers have proposed a wind project twice as large as Redington/Black Nubble, on a beautiful range of wild mountains, that i would greatly dislike seeing developed. However, for the reasons you suggest, I am not going to spend any time trying to oppose that project and when it was proposed that MATC formally oppose the project, I lead the opposition, which was nearly unanimous.
BTW, Maine already has one wind project on a mountain many miles north of Katahdin. Others are proposed for open farm fields also north of the trail. The "turn around" is already well started.
Weary
i was wondering if you were going to comment on kibby.
congradulations weary!
although i've never agreed with the asthetics pov, redington should be protected, it's an ecologically significant area.
btw, offshore wind power is a more expensive route, but as europe has already proved, it's the way the industry will inevitably go.
I'm not totally opposed to wind power but I'd rather see one nuclear plant than 1000 windmills up and down the national scenic trails.Sly,
geek
How many windmills would it take to produce the power of one average size reactor?
If the Kibby mountain windpower project gets through, you will be able to SEE these wind turbines from the AT too. Just from a distance, given a 15-20 mile visibility. Does that make it OK/better?, From a distance? Just curious.
WALK ON
Distance is a great shield -- especially in these days of polluted air.
Except on unusually clear days the Kibby towers will be fuzzy and indistinct. IN an ideal world I would choose energy conservation over the blighting of wild mountains.
Facing reality, I choose to personally battle only those wind power projects that clearly do major damage to national scenic trails and other scenic resources of equal or greater merit.
Weary
You sure got that right !Distance is a great shield -- especially in these days of polluted air.
Weary
WALK ON
Fyi
According to the Maine Sunday Telegram (28 Jan 2007) there are now 28 windmills on Mars Hill Mountain. By the way, the power generated from the Mars Hill site is going to go to Canada. Great for Maine and the U.S. eh? It is also stated that Maine is ONE of Twenty states to have utility sized wind farms built last year. There is also another 44 turbine proposal up for approval. I think that it is time for the rest of the nation to step up and take some of these on don't you think? I think the coast of Mass. would be a nice windy place. Don't any other states have wind?
Great definition of NIMBY Weary!!
Mitt Romney (R) Utah put an end to a proposed windpower project off Cape Cod when he was Massachusetts Gov. It was terrific project, many times more productive than the Reddington one, and right where it was needed. Its a real shame he took the side of the millionaires with ocean front homes instead of the needs of his state.
Teej
"[ATers] represent three percent of our use and about twenty percent of our effort," retired Baxter Park Director Jensen Bissell.
Short Sighted
It is incredibly short sighted not to allow the project. We need Reddington and every other place on the entire globe that will actually make a difference in our energy consumption if we are going to keep pace with our current life style. I wonder how many of the opponents of this project are working hard to find alternative energy ?
Today, the courts have deceided to keep people out of the woods, also.
Can you be a little more specific?
I"m all for clean energy, but wind power is a freaking scam. It's not about energy as much as it is about subsidies and tax breaks for the builder.
If we want to do something constructive let's phase out incandescent light bulbs and require all new homes to install solar energy production to be as self sustaining as possible.
If you don't have something nice to say,
Be witty in your cruelty.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
