Maine Wind Farm plan revisited

[arghman]

can't remember the organization, but some conservation organization in the northeast (vermont?) recently spoke in favor of wind turbines -- on a small (i.e. per-house/neighborhood) scale. I think I agree with that; "big" things seem out of place in New England.

 

[king tut]

freddy, take a couple deep breathes. I think you have many very valid points. I agree w/ you on a lot of what you say. Keep in mind, i am not attacking you or your viewpoints, just offering up a seperate viewpoint to what a lot of other people have posted.

Another footnote about the Bigelow area, it was supposed to be developed back in the 50's or 60's as the "aspen of the east", creating a second ski mountain to the sugarloaf area. But those plans fell through. The ski area would have been on the Flagstaff Lake side. The Flagstaff lake is also a manmade lake. That valley used to be just a river valley, but the state flooded the whole thing over creating the very large lake that is there today. The lake is a form of "progress", but i would guess that the majority of people that hike in that region have no idea that it is manmade.

 

[forestgnome]

Nuclear power is forward thinking. I think wind, solar, etc., is cute but futile and insufficient. Environmentalists block any plans for hydroelectric damns.

Nuclear is far more "green" than hydroelectric damns or wind factories. A nuclear power plant can be built anywhere, such as an industrial park, aging military base, etc. That presents zero assault on green space. There's too much paranoia about nuclear power, IMO.

 

[DougPaul]

Nuclear is far more "green" than hydroelectric damns or wind factories. A nuclear power plant can be built anywhere, such as an industrial park, aging military base, etc. That presents zero assault on green space. There's too much paranoia about nuclear power, IMO.

A nuclear power plant cannot be built anywhere--it requires large heat sinks, typically a heat exchanger with a large body of water or a river or large (~500ft tall) cooling towers.

Waste disposal hasn't been solved either.

Safety also may not be adequately solved either--France, which has an active nuclear power program, has some areas which will be radioactive for a long time.

So far, no one has managed to find a magic power source with no environmental impact. The choices all involve trade-offs.

Doug

 

[cantdog]

can't remember the organization, but some conservation organization in the northeast (vermont?) recently spoke in favor of wind turbines -- on a small (i.e. per-house/neighborhood) scale. I think I agree with that; "big" things seem out of place in New England.

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/top_news/story/b1e156a20

 

[forestgnome]

A nuclear power plant cannot be built anywhere--it requires large heat sinks, typically a heat exchanger with a large body of water or a river or large (~500ft tall) cooling towers.

Waste disposal hasn't been solved either.

Safety also may not be adequately solved either--France, which has an active nuclear power program, has some areas which will be radioactive for a long time.

So far, no one has managed to find a magic power source with no environmental impact. The choices all involve trade-offs.

Doug

You're right; nuclear is not without problems, either. When we talk about research and development, I never hear support for R&D to solve problems with nuclear power. I think we all need to be realistic about how much power we consume.

I'm planning a new home which will be as "green" as possible, using wind, solar, etc. It's not to "save the world", instead it's to benefit my own household. Less fossil fuel energy consumption will be a nice result.

 

[WalksWithBlackflies]

I don't see any transmission lines in the tower photos, they are an intrusive part of the development. I am not against wind power, but all the development, including the roads, buildings, and the lines to tie into the power grid, has to be considered as causing environmental impact as well.

Roads were already preexisting, dirt driveways connect the windmill to the road. Buiding is an 8x8 shed at the base of each windmill. Lines to tie into the power grid are underground (see photo). High voltage transmission lines are at least within a mile of the site. BTW, before a project like this gets approval, it either has to go through a State (SEQR in New York) or Federal (NEPA) environmental review, complete with environmental impact statements/reports and a public review process.

 

[dms]

Thanks for the info Rico. The problem in ME is that about 25 to 30 miles of transmission lines will have to be built to tie this project into the grid. These lines will have a huge impact over a very large area.

 

[Stan]

I think resistence to industrialization of pristine areas is a reasonable objection to wind farms. The wind farms I've seen in New England are small scale and, individually, don't contribute a lot to the grid but lot's of them do add up. Therein lies the rub ... despite the convenience of cell phones we share similar feelings about the cell phone towers ... and wind farms are even more conspicuous.

I do a lot of work in energy conservation and combined heat and power and I know that the opportunities to reduce demand are tree-mendous. We should do more on that side of the energy equation before we start littering the landscape further.

The midwest is prime territory for wind farms. Nice thing about electricity is that it travels fast, and well. It may sound like a NIMBY attitude but the environmental and geogrpahic differences are significant.

 

[WindFarmer]

a quick disclaimer....

It should be no surpirse I work for EEC - given my nickname - Windfarmer. So, I speak with some knowledge about the Redington Windfarm project. I'll answer any questions I have time to. Which is limited these days.


A couple of points:

The power lines are depited in the photo sims - if you look at the Crocker photo you will see the power line corridor. The power lines are buried underground on top of the mountain. At some point below the summit, they will transition above ground to a single pole structure. You should not be able to see those power lines with the naked eye - unless your vision is exceptionally good (as depicted in the sims). They are also situated so as to be minimally visible from the AT trail. That goes ditto for the access roads.

Our current estimates show the whole project will use 64 acres between two moutains (30 on each mountain out of 1005 acres total). 95% of the mountain will be preserved, untouched. If you include the power lines in the valley, the entire project uses about 260 acres total. Most of the project is a powerline corridor - which has been carefully studied and diverted from wetlands.

I keep seeing claims of minimal power generation? I think 2.2% of Maine's electricty is not a minimal amount.

Also - you can't build wind turbines just anywhere (like bridges or on buildings). I know for a fact that 95% of Maine is unsuitable for wind power generation becuase of low average wind speed. The winds in the potato fields, although strong, won't do it. The winds on Redington are excellent - nearly perfect.

I also disagree with labeling the project as an "indutrialization". Frankly, that is a scare tactic. This area has been extensively logged for many years and has great existing infrastructure. The entire project has been carefully designed and will be constructed in an environmentally friendly manner - with DEP, LURC and whomever else looking over our shoulders to make sure it's done right.

We're not talking about wind powering Katahdin or The Whites here. I expect even more people will hike to the summit of Redington - if a few wind turbines were up there. Maybe even some AT hikers might find it interesting? I always do.


-windfarmer

 

[g o]

WindFarmer wrote "a quick disclaimer.... It should be no surpirse I work for EEC - given my nickname - Windfarmer. So, I speak with some knowledge about the Redington Windfarm project. "

well, i live a few minutes from redington so i have some knowledge of redington and the western mountains area ....

based on my converstaions with those that live here the vast majority of folks do not want the industrailization that goes along with a wind plant. please, everyone stop calling them farms ... that is so misleading. these structures would be the largest man made structures in Maine.

again i ask, why we here in maine must ruin an undeveloped area so southern new england can have more power. maine already exports it's surplus of clean hydro power into the new england power grid.

put them off shore down in southern maine or mass if you are so excited about wind power.

to be clear, we are not agianst the technology, just the site selection of this project.
go

 

[funkyfreddy]

to be clear, we are not agianst the technology, just the site selection of this project.
go

My sentiments, exactly!

 

[WindFarmer]

I have to disagree that it will ruin the area. It has been very carefully designed to minimize impact - not to mention the long term benefit of clean electricity forever.

If looking at a wind turbine ruins the area - how do you avoid looking at all the other man-made stuff within view of the trail? I'd much rather see wind turbines than smoke stacks.

The idea that wind turbines cannot co-exist with nature is false. Look on the West Coast (Pacific Crest Trail). Many people hike that area so they can see the turbines. People have told me they enjoyed hiking by the turbines there (they are actually ON the trail versus being a mile away).

If preserving the mountains is what you are truly interseted in doing - you'll probably need to look at a few wind turbines in the future. It is one of the best 100% renewable clean energy sources available.

We have done surveys in the area that show there is some fairly strong support for this project. Not everyone is against this project.

-windfarmer

 

[g o]

windfarmer said "We have done surveys in the area that show there is some fairly strong support for this project. Not everyone is against this project."

can you please tell us more about the surveys that have been done?

i live here and have not been surveyed nor has any of my neighbors that i know of.

there are two surveys that i know of that have been done and that i would be cautious of. one was done at the crossing of the AT and route 27. regardless of their responses, the respondants were AT hikers who are not local residents and i think were given candy bars. same thing with the other survey was done in the sugarloaf parking lot on a busy winter ski weekend. again, most of the respondants were from out of state, not local residents.

are there other surveys that have been done specificly with local residents and business that i don't know of?

people come here to visit and live here because of mountains and forest, rivers, lakes and wildlife. not industrial development. if you and others think it is such a good thing in terms of attracting tourists, why not put it some where that is already a tourist draw based on man made development and all that goes with it. why must you insist on ruining what many see as an outstandingly beautiful place?

 

[weatherman]

impact on the ground

First off, I realize this is a hard subject to discuss. All of us want renewable energy, though we have a hard time agreeing on some of the specifics. Personally, I just wish we all drove smaller cars. But anyway, back to hiking.

I live reasonably close to Mt Watatic in Mass, a place that until recently was slated for a cell phone tower and its attendant infrastructure. A dirt road was built to the top, which chewed up the relatively poor soil, causing a ton of erosion. As time went on, hikers in their ramblings to check out the new developments walked off-trail, all around, making lots of new paths that merged and hurt the soil further. If the temptation to check out the new stuff wasn't there, I think they (myself included!) would have just stayed on the established trails. Recently, the tower plan was abandoned... but the damage remains.

Though Watatic used to also have a ski area, and there are other differences, it's not hard to envision that the net impact on the Redington/Crocker area would be far greater than just the towers and other structures. People by their curious nature would gradually trash the area.

And GO, I always learn something when I read your posts. Thanks.

Weatherman

 

[WindFarmer]

go wrote:

can you please tell us more about the surveys that have been done?

An independent marketing firm conducted our surveys. The original study questions were designed collaboratively by Endless Energy (and the AMC I believe?) in an effort to make the poll "fair". It was conducted over a period of years and the survey results were fairly consistent over the years. The two final reports are nearly 100 pages long and are considered scientifically accurate. They will be available for review in our permit application - when submitted.

If the poll has randomly chosen respondents from "out of state" - that would be because a portion of the population in that area is from "out of state".

A portion of the results are available on our website (which I'd offer a link to but was chastised for doing so previously). I'm sure if you google search for Endless Energy and Redington Survey - you'll find it. It is clearly linked on our webpage.


-windfarmer

 

[g o]

not trying to be dense, but is your answer "no" to surveys done specificly with local residents and business?

 

[Tim Seaver]

Survey Results

In our 1994, 2003, and 2004 surveys - which were designed collaboratively by us, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC), and the Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC) - 75 percent of snowmobilers, 77 percent of the hikers, 80 percent of hunters, 84 percent of local residents, and 85 percent of skiers were supportive or neutral regarding the project. Interviewees were not given any information on the benefits of the project.

 

[Cruddy Toes]

ATC Opposes Maine Wind Farm Project

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.839393/k.8DFF/Maine_Wind_Farm.htm

The Appalachian Trail Conservancy (formerly Conference) has been involved with this discussion for a long time. The reason that ATC opposes this project is because of the affect it will have to the Appalachian Trail experience. an experience they are chartered to protect. The near pristine views from the AT would be forever changed over many miles to that of the huge turbines

CT

 

[forestgnome]

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.839393/k.8DFF/Maine_Wind_Farm.htm

The Appalachian Trail Conservancy (formerly Conference) has been involved with this discussion for a long time. The reason that ATC opposes this project is because of the affect it will have to the Appalachian Trail experience. an experience they are chartered to protect. The near pristine views from the AT would be forever changed over many miles to that of the huge turbines

CT

I urge anyone interested in protecting what is left of our forests from development and sprawl to get active with groups like the ATC. Individuals have little impact; bureaucrats pay more attention to lobbies. The forests that aren't lucky enough to be national forests/parks, state parks, etc., are unprotected and they are in the crosshairs.