Maine Wind Farm plan revisited

[WindFarmer]

I also urge the 50% to 70% of people that support wind energy to contact their local and state representatives. This would also include the people representing you in the trail groups like AMC and ATC.

food for thought:

The ATC leadership is doing a dis-service to their membership by opposing the Redington Windfarm. It still baffles me how they can endorse wind energy and oppose it at the same time.

If you look at the proposed Mars Hill Windfarm (a project the ATC semi-endorsed) the extension of the AT into Canada runs right through that proposed wind farm! Why was there no battle cry there? If you research this a bit - you'll discover the answer.

EEC / Redington Windfarm has offered to do deals with land conservation and has also tried to arrange other methods to make this project more "acceptable".

Considering that wind energy is 100% renewable - we're supposed to be the "good guys" it is a strange situation to be thrust into. I do not recall any other power producer offering to conserve land - renewable or not!

Instead of EEC and the ATC spending lots of cash on lawyers fighting a project that is beneficial to everyone - we recommend putting this money and effort into land conservation.

So - if you are for wind energy - let people know. The effort saved would also be benefical to us and the trail. If an agreement could be reached - everyone wins.


-windfarmer

 

[arghman]

This thread reminds me of too many planning board meetings I've attended. There's really not much point in arguing whether or not your viewpoint is right, especially not here as this forum certainly doesn't decide what's going to happen.

I tend to agree with g_o (I think) as far as my opinion goes, in that there is value in remote undeveloped alpine areas, value which is compromised by any significant land use. (insignificant in my mind includes hiking, hunting, fishing, maple syrup production, sustainable forestry, and other forms of use which leave little trace if the use ceases within say 5 years)

Given the (abstract/unrealistic) choice between having a wind generator on a mountain on private land I don't own, and not having a wind generator, I'd pick not having a wind generator, for all the good making that choice will do me.

Given the (again, abstract/unrealistic) choice between having a wind generator on a mountain vs. another place... I'd pick the spot which has less of a scenic/environmental impact.

Given the choice between wind generation somewhere and oil/gas/coal power generation, I'd pick windpower. I'd pick solar power (if practical) over windpower. Not sure between windpower and hydro or nuclear.

Given the choice between wind generation on a mountain and other forms of significant land use e.g. ski slopes, cell phone towers, condominiums, etc., I'm ambivalent. More negative about buildings than structures.

Given the choice between wind generation on a mountain and electricity conservation, I'd pick conservation. We certainly don't do enough of it.
You can get into other complicated choices e.g. would you prefer wind generation + conserved land around it, or another landowner turning the area into ski condos... those get tougher & more contrived...
...and anyway, again, our opinions have little impact.

In the end I agree w/ forestnome (partially) in that if a place on private land has significant value in its undeveloped state, you need to step forward and support conservation groups -- but groups that are not just going to lobby against development but are going to find the $$$ to buy it and keep it in its undeveloped state.

In reality this is not an opinion poll but rather a planning / public policy question. Perhaps one of you closer to the project could enlighten us as to who is the landowner / applicant, and what process it has to go from here. Otherwise I'll probably just unsubscribe from the thread if it's going to keep going as a debate about wind generation in this location.

edit:

Instead of EEC and the ATC spending lots of cash on lawyers fighting a project that is beneficial to everyone - we recommend putting this money and effort into land conservation.

That I tend to agree with (except the "beneficial to everyone" phrase). If this place is important, someone should either put up the money to conserve it (all of it, including the summit), or find a strong environmental reason why the proposed project should not be there. Lawsuits against development for weaker reasons (aesthetics, or over-harping on small environmental impacts and making them seem larger) make me so disappointed to see money being spent on a fight, even though I may agree on the cause.

 

[Cruddy Toes]

ATC and its stands on the AT

I disagree with windfarmer on most all his points. Especially this statement

"The ATC leadership is doing a dis-service to their membership by opposing the Redington Windfarm."​

This arguement has been made countless times by groups who oppose ATC on an issue - Strong stands taken by ATC have led us today to what is considered the Worlds Premier hiking trail. They have, through "land conservation" protected hundreds of miles of trail and viewshed from the wrath of man. The decision to oppose this development was not arrived at easily, but through careful examination of many factors, over a long length of time and via much research into the issue.

A picture is worth a thousand words- seeing a photo simulation of what these 40 story machines would look like on the Redington mountain top, from different points on the AT - speaks powerfully.

I do think it is good and commend windfarmer for being upfront as to who they represent. Most of us on this site represent ourselves and our own personal interests.

Great thread- I hope it encourages people to seek out information pertaining to this issue and then seek out how they can get involved to insure the right thing is done

 

[David Metsky]

I'm a fairly strong supporter of the ATC. I've worked with them on land purchases in NH and VT, and dealt with rerouting the AT on the new land purchased for the trail. They do a great job protecting the AT as a concept and a reality.

But I stongly disagree with them on this issue and will let them know. The viewshed concept is, in my opinion, a rather tenuous one. From that stretch of trail I can see the summit towers on Sugarloaf and two roads. The wind towers and associated development, while not ideal, I see as a relatively small intrusion for what I feel is a big return. Two years ago I drove to within a 45 walk of the summit of Reddington. While I love the Caribou Valley, I don't think of it as pristine wilderness.

Now that doesn't mean I think we should have wholesale clearcutting to put in a wind farm. The cutting and building should be done in as careful a manner as possible, but it the end I don't see it as greatly changing the character of the land. Heck, driving the 5 hours it takes to get me there has got to be doing significant environmental damage, I'd love to be able to do it in an electric car powered by wind energy.

I'm from away, and I often defer opinions to locals. But that doesn't give carte blanche for NIMBY groups to override good projects either. (Not that the objections raise here are purely NIMBY, there are many valid points that should be addressed.) Local, state, and national interests have a right to be heard on this issue.

Wind farms can't go anywhere, wind power generation requires fairly rare attributes. Ideas about putting them on rooftops or already developed areas don't really get us very far. As someone who has painted AT blazes on Hanover street sidewalks, along the side of football practice fields, across a beaver dam, and down many paved roads, I would welcome seeing wind turbines from a hike along the AT.

That's my $.02,

-dave-

 

[dms]

To say that putting wind turbines on the Redington range won't change the character of the land is mistaken in my opinion. These turbines are huge structures, the plan calls for not one or two, but several. The roads will be vastly enlarged and improved. There will be a transmission line in excess of 20 miles in length to bring the power to the grid. These are not minor changes.

 

[forestgnome]

It's no surprise by now that I am in favor of the proposed Cape Cod wind farm project.

NIMBY crowd now has a new local, Osterville billionaire Bill Koch, whom makes his fortune from ...um...coal, and he just happens to have a beach side mansion in view of the proposed site....
He is a bonified ....NIMBY...NIMBY...NIMBY and a double standard class act which serves the opposition well.

Got wind?

Jeff

I also support the Cape Cod Project. Everyone with an interest in the Cape Cod Project knows that there is one particuler aristocratic billionaire U.S. senator who prefers to not blight the view from his mansion or yaght with a wind factory. Everyone knows that if this individual is against anything in Mass. it ain't gonna happen. He opposes it with impunity from supporters of the project, hmmm. Whoever this Koch is, it's probably irrelevent.

Welcome back!

 

[g o]

i would urge those against the redington project to contact state officials in maine to voice your objections to this industrial project. if your interested you can send me a pm and i'll give you the contact information for the friends of the western mountains, a local group opposed to this project. they are collecting signatures for a petition and have also retained a lawyer.

the redington project will, with out a doubt, change the "sense of place" that is the western mountains of maine.

 

[el-bagr]

An article in today's Kennebec Journal focuses on opposition by the "Friends of the Boundary Mountains" and others to the TransCanada proposal on Plum Creek land in Skinner and Kibby Townships. TransCanada has an application pending before LURC to install eight test poles.

 

[dms]

Thanks for the link el-bagr. What is interesting is that there have already been built, and abandonded, 4 of these test towers in the Boundary Range. BTW, these things are not "poles", they are large radio tower type structures. Wreckage of these structures can be found on Tumbledown, West Caribou, North Kibby Range and East Kibby Range. At least an acre of trees has been clear cut at the top of each of these peaks to make room for the towers, and roads built to transport the building materials. Minimal clean up has been done after the "studies" are completed, obviously restoration of the area is not a priority. So now 8 more peaks will be subject to such treatment. Thankfully, there is a local group trying to make sure someone is watching what is going on in this out of the way spot.

 

[WindFarmer]

BTW, these things are not "poles", they are large radio tower type structures.

dms - c'mon. Those poles are nothing like radio towers.

The windpower article mentioned earlier is a perfect example of the difficulties in trying to build wind farms here in Maine.

To get an idea what a hike near a windfarm might feel like check out (wind farm on the Pacific Crest Trail):

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/windmillwildflowerhike.html

 

[dms]

WindFarmer, these "structures" are 200 feet high, complete with a several supporting cables, they are are far more than just simple poles. Semantics aside, even though they are "temporary", I personally have seen on several mountain tops that once the tests are completed, the test areas are never restored, replanted or cleaned up. I don't consider this to be responsible corporate behavior. To say that wind turbines will improve the hiking experience in western ME is your view, which may not be shared by a majority of local residents, or outsiders like me who don't like the idea of the scope and size of the project your company proposes.

 

[WindFarmer]

dms - you're hyping it up just a bit there

I can't speak for other developers or projects - I have only worked on Redington and Black Nubble. Our tallest tower was 50m (150') and was nothing like a radio tower. Usually they are only 100' tall. These tubular towers are equipped with anemometers and wind vanes to measure wind, and are much smaller than a radio type of tower. They are more like a tall boat mast.

I can think of many other things that resemble a hazardous condition besides a relatively tiny, tubular, MET tower. Maine Yankee comes to mind. Think coal plants and strip mining.

Regardless - I am proud to say that the Redington site (and all the sites I have maintained) have been picked up, and maintained. Although Redington's tower has fallen down (numerous times) we have made efforts to keep the site tidy and pick it up. The trees at all of our sites regrow on their own - as I suspect they do at the other sites too. There is no long term damage from installing a tubular tower.

 

[dms]

WindFarmer, you call them poles in your first post today, then in next post you call them towers, imo, towers is far more accurate. Of course the trees will grow back, so long as there's no turbine built there. I really don't think it's "hype" to simply state what I have seen myself on the mountains these structures have been built on, such as discarded junk, batteries, cables, and the wrecked towers themselves. Maine Yankee has nothing to do with the mountains I have discussed here, it's your industry that claims to be environmentally sensitive, but the evidence I see in western ME is contrary to that claim.

 

[spencer]

Windfarmer,

if you aren't the boss, you might might want to check with your boss before you alienate another group of people.

you aren't exactly using professional discourse by arguing semantics with a bunch of hikers.

If I were your boss, I'd try to curb your well-intentioned "communications."

This is hardly the communications strategy a controversial corporation should be undertaking...

just my $.02.

spencer

 

[RoySwkr]

In the end I agree w/ forestnome (partially) in that if a place on private land has significant value in its undeveloped state, you need to step forward and support conservation groups -- but groups that are not just going to lobby against development but are going to find the $$$ to buy it and keep it in its undeveloped state.

I was one of the people who contributed to buy Mt Abraham and I offered to contribute the same amount towards buying Mt Redington. It is too tall and too close to the AT to have a wind tower.

However as one of the half-dozen members of this group who has climbed Black Nubble, I have no objection to wind towers on that ridge. It is well away from the AT and the lilkely access road would not cross the AT.

 

[dms]

Transmission lines

I was one of the people who contributed to buy Mt Abraham and I offered to contribute the same amount towards buying Mt Redington. It is too tall and too close to the AT to have a wind tower.

However as one of the half-dozen members of this group who has climbed Black Nubble, I have no objection to wind towers on that ridge. It is well away from the AT and the lilkely access road would not cross the AT.

I too have done the Black Nubble Ridge, and towers on that ridge probably could not be seen from the AT, and would most likely have a different access road. However, what must also be considered are the transmission lines, where are they to be located? I understand that it is a 20-30 mile distance before they can be tied into the power grid. Who knows what ridges and peaks the power lines will cross, I have not read anything about the location of them.

 

[forestgnome]

How in the world could anyone consider this project "green"? DMS has asked several times about the route of the transmission lines without a response.

Windfarmer, are you even a hiker? I haven't noticed input from you on any thread other than to promote wind factories in forests. Are you on these threads solely to campaign for your corporation?

 

[jjmcgo]

Not only is this thread rife with NIMBYism, it's also full of NIYBYism!!!
I was not able to determine who owned Redington from the prior posts here so, taking Windfarmer's recommendation, I googled the website, got the company phone number and called and guess what?
Guess who owns Redington Mt.?
Endless Energy!
Imagine my surprise when the landowner turned out not to be dms, or g o or some of the others who are telling Endless Energy what it can or cannot do with land it owns.
I'm surprised EE hasn't told them what they can do with their opinions!!!
So, trying to understand here: You want to walk all over their land, hike, camp, mountain bike, ski, hunt, fish, etc., maintain a quasi-Wilderness around a manmade lake AND bar the owner from the use for which he bought the land?
We are talking about the good old US of A here, aren't we? The land of 10th Amendment property rights? The nation recently outraged by the Supreme Court's eminent domain decision?
The Mrs. and I just drove by a wind farm north of Scranton en route to the Endless Mts. and it was awesome, the opposite of an eyesore. And you could have walked right under the towers without danger and free of radioactivity.
Someone said there's too much paranoia surrounding nuclear energy? I'm sure you'd get disagreement in Chernobyl or from the owner of the Radioactive bar near Three Mile Island.
Forestnome is correct that we will continue to demand more energy output. It's not just cars. My son, in his mid20s, recently moved back in, along with every piece of electrical and computer equipment I don't know how to run. Our electric bill doubled. I wouldn't be surprised if 80 percent of people 18-40 are using twice as much electricity as the next older generation.
Last, the authenticity of the surveys has been questioned while the opposition of the ATC has been noted.
See one of my earlier posts: I attended an ATC survey last year when they were contemplating changing their name. It was a sham. All decisions were made beforehand. We were "guided" as a group to the predetermined positions.
So, this ATC is guilty of the "sham poll" charge thrown at EE, as well as my charge of people telling other people what to do with their own land.

 

[dms]

I am not trying to "tell" anyone what to do with their land, please do not twist my words. I am merely suggesting that their proposed use has impacts beyond the use itself. That is why there is a permitting process required by the state of ME. Thereby, all sides will have the opportunity to present their concerns in a reasonable discourse. Of course there are two sides to this proposal, and both must be heard.

 

[Stan]

Endless Energy has no more right to use that land for any old purpose they desire than I have to use my land without regard for the considerations of neighbors, the environment, and rights of others established by law or prior agreements. There is a process that they must fulfill regarding land use, they probably must clear Maine's LURC as well as other regulatory hurdles.

We are entitled to our say in those proceedings and I disagree that the attitudes here represent NIMBY ... I'll bet some of us would much rather these things be closer to home than in this remote area. I'll bet we even have further say as utility ratepayers and as taxpayers ... both will share some of the costs here.

The economics of windpower are marginal at best; that may not always be the case but it is true now. So, as ratepayers we have to decide whether one pollution is desireable over another, or whether perhaps by the time windmills become economically feasible on their own, there are more attractive options. More attractive options exist already.

As taxpayers we will probably subsidize this development with such support as federal grants (e.g. US Department of Energy) and tax incentives. It is reasonable that we have a say in how those resources are used. We can get far more bang for the buck, environmentally and economically, from other investments.