Letter to the Editor: Why support wind power?
To The Natural Resources Council of Maine:
A letter I received the other today is the second solicitation I have received from you in the last couple of months for a donation. You claim to want to protect and I quote:
"Sparkling clear lakes. Free-flowing rivers. Vast green forest. Moose, deer, eagles, and other wildlife so spectacular that people travel here from across the country just to catch even a glimpse. From our pristine mountains and quite ponds to our wild, rocky coast and sandy beaches, Maine is famous – and dearly loved – for its natural splendor."
I ask then, why is it that you support wind power over other forms of electricity generation? Is it that the wind industry made a large contribution to your organization, just like it has to other associations and groups that are suppose to support and protect Maine’s natural resources and its wildlife?
The wind companies want to destroy thousands of acres by putting in roads and transmission lines to support the destruction of over 300 miles of our mountain tops where the wind turbines are to be installed. The impact to wildlife due to low frequency sound is going to be tremendous. The evidence of its impact on domestic animals and humans is rapidly being realized and will affect wildlife more as they are much more sensitive to the environment. Our cold water fisheries will be affected by the deep bedrock blasting due to its affect to the cold water sources originating on the mountains.
Please don’t tell me the evils of nuclear power, as I spent over one half of my life (I am 69 years old) with the submarine force in one way or the other. I have the utmost favorable opinion of nuclear power. It is safe, clean, and efficient. And as far as our dependence of foreign oil goes, we have a lot here in this country that we are not allowed to get because of special interest groups that have blocked drilling in many areas. Our oil industry and its technology greatly reduce the chance of any mishaps.
The reason for the BP mess in the gulf was the result of our government forcing our companies into deep waters that they said presented hazardous conditions. Now the Chinese are taking our oil resources by offset drilling in the Caribbean. So that you don’t think I am in total favor of the petroleum industry, I am an individual who in the 1970s with a great concern about wildlife, developed most of the Navy’s oil spill response procedures, formed the only manned and funded spill response team in the Navy. I worked with the EPA, U.S. Coast Guard, and advised various states including Maine. I spoke at symposiums on oil spill response, logistics, and environmental damages.
My upbringing in Maine with a love of wildlife drove me to accomplish all I could in this area. The drilling of oil does not have to represent an environmental disaster with today’s technology. Soundings done in the '70s of areas in the northeast revealed that there are obtainable oil resources in areas along the Hudson and Connecticut River Basins and elsewhere. The Gulf of Maine has vast oil reserves and its drilling would be like that in the north seas. It would bring long needed, full-time high paying jobs for many Maine families, not short six month to a year jobs like the wind industry.
This country has huge coal reserves and with technology comes cleaner and cleaner coal burning capabilities. If the government stopped its ill spent substitutes’ that it waste on converting corn into fuel and applied that money for a short period of time in advancing the clean coal research we would be far better off, and the world food shortage would greatly eased. It is a known fact that our current grain production usage has affected the world’s food supply.
Our hydro-electric production is the cleanest and cheapest source of power, yet special interest groups cause our existing dams to be removed and stop the building of new ones on our rivers. Maine currently produces more power than it needs, yet the federal government and some in our states administration continue to cramp wind power down our throats, while destroying our wildlife, tourism based economy, and our very heritage and way of life.
So that you know, my family and I will no longer maintain our membership with the Natural Resources Council of Maine nor will we donate another cent until you once again support your own doctrine as noted at the beginning of this article. You have sold out the citizens of Maine.
Dave Miller
Lexington Township, Maine
11 Responses »
Leave a Response
Entries(RSS)
Well said Dave. Just so everyone knows where the NRCM stands, is to make money for their organization and to keep their jobs. At the Kibby hearings in 2007 or 2008, the NRCM made a deal with TransCanada not to oppose the project, in return they received a huge donation of a half a million dollars. Natures Conservancy did not object because of their deal to protect a portion of the Kibby project in exchange for the destruction of other areas of the Kibby range. Kibby B and A series was developed while keeping Series C and D off limits to development. So what did TransCanada do, moved down the mountain a bit and went for Sisk mountain.
Both the NRCM and Nature's Conservancy is in it for themselves, they have become politicians when they should have just stuck to science, but making decisions based on science doesn't pay very well.
Excellent, well-rounded article full of lots of useful information! Great job!
Dave:
I too am not a fan of the Transcanada wind project. Transmission costs, tax breaks, environmental impact and life span all seem to mitigate against it. These windmills have demonstrated that there is no cost or risk free clean energy source and they are only a small piece of the energy production pie. A huge Gulf of Maine wind farm may better solve some of these problems but would no doubt be heinous to someone (see Nantucket sound).
You are correct in saying that oil drilling does not have to represent an environmental disaster with today’s technology. Someone should have mentioned this to BP. The reason for the BP mess in the gulf was BP’s failure to follow safety precautions. Blaming the government for BP’s ineptitude is like a bank robber blaming the bank. Unless you're at a shareholder's meeting, I question listing any oil company as one of “our” companies.
I agree with your assessment of corn fuel, but you seem to discount other hazards for people effected by energy resources. Your letter could be written by any NIMBY advocate living near any of the energy sources you list. Would you rather live next to a mountain of toxic “clean” coal ash, nuclear waste, oil polluted beach, fracked water supply, or windmill? The choices are not as stark as this for Franklin county, but someone's living near each of these right now.
Corn is for cows.
Oil is for engines.
Subsidized wind power is just plain stupid.
Hydro power always worked.
What the hell happened?
Great letter, Dave. We at the Harraseeket Inn in Freeport have withdrawn our support for the NRCM as well. Their hypocricy in this matter has completely destroyed their credibility. Every energy source has it's draw backs, but portraying industrial wind as "green" is pure greenwashing. The footprint made by these wind farms will destroy the last great undisturbed landscape east of the rockies. Mountain top wind is not "green" for our wildlife, our waters or our forests. Fragmentation on this scale, for the little power that will be produced, in order to send that little bit of power to southern New England, is just plain criminal.
Amazing Dave
All the things you cite as good sources of power are not near wher you live.
How surprising
"My upbringing in Maine with a love of wildlife drove me to accomplish all I could in this area. The drilling of oil does not have to represent an environmental disaster with today’s technology. Soundings done in the '70s of areas in the northeast revealed that there are obtainable oil resources in areas along the Hudson and Connecticut River Basins and elsewhere. The Gulf of Maine has vast oil reserves and its drilling would be like that in the north seas. It would bring long needed, full-time high paying jobs for many Maine families, not short six month to a year jobs like the wind industry."
Of course the Gulf of Maine is not near your backyard.
How about a nuclear power plant or coal mining in Lexington?
Would you be for that?
Thank you, Mr. Miller
That is the American Spirit I've come to admire........Bold and accepting challenges.......... wind is so feeble.
Bruce
Any time they want to build a nuclear power plant in Lexington I will be out there supporting that over wind any day.
As stated before, I spent over half of my life with nuclear power that on occasion produced the fresh water I drank and showered in from the sea, manufactured the air I breathed, provided the light I read by and kept me at a perfect temperature for humans no matter what the out side environment was. Whether I was in the arctic seas or in the tropics. And that nuclear power plant that provided all we needed to survive very comfortably, took up the space of about two large homes. No we did not grow our food there - but we could have. Early on we carried different forms of animal and plant life to see what could live in that environment that we humans took to like ducks to water. I can assure you that any man that rode the older submarines and then rode the nuclear ones would never take the old back over the new. And just think, every dam one of the thousands of us over the years that rode in those nuclear tubes under the seas were all volunteers.
Wasting our tax dollars on something that produces electricity at an average of 13% efficiency and designed at 30% engineering wise, does not make for a good source of power. I hope you know that these are all on our tax dollars. There is no corporate money being invested, tax dollars are paying to buy them, install them and they will raise our electric bills, and to boot we don't get the electricity.
The way I see it, they do ruin our back yard, ruin our tourist based livelihood, run off our wildlife, affect our health, pollute our waters, do not reduce (but increase) fuel consumption, and destroy the very trees that give us the air we breath.
I have studied this subject in great detail from all angles. Out on the great plains they would not destroy the land base and would be more efficient because of more prolonged steady winds, and if they were designed to provide electricity at a minimum of 50%, then they would be profitable enough that companies would fund them like any other sensible industry.
So tell me what good are they? I do have an open mind
Bruce, Sure we need clean power but at what cost. Dave is one one of the few voices of reason concerning the all around cost of plundering our mountain tops. Why are you attacking the messenger? "Amazing Dave
All the things you cite as good sources of power are not near where you live.
How surprising" . Very childish response to a very thoughtful informative letter. By the way , where do you live Bruce? I bet it's not under a wind turbine. Grow up.
I stand by my statements
You just made my case. It is a NIMBY issue with a smokescreen of trying to discredit wind power.
I see the Kibby Windmills every clear day in the winter and they do not ruin my day.
Speaking of which
The lexington people were for the most part pretty quiet when that project started.
Dave seems pretty content with Coal mines in someone else's backyard blowing entire landscsapes up.
What difference does it make that you advertize yourself as a 5th generation Mainer. is that supposed to give you two votes?
Telling someone to grow up because they disagre with you is abouit what i would expect. for dialogue
This is myth number 9 about wind power according to a U S Dept of Energy statement.
"Number 9 Wind turbines kill birds and thus have serious
environmental impacts.
Bird kills have caused serious
scientific concern at only one location in the United States: Altamont
Pass in California, one of the first areas in the country to experience
significant wind development. Over the past decade, the wind
community has learned that wind farms and wildlife can and do coexist
successfully. Wind energy development’s overall impact on birds is
extremely low (<1 of 30,000) compared to other human-related
causes, such as buildings, communications towers, traffic, and house
cats. Birds can fly into wind turbines, as they do with other tall
structures. However, conventional fuels contribute to air and water
pollution that can have far greater impact on wildlife and their habitat,
as well as the environment and human health."
Not that you would be interested in opposing ideas
5 gens in Maine. Wow!