Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Baldacci Admin. (Maine) puts best face on "Ocean Windfarm Waterloo"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 02:10 PM
Original message
Baldacci Admin. (Maine) puts best face on "Ocean Windfarm Waterloo"
Not to be confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_Wind_Farm">Waterloo Wind Farm in Australia, proposed at AU$150 million, delivered at AU$300-500 million (by Vestas).

The Maine offshore wind project was supposed to be "The Manhattan Project of Wind Energy". But, in the words of Billy Joel®, "... they sank Manhattan out at sea".

http://www.maineville.com/detail/139938.html">Baldacci Administration puts best face on "Ocean Windfarm Waterloo"

...

Huber said that LD 1810 originally offered the same incentives to build windfarms in state waters as had been enacted by the legislature several years ago for upland windfarms: price supports, immunity from environmental laws, unaccountability to the Maine Board of Environmental Protection, authority to 'take' land to run their cables through to the grid. "Not to mention stripping towns' of municipal authority to regulate windfarms within their borders," Huber said, "And fat fees to keep LURC and MDEP budget mavens happy.

...

Despite its reservations, the Administration was convinced by the wind industry and its NGO supporters CLF, NRCM, Island Institute and Maine Audubon that the heating industry, fishermen, and coastal tourism industries should be brushed aside for the greater good, and off-the-shelf windfarm operations speedily set up in state waters as a 'transitional technology' to deepwater offshore wind.

...

Then the other shoe dropped. The offshore wind farm technology developers at the University of Maine saw the legislators looking askance at state waters windmills, and worried that tax incentives and other goodies for their baby - also in the LD1810 - could go out with the inshore bathwater if the bill stalled over nearshore concerns. So the academics too started disparaging state waters windmills to the legislature.

...

This unexpected put down of inshore wind stiffened the legislators' resolve to protect Maine's inshore fisheries. With the aid of the Maine's Lobstermen's Association's executive director Patrice McCarron, the Utility and Energy Committee trimmed away the incentive package for state waters windmills from the bill. The parts of LD 1810 mandating reduction in the use of heating oil by Mainers also disappeared. Cleansed of its inshore wind incentives and heating oil disincentives, the bill was voted out of committee with a unanimous Ought To Pass as Amended.

"This was a real Waterloo for the ocean windfarm industry's nearshore plans" Huber said, Governor Baldacci thought he was sweeping all opposition aside. He was badly mistaken."

...

http://www.maineville.com/detail/139938.html">Baldacci Administration puts best face on "Ocean Windfarm Waterloo"


I can't say that *I* find this to be good news, but since it's more important to some (several) people that I would dare support Satanick Nucular in preference to Divine Wind, I figured, "what the heck".

As a much-loved DU Mainer would say (and frequently -- very frequently -- does),   ":rofl:".

--d!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. I Never heard of Huber - and none of this was reported by the Maine media
Edited on Mon Apr-19-10 02:46 PM by jpak
Does this so-called "waterloo" prevent the deployment of wind turbines in Maine state submerged lands?

Nope

This guy Huber can crow all about this so-called "waterloo" but in reality it ain't even close to any kind of "wind farm waterloo" whatsoever...

try again!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. We'll just add that to the list of things and people you haven't heard about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I heard some wacko here on DU claim he invented a molten salt breeder reactor that eats CO2
but I'm smart enough to know it was an Ambien-induced hallucination.

and made up

that I know

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Um, um, um...
Edited on Mon Apr-19-10 04:02 PM by NNadir
I am not licensed, nor qualified really, to comment officially on pathologies of perception, but I will say this:

To make judgment as to what is and is not a hallucination or a delusion automatically implies insight and knowledge of physical reality.

For instance, I happen to know - and can cite data showing it to be true - that solar PV energy does not produce one exajoule of the 500 exajoules of energy now consumed by humanity.

Thus, I can claim, with some support, that a claim that solar energy is making headway against dangerous fossil fuel waste dumping in the atmosphere is, um, a delusion.

If I show a table, like say, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html">this one, and someone claims in spite of the clear evidence involving comparing real numbers, that solar energy is an important check on dangerous natural gas use, that may be a visual hallucination.

If, in a third case, one claims that one is the Dictator of Maine, and that nothing happens in Maine without the knowledge of said self declared "Dictator," that may be a delusion.

I'm not sure how one would classify making assertions about a person one does not know in any way would be characterized. It doesn't matter much.

But I am not a mental health professional, nor do I claim to be one, and these are simply my impressions.

My general opinion is that the anti-nukes here are kind of text-book cases of bad thinking, but this is based on what they assert, almost all of which is demonstrably nonsensical.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I am the Dictator of Maine and I declare the NJ Molten Salt Breeder a sick hallucinogenic fraud
yup

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Divine Wind, eh? As in Kamikaze?
If you can't express the entire contents of your mind by clicking on a smiley, by the way, you probably think too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
6. So...
"... immunity from environmental laws, unaccountability to the Maine Board of Environmental Protection, authority to 'take' land to run their cables through to the grid ..."

That seems like a really really bad idea, for the same basic reasons that granting NG drillers immunity from fracking oversight is a really really bad idea. If you give an industry a blank "fuck-the-environment" check, somebody somewhere is going to cash that check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. If you give an industry a blank "fuck-the-environment" check, somebody somewhere is going to cash...
If you give an industry a blank "fuck-the-environment" check, somebody somewhere is going to cash that check.

Exactly. At that point you shouldn't even be bad at "the industry" any more than you should be mad at a Lion for biting off your arms when you decided to sleep in his cage. Whenever govt delegates its responsibility to third parties it often ends predictably bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. This is precisely why the Steens project is being parceled into 104 turbine sections...
...so that they can avoid having to deal with the oversight a larger farm must deal with. It's dispicible. (Still not over the Steens thing.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. IS there any evidence that the claim is based in fact?
The article is disjointed and an obvious anti-wind screed. I mean, how much credibility can you assign to a view that says this:
"Despite its reservations, the Adminsitratino was convinced by the wind industry and its NGO supporters CLF, NRCM, Island Institute and Maine Audubon"

Are you too of the opinion that the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) http://www.clf.org/
the National Resource Management Council http://www.nccma.vic.gov.au/About_Us/NaturalResourceManagement/index.aspx,
the Island Institute http://www.islandinstitute.org/ , and
Maine Audubon http://www.maineaudubon.org/

have been corrupted or duped by the wind industry?

Are you really in agreement with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Nonsense - wind farms in Maine require state environmental permits and hearings, towns can veto them
Edited on Mon Apr-19-10 04:40 PM by jpak
and utilities already have eminent domain to put in transmission lines.

That is Huber's sick fantasy world - not the real world.

Huber forgets that LURC refused to permit the Reddington Mountain wind farm because it was too close the Bigelow Reserve and the AT.

and many towns in Maine have enacted moratoriums on wind farm construction until they could revise their zoning ordinances.

the guy's a nut

yawn

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. What does Reddington Mountain have to do with offshore wind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I don't think the critic read the link
Edited on Tue Apr-20-10 12:18 AM by Dogmudgeon
This is VERY common among the anti-nukes. Most of them simply react to posts they don't like, and often respond opposite to the way they would if they'd only read the link.

--d!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-10 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
12. This article is written by the guy who quotes himself.
That's pretty damn misleading if you ask me. However, I will look in to Maine's "submerged lands leasing law" to see if he's being truthful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC