Wind farm plan scaled back (Redington Mountain, Maine)

http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/011736.html

A developer that proposed a controversial wind farm near Sugarloaf and Rangeley has dropped part of its plan in hopes of winning state approval.

Maine Mountain Power announced today that it will ask the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission to consider a scaled-back, one-mountain wind farm project instead of the two-mountain Redington Mountain Wind Farm proposed last year. The new proposal seeks to develop only Black Nubble Mountain and would restrict development on Redington Mountain.

The turbines planned for Redington Mountain generated the strongest concerns about environmental and aesthetic impacts.

In January, the commission rejected the staff recommendation to approve a zoning change for the 30-turbine wind farm. The commission was scheduled to cast a final vote June 6.

<not much more>

Another lawsuit filed over wind power project

http://waldo.villagesoup.com/government/story.cfm?storyID=92270

A second lawsuit — this one brought by neighboring property owners — has been filed at Waldo County Superior Court over the Board of Appeal's March 8 decision on the project.

CES wants to build three wind turbines atop Beaver Ridge. It has said the $12 million project could generate enough electricity to serve 2,000 homes.

The proposal was put on hold when the appeals board overturned the Planning Board's Dec. 7 approval of the project, saying it did not meet noise requirements in Freedom's Commercial Development Review Ordinance.

CES filed suit in Superior Court in mid-April, seeking to overturn the appeals board action.

<more>

<more>

Other than avian/bat mortality, what are they talking about? I wouldn't want one of these things literally in my backyard, but I think they're actually nice to see from a couple hundred yards away or more.

It's rare sub/alpine bird found only in a few areas of the Northeast US and Canada...

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060724kj.shtml

A proposed wind farm high atop some of Maine's tallest mountains has set the stage for a clash of environmental values that could define the future of wind power in Maine.

The Redington Wind Farm's 30 turbines would generate electricity without greenhouse gases and offer Maine people a stable source of affordable energy, while lessening dependence on fossil fuels.

But environmental groups worry it also would push development into pristine subalpine habitat that is home to several rare or threatened species and erect a chain of lighted windmills 41 stories high about a mile from the Appalachian Trail.

The plan will be debated at a Land Use Regulation Commis- sion public hearing in August. Behind the controversy, however, is the much larger story of wind power in Maine.

<more>

It was also very close to the AT and Maine's Bigelow Mountain Preserve.

The scaled back proposal is much better than the original proposal...

And to think, just ten short years ago Maine got less than 40% of its energy from fossil fuels.

http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/011736.html

<snip>

The Mars Hill project in Aroostook County, the first utility-scale wind power project approved in Maine, will produce 50 megawatts of power at peak production when completed.

edit: Mars Hill operational as of 3/07

The Linekin Bay project in northern Aroostook County calls for installing wind turbines capable of generating 500 megawatts of electricity in a phased process that could be completed by 2010.

The Kibby Mountain project in western Maine, which is also in the very early stages, would have between 100 and 200 megawatts of capacity, possibly by the end of 2008.

<snip>

If those projects live up to their potential, they would create roughly 800 megawatts of generation capacity, or about 40 percent of the energy Maine residents use during peak periods.

edit: You can add another 57 MW from the Stetson Mountain Wind Project to this list.

<more>

In 2005, Maine generated 18.8 million MWh of electricity but consumed only 12.3 million MWh. The remainder, 6.5 million MWh, was exported to southern New England or Canada.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html

In 2006, Maine generated 7.5 million MWh with renwables...61% of its in-state demand.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=ME

Maine's existing paper mill natural gas CHP plants and new wind power capacity - and existing biomass and hydro power capacity - could produce all of the state's electricity.

...and that's not counting tidal power from the Penobscot, Kennebec and Piscataqua Rivers (FERC permits already applied for)...

...or any future off-shore wind and wave power...

...or the 74,579 MWh (AKA "NEGAwatt hours") hours in energy savings achieved by Efficiency Maine in 2006.

http://www.efficiencymaine.com/

Maine doesn't need another Maine Yankee.

(clue: Central Maine Power only owned 38% of the plant, the rest was owned by out-of-state utilities that shipped their share of the juice south of the border. Maine's dependence on nuclear power from Maine Yankee was less than what some people think).

Maine doesn't need it's two 500 MW gas fired plants - but southern NE does.

Maine is on track to be 100% Clean, Green and Nuclear Free.

Finally, here's some cool pictures of gas- and coal-fired power plants built in New Jersey since 1990...

http://www.industcards.com/cc-usa-nj.htm

http://www.industcards.com/st-coal-usa-de-nj.htm

Enjoy...

edit: I also note the New Jersey is a net importer of electricity - 21.3 million MWh in 2005. Where, oh where, did that power come from??? Certainly not from any new nuclear power plants...

Stupidity.

New Jersey, as you've reported many times, has one of the most generous renewable energy programs in the nation.

It doesn't work.

Anybody who is rational can see that.

The horseshit about Maine is pure wishful thinking, just as it always was.

Maine will continue to increase its reliance on fossil fuels, just as it has been doing continuously since 1996.

Maine's Director of Energy is hosting discussions on how to address NIMBY related to natural gas terminals in Maine precisely because Maine will continue to rely on fossil fuels and has no intention of phasing them out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x95307

Since you didn't read this thread first time around, I'll kick it.

Unlike Maine, New Jersey has actually reduced its dependence on fossil fuels. We are now talking here about building a new nuclear plant at Salem. I intend to advocate strongly for building it because climate change to my view is not some fucking child's game.

with PV installations more than doubling each year since 2003...

www.njcleanenergy.com/support/scripts/document.php?id=0000000056

New Jersey's Clean Energy program established a goal of 90 MW of new PV capacity by 2009.

It's well on its way to that goal.

New Jersey's RPS calls for 1500 MW of new PV and 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

They will achieve that too.

But Maine is leaving them in the dust in that dept....

Which is it?

You can't even stop contradicting yourself in the same thread.

New Jersey's brazillion solar roofs bill a fucking failure just like Governor Hydrogen Hummer's brazillion solar roofs bill, just like Maine's nuclear phase out.

Here is what "success" is, bub: An end to the release of dangerous fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere.

It isn't some fucking cute insignificant peak power number.

90 MW of peak power is a failure. You got that? A failure. A fraud. A game.

Success is the cloture of every fossil fuel plant, and the elimination of any need for things like dangerous natural gas terminals.

Got it?

No?

Let me repeat: Success is an end to fossil fuels.

We are not paying attention to your piddling little line of shit in this state. We are proposing a 1500 MWe (continuous) nuclear power plant.

If I have my way, we will build four or five of them and be climate change free as we can easily be, since we have not been smashing up our nuclear capacity to satisfy the dangerous fantasies of people who can't understand numbers.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/eu/use_eu_nj.html

coal

1990: 2470 (thousand short tons) 73.5 (trillion BTU)

2003: 4180 (thousand short tons) 106.6 (trillion BTU)

net increase: +1710 (thousand short tons) +33.1 (trillion BTU)

natural gas

1990: 66 (billion cubic feet) 68.5 (trillion BTU)

2003: 130 (billion cubic feet) 134.7 (trillion BTU)

net increase: +64 (billion cubic feet) +66.2 (trillion BTU)

petroleum

1990: 3525 (thousand barrels) 21.8 (trillion BTU)

2003: 1988 (thousand barrels) 12.1 (trillion BTU)

net reduction -1537 (thousand barrels) -9.7 (trillion BTU)

-----------

Net increase for all fossil fuels 1990-2003 = +89.6 (trillion BTU)

Maine's is 116% of what it was in 1997.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/excel/tbl_statetotal.xls

What happened in 1997? Maine shut the Yankee Maine nuclear plant.

Maine's carbon dioxide abatement program is a failure, a shill game of pretend.

New Jersey has never shut a nuclear plant. We have here the oldest continuously operating nuclear power plant in the nation.

Because of the vast success of our nuclear program we will build additional reactors here.

One reactor in this state will produce as much energy as all the renewable energy in Maine, and it will take up a shit load less land and destroy a shitload less resources.

Maine's emissions grew by 4.4 million tonnes per year over the same period.

BTW, Maine's legislature is about to vote on its CO2 abatement program...

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/news/local/3843689.html

So how can this have failed???

(it can't)

edit: New Jersey imports 35% more power than it produces - those emissions are not included in that table.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html

New Jersey dumps 108% of the dangerous fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere that it did in 1990, whereas Maine where the renewables anti-nuke delusion still holds sway, dumps 123% of the dangerous fossil fuel waste that it did in 1990.

We in New Jersey, terrified of more fossil fuel plants - justifiably - and realizing that brazillion solar roof bills are failures since they cannot eliminate fossil fuels, are talking new nuclear plants.

Maine is talking new natural gas terminals.

I find it amusing how you attempt to distort numbers by shifting between absolutes and percentages when convenient.

In the meantime we have stopped growing our emissions since 1997. Maine has been increasing its emissions.

I am not satisfied with the fact that New Jersey's dumping of dangerous fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere is the same as it was in 1997. I want fossil fuels banned. I enthusiastically call for more nuclear plants in my state. I would love to see 5 or 10 of them, so we can export electricity to States that are not doing as much to fight climate change as we are, states like Maine.

I want fossil fuels banned. Anything less is a failure.

http://cryptome.org/ferc050506-2.htm

They are fighting Delaware to build it.

http://www.nj.com/news/gloucester/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1177906571304310.xml&coll=8

Voters in Harpswell, Maine rejected an LNG terminal there in 2004. Two proposed LNG terminals in Casco Bay were withdrawn as well.

Furthermore, the Canadian government will not let LNG tankers enter Passamaquoddy Bay - the 2 proposed LNG terminals there won't fly either...

http://www.bangordailynews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=146375&zoneid=164

and another thing...

New Jersey Global Warming Emissions Jump 14 Million Tons

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2007/2007-04-12-09.asp#anchor4

TRENTON, New Jersey, April 12, 2007 (ENS) - Greenhouse gas emissions in New Jersey increased by 14 million metric tons between 1990 and 2004, a 13 percent increase, according to "The Carbon Boom," a new analysis of state fossil fuel consumption data released today by Environment New Jersey.

Using data compiled by the U.S. Department of Energy, the report examines trends in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption between 1990 and 2004, the most recent year for which state-by-state data are available.

In New Jersey, it documents, carbon dioxide emissions from burning gasoline in cars and SUVs increased by 31 percent between 1990 and 2004, rising from 28.5 million metric tons to 37.5 million metric tons.

New Jersey ranked 6th nationwide for the largest absolute increase in carbon dioxide emissions from motor gasoline consumption over the 15 year period. Overall, New Jersey ranked 10th nationwide for the most carbon dioxide emissions from motor gasoline consumption in 2004.

<more>

...more from Environment New Jersey...

http://www.environmentnewjersey.org/news-releases/global-warming/global-warming-news/nj-global-warming-pollution-jumps-14-million-tons

and again, New Jersey imports 21+ million MWh each year from other states.

NJ just outsources its GHG emissions.

How convenient.

Listing NIMBY efforts in Maine will not avoid the fact that Maine's dependence on fossil fuels is increasing, not decreasing.

I rely on the EIA data, which is accepted around the world. You can't seem to make up your mind about our emissions in this state and at the same time you carry on about the wonderful New Jersey renewables program.

Renewables are a failure in New Jersey, since we still use fossil fuels in spite of a generous solar/wind subsidy.

It is unacceptable to me to use fossil fuels here. I want them banned. The reason we use fossil fuels is the same as everywhere: We do not have enough nuclear plants.

Any fossil fuel plants built in my state are an assault on my family and a recognition that all of the brazillion solar roof bills are ineffective. It is also an attempt to injure my family.

We can build two nuclear plants in this state and (easily) exceed the solar energy output for the entire United States by building them. I am relieved that this type of proposal is seriously being put forth in my state. It is sensible and safe.

If we had built nuclear plants in the last decade our problems would be solved. If we'd been assholes and dismantled our nuclear plants, our situation would be dire. As it is, we can eliminate fossil fuels for electricity here easily.

I don't care about your waffling and evasions. Neither does the rest of my state or the rest of the world.

:wtf:

He must go to the George W. Bush School of Spin.

I was far more explicity about the failure of the New Jersey renewables program to produce significant energy here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=94846#94884

We pay huge subsidies too. You can get all kinds of tax breaks by installing solar or wind or blah, blah, blah here. The only problem is that hardly anyone, trust fund brats excepted, does it. It's <em>still</em> too expensive.