Say you want to build an industrial wind farm in Maine. It will be in a rural area with a high elevation — likely on mountaintops or ridges. The area is sparsely settled, but to show goodwill to the community you might offer its homes discounted electricity. You will be doing New England a favor by sending electricity onto regional grid lines.
It sounds like something people would support.
In fact, the last few years of proposed wind energy development have shown it may be easier to ski through a revolving door than to persuade residents to support the construction of wind turbines that they’ll see and maybe hear from their front porch. Their concerns about flicker effect, the impact on wildlife- and woods-related jobs and the alteration of their scenic surroundings are valid.
That’s why development must be responsible. It’s also why developers should pay attention to a potential project in the Somerset County town of Moscow. Though it’s still early, the project would keep electricity local in order to draw a business. As likely the first project of its kind in Maine, it could provide residents with something of worth to them: long-term jobs.
Wind power proposals across the state have drawn concern from locals. At a recent public meeting about a 14-turbine industrial wind farm proposed for the top of Passadumkeag Mountain in Penobscot County, residents expressed worry about the impact on views, wildlife, property values and people’s well being.
Back in Somerset County, a majority of residents in Highland Plantation, as well as in neighboring Concord and Lexington townships, have signed petitions opposing wind power development in their area.
Addressing development on the Penobscot-Washington county line, the Land Use Regulation Commission voted April 19 to reject First Wind’s plan to build turbines on Bowers Mountain. Commissioners said they believed the project would negatively affect tourism and nature-based industries employing hundreds of people.
The potential Moscow project will have to adhere to the same rules as any other wind project, but it may gather more local support. Pittsfield construction company Cianbro Corp. has announced that it — along with two other companies — is considering converting a U.S. Air Force radar station into a facility that produces electricity for a business.
Cianbro CEO Peter Vigue said he and the other purchasing companies — Massachusetts-based Conroy Development Corp. and Jay Cashman Inc. — will evaluate which renewable energy source is most viable for the site, but among the first to be considered will be wind power. The large buildings on the 1,300 acres they bought at auction could support a light manufacturing industry.
Vigue has been monitoring the location for more than four years, he said. It already has roads, three large buildings, a transmission line, substation and good security. The site is on a plateau but has limited visibility from a 360-degree view. The closest structure to one corner of the property is a seasonal camp more than one mile away.
The location is key, as is a promise: At Moscow’s town meeting a year ago, Vigue said that if residents don’t want the development, he won’t do it. Residents listened and then overwhelmingly voted to reject a proposed moratorium on any wind development, which would have allowed time to possibly tighten the town’s wind rules.
Pairing energy with a business “really could create a model that I believe could benefit not just that region but other parts of Maine,” Vigue said. “We think this could surprise some folks and get their attention and also give others the indication that you have to think outside the box.”
Wind power is an important part of Maine’s plan to steer away from coal and oil dependence. And the state is doing comparatively well: It generates a larger share of its electricity from solar, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas and wind than any other state.
But wind is only part of the picture. Turbines should be placed in areas that make sense to all involved: people paying for them and people living with them.
my concern is the subjective calling on reasonable placement..we have already seen that the gvt does not care about eagles,bats (other birds too) historic or scenic significance or the health threats to humans as the machines get bigger..and I have been told Maine is NOT an area that much wind energy will result ..is it worth ruining our hills habitats and already deflated home values?? ironically the negative results to the less monied people who they get placed by reminds me of the poor people in Louisiana near the oil spills after Katrina..
This is always framed as “large, centralized wind development” vs. “non-renewables”. Diffuse generation of wind treads lightly on the planet, and makes more sense as the consumption of this energy is also diffuse.
So what is so hard about including HYDRO POWER in the mix of green, sustainable, non-fossil fueled alternatives with far more benefits than liabilities. ——unless you’re getting paid to pretend it isn’t nearly 40% of the current energy mix and available at long term rates that humble even the most vocal of wind advocates.
Salmon fisheries and some enviro types are against it. No doubt, Maine has an abundance of potential hydro power. It should be put to better use, but in contrast, dams are being decommissioned regularly.
Hydro from Canada is a fraction of the cost per kilowatt than wind power. Biomass is also not allowed to be considered renewable and the BDN grapic indicates a massive capacity for that.
Biomass is misleading. The so-called “waste wood” gathered from the forest floor is, actually vital to maintaining the ecosystem. Furthermore, the manager of a local biomass plant, who took us on a tour, admitted that he prefers good, quality wood that could otherwise go toward heating homes.
Policymakers don’t want to develop hydro properly; incurring the expense of the best technology to protect the fisheries.
A terrible shame.
Hydropower from Labrador or Quebec would be a perfect marriage for us, and wise resource management. They already have the infrastructure built up there au nord. They heat with electricity because it’s cheap, so their peak load (demand) is in winter. Our peak load is summer, when they have surplus capacity. While Maine only needs new gee ration because our legislature has imposed the new renewable mandate on us, other New England states have imposed similar (albeit lesser) mandates on themselves. If Boston has a self-imposed mandate for an annually escalating appetite for renewable power, would we rather see them get it from 1500 sprawling and duplicative Maine windmills (Remember the Brookings “Quality of Place” report?) or from a High Voltage Direct Current wire 12 inches in diameter running unceremoniously through the Pine Tree State or its waters? Bear in mind our ability to collect lease fees and property taxes on such infrastructure, and bear in mind that the hydro power — unlike wind — is versatile and useful to the grid because of dispatchability. Food for thought.
The Bangor Daily News has never seen a wind turbine it didn’t like. So I find the headline, “When Wind Works” a bit out of character. Could it be the Bangor Daily News is finally acknowledging that wind usually doesn’t work? When will we actually get some investigative reporting by the BDN into all of the wind industry’s false promises and real costs to Maine and Mainers?
And you apparently have never seen a turbine that you like.
Correct. Show me a single one I should like and explain why. I didn’t think you could.
Without suggesting we all walk to work and grow our own clothing, what do you support as additional sources of electricity?
I didn’t think you could.
GO NUCLEAR!
“Nuclear” …it’s all over this thread, yet MORE expensive, MORE dangerous — absurd!
FmrMTI, your question seems to presume that we want or need “additional sources of electricity.” Maine has 4400 mw of capacity, and our load (usage) averages about 1500 mw. Peak load is generally about 2000 mw. The New England grid is about 34,000 mw, with average load about half that. The grid operator forecasts electricity growth for the next decade at under 1% annually. If BDN editorialized that I-95 needs to be widened to 16 lanes at our expense, the catcalls would be heard from Ogunquit to Allagash. If we ever do need additional generation, why would we want the sort that is expensive, environmentally destructive, superfluous, and cannot replace or displace base load generators (which may or may not be dirty)?
If you tell me that we don’t need more electricity, I couldn’t be happier. And the growth of all the other parts of the country also on the grid won’t influence that 1% growth or the costs associated with it?
I am not assuming we need land-based wind power in Maine at all. I did ask the thread originator what he suggested to meet our needs, perhaps in the ways you list in your last sentence. And Maine can not simply say it needs electricity and someone else can provide it.
All-in, Maine’s electricity generation portfolio is about as clean as it can be. Only four states get a higher percentage of their generation from renewables when we count good old hydro. And since less than 1% of our generation is from oil & coal combined, we are very good. We would have our head in the sand if we declared that we don’t need more. We will, of course. But the mandates and incentives to over build the least pragmatic kind? Bad policy. There are perhaps 5000 mw of capacity in New England that might not be able to comply with future EPA standards, and although they can physically continue as economical generators, they will eventually have to be phased out because the standards will penalize them and make them uncompetitive. Plus, they do foul our air. The pragmatic question is how do we replace them? Base load plants should replace base load plants. Period. Natural gas is the phenomenon of the century in the commodity market, and it will certainly be at the top of the list for a sustainable next several decades. In addition to being clean, it is versatile. It can ramp up and down more easily than coal or nukes can. It can provide base load or peak load. Do we want to go from 50% natural gas (where we are now) to 80% ? Could be risky to have so many eggs in that basket if gas ends up defying predictions and becoming volatile again…but back to the point: wind is add-on that does us little if any good, yet costs us plenty.
Well put…thank you. Speaking of natural gas, I sure would like to have in my home, and not in a tank in the yard.
Because they DON’T WORK.
They do, indeed, “work” — just not the way YOU want them to. We have to adjust the way we generate and use the resource.
The only way they work is in small, individual home packages, which is NOT what we are currently paying for. If you know of some way that huge, inefficient, absurdly expensive turbines CAN work, I’d love to hear it. And when you’ve designed it with your OWN MONEY, and PROVEN it can support the electrical needs of the state, THEN we can put them up. Supporting what’s going on now is like voluntarily doubling the sticker price of your new car because it comes with a pack of AAs in the glove box.
I have said, repeatedly, that the only way they work IS in small, individual, or small-scale community generators meant to serve the community — concentrating generation with a diffuse resource makes no sense EXCEPT to shareholders.
Though I don’t believe large-scale industrial is the way to go, I absolutely DO believe in developing the resource. I further believe that we should NOT leave it to the imaginary “invisible hand” — it must be a public endeavor.
Pitting entirely independent, private start ups against the most heavily subsidized industries in our history. ….a new energy paradigm against a mindset so entrenched. Hardly a level playing field. We’re, unwittingly, picking the wrong “winner”.
Amen to small wind. However, think ahead to the day when more and more customers buy less and less electricity the conventional way. The fixed costs for poles and wires will remain the same, while potentially fewer customers will share in paying those fixed costs. If customers leave the grid altogether, this is exacerbated and a 100+ year old system unravels, possibly quickly. In the interim, imagine the issues when many of us have solar panels and windmills in our yards. Helpful to our needs, but insufficient to disconnect from the grid. Again, food for thought.
You read my mind. My interest in small, local wind and solar is certainly with an eye toward the long term, and, to be sure, the grid will have to be maintained and financed very differently.
This use of wind will require an entirely new energy paradigm to be useful, but I believe it is worth exploring sooner rather than later.
You are absolutely correct, I hope you will join me in getting behind the movement to construct a nuclear plant at the old Loring site!
Talk about EXPENSIVE — jeez Louise! No thanks!
Nuke? Let’s think about that. Assuming there is someday demand for more electricity, it will likely be to replace currently aging coal generators in other New England states. Those are for base load power…the kind that runs 24/7 and provides about 60% of the load. The peak load plants like the oil-fired Cousins Island are only occasionally used, and they are handsomely rewarded by ratepayers for their state of readiness (capacity payments) alone. Of course, we are diving off a cliff if we believe that wind power can replace or even displace base load OR peak load generators. Absent storage, which would be prohibitively expensive even if it worked, this just isn’t going to happen. That is a primary reason why wind power is essentially useless to the grid. Gas will be the first choice at replacing both of the above. One decent sized nuke could cover Maine’s load, and it would be reliable base load power. But do we need it? Can we afford it? There is a transmission corridor running from Limestone to the coast, and a merchant line could be sited there to send the power to southern Maine or even sub-sea to Boston. But again, where’s the demand?
How about an oil refinery for Maine , refining product from offshore oil rigs here if you really want to develop the economy. Do what Nova Scotia does. It has the same basic gelogical formations, with vast reserve potential.
Now that would help all of us!
Wind? Another farce and non-researched renewable fad ridden joke!
(and very environmentally destructive).
We know how to drill with many safe guards attached, with few accidents!
We have not stopped commercial airlines from flying after an accident have we, nor should we deny off-shore Maine drilling.
Then , refine it locally!
But Maine would prosper, and the elitists in the state would have to work for a living (instead of scamming wind subsidies and working for the wind cartel).
Wind Never Works!
It is a farce, a huge scam of this decade on all us taxpayers.
It cannot do one of the below requirements for electrical production.
These cardinal rules are known thoroughout the utility business.
Dense energy sources are needed to power modernity.
How does Wind meet the criteria every electrical generating source must meet?
Any electric utility must meet the following, well known in the industry to survive.
1.The source must provide large amounts of electrons (it must be dense)
2.The power must be reliable and predictable.
3.The electrons must be dispatchable
(high or low amount must be generated on demand)
4.It must serve one or more grid demand elements(base load, load following and peak
load).
5.The utilization of environment must be minimal and compactness is a must, or it is non-green and damaging the environment.
6.It must be economical.
Mr. Vigue, please address the above.
This article is pure hype and self-serving promotion, with press complicity to subsidy scam in Maine.
“Dense energy is needed to power modernity” = patently false.
#6? Wind is already “economical” when compared to fossil fuels — when you include all costs, and subsidies to Big Oil.
The other five “requirements” your industrial business model “demands” of nature are NOT, even remotely, necessary to maximize human well-being.
Nature provides. But here, as in other times, we have to avail ourselves on natures terms; she will not accommodate our industrial/corporate mindset.
If we are smart enough to learn to make the most of a diffuse resource via diffuse generation, then we have in front of us a stellar opportunity for ourselves and future generations.
The “market” is perfectly happy sucking the lifeblood out of taxpayers and our natural capital, so, no, we cannot rely on it to develop this resource. Nor can we throw money at corporations such as Solyndra.
Let go of the industrial mindset. Find a way.
The only “way” that wind will work in Maine is if you cover every square inch of the state with turbines and only operate any electrical devices while the wind is blowing at 29 mph or better, and pay a fortune for the privilege.
So if wind cannot satisfy our every demand for every kilowatt whenever we want it, it “doesn’t work”?
Think bigger, and think of wind as part of a mix; wind, solar, and, yes CONSERVATION of electricity! We “pay a fortune” for the “privilege” of getting fleeced by Big Oil, and the blood of our finest people to be spilled overseas. Money toward energy independence, sustainability is better spent, in my humble opinion.
Your post reflects a mindset of “economy vs. environment” as a choice between equals. Ridiculous, as the “economy” is entirely man-made; a subset of the environment. …something we can change if we choose.
Come to my solar property and live off of 50 amps/day! (plus lp and wood pellets).
Go live in a loin cloth perhaps, in the woods and pick berries, others in this country like electricity.
Bet you can’t(or won’t ),, nor can most.
Nor should they have to.
Your formula is for cave age development, well, like Obama is already getting. With huge supplies of dense fuels available for domestic consumption, we should use them. The next real energy break- through will come, but it is not wind. Wind is this decades pump – priming fad, costing us dearly.
In either case , we are going bankrupt from such subsidy scamming. I would pay to subsidize a fuel that works , like oil, versus one that does not, like wind.
It is a matter of degree. If macro – economic models were applied to wind for real use, it would be found that it would break the american bank.
No, it is just an expensive , damaging experiment.
Then again, with guys like Energy Sec’y Chu using limo’s to go to work(ho does not own a car), does anyone wonder why we are going broke. With people like Obama extoling a technology that has never had a cost / benefit analysis (numbers) attached to it , this is what we get.
A Farce!
see a few facts and empirically derived conclusions:
http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/energy-presentationkey-presentation
We are not talking about the same thing. I am for small scale, point of use development of wind and solar — NOT grid-scale.
“I would pay to subsidize a fuel that works, like oil”? Oil is fast running out, and no amount of YOUR tax dollars will continue to provide that to which you have become accustomed.
You would be surprised how un-caveman-like living with fewer kilowatts is. We just happened to be gluttons, and I, for one don’t want to subsidize it.
All the noise and wildlife issues are side issues. The real issue is that wind doesn’t work. According to the Maine wind map (http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=me ), the area around Passadumkeag averages 5.5-6 m/s wind speed (12.3-13.4). According to Siemens’ own published specs and power curve for their 2.3mw turbine favored by Angus King (http://www.energy.siemens.com/mx/pool/hq/power-generation/wind-power/E50001-W310-A102-V6-4A00_WS_SWT-2.3-93_US.pdf ), that wind speed will generate approximately 400kw, or a measly 17% of rated output! While it requires a wind speed of 13m/s (29.1 mph) to reach rated capacity. In other words, these turbines won’t produce what their salesmen tell you except during storms. This is similar to all the other sites in Maine, because Maine is a crappy wind resource. Don’t buy into this false advertising! If wind was effective and sustainable, these companies would be fighting off investors, not depending on tax money to prop them up forever.
Sorry – there are currently 250,000 MW of installed commercial wind turbine capacity world-wide.
That will double by 2016 – not bad for a technology that “doesn’t work”
LOL
and when warrantees r gone??
When the big and stupid government takes my money and hands it out like Halloween candy for free, the attractant ability of the free money to insider parasites works. And that is all that works. Places like Denmark, long held up as a shining example of progress has stopped putting up onshore wind turbines because the people of Denmark have revolted against the useless and intruding scam.
You can read about what’s going on in Europe here:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/the-truth-about-europe
Like all the money that was handed out to the RR’s in their developmental stages. How about all the tax payer money that is spent on Airports for the airline industry. Government money spent on sports complexes, etc.
There are other ways to develop these resources besides handing our tax money to corporations (i.e. Solyndra) like “Halloween Candy”. Corporations tend to be parasites, when we don’t demand otherwise.
Our “big stupid government” is handing so much more of, not only our tax money, but the blood of our citizens to Big Oil. …and nuclear can’t survive in the “free market”.
Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. It isn’t the wind that is useless. It’s us.
And the world leader, VESTAS, is in near bankruptcy and a target for foreign domination by CHINA.
Installed capacity is impressive; until you find out that the delivered power is only 22% of this capacity…..like a car that can go 100 mph, but averages 25!
AYAH!
Which actually only generates about 1/3 of that advertised data plate number at best, once in a while on low-demand days, and costs billions of dollars, isn’t in the least bit “green”, and could all be replaced by small, unobtrusive gas turbine plants for a small fraction of the cost. Laugh all you want, but I don’t find the destruction of the environment and bleeding out of the economy just to make Angus King rich, funny at all.
Kill all the birds and bats. pink slime for all who are pro-wind.
Wind isn’t “sustainable”? ..what, we’re going to “run out” of it?
It’s there. We simply have to learn how to use it. We are barred by the fact that wind doesn’t fit the centralized, corporate shareholder model. A diffuse resource needs diffuse generation. Just because you cannot build a huge facility to serve the same demand as a traditional generator, doesn’t mean it is “ineffective and unsustainable”.
Ineffective and unsustainable describes how we think of everything, in terms of a traditional business model.
The system isn’t effective or sustainable because it’s a weak source of electricity and no one can afford it. It would be cheaper to hire people to wash your clothes by hand,and provide a heck of a lot more jobs.
If you want diffuse, then sure, small, individual home turbines charging batteries for off-grid users can work. It’s very expensive for a family, though. Takes many years to pay for itself, just like home solar, but is less reliable. The only economical way most people could afford it is to build their own, which numerous people have done.
But that’s not what we’re talking about here, we’re talking about huge, centralized, corporate shareholder wind, that rakes in ridiculously more subsidies per kw than any other energy provider, especially oil. You are arguing against “evil” corporations by supporting a more “evil” corporation.
You clearly haven’t read my posts. I reject “huge, centralized, corporate shareholder wind” for the very reasons you reject wind in general — it is a diffuse resource, and MUST be used in a diffuse way.
We have to change the way we use the resource, the way we think about energy generation and use to accommodate the nature of the resource; instead of trying to bend the resource to fit OUR industrial paradigm/mindset.
You know what they say – figures don’t lie. However, liars can figure.
The Port of Portland receives crude oil shipments, which it then sends via
pipeline to refineries in Quebec and Ontario. what????? I did not know this…..
The pipeline is actually in South Portland and has been in low key operation for 40+ years. In fact there has been recent discussion on using the SoPo line as the last leg of an alternative pipeline route to the Keystone project. In other words a pipeline could extend across Canada, with the home stretch being the existing line (reversing the direction of flow) from Quebec to Portland Harbor.
Maine’s plan to steer away from coal and oil dependence.
Rumford paper mill uses coal and cousin’s island has an oil back-up plan. that is it;;; in Maine.
The BDN commits media malpractice when they make statements like that.
Time for a new nuke plant in Maine.
WHAT? The most expensive and dangerous form of energy? Seriously?
“Wind power is an important part of Maine’s plan to steer away from coal and oil dependence.”
It’s hard know what the BDN means when it says Maine is dependent on coal. It accounts for about 12% of the electricity generation in New England, but most of that is generated outside of Maine. Less than 1% of the electricity produced in Maine comes from coal according to the EIA, and Maine already produces more power than it uses – even without coal. ISO-New England predicts that New England’s coal generators will be replaced by natural gas generators, not wind turbines.
Statements such as these mislead a public that is already poorly versed in wind power and the facts about electricity generation, consumption and alternatives in the region. I hope that the BDN will either leave these misleading statements out of future articles and editorials or provide a sufficient supporting explanation.
I commend the BDN for it’s statement that, “Turbines should be placed in areas that make sense to all involved: people paying for them and people living with them.” It’s a hopeful statement. Unfortunately, that’s not what is presently happening in most of Maine.
Not to mention that the people living with them ARE the people paying for them.
“The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think.” ~ Gregory Bateson
“When Wind Works”? …when it is NOT developed in a large-scale, centralized way.
Wind and solar are diffuse resources, and generation should be as well. Small-scale community projects dotted about the state; solar panels on every roof and a small windmill in the yard….
Of course, corporations want to centralize control over all of the electricity generated, then sell it outward but diffuse usage warrants diffuse generation. Why incur the expense, environmental and monetary, to satisfy the shareholder? Why not use the sun and wind in a way that is best for society and the environment? It is MUCH cheaper than fossil fuels, when all costs are included in calculations.
Opportunities abound in wind, but not if we continue to hammer the “square peg” of our economic thinking into it….
If individuals using their own money (what a concept!) wish to put wind turbines, photovoltaic panels or hamster wheels up on their own property, I have no problem so long as they do not disturb others and remove them after they no longer work.
If you research residential wind turbines, and get beyond the manufacturers’ sell pieces, you will find that they take forever to pay for themselves. This , in large part, is due to the fact that wind is not an energy-dense power source. And particularly true in Maine, where our onshore wind resource is generally very poor.
How about “individuals using their own money” for fossil fuels? (BigOil is the most subsidized entity in our history, and I, for one, want that to end.) What a concept!
“Take forever to pay for themselves” …only within the existing paradigm that demands “dense” energy, and not one where we accommodate the diffuse nature of the resource.
When all costs are calculated, wind is, in fact, cheaper. When you reject the industrial mindset, it makes sense.
Congressional Research Service reported in early May of 2011 that approximately 39 percent or $3.4 billion of energy tax expenditures support the development of renewable energy while 28 percent or $8.7 billion support fossil fuels.
What is your point? IF 39 percent is $3.4 billion of energy tax expenditure, how can 28 percent be more than $3.4 billion? What were you drinking when you read that report? Do you have an actual link????
It came in the form of a letter from O Snowe……you know King Angus’s quest.
Dear Alice:
Thank you for contacting me about our nation’s energy tax policy. I appreciate having your thoughts on this issue.
You expressed opposition to legislation intended to extend or expand tax credits for wind energy. Currently, for owners of wind facilities there is a federal tax credit equal to either 30 percent of the capital costs of the project or 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour produced from the facility for 10 years. A taxpayer may only claim either the investment tax credit or production tax credit, but not both. As you noted tax credit for wind facilities is scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.
As you know, there were a number of amendments proposed to the highway bill, known as Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century or MAP-21 (S. 1813), that would have extend ed or expanded this tax policy. One amendment, sponsored by Senator Stabenow, would have reinstated a policy that would provide a cash grant equal to 30 percent of the construction costs for this year and also extend the production tax credit for wind facilities until January 1, 2014. The amendment failed in a vote of 49 to 49 on March 13, 2012.
I opposed this amendment because it failed to provide any offsets for this loss of federal revenue and frankly at a time when Americans pay nearly $4 per gallon at the pump, it is clear that every federal energy tax policy must be reexamined in order to properly assess exactly how these policies are helping to reduce energy bills for the American people. In fact, I believe our federal energy policies should be focused on assisting households in improving their energy efficiency and promote energy savings for homeowners, and therefore have called upon Secretary of the Department of Treasury, Tim Geithner , and Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jeffrey Zients , to work with Congress to fundamentally reform our energy tax policies. The Stabenow amendment simply extended or expanded current tax policies rather than reforming these policies in a manner that will actually work for the American people.
You may be interested to know that the Congressional Research Service reported in early May of 2011 that approximately 39 percent or $3.4 billion of energy tax expenditures support the development of renewable energy while 28 percent or $8.7 billion support fossil fuels. Many of these tax incentives, which increase our country’s unsustainable deficit, were enacted years ago and the merits of their extension have not been demonstrated to Congress or the American people. As a senior member of the Finance Committee, which is charged with addressing our nation’s tax code, I believe it is imperative that we begin to reevaluate the efficacy of America’s energy tax policies. Given the reality of our economic climate, I strongly believe that the 112 th Congress must work tirelessly to rein in burgeoning deficits to return the budget to fiscal sanity while prioritizing any investment into energy efficiency.
This is why I, along with Senators Bingaman and Feinstein, introduced the Cut Energy Bills at Home Act, S.1914, on November 18, 2011. The Cut Energy Bills at Home Act seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide individual taxpayer credit for performance-based home energy improvements. Upon introduction, S.1914 was referred to the Senate Finance Committee for further review, and you can be assured I will fight tirelessly for its passage in the Senate. In the third quarter of last year, consumers spent 6.2 percent, or $668 billion on an annualized basis, of their personal income on energy, which is the highest amount on record to date. Such a burdensome expense drains household incomes and further reduces expenditures that promote job creation and improve overall quality of life.
As Congress considers any tax legislation, I will continue to further review the effectiveness of our nation’s energy tax policy in the critical effort to reestablish a pro-growth and sustainable tax code, end wasteful government subsidies, and meet our nation’s investment priorities without subjecting our children and grandchildren to continued deficit spending. Should the full Senate consider additional legislation concerning wind and other forms of renewable energies, please be assured that I will examine it carefully, keeping your thoughts and concerns in mind.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views. I value your opinion and hope that you continue to inform me of the issues that concern you.
Sincerely, OLYMPIA J. SNOWE United States Senator
I have no idea where you get those figures. How on Earth does $3.4 billion represent 39% while $8.7 billion represents only 28%?
Even Bloomberg News reports that non-renewables are subsidized 6x the rate of sustainable sources, and that doesn’t include the costs associated with war.
Perhaps the Congressional Research Service didn’t include tax breaks (which are a form of spending); these total over $2 billion per year alone. I don’t know.
We need to decide what we want, and not let the status quo set the bar.
My family and camp owners on Concord Pond and Garland pond have used solar panels on site for 15 years now. a couple of us tried small scale wind. Wind is still noisy and a few are sitting idle in their front yards. On site solar will cut your GRID bill in half and when the GRID is not there you still have back-up.
In the meantime, let Boston get their electricity from Hydro-Quebec.
Hydro is Green and Canada can save New England. so be it
…add small-scale community developments and, yes, hydro (built properly to protect the fisheries and the environment, of course). Conservation, too, has to be part of the mix (we have a Danish-built refrigerator that uses but 1/2 kwatt per day — these technologies are improving, and more low-tech ways to conserve, like clotheslines etc. are always available).
Trade is fine, but what a pity that New England should rely on Canada, with such local abundance.
Boston is insatiable. Maine could not keep them running.
Who is trying to “satisfy” Boston? I’m all about local generation and use. Maine Wind Concerns has pointed out that we already have more than ample supply, so, what are we doing? I see wind as a way to replace other energy sources that aren’t sustainable, not more, more more!
If Cianbro wants to build windmills, with their OWN money, more power to em.
If industrial windpower was a money maker, the developers would be building them with their OWN money, instead of ours. All that we are succeeding in doing is making Angus King, and others with connections, richer at our expense while the Quebec Hydro power, which is as “renewable” as power gets is denied to most of us in order to force us to buy into this so-called “green technology” that has to be subsidized, forever!
Some deal for the Maine ratepayers. Redistribution of wealth is alive and well in Maine.
“Redistribution is alive and well”, alright, but not for wind. Big Oil is the most “subsidized” industry in the history of the world, and, not matter how profitable they become, they take more and more — forever! …not just our money, but blood.
Much of our infrastructure was built by taxpayers; railways have never worked as a “free market” entity, highways, airports and even our electrical grid — we instituted the Fernald Law that demanded rural electrification even though simply shipping power out of state was more profitable for shareholders.
We don’t build anything as a community anymore; we simply throw money at corporations and hope they serve the public good. Privatization of the public wealth has not served us well, and it’s time we enhanced our commons directly.
Wind is already cheaper than fossil fuels, and certainly nuclear. …but it won’t fit into the “Galt Gulch” paradigm any more than democracy does.
The public essentially does pay for electricity infrastructure. The public has two pockets: a ratepayer pocket and a taxpayer pocket. The developer puts up a portion of the capital, but we pay it back and then some. So while electricity in America is not socialized per se, it really is. If there were no venture players in electricity and the government decided to spend all our generation money on wind power, the taxpayer outcry should dwarf the reaction to the Pentagon’s infamous $500 toilet seat. The fact is, wind power is duplicative, superfluous, and essentially useless in grid applications. It can’t replace or displace base load, peak load, or load following generators. When it works it makes gas plants ramp up and down. When it doesn’t work we pay for it anyway. When we build a bunch of it we have to build a bunch of additional load following plants (like gas) and pay for not only them but for the concomitant transmission. Yet wind incredibly persists at demanding its entitlement status, and it whines like a baby when sensible people say no (Google Denise Bode whines).
Well put.
Also, see our FB page for calculations of “subsidies” to Big Oil. Unless we use a common denominator – in this case the BTU – to compare oil “subsidies” to any other energy subsidy, we are talking drivel. Moreover, one needs to peel back a few layers to define just what is considered a “subsidy.” On a per BTU basis, the “subsidies for wind and solar are exponentially higher than the subsidies accruing to other energies. On a “per megawatt/hour of electricity produced” basis, last year the numbers were staggering when comparing “subsidies” to coal, oil, and gas combined relative to wind and solar. That was skewed a little by ARRA funding, but the principle is the same. We hardly get 1% of American electricity from oil, but coal and gas make up for 2/3 of it. Wind and solar maybe contribute 3%, and again…only part-time. So, looking at “subsidies” through a Return On Investment lens, we see a different picture.
I came across this example, or how wind can work; this small, isolated community in Alaska was going broke using diesel generators. This will help them tremendously.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/wind-power-fuels-renewable-energy-revolution-rural-alaska When people think of “wind” — they aren’t always thinking of the same things. …such a poor fit for our existing grid, infrastructure and mindset, it can be a Godsend under certain circumstances.
If Cianbro wants to do it with THEIR OWN MONEY, ON THEIR OWN LAND, fine.
If we had said that about railroads, interstate highways and communications infrastructure…. We’d be living differently, to be sure.
Wind turbines can’t ever pay for themselves through any kind of savings before the turbines wear out and are abandoned or replaced. What more does anyone need to know?
What does it mean to “pay for themselves”? …only in comparison to what we are getting now; that is heavily subsidized and won’t always be available. We shouldn’t hold up our unsustainable, expensive energy paradigm as a “goalpost” here.
Turbines generate electricity. If you insist on comparing cost per kwh, then, be honest and include ALL environmental, social, taxpayer etc. costs as well — NOT just the amount for which the consumer writes the check.
Passadumkeag Mountain seems like a good location for a wind project. How many other projects have been built in areas as sparsely settled as Grand Fall Township?
And we’re not putting these off-shore–out of sight–why?
Money. It’s always about money.
I think off-shore is a good idea too. However, my guess is several people would oppose that as well. Cape Wind has been in the works for 10 years and still hasn’t been built.
Sensible people are justified to oppose any public infrastructure that is useless, unnecessary, expensive, unreliable, high impact, low benefit.
Sensible people wouldn’t consider wind projects fit into the categories you mentioned: useless, unnecessary, unreliable, high impact, and low benefit. However….good point, I would imagine all renewable and conventional power plants are expensive, so I agree with you there.
You didn’t include the largest group of people associated with windmills;
The people using the energy from them.
Where the energy is consumed is where they should be sited.
In fact, wind power works superbly, every time: it generates subsidies for the connected, which is all that is really required of it. If we’re going to talk about corruption in government, how about all the ‘economically curious’ direct and indirect subsidies it hands out?