Maine’s four First Wind industrial wind sites generated about 27 to 37 percent of their capacity in 2011 — and thereby performed within wind industry standards for projects of their size, a company spokesman said Saturday.
Releasing annual generation figures and percentages for its Maine projects for the first time in the company’s history, First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne expressed confidence that First Wind’s wind-to-energy sites were proving their worth environmentally and economically.
“Bottom line: these projects are generating power that is powering homes and businesses in Maine and New England,” Lamontagne said in a statement. “Wind power is no longer a new phenomenon. It’s becoming a significant part of the Maine energy landscape. And, as you know, it’s doing that without burning fossil fuels that require mining or fracking, without emitting any pollutants, without using water and it is completely renewable” as a source of energy.
Kevin Gurall, president of the group Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed, which recently declared victory when the Land Use Regulation Commission rejected First Wind’s proposed Bowers Mountain project, dismissed most of First Wind’s claims as misleading, if not mistaken.
“As has been the case in many instances, First Wind’s comments and their numbers are very misleading,” Gurall said Saturday. “They paint a picture that misleads the general public. They constantly refer to an equivalent of Maine households when in fact, a very small amount of their electricity is consumed here in Maine.”
According to the figures Lamontagne released, the 57-megawatt Stetson I facility generated about 154,000 megawatts in 2011, or about 421 megawatts per 24-hour day. First Wind’s Mars Hill site generated about 127,500 megawatts of electricity, or an average of 349 megawatts per day. The Stetson II site produced 59,700 megawatts.
Full-year figures for the largest single First Wind site in Maine, the 60-megawatt Rollins Mountain project on ridgelines in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn, are not yet available. The project came online in July 2011. It generated 59,000 megawatts, the First Wind report states.
Lamontagne cautioned that per-day electrical generation averages could be misleading. Turbines have down time for inspection, repair and maintenance ― and situations where the wind can reasonably be expected to blow constantly are pretty rare, he said.
According to First Wind estimates, the four projects powered roughly the equivalent of 64,000 Maine homes and helped prevent the creation or burning of close to a million tons of pollutants and oil in 2011. Those estimates are based on U.S. Department of Energy data and standards, Lamontagne said.
The debate over wind power in Maine is almost as inexhaustible as wind itself, and has been since the Mars Hill project, the state’s first wind farm, went online in March 2007. Since then, Maine has become New England’s largest wind-to-electricity producing state.
Wind power critics have said that projects such as First Wind’s benefit from many false assumptions about the environmental soundness and economic need for wind energy. Maine’s industrial wind sites are unnecessary because they generate a fraction of Maine’s total capacity and Mainers only use a fraction of that capacity, according to friendsofmainesmountains.org, the website representing a coalition of groups that have opposed First Wind’s developments in Maine.
Critics further reject proponents’ claims about wind energy saving pollutants from the environment as false, at least in Maine. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Maine is ranked the seventh-lowest state in the union for its carbon emissions from electricity generation.
“When you include hydroelectric dams as renewable energy, Maine has the single-highest percentage of renewable energy in its portfolio of any state in the country,” Gurall said.
Critics say that the most optimistic wind-energy scenario, which would place about 2,700 megawatts worth of wind turbines in Maine, would have the industry capturing no more than 5 percent of New England’s electricity needs. This percentage isn’t worth the spoilage of the beauty of the state ridges and mountains marred by 400-foot-tall turbines each spaced about a quarter-mile apart and therefore, according to their estimates, covering about 300 miles, they said.
“One of the things that we constantly have to assess here, is what is the impact of any industry on Maine’s largest industry, which is tourism,” said Gurall, who quoted statistics that show that tourism creates more than 170,000 jobs in Maine.
“Maine’s No. 1 asset is its quality of place. It’s an asset that cannot be duplicated anywhere on the east coast. The site of twirling 400-foot turbines with flashing red anti-aircraft lights dramatically impacts the quality of place that people come here for,” Gurall added.
Lamontagne disagreed, saying that wind energy is coexisting well with the environment while bolstering the economies of the towns in which it resides by tens of millions of dollars.
Oakfield, for example, which will be home to a 50-turbine First Wind project that was issued a permit last month, will get close to $12 million in new buildings, equipment and other benefits, such as scholarship funds, thanks to project tax funds and tax breaks, he said.
“Wind is admittedly still a small part of the energy mix in Maine and New England but I think what these numbers show is that it is a growing part of that mix, and I think that this is a positive part of that mix,” Lamontagne said.



For those of us who don’t speak the language of power grids…
How many average Maine homes can “400,200 megawatts” light up, for how many days???
In other words, what do these numbers mean in terms of First Wind’s contributions to our energy supply/usage?
Around 45000. Considering ave. household usage in US is 8900 KW
8900 KW per year?
Thanks for the info.
o The Wind Industry LOVES quoting how many households will be served because if you live in a town with the number of households the wind developer quotes, you automatically think it’ll provide all the needs of your town. You’ve just fallen into the Wind Industry’s trap! There are two major flaws in this calculation that CAN NOT be ignored:
First, they have you imagining a constant, reliable flow of electricity. Wind generated electricity is neither. No one in their right mind would try to provide a town’s power using only wind power. Wind is seasonal. Wind varies from day to day. Wind varies hour by hour. While hyping First Wind’s output, spokesman Lamontagne actually states, for the first time that “situations where the wind can reasonably be expected to blow constantly are pretty rare.” Wow! Critics have been saying all along how unpredictable and unreliable wind is!Second, once the Wind Industry has you thinking of households, you relate that number to your own town. But you probably ignore your town’s biggest users of electricity: businesses, industry, municipal buildings, schools, hospitals, street lighting, and other utilities, even traffic lights. So the next time a wind developer quotes how many households he’ll power, tell him you’re not the moron he assumes you to be! Educate yourself and help stop the lies that are going to destroy Maine’s beauty, natural resources, and #1 industry: tourism!
Notice they now have updated the story to include this info! Should have been there in the first place!
Before you get all excited over the over-hyped figures of First Wind, consider context. We are part of the ISO-New England grid; the wind site doesn’t deliver its power (when it happens) to the local community. It is sent to the grid. The planned MW demand per hour in New England is 34,498, according to ISO-NE filings regarding Forward Capacity Market. That would be 302 million MW per year! The intermittent, unreliable production of First Wind ends up being less than one-tenth of one percent of ISO-New England grid demands. Truly a pittance!
Good context/perspective, SeaMount. Math doesn’t lie.
Average power usage in US per household is 8900 KW or roughly 45000 housholds for a year
Wind power is not sustainable or dependable. It accounts for less than one percent of energy used. Their exemption for much of the industry from federal income tax should not be extended. This was not sustainable 40 years ago when it was pushed and yet we are being stuck with a 1970’s energy policy that still does not work. Time to give it a rest and take the monkey off the backs of Maine people for the benefit of a few. No matter how you look at it this is not a viable energy option. Wind power needs to be taken off the taxpayer dole.
and maintaining a trillion dollar military to protect our access to foreign oil is sustainable? (not to mention the health/environmental costs. Think about the future, not just your own wallet. There is no free lunch.
You’re right, Mike. That’s not sustainable. But you’re assuming that wind energy will replace oil imports and that is simply not true. Most of our oil imports go into transportation fuel, not generating electricity.
Strike REPLACE and insert SUPPLEMENT. But sooner or later, that oil -will- run out. What do we do then?
I guess we put windmills on the top of our cars.
DUH
Absolutely, if it can help increase the efficiency and make better use of the fuel.
Maybe you should put a windmill on top of your head.
It might help you think better.
Hey, I’m open-minded enough to try it, if it helps! What do you do when you need to think clearly? Sobriety? :-)
All energy is fungible. Increase supply in one area and you will decrease the demand on another.
Mike, we don’t have a trillion dollar military and what is your problem with the military, a basic function of government?
Once 2015 rolls around, we will have a $585 billion defense budget in 2011 dollars. We have seen as high as 800 million. A good chunk of that was OEF/OIF funds. Just sayin. Nuke is the cheapest form of power.
You wouldn’t say that if you lived near one that cooked off!
I wasn’t referring to annual expenditure, but the cost of the war in Iraq. I’ve got no problem with the military defending our nation. I’ve got a real problem with the military being used as corporate welfare and a private grudge force, e.g., “regime change” in Iraq which has become a breeding ground for terrorists and destroyed one of the few secular islamic states.
I don’t recall his comment claiming anything you said.
That’s a myth that our military is maintained for oil.
You’re right, Afghanistan has an incredible amount of other natural resources as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all
I spent most of my 13 year military career training to defend the middle eastern oil supply lines.
We hardly ever trained for jungle or Europe.
It was always geared towards desert warfare and urban conditions.
That’s one person.
The purpose of our military is to defend our country. What you describe is a tiny subset of operations.
I was in the HQ platoon of a high echelon support battalion.
If we where being trained for the middle east then you can bet that was where the next war was going to happen.
Um, where else has the majority of military expenditures gone over the past 20 years? I seem to recall three wars in the oil-rich Middle East…. and thatt’s not the mention the billions in giveaways to Israel.
Israel is our friend. And if we fought these wars for oil, why is it we get less oil from Iraq now than we did before these wars? Nice try, but try the facts next time.
And what on earth does oil have to do with wind turbines in Maine? The answer is absolutely nothing. Are you also part of the “wind army” of AWEA bloggers?
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-industry-sponsored-online-blogging-alive-well-and-against
I don’t believe he said anything about the military. But I am glad at your level of passion regarding wind. That said, you cannot deny the fact that unlike many things our government does, the military is not only authorized by the constitution, but required by it. Although I will agree that a $1 Trillion military budget does seem excessive, but it is nice to know how much safer we are now adays then pretty much at any other time in our history.
Plus, don’t forget that many earmarks for unrelated pet projects are buried in the defense budget to ensure passage. I don’t have the figures, but one that comes to mind is the $60 million for an addition to the JFK Library for his brother Teddy. Peanuts, but they do add up…..
I’m glad you brought up free lunch. Mike you have finally admitted that even lunch costs money. If you are not paying for it someone else is. It’s time for us to stop giving things away, even the poor can pay a little something. Remember your words, “there is no free lunch”.
Not taking care of the least fortunate has its own costs, e.g,. prisons. When calculating the true cost of something you have to take into account all outcomes.
And giving tax breaks to all those civic minded oil companies is a good use of taxpayers money?
Companies do not pay taxes.
Consumers pay taxes.
If you raise the price of doing business on a company that company just reflects the increased cost back on the consumer.
Do you actually think that if a company loses a tax break that some old guy chomping on a cigar in a smokey backroom loses some dough ?
Keep up the good work Friends of Maine’s Mountains!
Nick still has some work to do on the article. Power ratings are nearly meaningless, we need data about the quantity of power produced. Only kWh or MWh are units of energy… the “hour” part is critical.
Reread your material guy. What did First Wind actually report?
The average monthly household usage in Maine for 2010 is 521 kWh, or 6,252 kWh per year.
(According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.)
Right on, Imperceptus!
Accurate reporting of electricty production over time is done in Kilowatt Hours (KWH) or Megawatt Hours (MWH). This news item shows that either First Wind or BDN’s reporter or both need a course in Electric Generation 101.
You can get the information on the quarterly reports on FERC website. Navigate the site to find: FERC Electric Quarterly Report (EQR), by Seller. The quantity is expressed in thousands of MWH. For For First Wind’s Rollins project, I was able to determine this:Rollins 60MW nameplate capacity 60MW X 24 hours per day X 92 days in 4th Q=132,480 MWH potential capacity. 132,480 divided by 32,000 MWH reported=24% capacity factor for this quarter, which includes windy transition from autumn to winter weather patterns.
Rollins 60MW nameplate capacity 60MW X 24 hours per day X 92 days in 4th Q=132,480 MWH potential capacity. 132,480 divided by 32,000 MWH reported=24% capacity factor for this quarter, which includes windy transition from autumn to winter weather patterns.
Look at their book on how much revenue they took in and what price. If the PUC didn’t exempt them from showing it.
These thieves have multiple incomes streams. I like to tell my business friends, wouldn’t you like to sell your product 3 times instead of just once? You need to add up the sales made on actual generation, plus the PTC and other tax credits, plus the sale of Renewable Energy Certificates, just for starters.
Nick mainly writes what First Wind tells him to.
they would be satisfied by a mouse fart.The money is not in power generation its in govt grants
Maybe, but the real money is in the politicians pockets
Probably true along with
the PAC’s
What was the cost of the fuel to run these turbines again?
why spend any money at all on junk to begin with.. it is a waste of resources
What’s the timeline on a new Nuke Plant? 15, 20, 25 years? Spent fuel rods, 500 years?
If I had the money I’d put one up in my yard.
I lived near the Ginnea nuke when it cooked off one night. The only thing that saved everyone’s bacon was the fact that it happened during a heavy snowstorm so everything dropped in their own yard. Believe me, you wouldn’t want that if your yard.
Hydro power is the best source of power..
I had a friend put one up in his yard 10 grand and it could only power a frig 40 days in a year. payback was over 30 years. but that is not what he was told from the company who istalled it. They said a 10 year payback, they lied to sell their product. remind you of anyone.
If I had the money , I would put a nuke in your yard!!
LOL, I meant a wind turbine. I’d be long dead before you could completed a nuke in my yard:)
What was the cost of the fuel to dig the rare earth metals in China at 100 gallons per hour plus transport per TEREX truck and the cost to transport them across the Pacific in ships whose fuel usage is 1 gallon per foot travelled? Plus the smelting is done in furnaces using good ol’ coal power. The turbine huggers only want to talk about emissions after the dirty work is done.
Let me take a wild guess here and say .05% the cost of getting one coal fired generator up and running and once the wind turbine is up and running the cost of fuel to run it is ‘0’. The cost of a coal plant is the removal of a few mountains, fuel to run the coal processing, fuel to deliver the coal by truck or train. All of which is unending.
I’m all for hydro if they can put in fish ladders to enable what is fast becoming a precious food souce and allow the fish to reach their breeding grounds. BTW the cost to engeneer and operate a hydro plant doesn’t come cheap either. Cost of delivering the water to power the dams = ‘0’
I’m all for solar. If I had the money I’d have my roof done in solar panels. It would be very cost effective if, instead of building our public buildings with flat roofs that have to be retrofitted with peaked roofs after they start to colapse or rot out, (snow country don’cha know). How about building all these buildings to where they can be facing south to catch the full benefit of the sun.
Cost to deliver the sun = ‘0’.
Tidal power should be a win, win for us as it also costs ‘0’ to deliver the tide. That is until some environut deems it inapropriate to take advantage of what nature has given us to work with.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You see eyesores, I see the possibility of jobs that will help keep some of best youth here in Maine to raise their families.
There is a finite amount of fosile fuel on earth that we can access. We should be preserving it and looking at alternatives for our future generations. We need to experiment with alternatives whenever and wherever we can.
We agree on much. However the jobs could be improving rail, roads, and bridges which would make more sense than scalping the mtns. and building dirt superhighways across ridgelines while clearcutting trees and spraying to prevent regrowth.
If kids leave the state to find jobs, maybe they just want to spread their wings and see new places? If they want the urban life that is fine, although many would not work in the city for any money, preferring the small town and rural lifestyle.
When Trans Canada claims wind power is not meant to replace base load generation, I have to wonder what its purpose is? (answer: to make developers rich quickly!!), also to keep coal plants burning with the RECs. New nuke plants are safer than the old half century tech and should be considered at least. Wind can’t do it with the projected demand and reluctance of the developed world to cut their lifestyles back. Note the PUC admits the 1.6 billion dollar upgrade is not enough now for the projected wind blasts. They do a disservice to Maine ratepayers.
From the photos they don’t look like super highways. more like one lane dirt access roads. The mountains and ridgelines are still there. Would you be more comfortable if they just did the windmills off the coast? I’m sure that we would have people comming out against that. It might interfere with their view or the vibrations will kill off the remaining fish stocks or electricute the wales. BTW, they aren’t removing the mountains or ridge lines like they do for coal. They are still there and if in the future they are proven to be totally unproductive. The trees can and will regrow there.
I don’t know where you live but in Washington County it’s a stampede for HS grads to leave the county if not the state in order to make a decent living. My best guess is somewhere in the neighborhood of 80%. I worked with a girl who graduated from Machias in a class of 33. She was the only one left in the county from that class. Pretty sad.
I agree with new Nuke plants. They are safer now. The problem being is that of the NIMBY’s and Legions of ‘NO’. How long has it been since there was a Nuke put on line in the USA??
I like rail, if it can be run by Japan or Europe. The RR companies here just aren’t getting the job done to serve todays customers. Todays industry depends on on time delivery and RR’s don’t seem to be able to accomplish that.
Wether we have wind, coal, hydro, nuke, gas or bio energy. Our highways and bridges need to be brought into the 21’st century. Maine is way behind the rest of the nation which is also in need of major upgrading and renovation.
Good question. When the turbine blades turn at the same speed all the time..often 3 turning and 3 off…they are using power , not producing it.
First Wind and the other PR flaks in the so called “wind industry” would have you believe that their power is doing some good. Coal plants in Connecticut will burn 24/7 regardless of whether the wind is blowing in Maine. If those coal plants (and New England uses very little coal…Maine none) were to shut off, our lights would go out. Coal is a base load generator. Wind cannot do that job. It’s sexy to think it’s useful or necessary, but it is neither. It’s like 500 calories of frosting on a 2000 calorie cake. First Wind is always working it hard to justify their scam, but Maine is catching on. ENRON caved in, and First Wind, which was started and is now managed by ENRON refugees, will too.
The only fuel that accelerates global warming faster than coal is natural gas from shale because of the escape of methane during the extraction of the shale. Methane’s heat capture is over a hundred times that of coal. Neither one is a viable energy source when global warming is factored in. Of course, conservation is the least expensive route, especially in transportation where half our energy is consumed (once, then needs to be replaced).
Does this mean cow farts are bad for the environment?
Yes! They are!
Who told you that pile of crap.. 35,000 scientist disagree with Global warming, yet you still believe.
The Algorian factor has taken hold.
Care to bet our kid’s future on it? Open your eyes and look around! Don’t crap all over my grandkids world. They deserve it as much as you
Go save the chinese, we have bent over enough for the enviro freaks.
Gsgofer – Are you part of the online astroturf “Wind Army”?
Wind Industry Sponsored Online Blogging Alive, Well and Against the Law?
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-industry-sponsored-online-blogging-alive-well-and-against
Some scientists disagree with the significance of the anthropogenic contribution to global warming. No scientist who looks at the history and evidence disagrees with the fact of global warming. Regardless of the cause, GW is real, and accelerating. You can hide your head in the sand all you want, but it’s not going to change things.
I agree with you on climate change, but wind turbines are not even slowing down the rate of growth. Windsprawl is however a convenient bandwagon to jump on if you own a construction company or energy company and you want easy money with the easiest engineering possible. Maine needs rail, roads and bridges rebuilt or replaced, and not have the workers wasting their time scalping the mtns. for a scheme to make Mass. yuppies rich quickly.
35,000? source please.
P.S. I’m sick of corporatoracy also and I’m a teaparty Repub.
First Wind isn’t producing electricity, and then leaving it to rot in the field (so to speak.) It’s being used. If it wasn’t being used, they wouldn’t sell it. If they weren’t selling it, they wouldn’t be in business. This means there is a demand for the product they are generating.
So, if there’s a demand for the product, and there’s no one there to fill it, that means the price of what remains goes up.
So the solution is to stop generating wind-based electricity (it is, after all, “a scam” you said), take money out of the mouths of the families who have jobs because of First Energy, and money out of the pockets of those who invested in the company, and make a profit from it, and let the big oil companies raise the rates for the rest of us? What happened to start-ups, to supporting small business, and to encouraging people to make opportunities, which is, what it seems to me, that First Wind did. First Wind is a model for Free Enterprise. And it found a way to be that, and still be a responsible environmental citizen.
How, again, is that a minus???
Shilling or clueless?
Brainless or right-wing lackey?
We are REQUIRED to buy it. If not for the thieving politicians, the subsidies and credits that the government provides no one would buy it and it would rot in the field (so to speak). It replaces, clean, reliable, CHEAP hydro power since that is the easiest to ramp down during the 25% of the time that unreliable wind power generates.
I do think tidal power is a better long-term, more sustainable resource.
”
First Wind isn’t producing electricity, and then leaving it to rot in the field (so to speak.) It’s being used. If it wasn’t being used, they wouldn’t sell it. If they weren’t selling it, they wouldn’t be in business.”
I don’t know if that is true or not. First Wind states in their own SEC report that they do not have to sell power to make money. They get a lot of govt. subsidies and the renewable credits are also quite lucrative. Money is taken from our electricity bills for renewable power plant construction as well..
I live near the Stetson Mt wind farm..for years , the turbines would turn in a configuration of 3 on and 3 off. The blades always turn at the same speed no matter how much wind is blowing. Besides, if the power can’t go past Orrington…ME exported before the first wind farm was built…one wonders.
You bring some interesting questions.
I can’t believe you put “First Wind” and “Free Enterprise” in the same sentence!
If First Wind is a model of anything, it is the model for a scheming, grab & run, subsidy sucking, criminal enterprise.
Oh, sorry! I guess it’s more like Wall Street!!!
“close to $12 million in new buildings, equipment and other benefits, such as scholarship funds, thanks to project tax funds and tax breaks, he said.”
Exactly who would be paying for this?
The taxpayer and the ratepayer are paying for this along with these carpetbaggers’ Mercedes Benz’s.
Us.
Taxpayers. Ratepayers.
It is the pact with the devil. We will bribe you to allow us to destroy your ridges and disrupt the peace and quiet and wellbeing of many of your residents. The bribe is paid for through taxpayers and ratepayers. The local yokels think they are getting a great deal and the wind company laughs all the way to the bank.
In Lincoln, they tout all those great things they can do by distorting the intent of the TIF law. They gave First Wind a rebate on half of their taxes through the TIF. I advised the Lincoln Town Council that in lieu of a TIF, demand 50% of First Wind’s Production Tax Credits (PTC). Well, First Wind just got $53,246,347 on Dec. 29, 2011, as an ARRA Sec. 1603 grant in lieu of 10 years of PTC. Wouldn’t that have been a “windfall” for Lincoln! Way more than the TIF will be worth.
The fact that they are “satisfied” with 1/3 of capacity (capacity being, of course, what is generally used when selling a wind project) tells the story by itself. The fact that it is within “industry standards” and therefore a victory is merely support.
It is not even 1/3, Ben! That would be 33% and the capacity factor of Maine wind projects is more like 25%. Since when is 25% an acceptable output for electricity generation? A combined cycle generator like Calpine in Westbrook turns out 540MW, 24/7 at 90% capacity factor. The wind industry should be ashamed with output like this, yet we let them get away with bragging about it!
I always get back to just what are we buying here? Would you buy an appliance for your home that works only 25% of the time? Would you buy an appliance for your home that wouldn’t work when you need it, or when it works is sporadic and could stop working at any time? Would you buy an appliance for your home that is very expensive for the work you get out of it and still have to buy another appliance to back it up? Hell, no! Nobody to whom I have asked that question has said yes to that scenario. But that is exactly what we do when we use bad public policy to create arbitrary renewable energy mandates and make a bad taxpayer investment in wind power.
Take away the taxpayer support and the mandates and the wind industry totally fails, so why support such a poorly performing industry?
Mr. Gurall is absolutely correct that First Wind manipulates the figures in order to mislead the public. Here is one glaring example that BDN should have caught:
“According to the figures Lamontagne released, the 57-megawatt Stetson I facility generated about 154,000 megawatts in 2011, or about 421 megawatts per 24-hour day.”
Think about it: How in the world can a 57-magawatt facility generate 154,000 megawatts in a year???
Facts confuse most people. ask them about a TV Star and bingo they know the answer
This should have been expressed as a different unit, MW Hours. Thus, if you takes 421 MW and divide by 24 hours, it becomes 17.54. Divide that by 57MW, the nameplate capacity, and you get 31%. That is about what First Wind quotes for that project. I despise First Wind, but those are the figures. Where the figures are misinterpreted is by doing the simple division in order to posture this as steady output, when it is not. Some days those turbines stand still, on windy days, they can actually be cranking.
But what it doen’t state that must be reiterated over and over is wind power is unpredictable, unreliable, occurs often when there is no demand for it but because it must enter the grid, the hydro sources are told to reduce output as they are the quickest and easiest source of electricity to ramp down and then ramp back up. Isn’t it ironic that in order to meet the mandate for wind that a clean, emissions-free renewable energy source is the one wind replaces?
I fully realize they meant to say MWhours and not MW. But isn’t it a shame that neither Lamontagne or Sambides have done anything to correct the blatant error? I guess they must think “well, it’s just stupid Mainers. We can let that blatant error go by and they’ll never call us on it.”
And if you don’t think First Wind thinks we are all stupid hicks, you’re wrong!
I don’t know anyone who wants these in Maine except those who somehow benifit from them.
Which is everyone. Beats having to rely on Canadian power. Give them time and watch them become more efficient.
Hydro Quebec is very reliable hydro power that will be there in a hundred years pushing power out with little effort
And does Hydro Quebec invest or contribute in our State ? Just go ask Paulie since he’s in such a rush to have MORE MAINE MONEY go out of the Country to Canada. But more important, and relevant is what Gurall points out is just where does all of this power go ? It’s sure not staying here in Maine since everyone’s bill’s here in Eastern Maine shows our power being generated and transmitted thru Canadian companies. If 1st Wind’s power is supposed to benefit Mainer’s, fine, SHOW ME ’cause to this point it’s showing me nothing more than moosepoop.
Am I a fan or foe of wind ? To be honest, I am not sure. What I am sure about is that this project was supposed to provide a more economical and reliable power source that Mainer’s could count on. What I’m seeing is, instead, that power going out of State (and I have the EMEC electric bill to prove it !) and doing nothing for Maine’s development or benefit. So much for Show Me. And we now see the end result of Adams writing regulation’s that benefited the Wind Industry just beofre he went and became a 1st Wind Board Member. Does anyone see this or am I the only one ?
Apart from the wind scam per se, there is transmission scam.
The SOLE purpose of the Maine Power Reliability Project or CMP Upgrade was and still is transporting wind electrons to places like Connecticut. It was “sold” to us as needed for reliability, but the wink was that wind power created this need. CMP and Baldacci talked about “aging lines” but had Baldacci ever paid an electric bill, he would have known that every month part of the payment goes to keeping the lines maintained and up to date. Baldacci also cited population growth. Yet a look at U.S. Census figures reveals that the population growth across the New England region over the next 20 years was only 6.0%, and just 4.0% in Maine.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/what-s-all-the-fuss-about-population-growth-in-the-northeast
WE WERE LIED TO.
The next big lie was Baldacci said that Maine would pay only 8% of the CMP upgrade $1.5 billion bill, 8% being our share of the grid. But what he didn’t say is that we would also have to pay 8% of any such other similar wind transmission projects in the ISO-NE grid, estimated at $30 billion, with Maine’s share at $2.4 billion. (8% x $30 billion). Divide that by the number of Maine ratepayers (not population, but the smaller number – ratepayers) and the tab is near $5,000 per ratepayer. Average struggling ratepayers buying the thieving wind industry their power lines.
If the bird slicing wind projects are the crime, then the new transmission is the getaway car. And Joe Sixpack pays.
How did the CMP Upgrade get approved? Well, for one, Kurt Adams, then Chairman of the PUC, worked long and hard while at the PUC to make it happen. He greased the skids. Of course this newspaper never reported on the fact that Adams was interviewing for months at wind interloper First Wind, while he chaired the PUC. Then, while at the PUC, he took over $1 million in stock options at First Wind, and a month later he left the PUC to become First Wind’s director of transmission.
You can’t make this stuff up. But you can report on it and dig for more dirt. But Maine Today Media never wrote a single word on it, leaving its state leading readership in the dark about this heinous situation. Thankfully, the highly esteemed, impeccably credentialed and non-partisan Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting wrote of Adams’ antics. It can be read here:
PUC chairman took equity stake in wind company
http://pinetreewatchdog.org/2010/05/06/puc-chairman-took-equity-stake-in-wind-company/
First Wind SEC filing change questioned
http://pinetreewatchdog.org/2010/07/18/first-wind-sec-filing-change-questioned/
Group asks AG to probe official of First Wind
http://pinetreewatchdog.org/2010/07/18/group-asks-ag-to-probe-official-of-first-wind/
Of course when citizens demanded action on this, what they viewed as a blatant conflict of interest, Baldacci’s Attorney General, Janet Mills, did a kangaroo court investigation and ruled “no conflict”. It was almost as nauseating as her sister, the state’s CDC director Dora Mills denying the mounting stack of eveidence worldwide that the thumping roar of wind turbines cause human health problems. Two Baldacci plants, doing his bidding in what was an extraordinarily corrupt administration. (It’s frankly time that the current AG William Schneider re-opens the Adams investigation).
Anyway, these lines were for wind all along. But they knew that if they gave this a $3 billion pricetag, it would have not flown. So it was done in two parts. The wind industry’s recent whining about inadequate transmission is overture to part two, where the wind industry whines and talks about how the first $1.5 billion will be money gone to waste unless the next $1.5 billion gets spent. Just watch. This was planned all along.
It’s just like First Wind knowing all along that its originally approved Oakfield project of 50MW was never the project but rather a first approval toehold that would set the stage for its Part 2 expansion to the pristine lakes of Island Falls, where at 150MW it would become the biggest project in the state. I might add that the Maine media, including the Bangor Daily News wrote not a single word on this giant phase 2. They would write big articles about staged wind industry events like the industry’s HS wind contests or their snowmobile tours of a wind “farm”, but not a word about the largest project in the state.
Which brings us to the 59 mile long transmission line from Oakfield to Chester, that is part of First Wind’s Oakfield expansion. This wetlands transecting travesty is so that several more communities along the way can be invaded by industrial wind projects and feed into the line. And contribute to grid instability. Until they see if they can get the next $1.5 billion spent on the always planned part 2 of the CMP upgrade. That 59 mile long line and all the projects feeding it now or in the future should be stopped in their tracks and CMP and First Wind officials – along with the many corrupt actors in the Baldacci administration should be tapped by the long arm of the law, brought to justice and be made an example of, lest our state is destined to rout in corruption.
See:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/oakfield-chester-line
and for the big picture, see:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/past-present-and-future
Thank you for the research Pete. AAA+
Me thinks we have found our next AG, or at the very least, the next Maine Public Interest Research’s Chief. Good for you Pete ! Never quit, never give in and call it as you see it. Anything else is just plain quitting and letting yourself get bent over the sofa.
I’d like to see the FTC crack down on the wind industry’s paid bloggers that sometimes infest these comments:
http://www.coalitionforsensiblesiting.com/doc/AWEAPolicyDoc-Nov2011.pdf
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm
Regretfully, with the Court’s recent Citizens United decision, we are stuck with them. But that doesn’t mean that we have to stop making our voices and opinions heard. That’s in The Constitution too. And it pre-dated the Citizens decision by about 220 years as well !
We gave up on windmills 150 years ago for inefficient steam engines, and it was a great deal. It kicked off the industrial revolution and allowed our civilization to progress to the point we’re at now. How many more centuries do they need? If we had stuck with wind power all along, we wouldn’t even have broken the sound barrier yet.
Even if they were ever to become efficient (they’ve had 40 years already), there’s no way they can generate stable, consistent or reliable electricity. When a power source is not reliable, that means it cannot be predicted, it can not be counted on. When a source of electricity is not predictable, that electricity is nearly worthless.
I bought a new car that was advertised to get 75 mpg. I spent a fortune for it and got 1/3 of the money back from the government (you) because it was GREEN.
In actuality I only got 25 mpg (33% +-) of the advertised mileage! But that’s OK by me, because that’s the industry average. And its cool that the manufacturer continues to claim 75 mpg in all their promotions.
You have lots of homework to do on windpower, its cost verses benefits.
Exactly. High costs and little benefit.
First Wind may say they are satisfied but I think they need to be more specific about where this energy is going- Maine was doing just fine without them before they came along ruining pristine places and over-riding places that were protected from any kind of development and still should be http://www.na.fs.fed.us/legacy/legacy_places/me/pdfs/me_05_2003s.pdf
Randall Fairman from Dixmont spoke to Island Falls last week about the Dixmont wind ordinance process and explained how in their research they found that the monies from the Wind companies that claim to help towns just about evens out by the time they pay more school taxes and other things..and who maintains the fire trucks in 20 years when the wind money is gone?
Oakfield should have done more homework and not all the people of Mars Hill are happy- not being able to sleep one of the complaints among others.
Thank you for quoting Mr Gurall who knows well about the manipulation by the wind companies-
and reminds us of what the true asset of Maine is..its quality of peace which whirring turbines and low frequency sound cannot possibly contribute to.
when Mike (in the comments below) says think about the future not just our wallets( ps- doesn’t that seem backwards> the First Wind people bribe people who have little money with money for short-sighted apparent gain and longterm overall loss) believe me First Wind is thinking about their wallets- they do not care if they spoil forests, blast hilltops ruining topography, kill birds and bats and harm humans..and the measly amount they give towns to bribe them into hurting their wildlife and own quality of life is inexcusable,
as well as the measly amount of power they will ever get from intermittent Maine hills.
They are big biz get subsidized and all over the world countries are getting into trouble rushing this no good technology
http://fifewindfarms.org.uk/
the info about what wind is not good economically or otherwise is out there..and of course the wind companies say it is all good and minimize anything negative or deny it.
Lamontagne is way off when he says people are happily co-existing with 45 story wind turbines where before there were dark star filled skies and now there are noisy turbines with red flashing lights..co-existing with the environment? after they clear cut pristine woods destroying habitat in areas that have been preserved up until now? I think not! For 4 years an owner on Lincoln Lakes (who attended the Island Falls meeting with photos of the flashing lights on the lake) who travels all the way from Europe has been trying to sell his lake cabin since the turbines came in- he cannot and the taxes keep going up as his property value obviously has not.
They throw crumbs(money) at the decision makers in one form or another and they get approved.
And that’s not something the Koch Bros would do?
who are the kich bros??? I take what your saying as two wrong are OK?
And that’s not something George Soros would do? Tit for tat on that one!
Who the heck are these Koch brothers you talk about? I’ m very conservative and not once have I even heard their names mentioned at any Tea Party meeting I’ve ever been to. When I looked up who they were they sound conservative and libertarian what’s wrong with that? At least they like America unlike George Soros.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family
So at least they sound like they like our country unlike George Soros.
U.S. Rep Eric Massa (D-NY) wrote that First Wind has a business model of “LIE, CHEAT and CORRUPT”.
Read all about it here:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-business-model-of-lie-cheat-and-corrupt
Rep. Eric Massa also said that wind has to be blowing at 20 MPH to be utilized by the turbines. Try driving at 20 MPH and sticking your hand out the window. How often does the wind blow that hard? Can you depend on it for your refrigerator and freezer?
http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/electricity/docs/MPUCMotiontoInterveneER08-190.PDF
The energy has to be going to Canada. Read above link.
Look at all these Conservs squirm! Anyone would think they got their free copy of the Koch Bros playbook! What are you going to do when the oil runs out or your grandchild needs 4 inhalers to make it through the day? How about a few more full blown tornados per month? Trying to shoot down alternative sources of power before they are fully developed is assinine.
The European countries are opting out and they have been at it for 30 years.
The massive subsidies in Europe have become unsustainable for wind power. We should learn from that mistake rather than emulate it.
Writing comments for George Soros funded groups is anti-American.
Writing comments for Maine Heritage Policy Center, ALEC, Koch brothers and Mitt Romney is anti-American.
It is now established fact that many of the pro-wind comments we see in online reader comments are the result of paid bloggers or bloggers otherwise employed by the wind industry or their whores in the environmental organizations (rampant in Maine) who have taken money from them.
The following directives are taken from the Board of Directors of the American Wind Energy Association 11/2/11 meeting materials.
“Respond quickly to unfavorable articles by posting comments online, using the AWEA blog and twitter, and putting out press releases”.
” • Work with Grassroots team to recruit and activate a “Wind Army,” identifying state, member and third-party surrogates to spread AWEA messages. Results: • Quadrupled size of online community from February to October, building online advocacy list from 25,000 to 113,000; plus LinkedIn at 8,000, Twitter at 12,500, Facebook at 37,000, for a total online community of more than 172,000 and still rapidly growing”.
Source: http://www.coalitionforsensiblesiting.com/doc/AWEAPolicyDoc-Nov2011.pdf
What are you going to do when you realize that we use almost no oil to generate electricity? In Maine it is less than 1/2 of 1%.
19% of power in US comes from burning natural gas. Koch Bros control over 4900 miles of pipeline. They also own C Reise Coal Co. and Koch carbon that are major contributors of coal and petrolium coke to power plants.
I see you’ve recanted your claim that wind power will reduce our dependence on oil. That’s good. You’ve learned something.
I look at that picture and really wonder about environmentalists. Its all about the money – it has absolutely nothing to do with the environment. And as electricity consumers, we all get to pay for this mess and Angus Kings gets the money. Good deal for Angus and the number one reason he wants to go to Washington DC.
Great post, AAA+
Angus’s company was not First Wind. But is son is head of mergers and acquisitions at First Wind. Suck up those subsidies just like daddy does junior.
I’m trying to figure out who are these people that are opposed to wind power? Are they the liberals and the environmentalists? Are they the people that would rather we burn fossil fuels that are eating up the ozone layer, thereby causing global warming, which in turn brings upon us tornadoes that cause destruction and death? When I look at these windmills, I see a thing of beauty, that rather than send our money to the Arabs every year, we instead are using a free force of nature to power the things that make our lives more comfortable. I’m beginning to think that a lot of the naysayers are just opposed to new ideas. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and for my eyes, these windmills are simply beautiful!
Joe Joe Joe… do your homework, man. Last year the US got less than 1% of its electricity from oil burning. Maine got less than 1/2 of 1%. Renewable and clean energy are both great, as long as they work and make sense. Grid scale wind power is the misfit that has no place to land. So it turned to politics to get preferential treatment. It is unnecessary, unsustainable, unreliable, unaffordable, and…wait for it…useless. It’s all about U. It adds nothing to the grid, and cannot will not replace or displace base load generation (such as the handful of coal plants in New England…none in Maine). These people are left, right, center…environmentalists, tree huggers, tea partiers, economists…you name it… they’re pragmatists. You say they’re beautiful. Take a look at the balance sheet, the financial, the economics, the science. THAT is what makes them ugly. We all sacrifice some natural resource for necessary and useful infrastructure. Look at airports, rail lines, highways, transmission lines, cell towers. They all mar the landscape. But we find the benefits exceed the impacts. That cannot be said for wind power.
Your polluting plane spews C02 high in the air and the airline industry is a major contributer to the problem. Windmills are an eyesore and only someone with a $$$$$$$ interest would call them beautiful. Are you leasing land to the win cartel?
If you owned a motel and were booking only 37 % of your rooms, who would subsidize your losses ?
And it’s not as high as 37%. They spin far more than their turbines spin. These clowns come from ENRON.
CEO of First Wind, Paul Gaynor, was an executive with Enron Wind and was involved with the first wind mandate in Texas, where Enron was located. After the Enron bankruptcy, he then moved on to GE, again working in wind. It is not surprising that all of First Wind’s projects that have been built in Maine all have the GE 1.5MW turbines!
Yes they are Enron execs who flocked East to start their next fleecing of America.
Hey a scholarship fund!!! what nice people.
Yeah, all the hoopla about the environment, which is all well and good. What about savings on electric bills? Has that happened yet? Hey man, we’re stuck with fossil fuels for the forseeable future, don’t deny it. Ever taken a ride on the St. Lawrence River down to the Gaspe region…all you see are these windmill farms. And we all know that Power in that region is generated by Hydro. So, what is the sense, except for these companies getting tax breaks and getting rich.
joe pilot needs to live near one of the wind turbines,.he might not think they are so beautiful and I suggest he rent Windfall now available on netflix or buy it..it is worth it for education purposes.
Most people opposed to wind are environmentalists and not pro oil..they just find out through research that industrial wind is not beautiful at all..from any angle.
the envoronmentalists demand that the dams be taken down,
okay, done, less hydro power.
they demand nuke plants be taken offline,
okay.
Coal fired plants? Forget it!
Alrighty then,
so now, we have wind, and they want those done away with too.
Quick question to you environmentalists and hippies that think the world should be your utopian idea of perfect:
Where are we supposed to get power from?
You’re not. You’re supposed to live somewhere else. The end game of NRCM is the depopulation of Maine. When you understand that, then you understand why they advocate for wind.
Your argument points out that the wind issue defies labels. The people opposed to the wind scam range run the gambit. They are not all environmentalists or hippies. Many of us just get mad as heck when someone is picking our pockets while destroying our State.
The government should not be using the tax system to influence the behavior of either industry, or the behavior of its people. It should only use the tax system to raise revenues to pay for government services. When the government uses the tax system to stimulate industries or economies it creates a false business environment and generally creates a bubble.
Think of the housing market crash, the federal government created incentives that created a false environment that led banks to make bad and irresponsible lending decisions which lead to the collapse of the housing market, it destroyed the values of people homes that they spent most of their lives building equity in, and it eventually led to the collapse of the financial markets that destroyed many people personal savings accounts and retirement accounts, and eventually led to the collapse of the worlds economy.
Why? Because the government felt that everyone should be able to buy a home, even if they couldn’t afford one.
Now, they are doing the same thing with “alternative energies”, many of these technologies are great and someday will likely play a part in our energy independence. At this point however many of these technologies benefits do not outweigh their disadvantages, thus they are not sustainable.
If you want an alternative energy source that is cheap, safe, reliable, and overall just makes sense look into liquid floudide throium reactors. Why on earth are we not using these?
Until humanity reins in the population explosion, demand for electric power will continue to increase exponentially. That power has to come from somewhere. Wind generation is still a young technology, and improvements are coming on line so quickly it’s hard to keep track. Quieter blades and gearboxes, more efficient power production, lower cost, higher output, etc., etc. Compare the environmental impact of a wind turbine with the impact of a dam that expands an existing 2,000 acre lake to 17,000 acres, and tell me which one is more harmful. How much would it cost to set up that dam today, after buying out hundreds of camp owners and other landowners? Is that any more cost-efficient than these wind projects? The only reason hydro power is cheaper is that the lands were all acquired many years ago when the value was MUCH lower. No environmental impact studies were done because there were no regulations back then, so no one knows how many endangered species were harmed or driven to extinction. Wind power projects are not perfect. But they are not the end of the world either, and they are getting better and less harmful with each new project.
Since when is 24% capacity factor acceptable for electricity generation? Especially when it is unpredictable, unreliable, and tends to be generated when it isn’t needed in the grid. That is the 4th quarter FERC report on First Wind’s Rollins Project. Instead of 60 MW (Rollins’ nameplate capacity), it produced a paltry 14.4 MW. Nothing to brag about, Mr. Lamontagne!
Our economy and our way of life is built upon the reliable, dispatch-able, stable generating resources. Maine’s largest generator is a 540MW combined cycle natural gas generator in Westbrook. That one plant, built for $300 million 10 years ago, hums away 24/7 consistently meeting our needs. If this generator operated at 90% capacity factor (the average for this type of plant), that would be 486 MW. So, for comparison, it would take 1,350 turbines the size of Rollins’ GE 1.5 MW units to equal this plant. At $4 million per turbine, that means $5.4 billion.
If the 40 turbines in the Rollins project are sprawled over 7 miles of ridgeline, then 1,350 more will take 236 miles of ridgelines. The plant in Westbrook sits on less than 100 acres in an industrial park.
PS: Thank you for comparing operating capacity vs. operating capacity. Many anti-wind posters conflate capacity and efficiency. Personally, I’m rather neutral on wind farms, but have a hard time with both sides using poor terminology and bad science.
John should write sci-fi novels. His imagination is boundless!!! And such an optimist!!! Maybe with thousands more turbines Big Wind can contribute 2% of New England’s energy instead of 1% !!! With red blinking lights on hundreds of mtns., and the views from the lakes turned into a distracting pinwheel circus, people will stay inside and not bother to go outdoors at all, like the developers. Time to turn up the heat and send the turbine huggers packing back to their own state.
I think Maine and New England have to find some way to start generating more of its own power. I don’t know whether that’s solar, wind, hydro-electronic, nuclear, or (most likely), some combination of the previous. But, we should all be ashamed that we can’t sustain ourselves to a greater degree. Mainer’s (of which I am one, my family has been for over 250 years), pride themselves on yankee ingenuity, on self-reliance, and on innovation in the face of adverse circumstances. So why do we think it’s okay for us to keep consuming, ruining the world for those that come after us? There are ways for us to be more self-reliant. But we aren’t doing (in any significant way), any of them. Why? Because we’re scared, or we’re afraid, or maybe we’ve just plain gone lazy.
It’s an unsettling feeling, to be proud of living here for hundreds of years, and simultaneously, ashamed of how slovenly we’ve become about even careing for ourselves, our future generations, and the environment around us.
Excluding wind turbines Maine has in excess of 4,200 megawatts of generating capacity. EIA reports that in 2011 Maine generated 15.8 million megawatt hours of power or approximately 42% of its capacity. Other than the small portion of costs that goes into construction wind farms are owned by and power is generated for out-of-staters. Maine is strictly a pawn for the wind industry.
Even if that’s true, which I do not believe, and don’t think the evidence supports, but let’s assume so…even if that’s true…is it any worse than being a pawn industry for the oil industry???
You don’t believe Just a Gnome because you don’t believe in facts presented by an analyst. I know this person and you better believe he knows his stuff.
It may be, as I said. On here, in this forum, though, his, your, or my, opinion carry equal weight.
I’m open to facts. But facts have to be credible. None of that is presented here. That’s all I’m saying.
It’s important to put Forced Wind’s hyper-inflated comments in perspective,
Click on the link for the PDF at the following:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/nrcm-s-co2-analysis
There you will see a document that uses paid Wind shill mercenary NRCM’s own CO2 figures which makes it virtually impossible for NRCM to refute.
The punchline is that using their own figures, all of the approximate 1,800 turbines envisioned for Maine would effect cooling equal to that provided by only 1% of Maine’s forests.
When their chicken little scare tactics are put into this sort of perspective, their primary rationale for condoning the transmogrification of Maine by turbine and transmission, supposed CO2 avoidance, falls apart.
Badly.
First Wind’s spokesman is so full of falsehoods, he must think the people of Maine are truly ignorant. How many thousands of acres and millions of trees did First Wind destroy by building their inefficient wind turbines? How many scenic vistas has First Wind destroyed? How many tourists will no longer come to Maine because of the blight of the 500 wind turbines? How much lost revenues will the lack of tourism cause?
He even admits that: “situations where the wind can reasonably be expected to blow constantly are pretty rare”! What kind of reliable, renewable energy is that?
Why didn’t the First Wind spokesman talk about these isssues? He is simply a paid salesman for First Wind. He refuses to discuss the environmomtal and economic damage caused by his compnay. He refuses to discuss the billions of tax payer subsidies his compnay has received. He refuses to discuss the millions the First Wind executives received from tax payer hand-outs.
Why should the rate payers of Maine pay higher electric rates to subsidize this inefficient company?
Why should we increase the federal budget deficit by billions of dollars to continue to subsidize this environment destroying industry?
Why would the people of Maine allow their Natural Beauty be destroyed by such huscksters?
Why would anyone believe anything he says? He words are so slanted and biased.
He reminds me of the old-time snack oil salesman who claims whatever he has to sell will cure whatever ails you. And that doesn’t do justice to the snake oil salemen of the world!
Will First Wind guarantee that people who live near their 500 foot tall wind turbines will not lose property value?
Who will want to buy property next to a 500 foot tall wind turbine?
Who will want to live on a lake with bright red strobe lights shining in their faces – like at Lake Mattawamkeag and Lake Pleasant in Island Falls?
What tourist will want to visit those lakes?
They are now pristine and natural but they will soon be blighted by fifty 500 foot tall wind turbines with huge red strobe lights. Who will want to visit those lakes in the future?
The town of Oakfiled may get a nice shiny red fire truck but they will forever have to live with these monsters. They will be sacrifing their way of life on a long-term basis for a few a few short-term financial benefits.
Plus they will lose much of their property value! What kind of a sacrifice it that? How much is that worth? Who pays for that?
Why didn’t the First Wind snake oil salesman talk about that?
Wonder where that energy is being sent? Canada? It can’t go past Orrington. This link explains that the grid was at capacity before Stetson I was built. Mars Hill energy goes to Canada.
http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/electricity/docs/MPUCMotiontoInterveneER08-190.PDFhttp://www.maine.gov/mpuc/electricity/docs/MPUCMotiontoInterveneER08-190.PDF
http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/electricity/docs/MPUCMotiontoInterveneER08-190.PDF
Wonder where that energy is going.Mars Hill energy goes to Canada. The rest of the wind farm energy can’t go past Orrington. There is a bottleneck there and no energy can go past it. There was a law suit, US before FERC …it was stated in this lawsuit that the grid was at capacity and Stetson I should not be built.
http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/electricity/docs/MPUCMotiontoInterveneER08-190.PDF
Wonder where the power is going? Mars Hill power goes to Canada. The rest of the wind farm energy can’t go past Orrington. There was a lawsuit. US of America before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Bottleneck in Orrington and Stetson should never have been built. Please don’t censor this comment , it is important. I am calling BDN if you censor me again.
http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/electricity/docs/MPUCMotiontoInterveneER08-190.PDF
I am being repeatedly censored from giving the link that shows that wind farm energy has to be going to Canada…as the grid is at capacity. When you censor , the story grows bigger. Will call BDN in the AM .
http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/electricity/docs/MPUCMotiontoInterveneER08-190.PDF
The bottleneck in Orrington is something everyone needs to learn of.
So glad that you think so too. It proves that the 1. who knows how many billion dollars worth of upgrades to the transmission lines are just for wind power. .
The proof of that is right here. See the note in this statement taken from the ISO-New England filing to FERC regarding Forward Capacity Market:
Evergreen Wind Power III, LLC.
The Rollins Wind Plant project requested to be qualified with a summer Qualified
Capacity of 10.390 MW in the Maine Load Zone. The overlapping impact analysis
determined that the Orrington South interface would be overloaded after the addition of
the Rollins Wind Plant project. The ISO has determined that the upgrades associated
with the transmission project are unlikely to be completed by the start of the 2015-2016
Capacity Commitment Period.
The same statement about the Orrington interface appears in the entry for Stetson I & II, but not Mars Hill, since the Mars Hill production is, indeed, going to New Brunswick Power, which has the Standard Supply for Maine Public Service customers in Aroostook County. Just go to the NB Power website and search “generation facilities”.
The wind industry never likes to be confronted with these truths. The media and the regulatory agencies like PUC & DEP never pursue them in their relentless quest to always give the wind industry everything they want. Only the citizens of Maine do this. Please go to http://www.windtaskforce.org for the truth about wind power in Maine.
Wind energy is a joke.
Would you keep your Prius if it was advertised to get 50mpg but only got 16, and only when it felt like taking you somewhere instead of when you needed to go somewhere, and if the government was paying 30% of Toyota’s costs? Would you buy another one?
Sorry, but you are making a mixed analogy. You cannot use a fuel efficiency figure for comparison because a) windmills do not use fuel and b) you are comparing fuel efficiency to operating capacity.
A correct analogy would be to say that if you drive your Prius 1 hour per day, then you are using it at 4% (1/24) capacity.
It is a correct analogy, because Toyota sells Priuses based on their getting 50 mpg, and First Wind sells turbine projects based on their nameplate capacity and how many Maine homes they’ll power, which they are not even close to achieving and never will be. It’s about false advertising in the name of being green.
One: If “wind industry standards” are 25% of nameplate capacity, then they need to stop selling them to towns based on those unobtainable numbers. And they need to raise their standards to somewhere above horse and buggy performance. Those turbines only come close to capacity in winds of 29 mph. Meaning they only work as advertised well after small craft warnings have been issued.
Two: Why are we propping up this failed industry with tax dollars? If it’s so great, why can’t they stand on their own? If the things worked, investors would be begging to give them money, but First Wind couldn’t even get any takers on their failed IPO. ALL industrial subsidies and tax breaks need to go away, and the corrupt wind “regulations” Baldacci and Angus and crew put in place need to be overturned.
Most projects in Maine are getting a little better than 25% over a four quarter period if the data reported to FERC is accurate. But, 30% – even 33% – is bad enough when you consider what Maine is sacrificing. For Maine’s sacrifice, New England gets a generating source that effectively operates 4 months out of the year, but requires transmission capacity as if it were operating all the time.
You hit the nail on the head about propping up the wind industry. They require special government mandates (RPS), programs and taxpayer subsidies to keep them alive. Without all that special treatment, they disappear in an instant. Even without the PTC, some would probably still hang on. But, take away the renewable portfolio standards and the RECs and most of these things will be out of business overnight. This industry cannot exist at this point in time (or any time soon) without local or federal government decrees that a) mandate the use of its product (RPS) and b) maintain artificial markets (RECs) for its benefit. Without them, there is virtually no demand for what they’re selling.
Nearly without exception, the truth is exactly the opposite of statements made by First Wind. Of course First Wind views their failure as success—We fund their destruction of our environment, economy and communities.
This image of their environmental and aesthetic devastation speaks volumes.
Not to mention that the only jobs they create is for Angus King’s gardeners at his four homes, lawyers, Reed and Reed who puts them up, and foreign workers brought in to do all the maintenance (we’re not even shipping the jobs overseas any more, we’re just importing the workers to do them here, sort of like in the southwest, but that shouldn’t surprise anyone considering that Spain owns CMP, the same Spain who has abandoned windmills and green jobs programs as too expensive and non-productive and has decided to recoup their losses off the gringos). And the fact that they typically need 4 gearbox changes over the course of their 20 year lifespan (which is still not long enough for them to make money on their own), when they’re not just abandoned and left to rust like dead “War of the Worlds” aliens. And the fact that they take enormous effort and expense to dispose of or recycle because of the rare earths they contain. Or the rare earth crisis their manufacture is creating in countries like China. The only thing green about these oversized lawn ornaments is their paint jobs.
Green for lawyers, you bet! Juliet Browne, the wife of State Rep. Jon Hinck who is running for US Senate, has raked in untold hundreds of thousands representing First Wind and other wind companies. Small coincidence that Hinck, and Reps. Stacey Fitts and Rep. Alex Cornel; du Hous, all denied their conflicts of interest and blocked every bill in the last Legislature aimed at modifying the impact of the heinous PL 661, the so-called “Wind Law”. At one time, the Town Manager of Lincoln complained how overdrawn the legal budget item was due to retaining lawyers related to the fight over the Rollins Wind Project.
Betz’ Law states that you can NEVER extract more than 59.3% of the energy contained in the wind, even with a perfect turbine with perfect blades and perfect bearings and no friction and perfect siting and instant perfect orientation to a perfect breeze with no electricity used to aim the monstrosities. So these things are actually only extracting 16% of the possible energy in the wind (27% of 59.3%). ‘You canna change the laws of physics’, no matter how many people you con or extort money from.
You are mixing unrelated percentages. Betz’s Law refers to the maximum efficiency of a wind turbine. You can extract no more than 59.3% of the kinetic energy of the wind. The best combine cycle gas turbines achieve 60% efficiency (the rest of the energy expended as hot exhaust.) However, the use of the term efficiency here is a bit misleading, since windmills do not pay for fuel.
When First Wind says the windmills operate at 27-37%, they are not referring to efficiency, but to the percentage of capacity. In essence, the windmills are generating power about 30% of the time, i.e. only when the wind blows and blows hard enough.
I’d be satisfied too, if I had managed to convince the population to pay 30% of my failed business’ costs without having to pay back a dime.
Do you EVER click on the references that are involved in so many of the postings here? Commenters like Patten Pete and TruthinMaine put a lot of references out. Many facts come from sources like the US Energy Information Office. That includes the reference to the unduly high subsidization of wind based on per megawatt hour production. That figure alone should cause anyone with a sense of fiscal responsibility to say pull the plug on this folly.
Wind is such a feckless source of electricity, that it requires far greater subsidies than any other source of electricity per Megawatt Hour. In July 2011, the USEIA published results for 2010 for subsidies per MWH (direct, tax, R & D, and electricity support). The subsidy per MWH is $52.43 for wind; the next highest is $2.78 for nuclear, then 84 cents for hydro, 64 cents for coal, and 63 cents for natural gas. Support for wind is bad economics, based on poor science, mandated by bad public policy caused by lobbyists influencing politicians pandering to be “green” rather than making sound decisions based on economics.
I just don’t understand how 27-37% capacity is a good thing. Plus, I would love to see proof that Maine is benefiting from any of this wind power. I believe in green energy, however, after all the tax benefits given to the companies, I am unsure that wind power is worthwhile.