May 10, 2010
Global warming concerns force local environmental trade-offs
By John Perritano
Special to the Connecticut Mirror
For 23 years, Eva Villanova has lived the idyllic country life. She raised a family and made a name for herself as an artist. Her home on leafy Flagg Hill Road in the northwest Connecticut town of Colebrook was a perfect place to turn ordinary clumps of clay into extraordinary works of art-or so Villanova thought.
Much to her dismay, a Connecticut energy company is proposing to build as many as five 320-foot wind turbines just yards away from Villanova's kilns. The project, proposed by BNE Energy Inc., would be the first substantial wind farm in the state. It would go a long way in helping Connecticut achieve its goal of generating 20 percent of its power over the next decade from renewable energy sources.
Although Flagg Hill residents extol the virtue of wind power as a way to combat global warming, they don't want to see a wind farm from their front stoop. They say not only will the turbines be hazardous, ugly, noisy, and a danger to wildlife (read: birds hitting the turbine's 115-foot blades), but they will sink home values. "I don't have anything against wind power, but it should not be in a residential neighborhood," Villanova says.
As the project slogs through Connecticut's regulatory marsh, Villanova and other opponents can expect little support from environmentalists. As President Obama pushes the nation to develop renewable energy sources, those in the green movement are being asked to weigh whether global climate worries trump the concerns of local residents. In many regions, environmentalists are battling one another over this eco-paradox.
"We don't want to put wind farms on the top of Mount Rushmore...but we have to support these projects somewhere," says Roger Reynolds, a senior staff attorney with the Connecticut Fund for the Environment. "At this point we have not seen any reason to oppose this project."
The call to use more renewable energy has become a political imperative as energy prices rise, our gas guzzlers sputter, and our dependence on foreign oil swells. The president says he wants the U.S. to generate 25 percent of its power using renewable resources by 2025. Not only would the president's goal sharply reduce America's reliance on foreign oil, but it would lessen America's carbon footprint and create thousands of green jobs.
Connecticut also has goals for producing energy from renewable sources and programs for promoting conservation and efficiency, although those are threatened by the current budget crisis.
To achieve renewable energy goals, conservationists are becoming more open-minded to technological improvements in power generation and distribution.
"The big established environmental groups are more willing to compromise than they were once upon a time," says Ralph Meima¸ who teaches business courses in energy sustainability at Marlboro College Graduate School in Vermont. "There's more information out there on how energy dependent we are. They want to see more use of renewable energy."
A case in point is an immense 370-mile power line that would bring hydropower generated by Canadian dams to power-thirsty New York City and southwestern Connecticut. The line would run under Lake Champlain in New York, and down the Hudson River. Part of the line would snake under Long Island Sound to Connecticut.
It wasn't that long ago when environmentalists would have stormed the barricades to oppose such a project. In fact, environmentalists opposed a much smaller line under Long Island Sound in 2002 because it disrupted shellfish beds. Today, it's a different story. The alternative to sinking the line would be to build huge high-voltage towers by clear-cutting vast swaths of forest through some of the most pristine areas of New York and Connecticut.
Environmentalists are cautiously enthusiastic about the trade off, although they need to see what the project's impact will be before giving total support.
"Unlike traditional fossil fuels, when...renewable energy projects are pitted against Long Island Sound environment, there should be balance," says Leah Schmalz, director of legislative and legal affairs for the environmental group Save the Sound. "If there are no other alternatives and if the impact to the ecosystem is minimized... then the benefit of the project when weighed with the potential harm should be considered."
Still, the rush to generate more renewable energy has some environmentalists eating their young. One of the most famous-or infamous-cases is in Massachusetts where local and state eco-activists have decried a plan to build a 130-turbine wind-power project off Nantucket's shore, while many national groups including Greenpeace support the project.
In Nevada, some greenies have broken ranks with their allies in the solar industry over a gargantuan solar power plant that would devour 3,400 acres of desert. In West Virginia, environmentalists and a Chicago-based wind energy company are locked in a legal death match over whether wind turbines should be built where an endangered bat lives. It is the first court challenge to wind power under the federal Endangered Species Act.
But nowhere, it seems, is the battle between the greens and their allies as vitriolic as it is in Maine. The recent growth of massive wind power projects has put Maine's environmentalists at one another's throats, divided communities, and pitted neighbor against neighbor. Many say the rush to install wind turbines on hundreds of miles of Maine's scenic ridges is not only shortsighted but ecologically devastating.
At the center of the Maine controversy is a 2008 state law that fast-tracked the wind-permitting process. Opponents say the law, which passed with little public comment, opens the door for large-scale wind developers to destroy rural landscapes and spoil the ecosystem. Others, like the Natural Resources Council of Maine, say the projects-if sited correctly-are needed to wean Mainers and everyone else off fossil fuel.
Fortunately for the green movement, such civil wars are infrequent. That's partly because the nascent trend is to build small, highly-efficient renewable energy projects that are more eco-friendly and less controversial. "Most people have become pretty sophisticated in understanding that substantially large-scale solutions are not the answer," says Marlboro College's Meima. "The answers to our problems are not 100-turbine wind farms."
That puts Colebrook and other communities in the crosshairs. Officials are considering several small-scale wind projects in Prospect, Old Lyme and other towns.
The Colebrook wind farm is needed, says state Sen. Kevin Witkos, R-Canton, who represents Colebrook. He is also the ranking member on the Senate's energy and technology committee. The windmills would create jobs, increase the town's tax base, and move Connecticut farther along the renewable-energy path, the senator says. Wind farms across the state would help decrease the amount of renewable energy Connecticut has to buy from its neighbors, Witkos says.
"Wind power is good," Witkos says. "I'd like to see more of these projects. I'd put a wind turbine on my property."
Villanova knows where Witkos can find one. There is already a 180-foot meteorological tower on the two-acre site. The tower measures the speed and steadiness of the wind that slices through a verdant ridgeline just off Route 44. The thought of several turbines, almost twice that size, haunts Villanova and her Flagg Hill Road neighbors.
"I love the house. I want to retire here," Villanova says. "I see green as being the color of money."
John Perritano is an award-winning freelance journalist, author, and editor. A one time staff writer for the Hartford Advocate, he has worked for National Geographic, Scholastic, and other publishers. He lives in Southbury.
Please login or register to post comments
Comments
The battle against mountaintop industrial wind is raging up here in Maine, but the divisions amongst the people of this state aren't as big as this article makes them appear. As the FACTS about industrial wind get out to the citizens of Maine, they are moving to the 'common sense' side in droves.
Once money is removed from the equation, the only people who still believe in the integrity of industrial wind are the ones who are operating under the false belief that they are 'green'. That they will significantly reduce global warming. That wind is 'free'. Scientists and economists with nothing to gain and much to lose are telling us those suppositions are not true.
I encourage you to visit www.highlandmts.org. This website contains many resources for use in educating yourselves about the realities of industrial wind. We have made every effort to be factual... and if we find a mistake, we will correct it. Please avail yourselves of these resources. And if you can, dear neighbors, please make an effort to reduce your electric usage. Maine already produces more power than we need. We are scared to death that we will be forced to sacrifice our natural resources to supply southern New England's electricity demands. Please help us save the pristine mountains of Maine.
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Pease
Lexington Twp., Maine
The mad push to plaster 400 foot turbines all over scenic Maine has been propelled by many forces, including gratuitously misguided federal money. But two lines in this story are so poignant, we in Maine hope you comprehend them:
First is the line from Senator Witkos: "Wind power is good."
The ignorance of this naive statement from the senior policymaker on the energy committee is unnerving. Naive is probably too benign a term. But it perhaps was caused by the other noteworthy line in the story: "Others, like the Natural Resources Council of Maine, say the projects-if sited correctly-are needed to wean Mainers and everyone else off fossil fuel."
This powerful lobbying group in Maine has helped to promote the lies about wind power, building an approval rating for wind that rivals Mother Theresa. The most blatant lie is that wind projects (do not call them farms, please) can reduce our reliance on oil. 80 % of Maine homes are heated with oil, but oil would have to reach $10 a gallon before anyone would benefit by switching to electric heat. If the electricity for heating is generated by wind, it would be an even higher crossover point.
Maine has one electricity generation plant that burns oil. At 822 megawatts, it is our largest plant, and it could light every bulb in the state. But it only runs a couple of days a year, when all the air conditioners in Boston and Hartford are maxxing out the grid. Guess what: those are those muggy days when there ain't no wind to cool your forehead or to spin a wind turbine. So wind does NOTHING to reduce our oil usage.
The 2008 law that is mentioned in the piece sets in statute a goal for 2700 mw of installed wind power. Bear in mind we have 4200 mw of total generating capacity today. We only need a quarter of that for our power needs. The wind quality here is not great. So at best, turbines get a 25% capacity factor. So those 1800 (1.5 mw) turbines blasted into all our famous mountaintops will only churn out (uncontrollably and undispatchably) 675 mw of electricity. We say it is insane to sacrifice "Vacationland" for a trickle of fickle power that could be more inexpensively, reliably, and unobtrusively be generated by a plant on a couple of acres in an industrial park adjacent to where the "load" or end user is. If you in CT find that you need more electricity than you already have, we suggest that you look into what the smart money is doing: clean, inexpensive, sustainable, reliable natural gas plants. Locally, without the billions of dollars of ratepayer charges for huge transmission lines from up here. Or if you'd rather import, dial up Hydro Quebec, which is producing gobs of green power for 2 cents. Note that Cape Wind just signed a deal with one of your utilities for over 20 cents. That's before adding transmission and delivery costs. Good luck with that one.
So thank you Connecticut for saying "no thanks" to the needless desecration of New England's natural outdoor heritage. Maine does not need to be the Power Plantation for New England.
For more info see: www.windtaskforce.org
Despite claims by Obama and the so-called environmental groups, wind power will do nothing to end dependence on oil or lessen our use of fossil fuels.
Oil is used primarily for transportation and home heating. Ask yourselves, exactly how would generating a trickle of intermittent electricity from loud, strobe lit industrial scale wind turbines have any affect on oil use?
Due to the recession, conservation and efficiency, and people using less to save money, there is lower demand and an oversupply of electrical generation in New England.
Hydro Quebec has an abundance of power they want to sell to New England states.
The only way to achieve arbitrary state mandates for renewables is to reclassify hydro power as renewable. Unreliable, intermittent, environmentally destructive industrial wind factories have not lowered emissions, lessened dependence on oil, or created long term employment.
No matter how much or how little generation we have, industrial scale wind turbines will never make a difference. They are unpredictably intermittent and there has been no circumstance where building wind plants has resulted in the decommissioning of an existing fossil fuel facility.
Industrial wind projects divide communities, lower property values, harm people's health, wildlife, tourist and second home economy, and kill birds and now endangered bats.
Modern industrial scale turbines are not new technology. They are an old inefficient technology now just larger and louder. These boondoggle projects are not about producing electricity. They are about collecting subsidies, tax credits, double accelerated depreciation, renewable energy certificates, and now direct grants, paid with our and our grandchildren's tax dollars.
This is what industrial wind "development" is really all about. Without these mandates and incentives, which we can ill afford, no one would consider building these useless monuments to gullibility and greed.
Use Less
The Connecticut legislature is most wise when compared to Maine's on Industrial Wind. It is recognized in Ct. that Wind is a feckless fad of the Cap and Trade market.
It is needed to rationalize this “Green Revolution” that is constantly marketed as real and urgently needed.
Connecticut sees that the FAD will cost Real Money for its citizens and businesses, BIG TIME! Good Move Connecticut!
How about a doubling of Connecticut's electricity rates if this Green Scam was applied there. Indeed , inland CT. has similar wind capacity as Maine (little), and the Long Island Sound is comparable to Maine’s coast in wind capacity, but would CT. citizens and Long Islanders stand for this scam in their back yard? No way , they know better!
They value their back yards as well, and who needs more urban industrial noise!
This is not so in Maine, where they are learning and the legislature is less transparent than in Connecticut .In Maine , the politicians are proving to be clearly self- serving money GREENBACKERS. Industrially lobbied Wind Scam liars have had an impact early on with heavy lobbying from the likes of First Wind.
Indeed, it is a Green revolution for those self – serving politicians in Maine like its Governor Baldacci, who wishes to work for this industry after he is termed out from the governorship. The dim bulb has even stated this as his job choice after he is termed out!
Talk About Corruption, look to Maine! Baldacci(the governor) introduced legislation via the Expedited Wind Law and Governors Task Force, to grease the corporate wind skids over citizen constitutional home rule rights. Financial self-servers and political elitists wanted to get in on the Federal Subsidy Train Scam for Expensive Green Fad Energy early, under cover.There are Self-Serving Inside Politicians in Maine, including ex-PUC Chair Kurt Adams. This guy was so greed driven by First Wind Corp(UPC/Evergreen LLC) that he appears to have broken laws to accept stock in a cushy job in the Subsidy Pig Company before even leaving office!
Smart Connecticut, DUMB Maine.No wonder Maine stays poor! Look to its politicians to give them some of the highest business and residential electric rates in the nation, for their own self-serving pocket stuffing greed.
Connecticut is wise not to follow suit.
I would take Senator Kevin Witkos offer to put up a commercial wind turbine on his property before Conn. supports wind power development on a large scale. Encourage him to put up one of the 400 foot turbines not one of those sissy 320 footers. If he lives anywhere near this behemoth I will guarantee you he will change from an proponent of commercial wind to one of the leaders to stop commercial wind power in Conn.
The article is correct that Maine politicians and most environmental groups have fell in love head over heals with the perception of green energy of commercial wind. They down play and even ignore the destruction of mountain tops, effects on birds, the visual impact, noise flicker and other environmental problems.
Commercial wind is driven by a 30 percent federal subsidy as well as other financial goodies they will receive from us the taxpayer. Take the subsidies away and the idea of commercial wind will go away as well. These turbines are 35 percent efficient. Would you consider buying a new furnace for your home that was 35 percent efficient? I think not. So why do Conn. people want this source of alternative energy that does not deliver on the promise of clean green energy
If Sen. Witkos is serious about hosting a wind turbine on his property, he might want to check out this link, first.
Eva and everyone, welcome to our Hell. Soon to be ex-Gov. (thank God!) Baldacci and the legislators of Maine have been lemmings led off the cliff by the lies and propaganda of the wind industry. The result is a heinous law that expedites development of wind that will cause the blasting away of 350 miles of the mountains and ridges of Maine. It will permanently clearcut more than 50,000 acres of carbon sequestering forest, resulting in siltation and herbicide contamination of hundreds of pristine streams, ponds, and lakes. It will fragment wildlife habitats and injure the health and wellbeing of the thousands of people who live in rural areas. It will create a spiderweb of more than 1,000 miles of new powerlines.
For what? To send a fickle trickle of unpredictable, unreliable, costly electricity to Connecticut. Think of what a folly this whole "clean energy" scam is and say No! Then turn to your own backyards and say No! to this silly notion that a small cluster of turbines is somehow benign because it isn't 100 turbines flung across some remote mountainside. Just search on-line for articles about two small projects in Maine, three turbines each in Freedom and Vinalhaven. For more information, go to www.windtaskforce.org or go to www.friendsoflincolnlakes.org, click on the loon icon and view the slideshow.
Connecticut's esteemed world class forest steward and exemplary environmental citizen, YALE University, has been DESTROYING Maine's forests for wind "farms". We believe it is the Yale Endowment behind a shell company named Bayroot that is blasting our mountaintops for turbines and roads and making the most savage huge clear cuts we have ever seen. Some articles are starting to get published on this at Yale:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/magazine/magazine-cover/2010/02/17/hills-ar...
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2010/04/16/bluster-ove...
http://www.yaledailynews.com/opinion/guest-columns/2010/04/22/carter-sav...
Thankfully students at Yale are waking up to the really bad things the endowment is up to.
Share your ideas
Contribute to The Connecticut Mirror's op-ed page.
02SepEditor's Choice Elsewhere on the Web
|
Sarah Palin might still be unknown south of Ketchican if John McCain had listened to his daughter. In her new book, "Dirty Sexy Politics," Meghan McCain says she felt "shaken and troubled" after meeting Palin, her father's pick for vice president, reviewer Steven Livingston says in the Washington Post. Her preference: Joe Lieberman, "a brilliant politician . . . one of the kindest, friendliest, and funniest people I have ever met."
The tug-of-war between Connecticut and New York over hedge-fund firms is hardly the only interstate tax battle, Amity Shlaes says at Bloomberg. Tax competition between states is getting fiercer, in part because of the recession and in part because of anticipated tax increases at the federal level.
The future leadership of the state could be influenced by a pair of thirty-somethings running the Republican and Democratic gubernatorial campaigns. Hearst's Ken Dixon does a quick "tale-of-the-tape" on Justin Clark, 35, Tom Foley's campaign manager, and Dan Kelly, 31, Dan Malloy's manager.
|
CTMirror Mobile
Visit m.ctmirror.org on your mobile device for the latest headlines right in your palm.



Connecticut - your 20% renewables goal is wrecking our ridgelines and mountaintops here in Maine. Please STOP.
And by the way, all the sprawling industrial wind complexes that our CRIMINAL governor has pushed up here won't do a thing with respect to global warming.
See: http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/maines-wind-goals-co2-and-the