
The Expedited Wind Energy Act passed in 2008 by the heavily lobbied and “gifted” Maine Legislature sets an 8- mile impact zone which this string of turbines is beyond. Yet, the red flashing lights, shadow flicker and noise pollution from the bird- and bat-killing turbines will industrialize the region.
The project area is also designated as critical habitat needed for the Atlantic salmon restoration efforts. This project will destroy the vegetation along the banks of 34 perennial streams critical for salmon recovery.
Mainers are being taken to the cleaner by First Wind, which has no concern about the ecological impacts or the fact that these industrial wind “pig farms” are ruining the “wild” brand that defines Maine and attracts tourists, hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts.
First Wind’s application to the Maine DEP states that “the purpose of the project is to create a commercially viable low-impact wind energy project.”
This statement could not be further from the truth. It is common knowledge that mountaintop industrial wind is not “commercially feasible.” Tax subsidies on the local (TIFs), state (Pine Tree Zones) and federal (production tax credits) levels are the only reason industrial wind projects are economically viable.
In addition, the cost of electricity has risen and will continue to rise as a direct result of mountaintop industrial wind. When these subsidies stop, you can count on First Wind disappearing with our tax-dollar-generated profits, leaving behind a severely impoverished industrialized landscape.
It is a scam being perpetrated on the people of Maine by wellfunded industrial wind lobbyists and a few quasi-environmental groups who refuse to get their heads out of the sand and stop taking bribe money the wind corporations enjoy passing out.
The application also states that a “wind power project like Bingham Wind Project address each of these concerns … greenhouse gases impact on the environment, climate and the health of Maine citizens.”
This statement is also not true. Every scientific study I have been able to review comes to the opposite conclusion.
Because wind is intermittent, it is necessary to back it up with conventional power plants. Since these plants need to be ramped up and down to accommodate the intermittency, they usemore fuel and put out more greenhouse gases.
When adding the greenhouse gases generated by construction, the consumption of large amounts of power need to run the turbines, the thousands of gallons of lubricants, the destructive mining of rare earth metals in Mongolia, the shipment of turbines and the manufacture of plastics used in composites, this so called “clean energy” gets pretty darn dirty.
Add to this the loss of forest carbon sequestration due to the clear cutting of forests for turbine pads, roads and power lines, and mountaintop industrial wind doesn’t look so green.
Finally, First Wind claims that the Bingham Wind project is in the best interest of the “health of Maine citizens”. Mainers are being treated with medications as a result of industrial wind turbines, and First Wind has the gall to state mountaintop wind power is good for the “health of Maine citizens”? It is only good for their bottom line.
One thing that I have learned — and it was a hard fact to face — is that just because something is renewable doesn’t make it de facto clean and green.
First Wind is leaching taxpayer money to build turbines which are dividing communities, blasting off mountaintops, clear cutting forests, killing birds and bats, forcing people out of their homes, negatively impacting the health of Mainers and destroying the visual beauty of wild Maine.
These actions are antithetical to Maine values.
It is truly a sad day for Maine if First Wind’s trashing of Maine is allowed to continue.
JONATHAN CARTER is director of the Forest Ecology Network.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less