Terry Tesseo of Coplin Plantation, ME The Readington project.would have done nothing to stop global warming.That is a claim by wind developers.The fact is to shut done one fossil fueled power plant you'd have to build 2000 hugh wind turbines.Do you know by studies done overseas and in the U,S,where the plants have been built,the tubines only produce power 30% of the time.So that "will power 40,000 Maine homes" thing will actually be 12,000 homes.If they do indeed sell any power to Maine homes.
Wind is the least cost effective way to produce power.But all the tax credits make if very profitable.That is the only reason to build wind plants.A project like Readington Black Nubble would mean about $20 million in tax credits over the ten year period allowed by the production tax legislation. That's not counting what they sell the power for.Its all about the money.It isn't some environmental company here to save us.
As far as the LURC denial of the Readington Project.The project did not meet the standards and laws .It's that simple.
And we better watch out.If it sounds to good to be true it probably is.
Keep our mountains protected
report abuse

Bill Randall of Winthrop, ME For decades environmentalists have warned that ever-rising numbers of people and their impact on the Earth's finite resources could lead to disaster, not only for wildlife and ecosystems but also for human populations. With each passing year, scientists gather and publish more data that graphically reveal the link between population growth and environmental degradation. Solutions come about with knowledge and the collective use of it.report abuse

kent beuchert of tampa, FL Wind power sucks. It is a bill of goods sold mainly on the basis that it will help reduce gloabal warming. I can easily prove that geothermal heat pumps will reduce greenhouse gases by amounts twice as large as those reduced by wind turbines, and, unlike wind power, it wil save consumers on their utility bills, not increase them as wind ALWAYS does. Wind is by far the worst alternative energy we have. I would invest in geothermal hot rock technology, solar towers, solar PHV, wave motion, and build nuclear long, long before wasting money on turbines that mostly produce electricity when you don't want it, at levels that can't be predicted. Denmark's experience has not been good - they have wind turbines that can produce 18% of their total electricity, but they only actually can make use of 8%, the rest they have to sell to adjoining countries, for less than the subsidies the government is paying the turbine owners. They are losing tons of money and accomplishing relatively little for the cost. Because of its unreliability
(the wind never seems to blow during peak demand
on hot summer days), wind capacity cannot replace
controllable power generators. After the greatest year of wind turbine errections in the U.S.,
the actual new wind power generated is less than 850 megawatts. Total U.S. actualwind genertion is around 2800 megawatts, of the 1 million plus megawatts available. Wind is an insignificant
contributor to our electrical grid and has done next to nothing in reducing greenhouse gases.
Those who claim that this primitive technology
is the best alternative energy are dead wrong. It is by far the worst of the alternative energies.
report abuse

Tom Someone of Augusta, ME Bill,

I have seen you post here and on other articles today. It is easy to pick apart someone else's ideas. Got any of your own? How do you plan on 'fixing' our escalating population, for example?report abuse