U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maine
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 06-19-2007, 08:15 AM
 
524 posts, read 1,598,865 times
Reputation: 451
Oh Kelly, EVERY opinion is warrented, it just comes back to the basic principle of "understanding and listining to opinions OTHER than your own."

I have come out and said several times that folks who come on yelling that the residents on the Hill that have serious problems with the turbines (the same residents that ARE affected, unlike the rest of the Mars Hill population) are just selfish whining troublemakers that want attention, blah, blah,blah really HURT the folks on the Hill. We all think differently and are certainly entitled to do so. What is lacking here in the turbine debate is EMPATHY for our fellow residents. This is not a black and white issue, there is A LOT of grey, and it is the grey that requires respect, kindness, and understanding. You may very well not have heard a peep while you were golfing, but that does NOT mean that the folks don't hear anything either. YOur experience of a few hours does not mitigate their experiences. I understand that you support the turbines, you are not negatively affected by the mountain being destroyed for someone else's gain. You are lucky. The folks in the homes below the turbines have had a different experience than you, and they are not so lucky.

So, it is not the actual opinion, but the way in which it is presented. I am sorry, but the information in Teachers' post is flat out WRONG in the Mars Hill debate. Today, there is NO turbine completed in 2 days, 4 acres ARE clear cut, hell look at the photos of Mars Hill, they are all over, and the clear cutting is OBVIOUS. There are NO 200 ft turbines being installed, and this statement is TOTAL BS "As long as the turbine is connected to the grid, it doesnt need any fossil fuel to run.It just needs the grid to provide electromagnetism to start producing electricity."

I can't fight skewed, flawed propaganda that comes out of the turbine folk, but many of Teachers' statement are just flat out FALSE as applies to turbines today. It is NOT right to have them stated as FACT on a public message board, a place where some people may think is a place to get fact to form an opinion to make a decision. That is all I am saying with my previous post.

This issue divides friends, towns, people. Period. You can see it on this thread quite clearly. To keep things as reasonable as possible, we have to as participants watch one another and keep everyone involved balanced and fair.

 
Old 06-19-2007, 09:03 AM
 
1,534 posts, read 2,062,189 times
Reputation: 978
Wow, when did you get your bully license, JSN? Your attack-dog tactics for anyone who posts anything remotely approving of wind power aren't winning you any points in this discussion IMO.

Let me give you a new target.

After reading this thread and the Down East story, along with considering all the problems -- the MASSIVE problems -- that our reliance on fossil fuels has generated, I have to say that, given the alternatives, wind power is by far the best new realistic source of energy I've seen. Yes, some people have been inconvenienced by it, and IMO they should receive some financial compensation or soundproofing for their homes, as has been done around some airports. But the inconvenience of the few is nowhere near reason enough to stop new projects or close existing ones that benefit the many. I would much rather have a wind farm as a neighbor than a coal-fired power plant or a nuclear generating station.

And that raises another question: What are you offering as alternatives? Coal? Nuclear? Solar? Conservation? The first two create more problems than they solve, and for a lot more people than just the few dozen who live downwind of Mars Hill. The last two have potential and are definitely part of the overall mix, but neither offers a complete answer.

Maybe that's the key. There is no single complete answer. We need a lot of little answers, not one great big one. And wind power is one of them. I would much rather lose a few acres of forestland to a wind plant than continue to lose Maine's 6,000 lakes and ponds to mercury poisoning, which is the case today due to coal-plant pollution. I would much rather see a few dirt roads running along a remote ridgeline than the thousands of acres of land that have been permanently contaminated with radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. And I would much rather have a few people bothered by the whirring of a wind farm in the distance than I would have thousands of people hospitalized annually for the respiratory distress caused by air pollution.

And no, neither I nor any of my family work for an energy company of any sort, nor do I own stock in one.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
32,923 posts, read 26,429,200 times
Reputation: 14900
I think it is time for a road trip. Over the Fourth I think I'll visit a large Turbine wind farm. I live in southern NH, so anyone know of a place I can find a listing of wind farms (I'll try the American Wind Power Assoc first), that might be closed then Mars Hill I would appreciate the info.

I hope I visit on a windy day. I have had enough to the rhetoric on this thread. Time for some actual observation.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
32,923 posts, read 26,429,200 times
Reputation: 14900
Coaster - A couple of points:

There are no “thousands of acres of land that have been permanently contaminated with radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.” with the exception of the Chernobyl mishap. However the nuclear weapons industry has created a huge mess not to mention destroying a couple of cities almost 70 years ago during a vicious war. Incidentally, the ash pits of nearly every coal-fired power plant are far more radioactive than any nuclear power plant and are potential sources of nuclear fuel.

I think a future electrical energy supply system based on nuclear fission with complete fuel recycle and reuse providing the base load (daily average load for the area served by the grid) energy with the varying load leveled by pumped hydroelectric facilities would be the least environmentally damaging. This energy could be supplemented by energy collected by wind, hydroelectric and photovoltaic facilities. The over all load could be decreased by conservation and deindustrialization. On the other hand if the transportation sector shifts to hybrid electric cars and electrified railroads the load will increase.

I agree with your contention that windmills, even giant economy size windmills, are preferable to fossil fueled plants and that the loss of a few thousand acres of woods in places that have hundreds of thousand acres of woods is an acceptable cost providing the people damaged are compensated. Parenthetically – I think the major fuss at Mars Hill is that the loot was not evenly distributed amongst the residents on the hill. I also think that JSN would vehemently deny this possibility.

As a nation, society and economy we are going to have to answer the electrical energy supply problem weather we want to or not. If wind noise, corrupt local politicians, unfair distribution of operating fees are problems, just wait until the residents of Mars Hill and everywhere else start having rotating blackouts in the middle of winter. That will be no fun at all.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 10:38 AM
 
524 posts, read 1,598,865 times
Reputation: 451
Coaster-Darling, I am not bullying anybody. I am not forcing my opinions and knowledge from over a year of research on what happens and how these turbines get put up. If anyone is bullying, it is the turbine companies. Please remember that I reside in a town that fought off the goliath-I know FIRST hand what is said, the lies that are spread and the strong-arming that the companies do to "force" a town to bow down and take it. In NY, this whole thing is a MESS-town after town is losing, and some winning, the battle but every single resident (not just the non-participating landowners) is being HURT by this. Friends are now enemies, business owners are being spurned, the old "local" vs. "newcomer" wound has been slashed WIDE open again.

This subject is a very tangled web, it goes far beyond wind vs. coal vs. nuc.
I will state again, I am all for alternative energies. The gluttonous and self-centered ways of humans have created a HUGE problem-energy supply and demand. We have been gorging ourselves since energy was invented. We are like fat, lazy hogs in the pen always needing more more more and than more. I do not disagree.
Your quote "Maybe that's the key. There is no single complete answer. We need a lot of little answers, not one great big one. And wind power is one of them." I think thisis the key. But that is not what JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, BP, the Spanish Co.s, the Italian Co.s, GE, and so on are doing are they? They are pushing these HUGE, disruptive, ineffective, already outdated technology on all the small town across this country. Why do you think they are doing that? Because it is right for the greater good? Because they are ethical, world-minded corporations that have the need to find the solution? Because the small towns with inexperienced local governments are the right choice "to be blessed" with this fabulous invention?

If only. They are pushing the technology, the installations, and the paltry (and insulting) payments, because they can. Because it is easy to come into a town, set up their wares and strong-arm the govs. to let them do it. Not enough people are saying "Whoa, wait a minute. Just what is this, how does it work, how much money do YOU make, will this technology last, does it even work, etc." The answers to all these questions are not always pretty, which is why they are avoided, which is why the deals are secret and is why the companies slink in. Please remember that this issue is much larger than the 5000ft view of "clean energy, better than a nuke plant." That is the point I try to make. I do not disagree with alternative energy, but I do disagree with throwing the baby out with the bath water. Not enough research is being done. Not enough questions are being asked. The turbines are touted as THE SOLUTION to the world’s energy problem, so lots of folks just jump on the bandwagon, feel good about being green, and just don't really know what they are supporting. My point; we CAN be smart, we can have power to be part of the decision. We don’t have to perpetuate the mistakes of our past. We don’t have to be sheeple just doing what we are told. We are allowed to question, to have an opinion, and to maybe even have an alternative. I am just trying to keep interested parties aware of the situation-the people versus the corporation. We DO have a choice, we can and should continue to pursue wind energy as I agree it is a good alternative, just not in its present form. We can do better, we HAVE done better. We just need to open up our eyes and use our brains, not just follow along with what a billion $ company tells us.

As much as it may pain you, we are probably closer in our opinions than you think. I am darn sure that if your home was threatened byt the installation of these, you may look a little deeper into the depths of this ugly issue. I am not blaming you, I am just saying that this issue is very complicated, very emotional, very serious on many levels. I think it is unfair, and unjust, for people to simply brush aside the folks that have had their lives changed FOREVER because of this. I think it is very sad that we as a nation continue to be pushed apart because of issue like this. In today’s world we could be coming together and accomplish great things. But it is a me me me world, where no one cares about anyone but themselves and their own little bubble.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 10:41 AM
 
524 posts, read 1,598,865 times
Reputation: 451
Greg-I am thrilled you are going to take personal time to explore this with your own eyes, ears, and brain. Doing so will help you gain information to form a decision. I wish everyone involved in this situation could do the same. Another good thing is to go to town meetings to see for yourself what goes on. To see how the residents’ voices are ignored, to see how the zoning ordinances are written for the town BY THE Turbine company. To see just how immoral and unethical this can get. But, I know that part is hard since you are in NH and the real heat in the kitchen iis happening in NY, PA, and WV-three states that are getting slaughtered by this right now.

I also agree that nuclear fission is a VERY interesting subject. It is a good example of research and development for alternatives. Please remember, turbines have been around for quite a while. No company was interested because it is SO expensive and not very productive, AT ALL. Once the subsidies, tax breaks, and propaganda came into play, companies hopped on it like flys on poo. Enron, GE, now BP, Shell, etc-all traditional energy companies, and JP Morgan, Goldman, etc-financial companies are tripping over each other to get a piece of the dollar. Money is driving this, not the greater good, not the solution to the problem, just MONEY. See that is an issue I have, the dollars are blinding the participants (the companies and the host towns). Can anyone honestly believe that the traditional energy companies want ANYONE to find an alternative solution?

I mean come on now, we can’t just believe that this is based on ethics and the survival of the species and the planet. They don’t care about you, your kids’ future, or anything else. They just want you to consume, consume, consume. They wouldn’t give us a good alternative even if they had one. It is the blind faith and the allowing of the corporation to run our lives that made me stop and research this from the beginning. Than the facts made me really look, than the behavior at town meetings made me put the brakes on at a full stop. All I want is for people to truly understand what is involved in this, I want people to stop, look and listen. I want people to have the choice to form an opinion of their own, not just what someone else tells them. This is to great an issue for anyone to be blind. The turbines as they are today, is not a solution, it is a panacea for people to believe we as a nation, and the corporations getting fat on them, have found the way to the future. We can be clean, green, lean and mean. It is all just a pretty new dress on an old ugly girl. The problem remains, consumption is out of control, and the powers that be don’t give a damn, but they found a way to make billions and to make people think that we have all done something to make a difference. Insteed of helping us CONSERVE, which equates to less dollars in pockets, they want us to believe it is OK to keep gorging on energy, it is OK to keep consuming, it is all OK now, so don’t change, keep buying, wasting, consuming, lining their pockets.

I will take a look and try to find you a list of sites that you could visit. I again thank you for taking the time to see for yourself. I wish more could or would do the same and imagine if their home and family lived 1,000 feet from the installation. Imagine how they would feel on the issue than.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 10:43 AM
 
1,534 posts, read 2,062,189 times
Reputation: 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Coaster - A couple of points:

There are no “thousands of acres of land that have been permanently contaminated with radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.” with the exception of the Chernobyl mishap. However the nuclear weapons industry has created a huge mess not to mention destroying a couple of cities almost 70 years ago during a vicious war. Incidentally, the ash pits of nearly every coal-fired power plant are far more radioactive than any nuclear power plant and are potential sources of nuclear fuel.
I was thinking of the Hannaford waste site, Savannah, and several others when I made that comment, and while the weapons industry is certainly part of the problem, so-called low level waste from power plants was/is also disposed of there.

I've never heard of coal ash being considered a source of nuclear fuel. Interesting. Are the ash pits considered radioactive waste sites?

I think we agree on everything else, although I have doubts that "complete cycle" fission programs are politically feasible. I've been following the Peak Oil debate for a number of years, and my concerns focus on what is feasible now for alternative energy sources, rather than what may or may not become available in the future.

There are several people in Maine who are very well versed on the topic, and many others outside the state. I'm debating whether I should try to attend the big Association for the Study of Peak Oil conference in Houston in October. Anyway, the information I've seen from official sites such as the IEA and EIA, as well as theoildrum.com, show that North American natural gas production peaked a year ago, and there is persuasive evidence that global oil production peaked last year as well. A future of declining hydrocarbon production in an atmosphere of rising international demand could well lead to those rotating blackouts you mention if we don't pay more attention to alternative, homegrown sources of energy.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 11:16 AM
 
1,534 posts, read 2,062,189 times
Reputation: 978
JSN, first, I am not your "darling." There are very few people who qualify to use that endearment on me, and you aren't one of them. And second, I've been studying wind power and other alternative energy sources for far, far, longer than just the year that you claim. Try foisting your condescending attitude someplace else.

One of the common themes in your comments is the claim that wind power is bad because major corporations are building wind farms and -- GASP!!! -- making money from them. Why do you object to that? Does the concept of making a profit offend you? Would you ban companies over a certain size from building wind farms and thus condemn the farms to being underfunded and mismanaged, or should wind farms be built only by nonprofits? Or would you pass laws limiting or even prohibiting privately owned companies from making a profit?

And what's wrong with using tax breaks to encourage their construction? Tax incentives are used at every level of government to accomplish public policy objectives, from the federal energy conservation credits that rebuilt many of our downtowns in the 1980s to the TIFs that towns use today to attract new businesses and encourage existing ones to expand. We should applaud the fact that energy tax credits are encouraging wind farm construction, not criticize it.

And why are you insisting that the technology is outdated and therefore obsolete? EVERY technology is outdated by the time it goes into general use. Ask anyone who owns a computer. The wind farms that were built in California in the 1980s aren't nearly as efficient as the ones built in the 1990s, and those aren't anywhere near as efficient as the ones atop Mars Hill today. And the Mars Hill plants won't be as good as the ones that will be built in the Boundary Mountains next year. Your argument is empty of meaning.

Your entire opposition boils down to yet another NIMBY. "Sure, alternative energy is fine, but don't you dare try to build it near me. I just want to enjoy the benefits without having to shoulder any of the responsibility." There was a proposal to build an LNG terminal three years ago only a few miles from my house. I supported it because I did the research and didn't let myself be swayed by the emotion-laden, falsehood-filled objections of the local NIMBYs. Because I knew that if I wanted the convenience of flipping a switch and getting heat and light, I had to take responsibility for making it happen. I suggest you do the same.

Sheesh. Grow up.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 11:56 AM
 
524 posts, read 1,598,865 times
Reputation: 451
Ah, I see that as a person that does not support turbines as they are now, I am cast aside as a selfish, whiney NIMBY.It's all good, that is the most common offense and defense from turbine supporters. I suppose you are deeply rooted in your beliefs, and obviously well-versed in why you should be so deeply rooted, so there is no room left for the opinions of others, no room to think about the consequences. No room to read my words and not twist them to support your argument. Again, all good, I know what I wrote and those that read the words also know what I wrote.

If you have read all my posts on Turbines, you will see that the corporations and dollars are just one of many issues that I beleive should be brought to light. I own a for-profit business, and worked in one of the gluttonous financial industies for years. Obviously I am not against profit, but Capitalism in its present form has become ugly and dangerous. It is just a point to keep in mind, not the only agrument against turbines. Have you seen the reports on all the sub-prime lending? All the evictions? all the foreclousures because the banks decided they would loan ANYONE money, regardless of ablitity to fulfill the monetary obligation? Why did the banks do that? to ensure everyone had a home? To ensure each child had a bed to sleep in? I think not. They did it to fuel their profits, increase their stock prices, inflate their saleries. Now, we as a nation, have a HUGE default rate, have people on the streets, without money or income, with their belongings on the sidewalks. Now, who the heck is going to clean up THIS mess? Countrywide, Washington Mutual, Chase, Citibank? Uh-huh. I offer this an an example of what is happening without checks and balances, without thinking of the consequences before making the gluttonous decisions based on P&L Statements and Annual Reports to Stockholders.

Cheap and ineffective retort-that is not the whole of my opinion, just a small piece. And you may well be fine using turbines that are so ineffecient it is laughable. I would like to wait for the turbine that actually produces what the propaganda says. I would like all the money spent on these pieces of junk to be spent on finding better solutions, shorter, quieter, less disruptive turbines (vertical axis for top of building use perhaps), other alternatives, or maybe giving each taxpayer a subsidy and tax break for getting off the grid- GASP- as you would say, God forbid the baby is weaned off the billion-dollar bottle!

You are obviousy very interested in, or involved in, the energy industry. With all your knowledge you support the current turbine design, ineffeciency, and the way in which the "farms" are being passed, installed, and run (cough cough-run ya right)

That is something in your NIMBY-calling offense that you forgot to counterpoint. My sharing the inside view on how these things get installed. Aparently that is OK too with you. I certainly believe that every town that WANTS the turbines, and I mean every resident that is effected is for them, should get them! Let them have them. I am opposed however, when the majority of a town does NOT want turbines and the local government allows them anyway. This is America I think, I think.

So even though I have not attempted to offend you by calling you names, as you have attempted to do to me, I do have a different opinion than you do - GASP- guess I am just a stupid selfish person who "wants all the benefits and none of the responsibility"-just like the Mars Hill folks-stupid whiney lying selfish troublemakers using all the electricty and living on a mountain and complaining all day and night.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Kelly has her opinion, the Mars Hill folks have theirs. We are all entitled to our opinion, and are allowed to share them on a message board. But, I guess mine is a NIMBY's opinion so you can pick and choose a sentence here and there and ignore the rest-afterall a NIMBY is a NIMBY and should simply be ignored. And, I do DO my part, and I am a NIABY, not a NIMBY. Not In ANYBODY's Back Yard. My opinion is that Industrial development does NOT belong in non-industrial, populated, residential rural areas.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Calais, Maine
7,378 posts, read 8,059,300 times
Reputation: 5339
You're right JSN...we are all entitiled to our own opinions, and have the right to express them. Hopefully, when we express them we do it without the condescending attitudes that make it so difficult to illustrate our points effectively.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 


Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maine
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top