Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Último
Último (20)
Destaque
Destaque (20)
The Appalachian Trail and Wind Power: An uneasy alliance
- 1. The Appalachian Trail & Wind Power An Uneasy Alliance
- 2. Does MATC/AMC Support Wind Power? • The Maine Appalachian Trail Club (MATC) supports significant increases in renewable energy ………. The MATC recognizes the need to develop wind power as a renewable energy source. • The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) supports significant increases in renewable energy that result in actual greenhouse gas and air pollutant reductions and is balanced with strong protection of natural and recreational resources of statewide, regional or national significance. Yes, but a Qualified Yes
- 3. “Energy Issues: Because there are both societal benefits to renewable energy and significant adverse impacts associated with the installation of wind farms, the benefits of any individual project must be weighed in relation to the costs. Some of these factors include: Source of power that is likely to be displaced by the wind farm: Will the wind displace fossil-fuel plants or other renewable sources? (This is a remarkably complex question, but in some circumstances it seems likely that wind will not displace fossil fuels, but rather will lead to closure of biomass generation or increased peaking of hydroelectric dams.) Power production in relation to the severity of impacts: Will the amount of power produced be in proportion to the severity of the impacts?” Policy on Wind-Energy Facilities (As adopted by the ATC Board of Directors on November 3, 2007)
- 4. Reddington Wind Permit denied in 2007
- 5. 2008 Wind Energy Act • Wind Projects are a Permissible Use in LURC Jurisdiction • Wind Power is Presumed “Good” • NoVisual Impact if > 8 miles • Expedited Areas, fees and procedures.
- 8. Record Hill Record Hill from East Baldpate. Mt. Blue in the Distance.
- 9. Cumulative Impact • 8-mile, 15-mile & 25-mile rings. • Existing (402 MW) and developing projects (382 MW). • 850 MW in planning – not shown.
- 10. West Range project: Iberdrola
- 11. Higher Turbines 120 m 394-ft. 150 m 492-ft. 175 m 574-ft. 2008 2012 2015
- 12. Wind Assessment Study • 15 wind-related bills submitted to Legislature in 2011. • All rejected by EUT committee & Governor. • Under pressure, passed a “resolve”. • 25 Recommendations to Improve the current Wind Act.
- 13. • Visual assessments up to 15 miles. • Consider cumulative visual impacts. • Require DEP approved Decommissioning Plan. An Act to Protect Maine’s Scenic Character LD 1147 .
- 14. More than 50% of Maine’s wind generating capacity was built prior to the Wind Act. After 7 years, it is time to recalibrate the Wind Act to better balance wind power development with protection of Maine’s “Quality of Place”. Amendments to the Act will not stop future wind power development.
Notas do Editor
- SPEAKER: Tony Barrett BRIEF BACKGROUND: Tony worked 21 years in the energy industry. He served on the ATC Stewardship Council from 2005-2009 (Chair of the Energy SubCommittee) when ATC's Policy on Wind Energy Facilities was adopted in 2007. He is also a member of the MATC Executive Committee and of the MATC Wind Power Committee. Tony worked on the MATC Wind Power Development policy adopted in 2009. SUMMARY: MATC's policy recognizes the need to develop Wind Power however, this need must be balanced against the scenic, natural and recreational resources of the AT in Maine. Careful siting is crucial. The 'expedited Wind Power' Act of 2008 set a goal of 2,000 MW of installed wind power capacity by 2015. It is unlikely that this goal will be met but wind power projects have certainly increased during the past 5 years and Maine has become the center of wind energy production in New England. We also have over 6 years of experience under this law (passed as emergency legislation) and have a better handle on how the siting of wind projects has affected the Appalachian Trail and Maine's scenic landscapes. Is it time to recalibrate the Wind Power Act to better balance wind power development with protection of Maine's AT?
- Some members/public assume that MATC & AMC are opposed to Wind Power. Quite the opposite: Both AMC and MATC have policies that explicitly support wind power. These policies were developed in 2006/2007. ATC/MATC ‘borrowed’ language from AMC.
- Besides scenic/landscape impacts, the policy also recognizes that the energy benefits must be balanced with the costs.
- [Besides being proposed within 1.5-miles of trhe A.T. and on high elevation (>2,700’) w/ severe erosion impacts], this project had very questionable energy impacts. The generator lead was shared with a biomass plant leading to Wyman Dam. Grid analysis by experts indicated that when the wind would blow, other renewables would be scaled back. The denial of Reddington had a strong reaction from industry and wind supporters – as well as expensive & lengthy hearings. There was a desire of both sides to have better siting criteria to avoid future delays and litigation.
- The Governor formed a task force in late 2007 and the recommended legislation was passed as an emergency measure (takes immediate effect), ‘under the hammer’ (no floor debate) even though the final bill (the critical expedited areas map was not yet available).
- Night sky impacts are in some ways more prominent than day time visual impacts: - lights are visible at greater distance - over the horizon impacts on cloudy nights ATC & AMC have been working with FAA and developers on collision avoidance systems that minimize night sky impacts for over 8 years. Radar Activated Lighting Systems (RALS)
- 1.) PHOTO SIMULATIONS UNDERSTATE IMPACT AND ARE DEFICIENT. [Simulated view of Highland Project wind turbines from Flagstaff Lake]. After 7 years and over 10 projects (400 MW) installed, a number of deficiencies or oversights have been identified in the 2008 Wind Act.
- 2.) ACTUAL PHOTOS ALSO UNDERSTATE VISUAL IMPACT [Roxbury’s Record Hill wind project 14 miles from the A.T.] This project was evaluated from its closest point to the A.T. – about 7 miles away. Never thought to evaluate from Baldpate Mtn. at over 14 miles away.
- 3.) NO CONSIDERATION OF CUMMULATIVE IMPACT Under the Wind Act, each project is considered as standalone – in fact, visual degradation can be used to justify new wind farm development.
- 4.) 8-MILE LIMIT IS INADEQUATE FOR HIGH ELEVATION PEAKS This is a map with 8-mile circles around various viewpoints in the Bigelows and West Carry pond. A new project proposed by Iberdrola (approx. location black oval) will be very visible from the Bigelows.
- 5.) TURBINES ARE GETTING HIGHER SINCE THE WIND ACT was passed. Reddington proposed and Mars Hill and Kibby have turbines about 400-feet. The just approved turbines for Bingham are just under 500-ft. First Wind is seeking approval for its Hancock Wind project to have 575-ft. tall turbines.
- In 2011, the Legislature authorized a study to review progress on goals and changes to the Wind Act.
- Three of the 25 recommendations addressed deficiencies in handling visual impact. MATC sponsored its first bill ever. It was defeated in the House by 3 votes.
- We are just wanting to achieve a better balance between renewable energy and conserving the northwoods landscape. Help us support future legislation