Letter to the Editor: Say no to the wind power industry

2 mins read

On Dec. 4, people from across Maine came together in Kingfield to show solidarity. Citizens who have become educated about the realities of mountaintop industrial wind stood together to say “no.”

Two years ago, this topic was barely in the periphery of mainstream Mainers. We’d been sold the line that wind power was “green,” that it would reduce carbon emissions and help counter global warming. Now, we know that isn’t true.

We believed wind would reduce Maine’s dependence on foreign oil. Now, we realize that despite the wind industry’s claims, that’s not the case. We know that sacrificing our mountaintops and unique quality of place will not save American lives or bring our soldiers home. Once challenged, wind proponents quieted their rhetoric in that regard.

Citizens opposing the plan to install 360 miles of turbines across Maine are made to look like selfish people whose only concern is about their view. But now, the huge cost of this plan is coming to light.

Now the health issues are being exposed as our neighbors suffer from long-term exposure to low frequency noise. Now DEP sound standards are being proven as inadequate for turbines’ unique noise.

Today, we have proof that we’ve been sold a bill of goods based on false representations. We realize wind will never replace base-load power sources, and that it’s only an “add-on” for which our grid was not designed.

If it creates higher electric prices, if it’s dangerous to Mainers’ health, if it harms our tourist-based economy and reduces real estate values, if it’s paid for by taxpayers while only benefiting developers and creating temporary contracting jobs during construction, and if this wind power is needed for southern New England’s use and not ours, then why should Mainers support this misguided plan?

We shouldn’t. We don’t. And we won’t.

Karen Bessey Pease
Lexington Twp. Maine

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Ok, I’ll bite. You say, “that it would reduce carbon emissions and help counter global warming. Now, we know that isn’t true.” – how do you figure that? Are they generating CO2? Do you have a study or some kind of science that indicates that these “low frequency” sounds are actually a health risk, beyond some psychosomatic illness by whiny people?

  2. Thank you, Karen. So many people still don’t have a clue and aren’t about to do their homework. Industrial wind is going to hurt a lot of businesses in Maine, but by the time most people see the writing on the wall, it will be too late. Good investigative reporting could help educate Mainers. What happened to Naomi Shallit?

  3. 2 years ago it was not in your back yard Karen. Two years ago it was being debated elsewhere (Redington) for one. Most people in Lexington area were not concerned then nor were they wound up over Kibby
    Since you can’t see it from Lexington, i suppose you want the coal industry to keep leveling whole mountains instead of having a few platforms for windmills near your home

  4. Thank you, Karen Bessey Pease, for the very good summary of the objections that informed people have against wind power. Less informed people, like the “Jasper”, simply swallow the pro-wind arguments. That does not make them true.
    As to CO2 argument: wind power is notoriously unreliable and must be constantly “backed up” by some other power source that is reliable to balance the grid. The back up power is almost always fueled, and fueled power plants run most efficiently at a certain output. If you keep them coasting along, as “spinning reserve” to be revved up and down as needed, that kind of operation is inefficient, like constantly changing the speed of a vehicle.
    Hence, you get more CO2. It is not the turbines themselves that generate CO2, but rather the absolutely necessary constant back-up power that the use wind power requires.
    Harrison Roper Houlton/Danforth

  5. should we build more nuclear plants? what is your solution here?I think wind power is more good then bad.Can you really have your cake and eat it too?

  6. Yes, indeed, build more nuke plants. We need reliable power to bake that cake and keep warm while eating it.

  7. once you get over the carbon footprint in the making of the turbine, then the destroying of animal habitat, oxygen producing trees and water reserves; some how these turbines need a constant power source at zero wind until cut-in speed (about 7-10 mph)

    Nameplate capacity is 35% but, some are 11 – 16%.

    65-89% of the time these monsters are sucking from the grid.

    red lights flashing, hydraulics heated (ask about Kibby freeze-up last winter), remote control computers, etc.
    what is the power source for the above?

    I have asked industry and anti-wind. I still do not know.

  8. American business should not be subsidized by our tax dollars. I could care less if a landowner wants to put a windmill on his property; that is his right. If you don’t like the looks of it, turn around. Having said that, how can anyone support these turbines knowing a percentage of their hard earned money is helping to pay for them? And check your power bill, it isn’t dropping. Boo-hoo all you want about CO2, I wonder how much is being produced by all of us taxpayers just to earn the extra money to pay for these subsidies? If a business can’t survive without government support, it probably shouldn’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.