All the colors of wind power should be presented at panels, not just one 

Had the E2Tech event offered panelists with opposing views in addition to pro-wind supporters, the listeners at the event would have had a more complete picture of the wind incursion coming to Maine.

Maybe an event with anti-wind realists on the panel should be offered to allow the other side to be heard —there are PhDs on both sides of the aisle, you know.

Colgan asserts Maine should wean off foreign oil, but coal-burning stoves seem to be making a big comeback in the marketplace, which must be problematic. I question whether wind power has had any impact anywhere except for in theory.

Denmark has 6,000 turbines and still had to build new natural gas plants. No fossil-fueled plants have been shut down in the country and when Denmark sells wind power to Sweden and Norway, hydro is reduced to make room on their grid for no-net CO2 reduction.

The CO2 problem and climate change – the original reasons for the existence of wind power – have been largely ignored in Maine because the selling point is now jobs. The construction jobs should be fixing roads and bridges before they collapse, not building super-sized dirt roads across miles of our scenic mountains, oversized transportation lines and industial skyscrapers with red blinking lights wasting power. How many homes could be lit with the wasted energy every night?

Professor Hunt claims that subsidies are needed for newer industries, but the subsidies are still there for all energy producers, even mature industries. That scheme needs to be evaluated. Once the greedy paws have entered the taxpayer subsidy cookie jar, they are hard to remove.

When Mainers cannot afford electricity, many may get off the grid instead of paying for expensive wind-generated power. Europe’s electricity rates are still high with thousands of wind turbines, and economies of scale still kicked in – many believe it never will.

The hidden costs of fossil fuels are real but the wind turbines have their own hidden costs, which are deliberately being ignored. The rare earth sites in China are an environmental disaster.

The huge earth moving machines use a lot of diesel fuel and run 24/7. A Cat D10 uses 43 gallons per hour, and these Terex machines use much more. The Baiyun Obo Acid Lake is 7 miles wide and growing. Radioactive tailings are piling up. China is importing coal from the U.S. in greater numbers.

Dr. High claims wind is the best environmental, economic and moral choice we can make. When I see pictures of the road building, blasting, erosion and scenic vistas spoiled with industrial skyscrapers, I must respectfully disagree. Add to that the CO2 from mining, processing, building, shipping, transportation, maintenance, repairs, replacements.

If the carbon problem began with the industrial revolution, how does expanding that solve the problem?

Please consider a CO2 evaluation of wind turbines from the specks of neodymium to the finished product standing idle on a mountaintop producing nothing. It would be helpful to separate the facts from the hype.

Mike DiCenso
Lincoln