[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

A response to ‘A Tale of Two Towers’  

Credit:  The Gazette, knox.villagesoup.com 28 January 2012 ~~

While I agree that the Camden Hills Regional High School Windplanners deserve an “A” in civics for their perseverance in pursuing an alternative energy project for the school community, why does Philip Conkling’s Dec. 15 article: “A Tale of Two Towers” purport to be about the Windjammers success when its primary discussion is about Ragged Mountain and Vinalhaven?

Why illustrate this article about the Windjammers’ success with a half-page color photo of Ragged Mountain, which is three miles away from the school? Instead, print a half-page color photo of the field behind the Camden Hills Regional High School where the new 121-foot wind turbine, not including the blade height, is to be installed. One wonders what interest the Island Institute has in a mainland school project such as this?

Unlike the Vinalhaven turbines, which may have had some economic benefits for the community (while other families had to abandon their homes), there would be no economic benefit from developing industrial wind in Camden. We would suffer a great deal of environmental destruction and intolerable noise levels, in addition to lost property values, etc.

I am one of the “group of local citizens” who volunteered to work on the wind power topic with the now defunkt Energy Committee. In spite of what Conkling says, the reason the Ragged Mountain project did not proceed was because it was clearly a bad idea that had very little public support and a great deal of adamant opposition, not to mention a Comprehensive Plan Ordinance limiting development above an altitude of 500 feet.

Industrial wind on Ragged Mountain was soundly rejected at a local, democratic level: The Select Board found no support for it. Perhaps our civic-minded students might also succeed where the Energy Committee failed when it abandoned its other objectives which were to evaluate the town’s use of hydro power, solar energy and especially conservation measures to help increase our energy independence.

Dorie Klein

President, Friends of Ragged Mountain

Camden

Source:  The Gazette, knox.villagesoup.com 28 January 2012

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter