January 15, 2008
Requiem for Kibby Mountain
Wind power is coming to Kibby Mountain.
But not to Black Nubble.
So decided Maine's LURC yesterday.
LURC has approved TransCanada's proposal for a 44-turbine wind power project for the Kibby Mountain Range.
TransCanada image
I have asked this question in the past and I ask it again today: Why is Kibby Mountain any less valuable than Black Nubble?
Why will we now adorn the Kibby Mountain Range with wind towers, but not Black Nubble? Please understand, of course, that I prefer not to have wind power projects on either location.
Let's try a little exercise...
Read this from today's news story:
"During their deliberations Monday, commissioners cited potential effects on natural resources on Black Nubble, which offers habitat for several rare animal and plant species, but spent more time on the development's visual effect. The 400-foot-tall lighted towers would have a dramatic effect on the Appalachian Trail, which comes within miles of the mountain, according to groups that opposed the application. Commissioner Rebecca Kurtz said the application proposed what amounts to an industrial site on a mountaintop and could affect both the mountain scenery and the area's natural resources."
Now substitute "Kibby Mountain" and "local trails" for "Black Nubble" and "Appalachian Trail." Then read again.
Notice how nothing really changes?
That's right.
Think about that.
"... an industrial site on a mountaintop and could affect both the mountain scenery and the area's natural resources."
Sure, we all love our Appalachian Trail and its precious wild environs. A wind power project, however well-intended and potentially beneficial, doesn't belong near there. There are plenty of other more suitable locations for wind power elsewhere in Maine.
But are we to throw Kibby Mountain under the bus because it is less known and less visited? Does it really have less value? Does it?
I haven't hiked Kibby Mountain. But I do know the area pretty well. And it's wild and beautiful. No, it's not officially protected, as in state or federally-owned. It's private forestland, productive timberland. So what?
Are we really going to mar Kibby Mountain in order to feel good about being green?
I guess so. LURC has spoken. Black Nubble wins (yeah!), Kibby loses.
According to TransCanada, pending final zoning changes and project approval, construction is expected to commence sometime in 2009 or 2010.
Given that timetable my plan is to finally hike Kibby Mountain sometime next summer. Just for yucks. Maybe you all can join me.
We'll have a requiem for Kibby Mountain. A mountaintop party. Drink a few beers on the summit. Hoot and holler some. Pee onto the rocks and blueberry bushes. Say goodbye to Kibby as it is. Feel green, piss yellow.
We can even leave our beer cans and lunch trash right there. What will it matter when the big honking D-9er plows up over the ridgetop in a year or so? Not a damn.
Carey,
What kind of attitude is that? Don't leave your beer cans , even if they will be plowed under- we have to start somewhere with using our natural resources for energy- it's never pretty no matter where it is.
Posted by kelsey
January 15, 2008 04:16 PM
Carey,
I've been saving this idea to use in order to become an energy tycoon, but here it is anyway. Why don't they look at putting wind turbines in the ugly spots in each state where there's sufficient wind available? My first thought for Maine would be to site them at points all along I-95 and I-295. From driving along that road, it always seems like there's plenty of wind. Just about every exit area is butt-ugly, so how could a wind-mill or two make it any worse. They might not be able to site the biggest turbines along the road, but I'll bet they could put 30 - 60 small to medium size versions all along the interstate and take a bite out of the nation's fuel bill and global warming.
What do you think?
Posted by blank
January 18, 2008 11:10 AM
Carey,
I've been saving this idea to use in order to become an energy tycoon, but here it is anyway. Why don't they look at putting wind turbines in the ugly spots in each state where there's sufficient wind available? My first thought for Maine would be to site them at points all along I-95 and I-295. From driving along that road, it always seems like there's plenty of wind. Just about every exit area is butt-ugly, so how could a wind-mill or two make it any worse. They might not be able to site the biggest turbines along the road, but I'll bet they could put 30 - 60 small to medium size versions all along the interstate and take a bite out of the nation's fuel bill and global warming.
What do you think?
Posted by blank
January 18, 2008 11:11 AM
Carey,
I've been saving this idea to use in order to become an energy tycoon, but here it is anyway. Why don't they look at putting wind turbines in the ugly spots in each state where there's sufficient wind available? My first thought for Maine would be to site them at points all along I-95 and I-295. From driving along that road, it always seems like there's plenty of wind. Just about every exit area is butt-ugly, so how could a wind-mill or two make it any worse. They might not be able to site the biggest turbines along the road, but I'll bet they could put 30 - 60 small to medium size versions all along the interstate and take a bite out of the nation's fuel bill and global warming.
What do you think?
Posted by blank
January 18, 2008 12:02 PM
Carey,
I've been saving this idea to use in order to become an energy tycoon, but here it is anyway. Rather than getting into conflicts over scenic areas or nature, why don't they look at putting wind turbines in the ugly spots in each state where there's sufficient wind available? My first thought for Maine would be to site them at points all along I-95 and I-295. From driving along that road, it always seems like there's plenty of wind. Just about every exit area is butt-ugly, so how could a wind-mill or two make it any worse. They might not be able to site the biggest turbines along the road, but I'll bet they could put 30 - 60 small to medium size versions all along the interstate and take a bite out of the nation's fuel bill and global warming.
What do you think?
Posted by blank
January 18, 2008 12:05 PM
Carey,
I've been saving this idea to use in order to become an energy tycoon, but here it is anyway. Why don't they look at putting wind turbines in the ugly spots in each state where there's sufficient wind available? My first thought for Maine would be to site them at points all along I-95 and I-295. From driving along that road, it always seems like there's plenty of wind. Just about every exit area is butt-ugly, so how could a wind-mill or two make it any worse. They might not be able to site the biggest turbines along the road, but I'll bet they could put 30 - 60 small to medium size versions all along the interstate and take a bite out of the nation's fuel bill and global warming.
What do you think?
Posted by blank
January 18, 2008 12:12 PM
My faith in LURC has been partially restored. Having bushwhacked all the 3000' peaks (seperated by a 200' col) in the Kibby & Kibby Range area I support this project, as I support(ed) Black Nubble / Reddington.
Onestep
AT 2000 miler, NE3k Bushwhacker.
Posted by Onestep
January 20, 2008 11:17 AM
My faith in LURC has been partially restored. Having bushwhacked all the 3000' peaks (seperated by a 200' col) in the Kibby & Kibby Range area I support this project, as I support(ed) Black Nubble / Reddington.
Onestep
AT 2000 miler, NE3k Bushwhacker.
Posted by Onestep
January 20, 2008 11:18 AM
My faith in LURC has been partially restored. Having bushwhacked all the 3000' peaks (seperated by a 200' col) in the Kibby & Kibby Range area I support this project, as I support(ed) Black Nubble / Reddington.
Onestep
AT 2000 miler, NE3k Bushwhacker.
Posted by Onestep
January 20, 2008 11:19 AM
But are we to throw Kibby Mountain under the bus because it is less known and less visited? Does it really have less value? Does it?
Gives it MORE value , Says Me.
Then again , all those new homes around Moosehead Lake need modern conveinances , Don't they?
By the way who exactly stands to make the most MONEY out of all this?
Fallow the money , as they say.
Posted by
OldHeathen63February 6, 2008 04:13 PM
You can't see Kibby Mountain from your baby boomer ski condos in Carrabasset Valley. That's why Black Nubble collapsed, and why Kibby Mtn. is going forward. Jackass environmentalism at its finest.
Of course, if the Black Nubble project had been allowed to proceed, the region would have been saved from tons of smog-causing particulates, acid rain, mercury pollution, and climate-changing carbon emissions, which are quickly killing Maine's alpine zone habitats.
I worked for four years at the AMC's backcountry facilities, which make extensive use of wind turbines in ecologically-sensitive alpine zones. These habitats are at extreme risk due to upwind coal pollution and climate change. To have the AMC, which claims to be concerned about the survival of these habitats, protest a wind power project that could do so much to protect them, isn't in line with their mission: it's a cynical pander to their big donors who own second homes in CV.
Besides, Carey, it's my generation that's going to have to deal with the supreme mess of climate change. I don't care about your mawkish sobs about the 'lost' view on Kibby Mountain. I DO care about the prospect of billions of deaths from famine and massive global instability from climate refugees, which are both likelihoods by the time I'm your age.
Hikers who protest wind turbines because they're "ugly" obviously can't see the forest for the trees.
Posted by
C NealOctober 3, 2008 12:50 PM
Post a comment
Blog Index
Subscribe
Questions/Comments
