State properties could host vast amounts of renewable power

Notwithstanding the significant issue of whether global warming is good science or not, I'm generally for promoting renewable energy sources which have the least impact on the environment. But not at all costs. If Americans are indeed willing to shell out the enormous personal capital to "go green," I have to wonder what positive impact their dollars could possibly have given the considerable apathy among many inductrial nations in "the world," such as China, which do not appear to have the will to make the same expensive commitment. Without international support, isn't it sort of like throwing dollar bills into the wind?

Don't confine the discussion to which locations are appropriate or not appropriate, include the issue of who will be the beneficiary of projects that are constructed on state lands. The state, not big energy companies, should be the sole developer for renewable energy projects that are constructed on public property. The technology is not complex and the financial risks are essentially zero. Does anyone really think their electric bill will go down if and when the Cape Wind project is completed. If you are going to be stuck living with these projects on your land you may as well be the one benefiting financially.

I see a pretty picture of a windmill. But the reality is more likely to be a windmill in the midst of one of their clearcuts as shown on Chris Matera's website: http://clearcutma.blogspot.com/

I think if we put Vertical Axis turbines on the median on the MASS turnpike we will
should be able to generate 1 MW for every mile . We can put 10 KW on
the median. The cars and trucks are coming at 70 mph. Look at the amount of
wind generated. This should be enough to make the pike toll free and be cash flow positive without a toll in 5 years.

BGlobeWatcher, I would argue that America has to be the "early adopter" of renewable energy technology; I think it is one of the challenges that comes from being a global leader. The hope would be that the innovations that can be driven through installations and increased volume could drive the overall cost of the product down, so that it is economically competitive and it takes cost out of the equation for these other countries.

This is similar to what has happened with flat screen hi-def TV's. The early adopters that paid 10K for a 32" set allowed the companies to ramp up economies of scale and drive innovation so that we can buy the same set for $500.

I was against wind power for a long time til I found out what Europe has done. I'm a strong critic of government inaction, but I applaud the Legislature and Governor Patrick for settting models last year that surely Obama will adopt in the next four years. You can read me at airqualitytrends.com Jon

Wind energy can be a go0d thing, but it is all about the siting. Wind towers should be located in already industrialized or developed zones, not in protected natural areas. Massachusetts State forests only represent 10% of the State land area. If progressive Massachusetts cannot even protect 10% of our land area from commercial exploitation, we are doomed as a species.

In fact this whole idea of “green” energy is often a wolf in sheep’s clothing. While clearly we need to clean up our energy sources, often the “green” subsidies” are just greenwashing used to taxpayer subsidize powerful interests, thus once again co-opting a good idea One of the biggest sources of “green” energy the State is promoting is biomass power plants fueled by forests, which is not even remotely clean or green energy. Cutting down forests or burning contaminated waste and selling it as “green” and “clean” energy will add to public cynicism and threaten the important effort of using government subsidies and policies to promote environmentally friendly technologies.

The state is already clearcutting our public forests, see: http://clearcutma.blogspot.com/

Current proposals for building 5 large biomass plants would:
• Triple logging on all Massachusetts forests, public and private, including the cutting of 1.8 million tons of trees, or 8 million trees annually, which would require a logging rate where allMassachusetts forests could be logged in 25 years. Clear-cutting would spread across the landscape and is already occurring on public forests
• Require about 600 logging truck trips per day, or more than 184,000 trips per year, at about 6 miles per gallon for trips up to 100 miles, mostly on narrow rural roads
• Burn 2.4 million tons of wood and release 3 million tons of CO2 emissions annually, resulting in a 12% increase over current statewide power plant emissions. The proposed Russell biomass plant would release 50% more CO2 per mWhr of energy produced than the worst CO2 emitting power plant in the northeast. These plants are not carbon neutral despite claims to the contrary by proponents and the media.
• Increase air and water pollution in already polluted regions of Massachusetts
• New power produced from these 5 plants would only increase generation capacity 1% more than today’s capacity. Basic conservation measures could reduce electrical use more than 33% Conservation measures cost 3.2 cents per kWhr versus 8.9 cents per kWhr for new production

For a full report, see: http://www.maforests.org/Biomess.pdf

In reply to Bob Wilkinson's comment:

Even if the technology is not complex and the risk is low, do you really want the state to develop these resources? They have proven that they can't manage the turnpike or Big Ddig debt, and the MBTA is in financial trouble.

If the state develops this resource it will be come another haven for patronage jobs, and wasteful union contracts. And we will probably have to deal with a wind-mill falling on-top of someone becasue it wasn't built correctly...

Lease the rights to the private section and price them so the state gets what they deserve.

Chris,

Why are you steering the discussion from Wind power to wood power?

What is wrong with putting a wind turbine in a forest?

Wood and biomass are sustainable resources. The goal should be to implement sustainable logging methods already in use on privatly property land on state owned land.

Many private paper and wood companies already plant more trees than they harvest and manage their land in a sustainable maner.

Wood and biomass are not green energy. The state is giving away our forests and rivers to energy developers who stand to make huge profits. DEP has permitted Russell Biomass, giving the company 186 million gallons of FREE water from the Westfield River, and helped the company buy forest land which it will clear cut and burn in the Biomass incinerator. Testimony in the citizens appeal shows the developer will make $1 billion profit over 30 years. This is completely outrageous. Wind towers on Florida Mt., one of the only untrammelled areas of the state is a true insult!!! Wind towers on Mass Pike is one thing but using Article 97 lands conservation lands is another. Private developers are lining up for handouts from Mr. Bowles and DEP in the form of permits for free water and clear cuts. And for the state to say that because ORVs are using the state forests we should further trash them is an outrage: check out google earth to see the destruction of Myles Standish State Forest by illegal ORVs. Our state lands are already ruined by ORVs and lack of enforcement of use restrictions: putting up wind towers to generate minute amounts of energy is an outrage. Mr. Bowles needs to carefully rethink his map.

Hi Joe,

Yes, I guess I did wander a bit from wind to wood, but the issues are related in the sense that we need to be careful of the word “green” being thrown around often for things that may not be green.

I think wind can be a good thing, but it is all about where they are located, and I don’t believe we should be industrializing the whole world. I believe that since our public lands are only 10% of the land area in Massachusetts they should be off-limits to more commercialization in order to allow them to satisfy all the other benefits of a forests such as wilderness protection, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, clean water, clean air, tourism, carbon sequestration and scenic beauty for todays citizens and the future citizens. I believe wind towers are best suited to already industrialized or developed locations.

The biomass issues is nothing but a lose-lose-lose-lose proposition that would increase air and water pollution, release excessive carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, put harmful logging pressures on our carbon dioxide-sequestering forests and waste taxpayer dollars.

My point was not about what is happening on timber lands now, but what will happen when these plants are built. In any case, what is happening now is not so rosy. Much of private land has been “high-graded” where they have taken the best and left the rest. This has left a lot of private forests ecologically and economically degraded. Please take a look at my website to see what has recently started to occur on public lands. What you see here is what the state has said they want to be a model for private lands, and it is not a pretty sight for neither economic or ecological reasons.

http://clearcutma.blogspot.com/

Please take a look at the following report for an idea what these biomass plants would mean for Masschusetts:

http://www.maforests.org/Biomess.pdf

Well, I guess I drifted back to the wood issue again, but I do believe the issue is related because in our efforts of finding clean energy to improve our environment, we don’t want to make things worse, which biomass and poorly sited wind towers would do.

You should avoid scouring off ridges and hilltops for winid power. Such power really belongs on the coast where wind is persistent and not in all of our forests. Wind turbines require roads for maintenance and such roads will lead to serious erosion. The wildlife impacts of wind power in our forests is not well understood, and in addition to any low frequency pulsing such facilities will need to be brought to a grid. We need to work on a national dialogue to determine what power sources and where are the most appropriate.

State lands comprise two thirds of the potential land based utility scale wind power locations in the state. If all locations in this report were built, this would amount to 75 miles of ridgeline wind turbines , mostly located in the middle of the largest tracts of undeveloped land in the commonwealth. Located in state forests, wildlife management areas, parks, etc., These turbines would yield an estimated 3.7% of electricity consumed in Massachusetts. Since electric generation accounts for 25% of our greenhouse gas emissions in this state , this proposal would reduce our carbon emissions by less than 1%.
Would we really get even a 1% reduction? Since turbines only operate when thewind blows, they can’t displace any existing generation facilities. Therefore, they would need to be constructed in addition to what already exists. So, if turbines could be manufactured, transported, roads/transmission infrastructure constructed and maintained….all without emitting any carbon dioxide and the intermittent power integrated into the power supply without causing any existing fossil fuel plants to operate less efficiently, we might then achieve a 1% reduction.
Would we really achieve a1% reduction? Since turbines operate only when the wind blows, they can’t displace any existing generation facilities. Therefore, they would need to be constructed in addition to what already exists. So, if turbines could be manufactured, transported, roads/transmission infrastructure constructed and maintained….all without emitting any carbon dioxide and the intermittent power integrated into the power supply without causing any existing fossil fuel plants to operate less efficiently, we might then achieve a 1% reduction.

- Lloyd Crawford, Hawley

Once again, everyone can agree that wind power is A Good Thing, it's just A Good Thing That Belongs Somewhere Else.

I am reminded of the Onion story "98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others". Substitute "Wind power" in there and you have the same thing.

The US needs to get over itself, like much of Europe has already done. They've got historic landscapes, too, yet somehow they manage to co-exist with the new and and the old. I'd much rather have a wind turbine on a hill than another coal plant belching out mercury and soot, another gas fired plant powered by ships no one will allow to dock, or a nuke plant where we need to deal with the waste for 10,000 years.

There are 6 owners of the Watatic property, not all of whom would be in favor of towers.