The Dark Side “Green” Energy Make Nuclear Power the Obvious Choice for Maine’s Future

Maine has been treated to a near non-stop barrage of demands that we acquiesce to the lucrative demands of the wind turbine and solar panel lobbies for the sake of saving the environment.

However, the impeccably dressed lobbyists who frequent the State House corridors, advocating passionately about global warming or climate change, often neglect to consider the significant environmental costs associated with the technologies they claim will offer environmental salvation.

Unfortunately for Mainers, the headlong sprint toward wind turbines and solar panels has caused policy makers to overlook the dire health implications of the environmental externalities produced by wind and solar technologies.

[RELATED: Green Energy’s Soaring Costs Outweigh Projected Benefits for New England: Think Tank Report…]

As the 132nd Legislature begins to consider the likely slew of proposals related to industrialized offshore wind power and a further expansion of the farm-land devouring solar subsidy program, we must keep in mind the health implications as well as the theoretical benefits. As a member of the Energy, Utilities, and Technology Committee, I am compelled to highlight the potential risks these technologies pose to our environment and public health, risks that demand a serious reconsideration of Maine’s current energy policies.

Wind Energy: A Double-Edged Sword?

A new report, which comprises a comprehensive review of approximately 3,000 studies titled, “Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human Digestive, Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review,” has brought to light the disturbing health risks associated with microplastics.

For those unfamiliar with the term, microplastics are tiny particles of plastic, 5 millimeters or smaller, that result from the breakdown of plastic materials, like waste materials, industrial products, and – yes – solar panel and wind turbine components.

In case you didn’t already have enough to worry about, these microplastic bits are ubiquitous in modern society, and now we know that the risks of exposure to these tiny toxins include increased cancer rates, infertility, and lung damage. These tiny plastic particles, which pervade our air, water, and soil, are not just a byproduct of traditional pollution but are also emerging from our so-called “clean” energy solutions. Maine’s lawmakers would do well to heed these researchers warnings.

Offshore wind turbines, often hailed as a green solution, are shedding microplastics into our marine environments. In some cases, such as with the recent 300-foot Vineyard Wind turbine blade that exploded near Cape Cod, the pollution is obvious. But even when the turbines function properly, they introduce microplastics via a process known as “Leading Edge Erosion,” according to a current paper from the Technical University of Denmark. The blades, battered by harsh weather, release these particles, which contaminate our commercial fisheries and easily find their way into filter-feeding seafood, like clams and oysters, and other coastal ecosystems. Onshore turbines also contribute to this problem, albeit to a lesser degree, but with the proliferation of wind farms across Maine, the scale of impact cannot be ignored.

[RELATED: Democrat Crony Capitalism Has Corrupted Maine’s Energy Markets: Editorial…]

Moreover, the financial burden of wind energy in Maine is significant, with costs far exceeding initial projections, making it an expensive choice for ratepayers. The maintenance of these turbines, considering their environmental impact, adds another layer of cost and inefficiency. In other words, thanks to the inefficiencies inherent in offshore wind technologies, Mainers will be paying through the nose to spread the very microplastics we will later consume in our seafood.

Solar Energy: Not the Sunshine Solution We Hoped For?

Solar panels, while less reliant of plastics, come with their own environmental risks, which are often downplayed by the lobbyists and industry insiders who stand to make substantial profits through the expansion of Maine’s expensive solar subsidies. Present in almost all the solar panels proliferating across Maine are toxic materials, such as cadmium telluride (CdTe), lead, and others depending on the model deployed. While much of the environmental side-effects of manufacturing solar panels is “out of sight, out of mind” because they’re usually made in developing countries, that won’t be the case with the eventual decommissioning and clean-up.

[RELATED: Nuclear Energy: A Missed Opportunity for Maine…]

Under ideal circumstances, solar panels can last perhaps 25 years, but enduring Maine’s rough winters will doubtlessly limit their lifespan. When it’s time for them to be retired, someone will have to be responsible for the cost and labor involved with decommissioning those panels, and it likely won’t be the people making money on them. Already, Maine’s congressional delegation has directed taxpayer dollars into northern Maine in the hopes of someday having the capacity to deal responsibly with the hazardous waste from Maine’s solar buildout.

Just like Mainers will be paying higher energy bills and taxes to pollute the Gulf of Maine with the microplastics that will wind up in our bodies thanks to turbine subsidies, the solar industry will catch us coming and going with higher costs. First, we’ll pay the stealthy Solar Tax embedded in our monthly electricity bills, then we’ll pay anywhere from $40-$200 to recycle the panels at a taxpayer-funded facility. Lastly, while we can’t put a cost on this, Mainers will also have to deal with the moral and ethical implications of blanketing potential farmland and wilderness areas with products often manufactured with the benefit of slave labor in western China.

A Case for Nuclear Energy

The conversation around energy in Maine should pivot towards nuclear power, which offers a cleaner, more reliable, and less space-consuming alternative. Modern nuclear technology, with small modular reactors (SMRs), provides a scalable solution with negligible greenhouse gas emissions and no microplastic pollution. The Maine Yankee plant, decommissioned in 1997, left a legacy of safe, clean power generation for decades. The waste, securely stored, contrasts sharply with the ongoing pollution from renewables.

The Cost of “Green” Energy

The push for wind and solar, primarily driven by subsidies and political agendas, has not only proven to be economically burdensome but also potentially harmful to public health. The environmental and health costs of microplastics, coupled with the inefficiencies and high costs of renewable energy, are compelling reasons to reconsider our energy strategy.

Moving forward, Maine must abandon its approach to its arbitrary and unachievable renewable energy goals. We need a sober reassessment of wind and solar, considering all environmental and health impacts, not just the reduction of carbon emissions. Additionally, it’s time to promote nuclear energy, viewing it not as a relic but as a viable, safe, and clean solution for Maine’s energy needs. Above all, our policies must prioritize the health of Mainers over political or environmental dogmas.

The cost to our health, environment, and wallets from wind and solar is too high. Maine can lead by example, choosing a path that ensures our energy future is both sustainable and truly beneficial for our citizens. It’s time to embrace nuclear power as the cornerstone of a genuinely clean energy strategy for Maine.

In Maine’s 132nd legislature, Republican lawmakers, including myself, are pushing bills to shield Maine ratepayers and our environment from further exploitation. Will the Dems keep bending over backward for lobbyists and their cronies, or will they grow a spine and put Mainers first for once? Only time will reveal their true colors.