Now that the Democrats will have a modest say in our country’s direction, the environmentalists will be elbowing their way to the table where the federal pork is being served. Many of their proposals will be sensible, but some are not well-thought out and will lead to unintended consequences. I suspect that one of these problem areas is our rush to replace imported gasoline with ethanol. Our tailpipe emissions might become more environmentally friendly, but have we considered the harm to the environment [by using] the additional farmland necessary to grow enough crops to produce enough alcohol to supply the demand. Corn, soy bans and other grain crops mostly are grown on large corporate farms and distributed by a cartel of large international grain merchants.

Today, most grain is used for human or animal feed, but how much more land will we need to till to run our automobiles? And how many more chemical fertilizers and insecticides will growers spread which will run off and further pollute our water?

Until the hydrogen-powered fuel cell becomes practical, perhaps we should look in another direction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One serious offender is the way we generate electricity. We burn fuel, carbon-based or nuclear, to boil water to make steam to turn turbines to turn generators. There are several alternatives; of popular interest is wind power. If we all lived on rural farms, windmills would suffice, but I wonder how much cleared land would be necessary for the wind farms, and how many windmills would be needed to supply the electricity for Portland, or Bangor, or New York City. And where would the electricity come from when there was no wind? Another popular solution is photovoltaic or solar cells. For the individual suburban home they might be practical, but what about the 500-unit apartment house, and where does the electricity come from on dark days?

It so happens that we humans have a gigantic perpetual-motion machine that burns no fuel. It is powered by sunlight and gravity. Environmentally speaking, it’s free for the taking. It is called the hydrological cycle: The sun evaporates water from the oceans and lakes and forms clouds, the jet stream carries the clouds over land where it rains, the rain percolates into the ground and runs off in streams and rivers that replenish the ocean. By temporarily interrupting this down stream flow with a dam, the water behind the dam becomes stored power. By channeling the water through a penstock through the base of the dam, the flow of the water will turn the turbine which turns the generator. No fuel is needed, and it doesn’t depend on the vagaries of the weather. Since it is old technology, first applied in 1870, it would employ engineers (to build the dams), rather than scientists to invent them.

There are several objections to generating this form of power that have obvious economic motives. Undoubtedly pressure comes from oil-, coal- and gas-burning merchants, who supply 41.2 percent of Bangor Hydro’s power. Another is the atomic power industry which supplies 26.9 percent of our power, and the industrial fossil fuel co-generation power, which supplies another 7.9 percent. Three fourths of our power comes from carbon-dioxide-producing, environmentally destructive or dangerous (3 Mile Island, Chernobyl), and terrorist-vulnerable sources.

In August 1978, Sens. Muskie and Hathaway fought for the Dicky-Lincoln Hydroelectric dams and entered into the Congressional Record several salient reasons for the government to proceed with the project. It would replace 2.3 million barrels of oil per year, be embargo proof, (and price-gouging proof) and would save Maine consumers $12 million per year (in 1978 dollars). It would provide 25 percent of Maine’s peak power, and 15 percent of New England’s peak. It would become a center for the local tourist economy, attract energy intensive businesses, create jobs and control the spring floods.

At that time, the public was into government bashing, held a nearly religious belief in the efficiency of unseen hand of the market, and believed that competition and free enterprise would lead us to the promised land. There ensured a frenzy of deregulation, privatization of services, abandonment of government responsibilities, tax cuts for the wealthy and tax increases on wage earners. Federal programs were cut and states were forced to raise their taxes to provide minimal services. It was in this frame of mind that the public scuttled the Dicky-Lincoln project.

If we are serious about cutting air pollution and curtailing environmental damage without degrading our customary comforts, we should consider hydro-power as our principal source of electricity. Other nations which have our fortuitous topography and rivers to harness have taken advantage of this clean source of power. The West Coast would never have grown as it has without the hydroelectric dams to supply water and electricity. Our principal industrial competitor, China, is busily harnessing their rivers.

I think we should take a second look at the Dicky-Lincoln hydro project.

Homere A. Dansereau is a resident of Addison.