Where do Wind Farms belong?

[Craig]

The Stimulus Watch is an interesting site.

I did a search for “wind” then sorted by “program type = energy”.

$140M for a 10MW wind farm in NM. I want a piece of that.

 

[Stan]

David Publicover of the AMC made a presentation a few years ago, at a Maine Mountain Conference, about siting wind "farms" (quaint euphemism, hey). It was in conjunction with the then controversy over the Reddington proposal.

It was an example of, I believe, the good that AMC does with its dues, fees etc. ... but I digress ... Instead of a political reaction to one particular siting, David had created a model for determining suitable locations. This model included the usual technical factors but it also included factors related to the environment, related development and infrastructure, economic impact etc.

Anyone is welcome to construct a model using their own factors and weights. It is certainly more constructive than ad hoc reactions to specific proposals.

The AMC model would exclude Reddington (which was eventually rejected by Maine's LURC) but did identify 200 miles of Maine ridgeline that was suitable and appropriate, under that model, for wind power.

I like this approach. My enthusiasm for renewable energy is tempered by the notion that I don't think we should industrialize pristine or unusual sites to satisfy our gluttony for energy. Nor should we forget, as peakbagger pointed out, that some renewables, like wind and solar, do not eliminate the need for adequate conventional capacity for when the wind isn't blowing or the sun shining (this hurts the economics of large scale wind and solar ).

 

[jniehof]

David Publicover of the AMC made a presentation a few years ago, at a Maine Mountain Conference, about siting wind "farms" (quaint euphemism, hey).

Here are the AMC materials on wind. Fair bit of detail in there...I think the work is still ongoing.

 

[Paradox]

With deference to the original question. About 10 large wind mills were placed on the Eastern shore of Lake Erie South of Buffalo NY. It is the site of the former Bethlahem Steel plant, already an eyesore and no one lives in the area. Perfect.

 

[Little Rickie]

Of course, you can compare these photos to an empty hillside, or you can compare them to these places:

http://www.sfmoma.org/images/artwork/large/2006.56_01_b02.jpg


http://www.sun-volt.com/images/coal_fired_power_plant.jpg

http://pro.corbis.com/images/42-17963823.jpg?size=67&uid={5e8f2c42-fe9d-4058-8b10-09ac798ea831}

The trouble is that both these comparisons have their own merit.

Good point. Which is the lessor of two evils?

 

[Little Rickie]

Hmm, I'll go out on a limb here and say: Wherever there's wind?

Unfortunately, this is usually where there are great views: Top of mountains, near the oceans, etc.

Fish

I agree.

Given the choice of views VS clean/green energy and the USA being energy independent, rather fighting for oil and losing american lives for it-- I'll take windmills anyday.

 

[peakbagger]

I have no details but there was a news report on NHPR today, that NH Fish and Game and the AMC came to agreement with the developer of the Windfarm in Millsfield NH, that will allow the project to proceed with permitting.

 

[Mike P.]

There are parameters on how much wind you can have. I seem to recall, MW is not a good location, 100+ MPH would cause damage & not generate wind power. Rime ice would have to be an issue I'd think too.

There are hills in CT that have wind without finding CT's tallest locations. Bolton CT has a fair amount of wind on a coupel of riolling hills & 80 foot Birch Mountain, likely as much wind as the side of Wachusetts. (the windmills there are not near the top but are on the southwestern side. (on memory with no map)

As the technology improves, solar cells will look nothing like the 1970's panels that were on people's roofs. They are also looking at tidal shifts being used to power turbines. As someone who has given up the idea of the Atlantic Salmon making a sucessful return to the CT River Ecosystem so some small Hydo projects might not be bad.

My idea on oil & gas prices. The market is a mess. Oil went from the 70 area code to 147 to now under 40. No way did demand double in six months or even 25% with a 25% shrinkage in supply. Now it's almost a quarter of the July price in winter when heating demand is higher. No way demand this winter is 75% less than last winter or there is 4X the supply.

Why? Market manipulation by hedge funds & finance guys? Big Oil seeing how the public was crying & funding solar & wind projects. (Most of the solar & wind companies were at 52 week highs around oils high in July & they have crashed too. - I know , I bought some shares in late June & held them $38.00 or $147 oil is not right. For oil we don't control the spigot so coming up with alternatives, better efficiency, less demand & other power sources we can do.

I'd rather see these off-shore or in areas where there are a lot of man made structures already. If they were on far away hills in NH where they would be dots on the horizon (or a little bigger)

 

[brianW]

The current edition of E Magazine (enviromental mag.) has an article about wind. One thing that it mentions is that it is better to have many small scale farms then a few large scale farms. The big reason for this is its better for the power grid.

However some of the best spots are off shore (Cape Cod sounds good), which if you look at the population of the US. that is where it is close to. Another is in the plain states but this means making transmission lines.

Storing excess energy,like at night when energy demands are lower, could be charging up eletric cars (if they every become good) or I was thinking making hydrogen gas for fuel.

I personally am in favor of wind. Than again I am in favor of nuclear which is not something popular in some "circles". But most important feel we as a country need to be energy independent.

Newt Gingrich's book "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" shows from a conservative point of view ideas on how to become energy dependent.

I do not want to be political, both parties are to blame, We as a country really need to have a working energy policy, not whats been going on the last 30-40 years.

 

[Andrew]

There are actually some great comments and info in the reader comments in this column regarding this subject.

If the link doesn't work, go onto the Union Leader main page and down to the "Columns", you'll see John Harrigan's newest there. It wasn't when I went through the "NH Voices" link.

www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx...rticleId=12b1e63f-04dd-4d0b-a168-bba66a0a864d

 

[Adk_dib]

I am of the pinion that I do not live in the adirondacks or catskills, so I have no right to tell the ones that do what to do. They are hard hit economically so they may need help. I do agree that they should be easily accessable so you do not have to build roads through the mountains to get to them.

 

[Little Rickie]

I hope we don't drop the ball like we did after the oil embargo of the 70's. When the pain went away the motivation dissipated.

 

[David Metsky]

The market is a mess. Oil went from the 70 area code to 147 to now under 40. No way did demand double in six months or even 25% with a 25% shrinkage in supply. Now it's almost a quarter of the July price in winter when heating demand is higher. No way demand this winter is 75% less than last winter or there is 4X the supply.

Oil/Gas is not an elastic market. A small shortage or increase in demand will cause a large increase in price because it takes time to build new refineries, or change the auto fleet, or purchase and install more efficient heating/cooling systems. It's a mistake to think that these prices should rise/fall linearly with demand.

Compare that with, say beef. If the cost of beef goes up, people will switch to chicken. If the cost of all meats goes up, they'll switch to vegetarian meals quickly.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

In wind speed and windmills - I've had the opportunity to hike thru a large wind farm with experts, and learned much from them as to how a large windmill works. In short - large windmills are controlled by sophisticated computer programs which optimize their performance. The pitch of the blades is variable, like a turboprop plane, and they won't "turn on" until the wind speed is at least within a certain range. Keep in mind that they cost $$ to maintain, so unless they can generate electricity above a certain threshold, they won't start. By the same token, if the wind speed exceeds a certain amount, the blades will feather and eventually stop. Of course, mechanical and electronic components sometimes fail, even on the big units.

Whatever your view on windmills, it's an interesting experience to lay on your back in the midst of a windfarm and observe the subtleties of wind currents (windmills pivot to optimize efficiency) and the speed of the blades. It's not unusual to see two windmills, situated what seems to be rather closely, run at different speeds and directions.

 

[Stash]

Down the road

I used to be in the nuclear waste disposal business and have what are frequently unpopular views on energy but there's something to be added from that experience...

When a nuclear, coal or oil plant has reached its life expectancy there's quite a bit involved in cleaning things up at the site and getting things back to normal. I would think (I'm by no means an expert) that this process would be a bit simpler with wind.

Using that process... If 20 years from now they invent some magical clean, pretty, efficient, wonderful power source, changing your mind with wind is easier than changing your mind with some of the alternatives.

Additional note. The blue area on the left with member info for Dave Metsky is bigger than that for everyone else. At least on my PC. Moderator conspiracy?

 

[DougPaul]

Re: pumped storage ponds

They can be risky too--there was also a failure of an artificial storage pond that washed out a park and a house downstream. (There were links to the reports on the America's Roof website, but it is shut down now.)

I finally remembered the name of the failed pond: Taum Sauk. See http://www.rollanet.org/~conorw/cwome/article6&7.htm for a description of the pond and the effects of the failure.

More at: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=taum+sauk+reservoir+disaster&aq=2&oq=taum+sauk

Doug

 

[Dennis C.]

Seeing the Kibby Mountain picture and post by Vermonster, thought I'd send along this article and late October photos of the developing wind power project: Environmental Groups Critical

 

[Grumpy]

Seeing the Kibby Mountain picture and post by Vermonster, thought I'd send along this article and late October photos of the developing wind power project: Environmental Groups Critical

I think photos taken in the midst of development work -- especially of those muddied up access roads -- are misleading. Better to wait until things dry up and heal up a bit to give us a more accurate picture of how things are likely to be in the years ahead as the project runs through its life cycle.

Anti-development people discredit themselves and shoot their own credibility in the foot by dealing in hyperbole. Access roads turned into mud wallows by inclement weather are temporary conditions. Using them to depict long term impacts is an exercise in hyperbole.

G.

 

[Vermonster]

I think photos taken in the midst of development work -- especially of those muddied up access roads -- are misleading. Better to wait until things dry up and heal up a bit to give us a more accurate picture of how things are likely to be in the years ahead as the project runs through its life cycle.

Anti-development people discredit themselves and shoot their own credibility in the foot by dealing in hyperbole. Access roads turned into mud wallows by inclement weather are temporary conditions. Using them to depict long term impacts is an exercise in hyperbole.

G.

I don't believe the picture I posted, and the others that have been circulated with regard to the Kibby project are hyperbole. They clearly document the negative impacts of the construction phase of this project--some of which have long-term implications.

Access roads improperly maintained during temporary weather conditions produce siltation issues that remain problematic for local watersheds for many years--and in some cases decades. This would be true even if the roads were subsequently reforested--which they will not be.

These projects involve large-scale industrial development and permanent deforestation at altitudes where recovery is very slow to occur. Is that an acceptable "cost" for the benefits produced? I think that decision has not been well thought out. At present there is a knee-jerk reaction to build these massive projects without understanding the true long term costs and benefits. What is clear, is that tax offsets are very attractive to the companies involved--as are the tax payments to local municipalities.

I am far from anti-development--but I do seriously question the economics of wind power and the wisdom of siting these projects in high altitude areas far from population centers and existing transmission capacity.

 

[Grumpy]

I don't believe the picture I posted, and the others that have been circulated with regard to the Kibby project are hyperbole. They clearly document the negative impacts of the construction phase of this project--some of which have long-term implications. ...

I did not mean to imply that your photo of the access road was hyperbole. I definitely think it was an authentic depiction of what goes on with these things.

My reference was to the photos linked here: http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNews/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/1858/ItemId/9290/Default.aspx

For many years I covered a beat in the then very active oil and gas fields of Michigan, and can recall seasons when drill site access roads looked like the mud wallows in those pictures, and even worse. But most of the time, they were something considerably less messy.

I agree with your assessment that improperly made access roads can create siltation problems. I also believe that networks of site access roads tend to open up access to what otherwise might be relatively remote and wild country. That, to me, is a major impact (and source of legitimate objection) to this kind of development in otherwise wildly natural areas -- whether it is oil and gas wells or windmills.

I stand by my assertion that in the end hyperbole hinders, rather than advances the cause of those who oppose tis kind of development.

G.