Whitefield Wind Turbine

[dentonfabrics]

Interesting conversation and like erugs, I agree and disagree.

I think the arguement that the demand for the product cant be met isnt quite right. It is being met. If it weren't being met then we'd have no place to fill our cars with gas, or when we flipped the switch in the kitchen, the lights wouldn't go on. But that never happens (unless you're a PSNH customer). I think a truer statement is that the demand for energy will never subside and if we want to keep our tanks full and our kitchen lights on, then we have to keep developing new ways of generating power, assuming the status quo is not the best option for the future.

It's very true that wind power is a drop in the bucket, at least for now, at least in New England. But it's not true in other parts of the country. When you visit, say, Palm Springs, why do you see hundreds and hundreds of these turbines lined up and spinning? My guess is because it's delivering cheap(er) energy, but I have no facts to back that up.

erugs said it well. There's a downside (but a necessary side) to consumerism and capitalism. Brian's pictures of the clearcuts was a pretty ugly sight. I dont know what the solution is to deliver reasonably priced, sustainable, clean energy but I think we'll have to make some changes and suffer some trade-offs to get there.


bob

 

[Tim Seaver]

It's very true that wind power is a drop in the bucket, at least for now, at least in New England. But it's not true in other parts of the country.

Or the rest of the world. Germany is the current leader in wind production, with a goal of obtaining 25% of their energy from wind by 2020. I don't think they got the memo that it's a "fad".

Edit : Or at least they were until just recently - the US is now the leader!

 

[brianW]

back in the 90's I remember seeing threads like this but instead on wind turbines it was cell towers. As someone already pointed out off shore is the place to put them but what ever happened to "Cape Wind"? To many nimby folks I guess down on the Cape.

If we as a country really want to lower green house gasses (and be energy independent) I feel we really need to embrace all forms on re-newable energy and nuclear. As it is the US is the world leader in nuclear.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

 

[SAR-EMT40]

If we as a country really want to lower green house gasses (and be energy independent) I feel we really need to embrace all forms on re-newable energy and nuclear. As it is the US is the world leader in nuclear.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

Uh oh. Now you did it. You said the N word. I do now know why with the answer so obvious most seem to avoid it. Nuclear would solve many of these problems and provide the energy that we will need. No question that need will be there. The only question is how you are going to provide it.

 

[brianW]

By building more reactors. Plant Vogtle (GA) has been approved to start building 2 more reactors bringin the total there to 4. Land is already cleared and they are preparing the sites.

Also right across the Savanah River in SC, SRS (Savanah River Site) is starting to prepare mixed oxide (MOX) fuel which is a way of converting weapon grade plutonium into fuel instead of nuclear waste.

Radiation is misunderstood, every time you are outside you are exposed to it. Go up in elevation and you are exposed to even more. A banana will set of a sensitive Geigar counter do to potassium-41, and Gatorade does the same!

 

[Craig]

You guys throwing around the N-word...(3 mile island, Chernobyl oh my)

This is the larger issue as I see it.

Because of global warming and our inability to control the worlds natural resources, we need to stop using oil and coal.

The problem is oil is used to fuel our cars and heat our homes. Additionally, oil, and coal is used to generate our electricity.

With the current and foreseeable technologies, the only feasible alternative to heating our homes and fueling our cars is with electricity. The problem is we will need to generate a lot more electricity to do that.
With our current electrical generation derived mostly from oil and coal we need to create technologies to generate as much electricity as we use now and enough to fuel our cars and heat our homes.

Generating and using that much electricity creates another problem. Distribution.

The spiderwork of power lines that crisscross the US are woefully inadequate to carry the addition electrical power needed. Upgrading that infrastructure creates another dilemma. The location of the new electrical generating plants.

The spiderwork of electrical lines across the US are like a tree. The trunk is at the power plant and the leaves are at our homes. The power lines need to be big at the source and get smaller as they distribute power toward our homes.

If the federal government (aka you and me) are going to spend the bazillions of dollars to upgrade the power line infrastructure, we need to know where the additional power plants are going to be built.

Hey, wake up we're almost there......bare with me.

If we are going to build more nuke plants, then they will need to be located near water as they use massive amounts for cooling. Therefore they will be built on the coast where they can utilize the ocean for their water source. The trunk of the power line trees will originate at those locations.

If we are going to build more wind turbines, they will require a constant source of …...wind. These would be located in the central plains and coastal areas. In this case the trunk of the power line trees will originate at those locations.

If we are going to build more solar power collectors, they require a constant source of …...sun. This would be the south west. In this case the power line would originate there.

If we are going to build fusion reactors, they don't require any geographical specific resource. They can be built anywhere. The problem is this technology is 30 years away.

If we are going to build a combination of the above technologies than the trunk of the power line tree will have to originate from various locations.

The way I see it, we need to spend the kind of money that would make Bill Gates gasp just on upgrading our power distribution infrastructure alone. The problem is, we can not design this infrastructure upgrade until we know what, where and when the new generation will be built.

What does all this have to do with hiking you ask?

The hiking experience you enjoy right now may change if we blindly endorse experimentation with these technologies in the locations that you enjoy.

Well I tried to tie it into hiking...

The preceding is my take on the larger issue of switching from fossil fuels to other technologies. Take it for what it is, just another joe smoe's opinion that may have no basis in reality.

 

[jniehof]

You guys throwing around the N-word...(3 mile island, Chernobyl oh my)

Hey, 3 mile island is a success story of sorts. Safeguards worked, total radiation release was equivalent to (IIRC) a day's radiation release from a coal plant.

If we are going to build fusion reactors, they don't require any geographical specific resource. They can be built anywhere. The problem is this technology is 30 years away.

I think any commercial-scale fusion would require significant water for running turbines and for cooling. It's pretty similar to fission (or really any other plant) except for the heat source. Fusion is 30 years away now....it was 10 years away in the 50s and 60s, 20 years away in the 70s and 80s, and 30 years away in the 90s and 00s. (By extrapolation, I've calculated that the first commercial fusion plant went on-line during the Roman Empire and vanished in a puff of logic in 1928.)

If we are going to build a combination of the above technologies than the trunk of the power line tree will have to originate from various locations.

That's a kicker, although I think a partial solution is local cogeneration to reduce the fraction of power from the grid: solar panels on rooftops, backyard windmills, algae vats to produce fuel for the car. Pebble Bed Reactors are very promising on a larger scale. There's already some slow movement in this direction by early-adopter individuals; the question is whether it can go mainstream (especially since power companies aren't necessarily interested in taking themselves out of the loop!)

 

[brianW]

If we are going to build more nuke plants, then they will need to be located near water as they use massive amounts for cooling. Therefore they will be built on the coast where they can utilize the ocean for their water source. The trunk of the power line trees will originate at those locations.

Nuclear power plants do the same thing as a fossil fuel plant, make steam to turn turbines. They both require some source of water for cooling.

 

[Craig]

Hey, 3 mile island is a success story of sorts. Safeguards worked, total radiation release was equivalent to (IIRC) a day's radiation release from a coal plant.

I’m with ya. I think we should have kept building those bad boys, but we didn’t.

I think we have some huge fiscal mountains to circumnavigate in the not to distant future regarding our renewable energy shift. (trying to keep it hiking related)

I guess my point for discussing all this is, if we don’t know what’s happening regarding the migration to renewables we may find our playgrounds gobbled up by those looking to make a buck.

You know, it’s a wind turbine on Whitefield today, a natural gas well and pipeline in the pemi tomorrow and before you know it, BAM you’re housing 1,000,000 people in Gorham to Windex the zillions of solar panels spread across the WMNF.

The good news (for me) is that I’ll be dead before this happens and the bill arrives.
The bad news (for you young’ns) is the baby boomers are about to hand off a pretty big football to ya. Good Luck…Make us proud.

 

[Little Rickie]

If we as a country really want to lower green house gasses (and be energy independent) I feel we really need to embrace all forms on re-newable energy http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

Yes we should and we must also keep our minds open to all opportunities. Nothing is perfect but it's better than losing lives fighting over oil. As time goes on we will find better and more acceptable alternatives.

America should and can be energy independent if we put our minds to it!

 

[peakbagger]

A correction to the statement that nuclear power (or any other fossil fueled) plants "need" lots of water to operate. They dont "need" to but its lower cost to build and more efficient to do so. When determining the economics for huge projects like a power plant, a 1% decrease in efficiency is a big hit and air cooling will make more than a 1% decrease in plant output in warm weather and a much larger upfront capital cost to build.

This debate is occuring in California these days with regards to the mega solar thermal power plants that are proposed. The efficiency of these plants are marginal to begin with and if at all possible the developers would like to use water cooling, but there isnt a lot of water where the proposed plants are.

 

[TEO]

I do now know why with the answer so obvious most seem to avoid it. Nuclear would solve many of these problems and provide the energy that we will need.

This notion that nuclear is the solution is short-sighted and ignores the current problems with nuclear power that we have, including but not limited to: no long-term storage facility, severely underfunded decommissioning funds, power plant owners who don't adequately maintain older plants, and countless sources of national security threats, including transportation of spent fuel. It's extremely expensive. And, let's not forget that uranium mining is as environmentally destructive as coal mining.

Yes, nuclear power is incredibly efficient, but it is fraught with severe problems that most people don't take into consideration. And, having been inside a nuclear reactor, peered into its open core, and seen the Cherenkov radiation emanating from the partially spent fuel rods, I can assure you that it is extraordinarily cool. But, until the major problems are solved it is pretty foolish to build new plants.

May nuclear power one day be a part of our solution to providing 'clean' energy? Perhaps, but it is not THE answer and it is most definitely not an obvious and easy answer.

 

[NewHampshire]

It appears a fight is now brewing:

http://www.wmur.com/money/22066426/detail.html

Brian

 

[forestgnome]

I will leave it up to him to continue with his effort at trying to keep his "backyard" pristene rather than turning this into a discussion of regional and global energy policy as this is not the intent of VFTT, but will point out that the Whitefield Turbine is immediately adjacent to a major resort complex complete with an 18 hole golf course. To infer that this project is in a "wild and remote" area is just not valid.

I refer to this as high-elevation forest. Excuse me for wanting to preserve high-elevation forest from industrialization.

It's proximity to a resort does not devalue it's importance. Now the next ridge over is adjacent to a wind factory. Is that now of no value to you as well? Where does it end?

If a windmill on a mountain is as productive as 20 in the city, where the power is needed, why not install 20 in the city instead? Windfactories require hundreds of towers to do anything. Do you want hundreds of mountains to be industrialized? Why not put hundreds of towers where there are thousands of other buildings?

I saw a windmill next to I95 in Warwick, RI a few days ago...right where it belongs. I don't think it's ugly there; it was cool.

 

[forestgnome]

Or the rest of the world. Germany is the current leader in wind production, with a goal of obtaining 25% of their energy from wind by 2020. I don't think they got the memo that it's a "fad".

Edit : Or at least they were until just recently - the US is now the leader!

Hmmm...how many wind factories do they have? Are they industrializing their forested mountain tops and ridges, or are they putting them up in cities? Do all Germans marvel and applaud the sight of a windfactory on a previously forested mountain, or are there Germans who are sad like me to see the destruction of high-elevation forest?

 

[Waumbek]

I have not been up to the MVG recently, but their website suggests that they are trying to make this windmill one of their attractions rather than detractions, while, at the same time, strategically locating it behind the main hotel building. I don't think you'll see it in the viewscape south to the Franconias or east to the Presidentials from the veranda as you sip drinks in the summer. (Location may have more to do with wind strength than view impact, of course, I can't say.) Interesting tension. I think I am beginning to be swayed by FG's position: why put up just one windmill here?
http://www.mountainviewgrand.com/Photos.asp

 

[peakbagger]

This is a tough thread to follow as there are three variations being discussed. One part of the thread is the original thread regarding the Whitefield Wind Turbine at the Moutain View Grand hotel adajcent to the hotel and golf course. There is a second project that got sucked into the thread which is the Millsfield Wind Farm which is a large scale widn farm in a remote area of industrial forest land north of Stark NH. This project is the one that just got appealed. The third variation is a general commentary on the apropriateness of wind farms on forested ridgelines versus near the demand for power.

 

[smitty77]

If a windmill on a mountain is as productive as 20 in the city, where the power is needed, why not install 20 in the city instead? Windfactories require hundreds of towers to do anything. Do you want hundreds of mountains to be industrialized? Why not put hundreds of towers where there are thousands of other buildings?

Question 1: Cost. Like it or not, land is cheaper in the hills, and you only need 1/20th of it there.

Apparently, "windfactories" do not require hundreds of towers. And it looks like wind energy is here to stay. Princeton Municipal Light Department just replaced 4 aging and dilapidated wind structures on the shoulder of Wachusett Mountain with two new beasts that, they claim will provide 40% of the energy demand for the town of Princeton. Granted, the town population is around 3,300 (2000 census) but that's still more than 1,000 homes being powered on two turbines. If it were not economically feasible I imagine the old towers would have been removed and the site reclaimed.

THIS LINK has more info on the project. Note the photos of the old "wind farm" circa 1984. We don't make power "the old fashioned way" anymore. The new turbines are a LOT more efficient.

Question 2: No, and there are better places to put these towers but I do agree that the one at the MVG is the lesser of other potential evils as the site was already cluttered with a resort, golf course, and a water tower.

Question 3: Engineers and utility companies need to do some thinking before building. It can be done! There is one giant wind turbine off of Plantation Street in Worcester, MA in the middle of a city neighborhood. Options like these need to be looked at with a lot more scrutiny.

The solution to our energy problems start at home. I did the math and I burn about 1 gallon of oil per day just to heat household hot water through the furnace, about 30% of my yearly oil usage. If I were to switch to solar hot water panels I could supply 90% of my water needs (maybe even 100%), but I can't afford to install them right now. Instead of giving everyone $4500 to buy a new car and go deeper into debt, the US Gov't should have given every home owner $4500 to install some form of solar energy generation equipment (either PV or solar hot-water) to reduce our reliance on oil and natural gas, but that's just my opinion.

 

[DougPaul]

Instead of giving everyone $4500 to buy a new car and go deeper into debt, the US Gov't should have given every home owner $4500 to install some form of solar energy generation equipment (either PV or solar hot-water) to reduce our reliance on oil and natural gas, but that's just my opinion.

The US government is offering a tax credit in 2009 and 2010 of up to $1500 for the installation certain kinds of insulation. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index#c2

And the gas company in MA is also offering a rebate of up to $2000 for similar weatherization work. https://www.powerofaction.com/mrgweatherization/

Doug
Who just got a fantastic deal...

 

[smitty77]

Thanks for those links Doug.

And there was, and maybe there still is, a sizable tax credit of almost 30% (20% fed, 10% state of MA) for qualifying solar installations. However, the installed cost of a solar hot-water system for my home is around $4500 to serve a family of 4. That's still $3,000 out of my pocket which will take me at least 5 years to recover the cost.