Wind turbines in GMNF

[RoySwkr]

I have received a scoping letter about a proposed wind turbine project in the GMNF adjoining the private turbines in Searsburg. I couldn't find it at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/gmfl/nepa_planning/index.htm but it may appear there or you can request a copy.

In essence, they propose maybe another dozen turbines each on the ridge S of the present project (containing a VT100 peak) http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4746030&e=665906&s=50&size=l&u=5&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25
and on the ridge W of the present project (containing a NE500 peak) http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4748550.00010258 &e=664606.0000224&u=5&datum=nad83
They also propose a electric substation and maintenance building on FS land although adjacent private land may be considered. The proponents say these turbines will improve overall forest health by reducing acid rain from fossil fuel plants.

The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Assessment for this project and is interested in issues they should consider.

Apolitical peakbaggers may wish to bag these peaks in the next couple years before any turbines are built and access possibly restricted.

 

[jfb]

Here it is: windmills

 

[Mr. X]

GO, how do you feel about this?

 

[forestgnome]

. The proponents say these turbines will improve overall forest health by reducing acid rain from fossil fuel plants..

Utterly absurd, but it feels good to care, even if there's more harm than good Don't those things make noise pollution and kill lots of birds? Doesn't acid rain in the northeast come from the midwest?

Glad this type of nonsense doesn't fly in New Hampshire.

 

[dms]

These wind turbines make the cell towers look good by comparison. I had the pleasure of hiking this ridge before they were built while doing the 3k peak. To see the picture of the road and the turbines right on the top of the ridge is shocking, they are so damn big and ugly!

 

[Puma concolor]

Forestnome -

These are new age wind turbines that cause neither noise pollution nor death to birds. They are gigantic and have three fairly slow moving blades [click on jfb's link]. They generate exponentially more power than the old-style 70s era buzz-saws.

Legit arguments against include the eyesore issue and recent discoveries that they kill bats. Don't know the specifics of what causes this phenomenon but it is occurring. Like Roy said, the Searsburg-area wind farm is highly visible when you drive through Vermont on Route 9. There are several wind farms proposed for NY including the most recent proposal for the Gore Mountain area.

You are 100-percent right about our acid rain coming from the midwest. Maybe turbine proponents have the interests of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick on their minds.

 

[forestgnome]

Mark S,

D'OH!!! I feel dumb, I didn't read that link before sqwawking.

I'm glad to hear they are quiet and that they don't kill birds like the old ones in California.

Still, I find it very hard to believe that the energy they produce will result in a lessening of production at fuel-burning plants. I cannot imagine the benefit to be worth the environmental impact. A small group of people will get it built, but everyone suffers a loss of yet another beautiful place, all because someone theorizes a reduction in acid rain.

 

[DougPaul]

These are new age wind turbines that cause neither noise pollution nor death to birds. They are gigantic and have three fairly slow moving blades [click on jfb's link].

According to my calculations, 133 ft radius blades turning at 20 rpm gives a tip speed of 95mph. Those blades are certainly moving fast enough to kill.

Oops correction: should be 190mph. Still fast enough to kill.

You are 100-percent right about our acid rain coming from the midwest. Maybe turbine proponents have the interests of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick on their minds.

Perhaps it is the cynic in me speaking, but this is a business seeking permission to install something that will not be welcomed by all. They have incentive to say anything that will increase the chance of acceptance.

Doug

 

[Puma concolor]

I'm reasonably impartial in this, but I did find one link where there seems to be a problem with large birds of prey being killed in California. The turbines at this facility, however, are mostly vintage 1980s. Newer turbines seem to be pretty bird friendly so far. Bats are a different story:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39941-2004Dec31.html

http://biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/bdes/altamont/altamont.html

Enjoy your breakfast!

 

[tonycc]

There is no such thing as "green" energy. While turbines (wind or water) don't contribute to atmospheric pollution, they have their own negative impacts on the local environments. In the hyperbole around these discussions, facts can and do get exagerated in order to support ones personal opinion/objective.

The most frustrating part of this entire discussion for me is the almost total lack of conservation as part of our energy strategy.

Tony

 

[Waumbek]

I have not read the scoping docs, but on VPR this morning I heard that this project will require 80 acres, 4 (or 5) miles of new roads, and a "sub station" of some sort. As of the moment, I remain impartial about this too partly because I am not informed about it. Does anyone know which "alternative" USFS is currently recommending (since that's often the final outcome in the projects I've followed) and what the other alternatives are other than the "leave-it-alone" option? Or has it not yet reached that stage yet?

Edit: OK, did the homework now, here's the scoping doc if anyone cares to read. VPR report was substantially correct. Towers will be 230 ft. high with a nacelle (sp?) higher on some. Comments are being sought until August 16, 2005. Contact info in the link.

 

[Deematic]

Alternate energy sources, thats a Good Thing!!!

Global warming is changing our climates, Acid rain is killing our forests, and high fuel cost are hurting local, state, and fed economies. Lets get a grip. We as a nation and world community need to start doing something and this is a step.
Do they look pleasing to the eye? NO Will it help, YES

 

[DougPaul]

Do they look pleasing to the eye? NO Will it help, YES

Hopefully they will help. As Waumbek notes, there will be local impacts.

But there are also power system impacts. Wind comes and goes and the power it generates also comes and goes independently of the power demands. Traditional power generation consists of baseline sources (efficient, cannot handle rapid changes) and peaking sources (less efficient, can handle rapid changes). The operators try to use as large a percentage of baseline generation as possible to reduce costs (and enviromental impact). The power generated by wind is not under the control of the power system operators and may force a larger percentage of peaking sources, thus reducing the efficiency of the traditional part of the system and perhaps the system as a whole.

Just suggesting that there is a lot more to assessing the total economic and environmental impact of an alternative energy source than might be immediately apparent.

Doug

 

[jfb]

The power generated by wind is not under the control of the power system operators and may force a larger percentage of peaking sources, thus reducing the efficiency of the traditional part of the system and perhaps the system as a whole.

While the power companies cannot control the wind, they can control whether the windmill's generator is connected to the grid. Because the wind is unreliable, there still needs to be backup peaking units (usually diesel or gas turbine generators) but when the wind is blowing the fuel cost for the power produced is zero. It would not be economical to install windmills in valleys, but enough research has been performed to convince the companies that building them on ridgelines would generate a profit.

 

[DougPaul]

While the power companies cannot control the wind, they can control whether the windmill's generator is connected to the grid. Because the wind is unreliable, there still needs to be backup peaking units (usually diesel or gas turbine generators) but when the wind is blowing the fuel cost for the power produced is zero.

But the peaking units have to be online and spinning while the wind units are operating to be able to fill in any gaps. (And yes, I understand the statistics of large numbers of wind generators.) Thus the net effect is that the wind fuel is not entirely free because of the cost of the fuel consumed by the peaking units.

It would not be economical to install windmills in valleys, but enough research has been performed to convince the companies that building them on ridgelines would generate a profit.

I willing to believe that the companies building the windmills are likely to make a profit. IIRC, federal law requires the power companies to accept power from such outfits. A vital question is, do the alternative energy suppliers cause inefficiencies and increase costs elsewhere in the power generation and distribution system?

I haven't seen the analyses myself, but hopefully the overall system benefits are real: ie the windmills are a net contributer on a level (ie no tax incentives etc) system-with and system-without comparison.

And of course there are the harder-to-quantify societial beneifits/costs of changes in the land use, visual pollution, and chemical pollution. (And, of course, the societail benefits/costs can be pushed back into the power generation system by selective taxes or incentives.)

Not a priori for and against. Just trying to suggest that a meaningful analysis covers far more than just obvious and/or local impact.

Doug

 

[Brownie]

Wind Turbines

Wind turbines are probably not going to cure our nation’s energy habits, but in my strong opinion, worth the effort by example to invest in an alternate resource.

The wind is not "free”, but the environmental impact is quite minimal by comparison to our current resources: oil production, nuclear power, coal burning and hydro dams.

As far as I can tell from all the "hoopla", people are just stubborn to accept these designs based on appearance alone.
I live on Cape Cod, site of one of the nation’s largest wind farm proposals, and this project has gone through the most intense litigation and environmental impact studies of any such proposal in history.
See: http://www.capewind.org/index.php

To date, all studies have shown that this Cape site will actually benefit the local fish habitats and that little environmental impact will be experienced.
Compare that to just one local small oil spill that still bears its marks on beaches after ten years ago and "complete clean-up" efforts.

I am a minority voice in my local community in favor of the Cape’s wind farm and will therefore more than likely support any effort for a wind farm elsewhere.

If nothing else, consider this:
Years from now, if these systems don’t work out, what exactly is the price of restoration? Dismantle the structures? Replant the trees?
Our forests in New England have already been stripped to the ground once and all we are looking at is second growth forests anyway.
Nature will surely survive this experiment and we need the alternative energy supply.

Get used to the idea for an altered landscape, because that’s all we really stand to loose.

Oh, I am sure to hear from the spotted owl conservationists on this one…..
Just please remember, I also live in Piping Plover land and patrol my local beaches to insure their safety as well. Keep your dogs on the leash on my beat!

Please support wind power.

Jeff

 

[dms]

Get used to the idea for an altered landscape, because that’s all we really stand to loose

Jeff

I think that in some instances an altered landscape, such as a ridgetop, is not worth the benefits to be gained.

 

[tonycc]

Get used to the idea for an altered landscape, because that’s all we really stand to loose.

Unfortunately, the landscape that will be altered is the one that those of us on this forum treasure, the mountain peaks. Very little land surface provides useful wind energy due to turbulance from the terrain. This can be overcome by very tall towers, or placing the towers on the tallest terrain. Some of this turbulence can be taken advantage of by placing the windmills in the passes where wind can be concentrated. The problem, as demonstrated in California, is that mountain passes also tend to be migration routes.

Here is a map of wind energy distribution for the northeast. All of the NH 48 and associated ridges would be a great place for windmills.

Offshore really is the location for this experiment. Much more area to be used, out of site of most people, proximity to the users of the power and generally away from migratory routes.

Tony

 

[keepin' on]

windpower on Wa-Wa-Wachusett

Wind turbines have been installed for years at Wachusett Mountain. I frequently hike a trail not more than 20 feet from the windmills and I have never been bothered by them. I'd rather look at a few turbines any day over a nuclear reactor.

this gives the negatives of turbines at wachusett (those of you against turbines in GMNF: enjoy the firepower. I can't find anyone supporting "free" power......

There are only three (I think) on Wachusett, but plans for more.

They had thought of putting some up in my town (about a half mile from my house). I thought it to be a good idea. We have our own power company in town and currently purchase power from Mass Electric (translation: we get dragged not just over the coals, but through the flames). Anyway, just one turbine (operating at design specs, as commented on before theis is unlikely) would provide the town with HALF of it's daily power consumption (read this in a local newspaper. would post the article, but can't find it online).

 

[Tom Rankin]

According to my calculations, 133 ft radius blades turning at 20 rpm gives a tip speed of 95mph. Those blades are certainly moving fast enough to kill.

It's actually 2x that, 190 mph. But that is the tip. The closer to the inside, the slower it's going.

(133*2*Pi) * (20/60) = 278 fps = 190 mph