Windmills getting closer to the Whites - second and third Plymouth-area wind farms

[Snowflea]

I categorize myself as being pro-windpower and think they look kind of cool. However, for me, it's a matter of where they're erected.

To say, I have no problem with the huge wind developments in California, Texas, the Midwest - places where it's REALLY windy - but I do HATE to see them on our New England ridgelines. Vermont's Lowell Mountain and Hardscrabble Ridge (Sutton) come to mind. Neither were/are in my "backyard" so don't go accusing me of being a NIMBY.

 

[rocket21]

I disagree with the premise above, grouping summit wind farms with photovoltaic farms.

Photovoltaic farms can be installed with minimal long term damage or view impacts. Friends of mine, who have also installed wind, recently installed a photovoltaic farm with essentially no visual impact, and with a fraction of the concrete needed for a wind farm.

 

[peakbagger]

Wind in some areas does complement PV. The texas wind farms tend to have their best wind at night so they could complement solar. Coastal and offshore wind turbines tend to be pretty predictable due to daily on shore winds. A lot of off gird folks have wind turbines as they tend to get more wind in the winter on stormy days when PV production is minimal. Offshore wind turbines potnetially have a much higher availability than wind and the proposed Maine offshore wind farm is out of site of land so the visual impacts are a lot lower.

I tend to agree that PV arrays can be lower profile than wind turbines as they dont need to stick up in the air very far. Just take a look on google earth of any developed area and you will see a lot of bare flat rooftops that could easily add arrays. The Solyndra cylindrical PV arrays despite getting a lot of bashing in the press for subsidies were set up for rooftop mounting and were one of the preferred types used on large industrial installations.

I am not sure of the energy return ratio on wind turbines but my latest batch of PV panels claimed that the energy they produced would offset the energy required to produce them in about a year. I expect a whole lot of indirest energy use may not have been accounted for but its still an interesting claim.

 

[Driver8]

I tend to agree that PV arrays can be lower profile than wind turbines as they dont need to stick up in the air very far. Just take a look on google earth of any developed area and you will see a lot of bare flat rooftops that could easily add arrays. The Solyndra cylindrical PV arrays despite getting a lot of bashing in the press for subsidies were set up for rooftop mounting and were one of the preferred types used on large industrial installations.

I am not sure of the energy return ratio on wind turbines but my latest batch of PV panels claimed that the energy they produced would offset the energy required to produce them in about a year. I expect a whole lot of indirest energy use may not have been accounted for but its still an interesting claim.

As if on cue, this nice piece about streamlining the installation process and incenting rooftop PV installation in today's NY Times by RFK, Jr. and David Crane of NRG: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/opinion/solar-panels-for-every-home.html?hp&_r=0.

 

[peakbagger]

I will point out that the reason that PV is currently about a 4 year payback in NH, is that that NH spends up to $2,500 per installation from the Regional Greenhouse Gas fund and also legislates that PSNH (or other providers), have to buy the power I generate at the same rate they sell it to me. This is great deal for me and I thank my neighbors for subsidizing me but the reality is its not a sustainable model. Oh by the way the Fed kicks in 30% tax credit which is a further subsidy. I do pay PSNH $11 per month to be my "seasonal battery" as I build up a surplus in Summer and use it in the winter.

I have heard that Mass has rolled out very generous PV subsidies and Feed In Tariffs so if someone is interested in PV, it may be the time to act. A good resource to see what you qualify for is to go the this website whic lists incentives per state. http://www.dsireusa.org/ Most of the renewable installers make their living off the various states programs so they know the ins and outs. There are plenty of leasing companies out there selling at a loss but be careful as most will be out of business in 4 or 5 years. If anyone is serious about PV, feel free to PM me.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Very learned discussion here. I would like to point out that the wind farm proposed for Mowglis Mtn on Maxam land is but two miles from Mt Cardigan, would be highly visible across the Davis Brook valley especially from Firescrew (Manning Trail), and would mean the permanent closing of the Elwell Trail at least from the Back 80 junction to the top of Old Dicey Road. Also the loss of Oregon Mtn Trail and Carter Gibbs Trail as recently relocated to avoid the Maxam explosives depot. Mowglis Mtn is wooded and not alpine, but the visual impact on the extensive alpine zone of the Cardigan range would be considerable. I speak as the person who runs the trailwork program on that range.
FWIW, I think windmills belong on the Great Plains and other places with stronger and steadier winds than we have here in mountain New England, where the people are fewer and more willing to lease tower sites among their wheatfields and oil wells. How eager would the companies be to put them on our ridges without the taxpayer subsidies and mandates? Good ideas, unintended consequences...
Another source of information is www.nhwindwatch.org

 

[RoySwkr]

By the way, if built, these ridges (not on any prestigious lists or near any AMC huts, so I guess few care) will be off limits to the public.

While the Searsburg turbines in VT needed this restriction to ameliorate wildlife habitat to get approved, I'm told that in NH only the actual turbine sites and roads will be restricted - in fact there may be trail corridors elsewhere which don't presently exist

 

[Dave Bear]

Great link and information Creag! December 31 is an important date to the people trying to push these through due to loss of many subsidies after that. Time to call your politicians if you want to have a voice!

 

[peakbagger]

THis article may be of interest on how important the wind production tax credit is to the wind turbine industry


http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/5238.html?hq_e=el&hq_m=2581531&hq_l=6&hq_v=e5802fd5a2

 

[elvios lincoln]

I too can live with wind mills and even power lines. Energy is dirty business no matter how you look at it. Too me, this is the lesser of possible evils. The whites are not wilderness. They are the northern border to the densely populated Boston area. I have hiked the NE 4ks and the AT from Kilington to Katahdin. Power lines and wind mills will not keep me from enjoying this area. I wish the AMC would stop lobbying on this issue, with my dues money.

 

[Creag Nan Drochaid]

Why should we put up with lesser evils when we can all have better choices?

New Hampshire is already a net exporter of electricity to southern New England. These windmills and Northern Pass only increase that flow. Hydro Quebec is building ever more dams, flooding ever more land near James Bay, to export more power through New Hampshire to southern New England. The several windfarms would exist to supply that same market. All these facilities are very expensive to build and maintain. The only reason they are contemplated is because of the taxpayer/ratepayer subsidies that are in effect at present, as detailed in the links earlier in this thread.

The one factor that is oh so conveniently ignored in all these financial calculations is the value placed on wild and scenic landscapes by those who live there and by those who visit them for the spiritual sustenance that is best found in places of natural beauty and peace and quiet. It is true that the hills of New Hampshire are not wilderness primeval, most all have been harvested of timber at least once. It is also true that within the White Mountain National Forest there are federally designated wilderness areas, as E. L. most likely knows.

Howsomever, the wildness of our land is not so conveniently designated by legal boundaries and lot lines. There are many more places outside the Whites where wildness is experienced, especially in the hilly southwest quadrant of New Hampshire, of which the outstanding peak is Mt Cardigan, where I have the honor to be a caretaker of its trails and alpine zone since 1985. Yesterday a small party of us hiked the Mowglis Trail from Orange cove to the top of Firerscrew. We took photographs of the land whereon is proposed the 25-mill wind farm from a clearcut just N of Orange Cove, from Hanging Rock, from a prominent ledge uphill of Crag Camp, and from the Manning Trail as it heads east from Firescrew. I hope to add images to scale of windmills before I upload to interested parties. Then we may see the visual impact to wild land. That of course cannot show the entire impact on this extensive forest, prime habitat for bear and moose as I have observed many times.

New Hampshire does not need whatever power comes from these windmills, many of us value the land for the forest it is, and if Massachusetts wants more wind power let them build these mills in their backyard. I foresee considerable political resistance to these several wind farms...

 

[RoySwkr]

Why should we put up with lesser evils when we can all have better choices?
...
I foresee considerable political resistance to these several wind farms...

One issue not yet mentioned is home rule and property taxes. A rural community (hick town?) with lots of woods and high taxes may welcome a wind farm, much as the city of Franklin supports Northern Pass because the converter station would be a dramatic increase in the tax base. The neighboring town with lakefront property may see a decrease in their tax base but has no direct say.

 

[peakbagger]

Coos County made it real easy for Granite Wind, the yearly Impact Fee goes right into county coffers.

 

[Raven]

New England is expected to experience zero growth in electrical demand over the next decade due to increases in efficiency and has already placed 10 scheduled major transmission upgrades on hold (est savings of $260 million).

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/statenewengland/986817-469/report-energy-efficiency-has-cut-need-for.html

Before we run big towers, bury new lines, build more nuclear plants, or build new wind mills, maybe we need to ask if they are necessary. I'm not sure it's a valid assumption that they are. NH doesn't need it now as many have stated. It may be that all of NE does not.

I'm not a huge fan of windmills on ridgelines. I do prefer them to many other forms of generating energy however such as mountain top removal for coal. But with no real power demand increase, if new windfarms go in, I want to see coal plants decommissioned, effectively trading up for more sustainable power.

 

[Jazzbo]

I think it's important to consider the mountaintop impact of the turbines. They're expected to last 2 decades.

The massive concrete footings on the mountaintops will be there forever (whereas a high tension line can be removed and the corridor reclaimed). Good luck getting trees to grow over a 6 to 30 feet deep, 30 to 50 feet wide X 30 to 50 feet long concrete footing.

By the way, if built, these ridges (not on any prestigious lists or near any AMC huts, so I guess few care) will be off limits to the public.

Front row seats from Mt. Crosby in Crosby Mountain State Park

Upper deck seats from Stinson Mountain in the WMNF (only 1 of 3 ridges of turbines pictured)

Rocket21 has good point about impact on ridgeline. The much larger impact is the blasting out of the ridgetop to enable installation and maintenance of the machines. Notice the cliffs and roadways carved into the ridgeline. Roadways are needed enable the cranes for installing towers and blades and for maintenance if the turbine nacelles need to be removed for service. I checked out Iberdrola's website on Groton farm and came across Appendix 2 500 page Terrain Alteration Permit. This is huge impact for the relatively small amount of power generated. The little wood chip Bridgewater Power Plant off Rt 93 produces 15 MW and runs virtually 24-7 with far less impact on the environment.

I didn't see any information on the precise ridges the builders have in mind. If it is Oregon Mt area then I am absolutely against it. That is way too close to Mt Cardigan. But neither am I in favor of installing wind farms willy nilly like they seem to be doing here. They have way too much impact on the terrain and view scape.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I am curious how the spacing between towers is determined. It would seem that they could put more of them closer together to get more power from the existing ruined ridgelines rather than ruin more. The only thing I can come up with is that they are put far enough apart that if one falls over, it can't hit the next one. Otherwise it would seem they could put them just far enough that the blade tips don't touch.

Tim

 

[RoySwkr]

New England is expected to experience zero growth in electrical demand over the next decade due to increases in efficiency and has already placed 10 scheduled major transmission upgrades on hold (est savings of $260 million).

Ah, but various regulations mean that a higher percentage of energy must be _renewable_ - and to the extent that renewable energy is produced in different locations than fossil-fired energy there may be new powerlines necessary (think Northern Pass). So requirements for renewable energy could mean more not less environmental impact.

PSNH cleverly got the state to insist on new scrubbers for the coal plant in Bow, so instead of retiring it we'll be paying for it for years to come either as energy or stranded costs.

 

[peakbagger]

Wind turbine siting is governed by physical rules that can be simulated to optimize the placement, the optimum distance between the turbine varies with wind direction and local terrain makes a difference. Unfortunately where to site a plant in a region is driven by other far less solid considerations.

The "best" wind is in far northern NH and NW maine in this region, thus the Kibby project in Maine and the Millsfield project in NH. Unfortunately both have maxed out the local transmission infrastructure so without expensive upgrades to the transmission system (estimated at $450 million in NH), the remote areas with the best wind arent going to see any new wind development. This effectively draws a practical northerly boundary line in NH somewhere around Woodstock where the transmission line crosses the WMNF. The next siting issue is to site the farm in a rural town or unorganized township, in those areas despite 2nd home development, the residents are the only ones who vote and many towns will gladly "sell their souls" for the local revenue from a wind farm. Despite the neighboring towns objections, there is little they can do as the state SEC process is very cost intensive to be an effective intervenor (basically someone needs to hire a full time lawyer with specialized knowledge of power development to follow the case). AMC might have the resources but they have to offset the cost versus the "green" benefits of wind.

Do note that the "best wind" in Northern NH pales in comparison to offshore wind. England is currently shifting Wind Turbine farms offshore where they tend to be out of site and mind of the populace.

It is speculated the Northern Pass may do an end run around the state prohibition of the use of eminent domain for the project by adding a "NH benefit" to the project which will then give them access to eminent domain. By adding a substation to allow connection of new wind resources from Northern NH, there could be some very large wind farms installed in the far north where the wind resources are better. I have seen an estimate of a potential of 350 additional MW's north of RT 26. Of course they still would need a new specal use permit for the crossing of the WMNF.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

To be clear, I was thinking more about increasing the density of towers/turbines on a single site, rather than the proximity of two sites. I.e., looking at Jeremy's photo above, why not put another tower between the existing ones? In the photo captions Front row seats from Mt. Crosby in Crosby Mountain State Park it appears to me that one could have 5 towers in the space where there are 3. I wonder what the governing factors are for density on a single site. Or, what are the variables used in the simulation?

Tim

 

[DougPaul]

I am curious how the spacing between towers is determined. It would seem that they could put more of them closer together to get more power from the existing ruined ridgelines rather than ruin more. The only thing I can come up with is that they are put far enough apart that if one falls over, it can't hit the next one. Otherwise it would seem they could put them just far enough that the blade tips don't touch.

The turbines interfere with each other aerodynamically. Thus the technical optimum spacing (maximum power output per land area) is determined by putting turbines close enough together to maximize the number of turbines, but not so close that they reduce the efficiency too much. (Total power would be proportional to number_of_turbines * efficiency.)

Cost is also likely be a factor--one could also choose fewer than the above optimum to reduce costs, particularly if the optimum is fairly broad.

From a business standpoint, the goal might be to maximize the profit/cost ratio which would take all of the above into account.

Doug