New Wind Farm in Berlin - Under the radar

There has been attempt to build a windfarm in Berlin NH for several years on the southern boundary of the ATV park on Jericho Mountain. Due to the size and location the farm was permitted locally and hasnt gotten the press that other wind farms have. The city of Berlin gave final approval last night to 3 turbines These are MW class and the tips of blades will be about 500 feet above the ground. These turbines will be quite visible from the Northern Presidentials. As far as I am aware there was no organized opposition to the project other than an abutter.

The berlin daily sun has an article with more details today (10/9) but you have to set up a free subscription to view it.

I saw that in the paper today, guess I'd better hustle to hike it before it is off limits. Looks like there is one behind it going in as well? Sounding a bit like what we are dealing with down here in the Bristol area.

Related but not totally on topic; here is a link for those of you on Facebook that gives an interesting look and perspective to the proposed Wild Meadows project.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10202222786360872

Update, the farm is getting bigger, its up to 6 turbines. I think a lot of folks are going to be quite surprised when it spring up. It is going to be the closest wind farm the northern whites by far.

The AT folks also has let this one slip by as it is going to be quite visible from the ridgeline of the AT from Washington to Mt Speck.


the 2/10 Berlin Daily Sun has a article but it requires registration.

I just watched a very thoughtful documentary about some of the political issues surrounding the wind energy issue. It's called "Windfall," and is available on Netflix.

Peakbagger: did you say six turbines, or sixty?

Six Turbines for the Berlin Project. If an when a separate project happens north of Dixville Notch we could be talking about sixty. The major impact of the Berlin project are these turbines are going to be "up close and personal" to the North Whites relative to other wind projects.

Given the current transmission constraints in north country, I don't even know how a developer can get capacity on the grid for 6 turbines

Peakbagger, could you provide more information or links to the project you cite north of dixville? I haven't been able to dig anything up online. I would be interested to know just what is being considered.
Thanks.

Bryan

Since it was withdrawn from the ISO new England queue I haven't seen much on it. It has been referenced when NP rerouted the ROW east towards Millsfield

I don't have the time to dig through it but you might be able to find it on this document

http://www.iso-ne.com/genrtion_resrcs/nwgen_inter/status/interconnection_request_queue_02012014.pdf

This popped up in todays news

http://nhpr.org/post/executive-coun...utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=OCT3014+Browser

I expect the folks at Madison Hut and those in the Northern Presidentials will be wondering about the new additions to the view shed. They are about 10 miles North from Madison Hut.

if you want to see what mountain-top-like removal looks like, check out Jericho Mountain - I hiked it a couple months ago. Not too far away is Cambridge Black - pretty similar destruction/clearcutting/blasting.

Wind turbines are a valid part of our future energy mix, but blasting our ridgelines to look like West Virginia and planting 500' towers that only work in a stiff breeze is only profitable if Congress reinstates the Production Tax Credit that expired on 12/31/2013. Congress may very well try to do that in the lame-duck session that starts this week.

IMO the best thing for the country would be to end all the energy subsidies so they could all compete in a free market and let prices reflect market demand and costs rather than favoring any over another.

When driving down RT 110 this weekend, it was obvious that the top of Jericho mountain is being significantly altered, the construction firm is in place and building roads. For the last ten years it was just a small area of undisturbed woods bordered by the massive Jericho clear cut that turned into the ATV park.

Be glad the Randolph Foundation bought the Mt Crescent range 15 years ago as I expect it would have had a wind farm on it by now and it would have been even more visually disruptive to the Northern Presidentials.

I find this topic to be fascinating. It's a convergence of some major issues (climate change, economic policy, conservation, etc). It seems as though there are people who dislike the idea of these windmills for any number of reasons relating to those issues.

Climate change arguments tend to devolve into epistemological debates so I'll set those aside.

As for economic policy, I agree with Creag that wind energy will be part of the future regardless, but I'm not certain that removal of all subsidies is warranted. I feel as though subsidies should only be used as an incentive to steer people towards prosocial behaviors that wouldn't happen quickly (or at all) otherwise; I don't think it should be a prop to support the industry in perpetuity. Weather the current system is set-up to do that effectively, I am not sure (and would welcome any input to help clarify this). This particular debate also appears to be rooted in ideology instead of objectivity.

As for the conservation piece, I find this most fascinating. It seems to me that there is a 'NIMBY' component, as most argument I read related to windmills are specific to a particular project, not against them in general. Perhaps there are people here with views to these towers in Berlin that also have a strong opinion about the Cape Wind project, but I don't generally see that type of connection made. This isn't to say that local concerns aren't valid of course, but just to say that from my perspective the conservation concerns seems to be local in nature - which makes sense! I have no issue with locals wanted a strong say in how their communities are affected. The only issue I have is that sometimes it seems like a disingenuous argument. When I stand atop a mountain and look out, I might notice the windmills, sure. I'll also notice the roads, and houses, and all the other signs of development that come with a society. If a particular area has special value then it should absolutely be protected, but I feel that should be the basis of the conservation argument.

Google Earth tends to lend a bit of perspective on the north country wind farms. The large timber stand rotation cuts tend to stick out far more than the wind towers themselves.

Northern NH has a major net surplus of power generation which is all renewable (expect for one standby peaking facility), be it wind, hydro and biomass to the point where the grid is unable to handle the power flow to the south and producers get rationed on how much power they can send out. To date the Millsfield wind farm is out of sight and out of mind to a vast amount of the hiking public as RT 2 tends to be the dividing line for most recreational hikers (with the exception of a the mandatory trip to Mt Cabot). The new Jericho farm is still going to be north of Route 2 but is going to be very visible from Madison and Adams so if will be interesting to see the typical hikers reactions.

Germany, a country leading the way in renewable energy, has 22,000 wind generators. Germany is about double the land area of New England--population is roughly 6x. These 22,000 wind generators provide 8% of their electricity. I'm holding out hope that we can find better solutions to our energy demands before 10,000 wind generators appear across our landscape.

marnof said:

Germany, a country leading the way in renewable energy, has 22,000 wind generators. Germany is about double the land area of New England--population is roughly 6x. These 22,000 wind generators provide 8% of their electricity. I'm holding out hope that we can find better solutions to our energy demands before 10,000 wind generators appear across our landscape.

Click to expand...

I assume you have an RSS feed for anything related to climate change.

This wiki gives a bit more detail on those stats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany - The prospect of offshore wind farms seems more promising.

Having just spent a week in the southwest, there is a ton of sun and open land. I personally have more faith in solar than in wind. I also keep feeling like there must be a better way to harness waves/tides, but that is still limited so far as I can tell.

Most estimates I have seen on energy use in the United States suggest that we waste over half of the energy we produce, and I've seen it suggested it's over 60% wasted. IMO, building any new energy facilities of any kind is missing an opportunity to become less wasteful with the energy we already have. Why make more when we leave so much on the table unused?

It's hard to seriously consider the cries of needing more energy when people walk out of a room and leave the lights on.

What we need is a change in our attitude toward conservation IMO. Then there will be no fights over the best new energy facility to use as we discover they are simply not necessary with the abundance of energy we already have.

Raven said:

Most estimates I have seen on energy use in the United States suggest that we waste over half of the energy we produce, and I've seen it suggested it's over 60% wasted. IMO, building any new energy facilities of any kind is missing an opportunity to become less wasteful with the energy we already have. Why make more when we leave so much on the table unused?

It's hard to seriously consider the cries of needing more energy when people walk out of a room and leave the lights on.

What we need is a change in our attitude toward conservation IMO. Then there will be no fights over the best new energy facility to use as we discover they are simply not necessary with the abundance of energy we already have.

Click to expand...

Energy efficiency can be mandated by government fiat or driven by economic necessity or both.

This energy chart does a very good job of showing where our energy comes from and where it goes.

Estimated Energy Use in 2013

IMO the category Rejected Energy should not be equated directly with Wasted Energy. There will always an energy loss when energy is converted from one type to another. While a lot of the rejected heat could be captured, much of it would be very expensive.

For example, at a typical fossil fuel fired power plant, the biggest heat loss is the condensation of the low pressure steam back to water; followed by the heat loss in the flue gas leaving the stack. Years ago, I helped commission a combined cycle power plant that used district heating water to condense of the low pressure steam back to water rather than shedding that heat to a river, an ocean or the atmosphere. IIIRC the plant efficiency over 70% when in the full "district water condensing mode" compared to ~48-50% for a dual pressure gas fired combined cycle plant and ~ 35-42% for a typical fossil fuel fired power plant. That system [combined cycle power plant with district heating] was economically feasible because they built a city of apartment buildings where rice paddies had been.

Improving our gas mileage would go a long way.