PDA

View Full Version : vote on wind factory on Presidentials



forestgnome
10-07-2005, 05:38 PM
Please be HONEST!!!

Please vote honestly in this poll. Consider a hypothetical referendum which will be binding; the results will determine if the following project will proceed:

A wind power corporation proposes a series of wind factories along some mountain summits and ridges. If supported by a majority of voters, wind towers will be constructed along the North and South Presidential Ridges, Franconia Ridge, Bondcliff Ridge, and Mt. Moosilaukee in NH, and on Mt. Katahdin and The Knife Edge in ME. Supporting structures will be built in King Ravine, Tuckerman Ravine, Franconia Notch, Jobildunk Ravine in NH, and near Chimney Pond in ME.

(Pretend the logistics, etc., work)

What say you?

arghman
10-07-2005, 05:51 PM
that's an easy vote for me. you're talking a high-profile scenic area which gets large numbers of recreational users each year, not to mention that there are many (regionally) rare plants found in most if not all of those areas.

what's not so easy a vote (for me) is in areas on private land, on summits & nearby areas with lower ecological/recreational/scenic priority. depends on what the benefits/costs are there.

Darwin
10-07-2005, 05:57 PM
That's bad :eek: ! I hope it doesn't happen!

frytz
10-07-2005, 06:16 PM
Please be HONEST!!!

Please vote honestly in this poll. Consider a hypothetical referendum which will be binding; the results will determine if the following project will proceed:

A wind power corporation proposes a series of wind factories along some mountain summits and ridges. If supported by a majority of voters, wind towers will be constructed along the North and South Presidential Ridges, Franconia Ridge, Bondcliff Ridge, and Mt. Moosilaukee in NH, and on Mt. Katahdin and The Knife Edge in ME. Supporting structures will be built in King Ravine, Tuckerman Ravine, Franconia Notch, Jobildunk Ravine in NH, and near Chimney Pond in ME.
What say you?

And will there be Burger Kings in the AMC huts!?

Fred

cantdog
10-07-2005, 06:36 PM
While many may rightfully object to the appearance of the project and the site is in sacred undeveloped hiking territory, I think it's important not to diss any step in the right direction regarding the use of alternative energy sources. Besides the obvious like the individual efforts to conserve energy, we need to rid our dependence on fossil fuels. I would by no means call myself a tree hugger, but people, the wind is free, clean and unlimited. Yeah, you don't get something for nothing. There will be construction and related startup expenses and nuisances. However, it will also bring steady quality full time jobs to the area. How many people in the area have secure full time year round jobs that provide health insurance, 401k, vacation, etc. in addition to realistic advancement opportunities? Maybe some, but I suspect the figure is low. I would love to live in the area, but I'm not interested in being a cashier, waitress, ski lift operator, or anything else that is nights, weekends, part time, seasonal, etc. Just a thought here. I did not vote yes in the poll because I would need to explore the details more carefully before voting if this ballot question existed in the real world.

Steve-o
10-07-2005, 06:52 PM
And will there be Burger Kings in the AMC huts!?

Fred
Yeah, I was wondering about that too.
You might as well, so we can all have a BK Broiler Un-Happy Meal w/ extra cheese.
Development on Washington summit would not bother me too much, as it has already had many of man's intrusions.
Anywhere else, No Way!!!
A " Wind Factory " on knife-Edge ? come on now....... :mad:

Steve-o

frytz
10-07-2005, 06:54 PM
While many may rightfully object to the appearance of the project and the site is in sacred undeveloped hiking territory, I think it's important not to diss any step in the right direction regarding the use of alternative energy sources. Besides the obvious like the individual efforts to conserve energy, we need to rid our dependence on fossil fuels. I would by no means call myself a tree hugger, but people, the wind is free, clean and unlimited. Yeah, you don't get something for nothing. There will be construction and related startup expenses and nuisances. However, it will also bring steady quality full time jobs to the area. How many people in the area have secure full time year round jobs that provide health insurance, 401k, vacation, etc. in addition to realistic advancement opportunities? Maybe some, but I suspect the figure is low. I would love to live in the area, but I'm not interested in being a cashier, waitress, ski lift operator, or anything else that is nights, weekends, part time, seasonal, etc. Just a thought here. I did not vote yes in the poll because I would need to explore the details more carefully before voting if this ballot question existed in the real world.

Those are good points, but these kind of projects always seem to end up more destructive than ever planned, even with good original intentions! I also wonder how much power wind can actually generate (reliably) as an alternative energy source! Certainly, a reliable alternative would be to use less energy!

Fred

brianW
10-07-2005, 07:47 PM
Would I like it? NO! But I would have to vote yes on this. I believe that we really need to use windpower to help the US of its dependence of fossil fuels.

Better yet place thewindfarm off the Cape!? :eek:

ctsparrow
10-07-2005, 11:06 PM
ABSOLUTELY NO!!! I consider myself an enviromentalist and i'm all for non-fossil fuel energy, but the locations listed are abhorrent!! The destruction caused in order to place the towers is more than most people realize. What happened to wilderness rules..ie Bondcliff and no man-made structures?? Although most the towers are airlifted into place, there is heavy neccessary use of surrounding land for pad placement etc. These structures can provide adequate generation on lower to mid-sized hills (if well researched and placed) on private land. My other big concern with tower structures (incl cell towers), what happens when the next technology comes along and makes these towers obsolete and they are left to decay and die on mountain tops much like the old fire tower system. These corporations rake in huge profits yet the communities collect no monies up front for their inevitable removal. Wind power is an upcoming high grossing energy source for the owner corporations, don't be swayed by the "we're saving the earth" talk, it's still about the buck. One last point, any wind towers should be challenged if proposed in known migratory patterns for falcons, eagles etc. ctsparrow

RoySwkr
10-08-2005, 12:58 PM
I personally am surprised that anyone voted Yes and I wish some of these people would say why. The list seems to have been selected to deliberately include only the more scenic areas of New England.

There are already plenty of towers on Mt Washington and I wouldn't mind a wind farm there. But Bondcliff and Katahdin Knife Edge - get real.

If someone asked about wind towers on the Kinsman Range and Willey Range it would be a tougher question.

funkyfreddy
10-08-2005, 01:32 PM
There are already plenty of towers on Mt Washington and I wouldn't mind a wind farm there. But Bondcliff and Katahdin Knife Edge - get real.

I wouldn't mind a wind FACTORY on top of Mt. Washington either..... after all they already have a parking lot there..... as far as other choices go - I really don't think we need to industrialize the White Mountains or the Saddleback/Bigelow area for clean energy.

If the choices are that poor (and they're not!) than I would rather see us go w/o energy whatsoever. Perhaps we should have one dark day a week to save energy....... no TV, no power, no computers, lights, etc. except for hospitals and other rare exceptions. I think this would make us appreciate the power we do consume a lot more and help get our heads in gear to conserve instead of mindlessly wasting energy and lusting for MORE, MORE, POWER all of the time.


Once again, I find it disturbing that a lot of people here love to "bag" peaks but don't seem to give a damn about preserving or conserving them.

gaiagirl
10-08-2005, 02:25 PM
While I am in complete agreement with funkyfreddy re: energy and power use in the US, i do not think it's fair to impose my ideals on others, particularly when our so-called leaders make us all feel so powerless to change much of anything let alone energy policy. The only habits I can change are my own, and that is hard enough at times. Beyond that all we can do is discuss and debate with respect.

Mt. Washington might as well have a wind farm, every other thing in the world is up there already!!! :( But please leave rest of the Whites as well as Khatadin, the Bigelow area peaks, et al., alone. This is not even solely about views, it's about principles and common sense --- that is my opinion.

SteveHiker
10-08-2005, 03:25 PM
Ok, Forestnome, you're obviously going to extremes to prove a point. Of course, nothing could ever be built in BSP as that's the way it is set up. And the other places you picked are also for shock value.

Seriously though, despite an abundance of wind in some of those places at times, are they really the best place? Would not a place with more or less constant velocity wind be better. I've been on top of most of those summits with absolutely no wind and at other times with wind that is difficult to stand up in. Not exactly the most reliable source of power. Wouldn't the Great Plains or the Caribean be a better place? FWIW, I've been to Aruba and the wind there is an almost constant stiff breeze all the time.

Granted we use more power than we probably should, but our entire society is built upon the magic coming out of the wall outlet. We all know the environmental and geopolitical problems our consumption causes. But we all have difficulty in cutting down. People are not going to just suddenly give up the comfort in their lives. The negative impacts of our power consumption do not show up right away. In our society of instant gratification, a lot of people are just never going to get it.

TDawg
10-08-2005, 03:33 PM
I can't imagine anyone from this site voting yes for putting wind towers on BONDCLIFF, or any other gem of the Whites. Thats absolutely ridiculous and I hope it never happens...

As for on Washington, it's already pretty built up, so I care a little less.
All the more reason to avoid that summit, as if I need anymore anyway.

grouseking
10-08-2005, 03:38 PM
I didn't think you could build anything within a wilderness area anyways, so it couldn't legally happen on Bondcliff, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. WHat an eyesore those would be to begin with, but I suppose MWN could have some. Let's face it, the winds are pretty strong up there, and the summit is modernized enough to begin with.

Other than that I do think its a good idea to make proposals, but in the White Mtns.....it will not go over well, and its not going over well with me.

grouseking

Jaytrek57
10-08-2005, 07:17 PM
I always thought that ski areas might be wise to invest in "wind" energy to power their operations. It would seem to me the monetary cost and enviromental concerns would at least, be less intrusive than the plan posted here.

I am no means an expert on this issue, but if they can put a wind turbine up on the southeast expressway (Boston) that provides power to an electrical union (training center), perhaps it is financially feasible to do with ski areas...but again I'm not an expert.

peace.

WindFarmer
10-08-2005, 08:16 PM
This poll is silly. To my knowledge the only places being proposed for windfarms are private property ie: not in Federally managed lands like national parks - why confuse the issue?

Everyone likes the idea of a windfarm as long as it is someplace else. I doubt anyone will ever agree on where "somplace else" is.

dms
10-08-2005, 08:33 PM
Also silly is the phrase windfarm, perfect coporate public relations lingo. There is nothing farmlike for what your company proposes on Redington. The trees that are cut in a lumber operation eventually grow back, nature restores itself. The turbines and the miles of transmission lines that you want to build are permanent scars on the environment.

sweeper
10-09-2005, 06:05 AM
"What if"... They put a Four Star Hotel on Mt. Adams. Would you stay in it.

Or a water park on the "Kan". Would you go?

Isn't there enough to talk about here without talking about what would happen if they put a Pulp plant in the Pemi.

forestgnome
10-09-2005, 07:09 AM
This poll is silly. To my knowledge the only places being proposed for windfarms are private property ie: not in Federally managed lands like national parks - why confuse the issue?

Everyone likes the idea of a windfarm as long as it is someplace else. I doubt anyone will ever agree on where "somplace else" is.


I believe this is a simplification. I think most people's idea of "someplace else" is somewhere that is already developed with buildings, etc., such as the tops of city buildings, industrial parks. There are thousands of hotels right on our coastlines. How about these places? Isn't it prefereable to produce wind power close to where it is needed, i.e. populated areas?

Trashing undeveloped forested land is anything but green. I'm completely for wind power, but to trash a forest to do it is reprehensible.

I'm not at all confusing the issue. I'm trying to make people envision a wind factory trashing the beuaty of a pristine forest. Most people can't envision Reddington because they don't go there, but we all have a love of the Presidentials, Bondcliff, Franconia Ridge, Katahdin, etc. Now imagine turning these place into wind factories, with big steel towers and supporting buildings and transmission lines....not very "green". :mad:

The idea of this poll is so people can envision a 'before and after' effect.

coldmountain
10-09-2005, 08:15 AM
I believe that alternative energy resources are an area that we need to investigate. Slowly. I believe it would be enviromentally and socially irresponsible not to at least look into the possibilty of wind power.
Now, that being said, I certainly would not like to see turbines on Bondcliff or Kathadin c'mon no one would. But I think adding to an existing human presence such as JayTreks ski area example isnt so intrusive and the possible benefits could outweigh any blights to the views from the top.
I think its fitting that in a society that endorses looking good over feeling good, that we could be more concered about having some windmills on top of our ridges and hills than we could be concerned about running low on unrenewable fossil fuels inside those ridges and hills.
Bottom line is this;I support wind power research but its never gonna happen in WMNF. I mean we cant even have a friggin cairn on Owls Head. (Imagine that jerk trying to knock over a turbine, haha)

post'r boy
10-09-2005, 08:37 AM
this poll is overreactionary in my opinion and should be locked or deleted. it just stirs the pot. it's a hypothetical situation that would never happen to begin with.

Davehiker
10-09-2005, 09:56 AM
I'm with Post'r Boy. I used to have a science teacher many moons ago who would call a question that posed unreasonable conditions a "what if question." I think this is a "what if" question, and I don't think it's productive.

Just my $0.02... ;)

Peakbagr
10-09-2005, 10:22 AM
While I'm sympathetic as respects development of clean, alternative energy, this thread began quite a ways away from a connection to hiking and has blown even further afield.