View Full Version : The future of Stratton Mountain
Locals are starting a study for wind turbines on Stratton. Vermont has lots of hoops to jump through for any form of development.
http://www.manchesterjournal.com/ci_11155795
warraghiyagey
12-10-2008, 09:26
I covered this issue as a correspondent for 2 years for a Rochester NY paper. They tried develop in the western Finger Lakes area. Long story short - NIMBYism killed it in every town they tried.
Lone Wolf
12-10-2008, 09:28
Locals are starting a study for wind turbines on Stratton. Vermont has lots of hoops to jump through for any form of development.
http://www.manchesterjournal.com/ci_11155795
this would be a good thing for the mountain. lifts and snowmaking chew up a lot of electricity
Homer&Marje
12-10-2008, 10:04
You'd think it would be a no brainer to pass. Sucks that good ideas like this get convoluted in the bureaucracy of it all. Hope it becomes a reality though... Stratton from what I remember is a pretty windy mountain too. Not as windy as Wild Cat but enough to create a huge portion of their electric bill.
Because it wind turbines on Stratton would be in the view shed of the AT/Long Trail, expect opposition from ATC and GMC. There are other places to put them that would not be opposed. Afterall, ATC and others killed the turbines on Redington in Maine.
I understand that there is talk about putting up more wind turbines on Searsburg Mountain. While these are also visible from the AT/Long Trail, it isn't nearly as obvious.
$4/gal gas changed the equation.
Jim Adams
12-10-2008, 10:48
It's about time!
geek
I hear Maine could use some wind turbines.
I hear Maine could use some wind turbines.
They/we are getting some as we speak, in the boundary mtns , between the AT and Quebec west of the Bigelows, big farm. Weary approved.:D
skinewmexico
12-10-2008, 11:34
Everyone wants green power, unless it's in their state. I guess you're having your cake and eating it too, when you can ease your conscience by buying out-of-state green power. Nice that everyone in the northeast gets to decide that their area is too scenic for wind turbines, but my area is just right. I hate wind turbines, and we're getting thousands of them in West Texas.
Chenango
12-10-2008, 12:44
Green power in the Green Mtn state. It has a ring to it.
The Solemates
12-10-2008, 12:48
im surprised to see so much push for this on this forum. to me, its the same thing as digging a big hole in the ground to get coal: I have to look at it either way and thus I do not like it. Not that I am completely opposed because I do not have all the facts, but I do not like it.
i live in nw ohio where it is pool table flat and very windy, and we have four wind turbines at the edge of town. we started with two, but they were more effiecient than predicted, and two more were added.
living in the the rust belt, industry has declined and unemployment has of course increased, and as a result, many in the area are looking to the potential increase in wind power to bring jobs to the area. many people are hoping the future brings larger wind farms and more jobs to our depressed region.
but there are still a lot of nimbys who complain that their property values will decrease and that the wind turbines will destoy the view. first, i personally i don't think that there is much of a view to begin with... its friggin northwest ohio, one of the flattest and most boring landscapes in earth, so how is the view going to be ruined?... and second... if no one has jobs, the property values will decrease anyway. we've got a 80 acre field (not ours) behind our house, that i would be more than happy to see turbines in.
fifo
nitewalker
12-10-2008, 13:01
im surprised to see so much push for this on this forum. to me, its the same thing as digging a big hole in the ground to get coal: I have to look at it either way and thus I do not like it. Not that I am completely opposed because I do not have all the facts, but I do not like it.
coal and wind can not be called the same. coal mining takes away from the earth and never gives back until it is turned into energy then becomes smog. wind turbines are only an eye sore to those who worry too much about them. they do not take away from our nayural resources they only enhance what already exsts as power. they help to minimize our current power crisis at basically no cost to get it. its free untill they pass it on to the consumer....wind turbines are cool in my book. there is a wind turbine farm just south of mount wachusett along the mid state trail. i didnt mind walking under it....:D
I hear Maine could use some wind turbines.
CT needs them more.
CT needs them more.
No kidding. Ever since they shut down our nukes, we have to buy virtually all of our juice out of state. However, there is not as much hot air flowing in CT as there is in Maine, global Maine warming and all.
Just wait til Vermont Yankee melts er shuts down.
Nukes can be made safe.
If it wasn't for all the global whining, we could easily fix our energy "problem".
We do need more nuke plants.
In CT, especially. NYC needs the juice.
Every thru hiker on the PCT walk buy thousands of wind turbines. They are interesting as you hike down San Jacinto toward I-10...but like others have said, hard to imagine them in my backyard.
peakbagger
12-10-2008, 13:39
ACT 250 is a Vermont law that makes it very difficult to do any major projects in the state. Some Act 250 applications go on for years. Most of the recent attempts to install utility scale wind projects have been fought heavilly, even in sparsely populated areas. East Mountain in the Northeast Kingdom of VT has an abandoned radar complex on the summit with no hiking trails and no neighbors to speak of and that project ended up getting denied. The stratton proposal would be a challenge to get a permit.
CT produced 50% of their energy from Nukes. They were shutdown, because they didn't maintain them. Rebuild them, add some more capacity and CT would be fine. NY'ers are so busy trying to shutdown their own nukes that I could only recommend other states selling them energy produced by nukes at four times the cost.
The Solemates
12-10-2008, 13:45
coal and wind can not be called the same. coal mining takes away from the earth and never gives back until it is turned into energy then becomes smog. wind turbines are only an eye sore to those who worry too much about them. they do not take away from our nayural resources they only enhance what already exsts as power. they help to minimize our current power crisis at basically no cost to get it. its free untill they pass it on to the consumer....wind turbines are cool in my book. there is a wind turbine farm just south of mount wachusett along the mid state trail. i didnt mind walking under it....:D
wind turbines will be an eyesore when there are 1000s of them across your favorite landscapes in the US. they do take away from our natural resources, part of which is its beauty. and to say they cost nothing is ridiculous. You cannot harness enery and put it to use for free.
Nuclear energy is currently the only source of energy capable of meeting the needs of the US that does not degrade the earth or our enjoyment of the earth. Wind turbines are drops in the ocean and solar is still more expensive than its value. Hell, even the co-founder of Greenpeace supports nuclear energy. Do we have a waste problem that has yet to be sufficiently solved? Yes. Would I rather spend money dealing with that waste of a technology that does work as opposed to throwing money at one the might work? Yes.
Not suggesting we put a reactor on Stratton, but it would certainly be less of an eyesore than wind turbines and solar panels, plus infinitely more effective as a technology source.
Let's not forget that conservation is a large part of the equation here. For sure, the spike in fuel prices shocked everyone into an awareness that we need more fuel efficient cars.
Slo-go'en
12-10-2008, 13:55
I have mixed feelings about wind power. First, its not free. Its actually a fairly expensive way of making electricity. A single wind generator doesn't produce a lot of energy, so there has to be a lot of them, hence the "farms" which take up a lot of land. They break down a lot, so there is a lot of maintenance to keep them running. They are very effective bird killing machines. If located in remote areas, a lot of towers need to be built and wire strung to get the power to market. The local electrical grid may not be able to handle the extra power, so that has to be upgraded. This is a problem here in Coos county. There are a lot of proposed "green energy" plants for the area, both wind and bio-mass, but the grid has to be upgraded and no one wants to pay the billion dollars or so needed to do that. But they want to build the plants to get tax breaks.
I would rather see a big push to put solar cells on everyones roof. This would reduce the need for large, centerallized power generaton and massive distrubution systems.
I would rather see a big push to put solar cells on everyones roof. This would reduce the need for large, centerallized power generaton and massive distrubution systems.
I haven't had a chance to look at it, but I understand CT has some kind of tax program to encourage more of this.
the goat
12-10-2008, 14:44
i find it curious that many "environmentalists" really don't care all that much about saving the earth when it means obstructing a view that they like.
pretty selfish.:-?
taildragger
12-10-2008, 15:01
Wind is a fair way to solve more local energy needs, as for making it and selling it out on the grid, thats costly.
I think that there are better ways, right now I'm a proponent of developing more usage of CNG here in the states, and then having the gov't give greater sponsorship to nuclear programs, as well as improving solar technology.
Slo-go'en
12-10-2008, 15:58
i find it curious that many "environmentalists" really don't care all that much about saving the earth when it means obstructing a view that they like.
pretty selfish.:-?
Putting windmills on every hill top and ridge line isn't going to save the earth. It will kill off a lot of birds though.
taildragger
12-10-2008, 16:04
Putting windmills on every hill top and ridge line isn't going to save the earth. It will kill off a lot of birds though.
Nothing will save the earth since it doesn't need saving, somethings will die out, others won't, life goes on.
im surprised to see so much push for this on this forum. to me, its the same thing as digging a big hole in the ground to get coal: I have to look at it either way and thus I do not like it. Not that I am completely opposed because I do not have all the facts, but I do not like it.
I don't agree. Coal mining creates permanent and horrible damage to the environment. when you take the top off a mountain that mountain is gone forever.
Wind turbines, while they may not be pretty, could be taken down some day if there is a new alternative energy source found. I'd rather hike on a mountain with a wind turbine, than have to hike around a hole where a mountain used to be.
Slo-go'en
12-10-2008, 16:12
Nothing will save the earth since it doesn't need saving, somethings will die out, others won't, life goes on.
Yep, with a couple billion years left before the sun goes nova, lots of things are going to change in that time. We'll be an insignificant blip in the time line.
skinewmexico
12-10-2008, 17:53
i find it curious that many "environmentalists" really don't care all that much about saving the earth when it means obstructing a view that they like.
pretty selfish.:-?
Hear that? It's the sound of a nail being hit squarely on the head. It's like that old joke - a developer wants a cabin in the mountains, and environmentalist already has one.
neighbor dave
12-10-2008, 17:58
i've seen birds nesting on wind turbines
Saw a good video of a turbine in a heavy wind. The clutch/blade tilt safety stuff decided to malfunction. When it blew, it was impressive.
Anyone live near a big one? If so, what is the noise like?
While far better alternative to coal for the environment in the long term, wind turbines are not a magic catch all either. Just remember that everywhere there is a wind turbine, there is also a natural gas turbine (or other type of power gen) not to far away. They are a requirement as something is needed to supply a consistant amount of power to the grid when there is no wind.
Windmills can be lovely things--elegant. Or they can be plunked into a razed, squared-off area the way some power pylons on. Just because something is man-made doesn't mean it has to be hideous.
Jack Tarlin
12-18-2008, 18:02
Interesting comments.
Query to the anti-windmill folks:
You're sitting at work or in your home office as we speak. You're using a computer. There's probably a desk lamp on, or an over head light. The room you're in is presumably electrified and comfortably heated. You're listening to music. After awhile on the computer, you'll head into the kitchen and pull a snack out of the fridge. And you'll eat food that was transported by truck to a supermarket that uses ridiculous ammounts of water, heat and electricity.
So quick query to you anti-windmill folks: Take a minute away from the computer and ask yourself how and why you're in such comfortable circumstances. And you may not like the annswer, since it involves nukes, coal, turbines, ugly power lines on mountains, windmills, and all sorts of other nasty things that environmental activists don't like to think about.
But boy, they really like it when they pull a switch and the lights come on, the toilet flushes, the house is warm and toasty, and they have high speed Internet access. In fact, they get all pissy when these things AREN'T available 24/7. We just had a severe ice storm here in NH and VT and lots of folks were without power for the better part of a week, and boy, were they ever pissed off. Fact is, everyone takes our cushy lifestyle entirely for granted, until it isn't there one day. But everyone takes it for granted, everyone takes advantage of it, everyone's life is made easier because of it......and then these same folks talk about how perfectly awful the windmills, power plants, utility companies, etc. are.
It gets kind of silly.
One of the biggest windmill projects in the Northeastern United States has been continually threatened because ardent environmentalist Ted Kennedy thinks the windmills will screw up his multi-million dollar view of the ocean.
And this sort of deranged Nimbyism isn't that unusal, either.
Actually, in the liberal community, it's pretty much par for the course.
The Solemates
12-18-2008, 18:12
Interesting comments.
Query to the anti-windmill folks:
You're sitting at work or in your home office as we speak. You're using a computer. There's probably a desk lamp on, or an over head light. The room you're in is presumably electrified and comfortably heated. You're listening to music. After awhile on the computer, you'll head into the kitchen and pull a snack out of the fridge. And you'll eat food that was transported by truck to a supermarket that uses ridiculous ammounts of water, heat and electricity.
So quick query to you anti-windmill folks: Take a minute away from the computer and ask yourself how and why you're in such comfortable circumstances. And you may not like the annswer, since it involves nukes, coal, turbines, ugly power lines on mountains, windmills, and all sorts of other nasty things that environmental activists don't like to think about.
But boy, they really like it when they pull a switch and the lights come on, the toilet flushes, the house is warm and toasty, and they have high speed Internet access. In fact, they get all pissy when these things AREN'T available 24/7. We just had a severe ice storm here in NH and VT and lots of folks were without power for the better part of a week, and boy, were they ever pissed off. Fact is, everyone takes our cushy lifestyle entirely for granted, until it isn't there one day. But everyone takes it for granted, everyone takes advantage of it, everyone's life is made easier because of it......and then these same folks talk about how perfectly awful the windmills, power plants, utility companies, etc. are.
It gets kind of silly.
One of the biggest windmill projects in the Northeastern United States has been continually threatened because ardent environmentalist Ted Kennedy thinks the windmills will screw up his multi-million dollar view of the ocean.
And this sort of deranged Nimbyism isn't that unusal, either.
Actually, in the liberal community, it's pretty much par for the course.
I wouldnt consider myself anti-windmill, but since i did make anti-windmill comments on this thread, and you addressed comments like these, let me clarify. i am probably the one of the most conservative people on this entire website.
windmillls certainly have a place. on or near scenic places, in my book, is not one of such places. there are plenty of areas that do not block a beautiful view. of course the definition of a scenic place can be argued to death. on top of a mountain though, like stratton, is a scenic place to me. besides an ocean is also a scenic place. why cant we just put windmills out in the ocean, say 10 miles off shore? too costly? damaged too easily?
and i am certainly not anti-nuclear plants. i think this is the way to go. way better than windmills. much more efficient.
i do like my luxuries. but i could also easily live with much less of them. in fact i do...my thermostat never goes above 62 in the winter and below 78 in the summer. we only run HVAC in our house 5 months out of the year. we use the windows a lot. we dont turn on many lights. i own property and camp on it often on the weekends. we dont flush the toilet until a number 2 comes around. its the little things...
We are building two big wind farms off the coast in the ocean here.