[at-l] RE: Windmills

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Bob Cummings wrote:
>"... Because of them being pretty well tucked into the woods you wouldn't 
>be able to see very much of the farm."
>
>This simply is not true and cannot be true. The trees on Redington and 
>Black Nubble, where the wind towers would be located, are high altitude, 
>stunted Spruce and Fir. They average about 30 feet high.
>
>The wind towers and swirling blades will be 390 feet above the ridge line, 
>360 feet above the forest canopy.

Bob -
It "could" be true - although I believe you're probably right.  It would 
depend on the relative geometry/placement of the towers with respect to the 
AT.  And that's something that can be (and should be) determined before the 
towers get very far into the planning phase.  One question is - who's doing 
that and what biases do they have?  I know about those biases - my job is 
(once again) independent verification of engineering projects (i.e. - 
keeping the contractor honest).

One of the requirements for this kind of windmill is that there be 
sufficient (and consistent) air flow to generate the power that the tower is 
capable of delivering.  In other words, if it's a 100Mw tower (just to pick 
numbers out of the air) but the average air flow where the tower is located 
will only move the vanes fast enough (on the average) to generate 60Mw, then 
the installation is "over-engineered" and is economically unfeasible.

The corollary there is that if the windmill isn't in a gap or pass (or 
notch), where the air flow is restricted and air speed is increased, then 
it's probably in the wrong location.  Except for a very few places, putting 
windmills on the ridgeline makes for marginal output and isn't desirable.  
So the ideal place to put them would be in a gap - where they "might" not be 
visible from the Trail.  But I wouldn't count on that happening.  I've seen 
too much bad engineering the last few years (most of it driven by political 
considerations) to have too much faith that an optimum solution woud be 
used.


>The towers will be directly in the line of sight of hikers along the open 
>Saddleback ridge, north to the Crockers. The top of the towers and the 
>whirling blades will be roughly at the same elevation as the Saddleback 
>ridge and located between 3/4th of a mile and, as near as I can tell from 
>the maps, about 3 miles away.

If it's 3/4 mile away, then my first objection (the noise) would be 
mitigated somewhat.  But then I'm not sure "anyone" knows just how much 
noise those things would actually produce.  The 100 miles or so of windmills 
along the PCT are noisy, but at 3/4 mile they're barely heard.  But they're 
also somewhat smaller, if more numerous.  They're also uggerly.


>I don't know who the unnamed ATC director is, but it is not helpful >to 
>spread misinformation.

I'd agree with that - but I'd also like to see a lot more information before 
backing myself into a corner (either way) on this one.  But my first 
impression is that you could be right.


>It's equally fallacious to talk about choices between wind and nuke plants. 
>What this nation needs is a comprehensive energy policy. We need a common 
>sense mixture of solar, wood, coal, wind and conservation that protects 
>important parks and forests, while providing for basic energy needs.

While I've generally agreed with what you said here (although with more than 
a few questions), I'll disagree to this extent - that leaving nuclear power 
out of the energy equation is a bias that this country may not be able to 
maintain in the future.  It's an entirely fear-based bias, with no 
foundation in reality.  It's also political fact that due largely to that 
irrational fear, there have been no new nuclear plants built in this country 
in what - maybe 20 years?

Something to think about though - each of your proposed energy resources, as 
well as the ones you didn't mention (water, nuclear, fusion, gravitic, etc.) 
has problems, solutions and implications that are at odds with the 
maintenance of the permanent wilderness/park areas that you're looking for.

>A few years ago a third of Maine's energy needs were being met through the 
>use of wood burning industrial generating plants. The plants are now all 
>shut down as the subsidies ended.
>
>We are now starting a new round of wind power subsidies, that will spur the 
>construction of ill planned wind farms -- which eventually will close also 
>as the subsidies end, leaving the rusting hulks of the towers to blight the 
>landscape.

There's an assumption there that the towers would be left behind after their 
useful lifetime.  And I won't say it's not true - I've seen the remains of 
some large installations on 12,000 ft ridgetops in Colorado (among other 
places).  But that's poor project management - and it's neither necessary 
nor desirable. A properly designed and financed project requires advance 
planning (before the project is even built)  for decommissioning, whether 
it's a windmill, a nuclear plant or a local high school.  We do that with 
spacecraft too.  We'd better - it would be damned irritating to have the 
remains of a 45,000# spacecraft drop in your backyard.  To say nothing of 
dangerous.  I know - the Russians didn't do that planning a couple times - 
and neither did we.  But that was a long time ago - and we're supposed to 
have learned better - with respect to both spacecraft and windmills.

Anyway - I've been rambling - but you might want to think about the idea 
that providing "basic energy needs" for a growing population (worldwide as 
well as on a "local" basis) isn't a simple process.  Nor is there any 
guarantee that the "important parks and forests" won't become the prime 
sources for the materials necessary to provide those "basic energy needs".  
In which case, there "will" be both engineering and political choices made - 
and the "important parks and forests" may well become mines or clearcuts or 
wells.  One recent example that you probably don't like (I don't either) is 
the Alaska drilling proposition. We may not like it now - the general 
population may not like it now - but if we get to a real oil crunch, how 
long do you think it'll take to reverse that "popular opinion" - and the 
no-drilling policy?  Regardless of how you or I feel about it.

Windmills aren't the only problem - or the only problem that might affect 
the Trail (or wilderness) in the future. And the comprehensive energy policy 
you'd like to see may be something that pleases neither of us when it 
happens.

Walk softly,
Jim



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp