Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Colebrook, I understand your concerns as well. I too live in area that will potentially be affected by the The Northern Pass project. My goal here, and on my website, is to foster a discussion about the project--both plus and minus.
Some folks view "tourism is the only thing we have left" to be a problem in the north country, not a status to be protected. The old paper mills whose loss you lament were also a blight on tourism as many people couldn't stand the stink which can cover miles and miles. The higher property taxes and potential for cheaper electricity could be allies in diversifying the north country's economy.
Eminent domain has certainly become a problem as abuses have run amock. I hope that isn't the case here. Yet, there are infrastructure projects where its use is unavoidable. Take the proposed east-west highway for example. Some proposals had it running right through the north country and it too would have been a visual blight. Without eminent domain, I doubt such a highway could be built. And there are very strong arguments that it should be built, even if Canadian truckers have the most to gain from it. A billion-plus dollar transmission line falls into that category.
Thanks for your concern, I hope we can continue the discussion.
First off... this is a superb discussion, beautifully moderated. Onward:
Having recently moved to NH, I wasn't aware of this project until this very moment. Beyond the questions raised already (here and elsewhere, thank you for the links!), the following come to mind for me:
If the target of this power is southern NE and/or points south, then perhaps some wind turbines off the Cape would be a better place to start.
OTOH... if New Hampshire's electricity rates will demonstrably (and contractually) be reduced significantly, the broader societal impact, locally, would be enormous. I love NH's approach to taxation and governance; locally derived and spent funds naturally foster better targeting for a community. But it's also true that the property tax burden leaves many people struggling, and relief in the costs of power would help offset.
Although it's easy to cry NIMBYism, it's true that aesthetics are not a small consideration. As a photographer, I spend a great deal of time looking at breathtaking vistas through a lens, and the White Mountains are as spectacular as anywhere I've been. It's perhaps worth mentioning that West Virginia -- possessed of an absolutely stunning natural environment -- has been trying to transition away from destructive mining tendencies (like mountain topping) and are bringing in more wind.
And yes, there're no two ways about it: wind turbines are altering the WV views... and if there's any state that's got little else beyond tourism, it's WV. But they're also recognizing the insatiable need for power, as well as the necessary balancing act between lesser evils. (Shearing off the top of a mountain is a WHOLE lot worse than running lines through, aesthetically.)
Finally... while I agree totally with lisa g above that we should be generating our own power (ie taking care of ourselves!), the horse has left the barn. In fact, this nation's foreign policy is structured totally around constructing a totally new barn. On the fly. With cheap materials. In places where we are extremely unwelcome.
As NNEVillages has asked: If the answer is, "no way, fugeddaboudit", then what are the alternatives?
Very cool video on that site. How about using our own resources for energy here in the US instead of depending on ANY other country? Dependence on any other country for energy is akin to entering into a treaty with another country in that some undesirable sovereignty-reducing compromise is made. With the very real and impending threat to control of the Suez Canal, I can see the desperation which would drive promotion of this but would still prefer we access or create our own energy sources at home. Too bad we are out of time.
Unfortunately we don't have the hydro resources that they do (in this case) and lets be honest- it is Canada which is still 100x better than importing oil from a country where most of the populace hates us (not to mention hydro is clean by comparison which is always good).
I do agree though that our energy goal should be to be able to produce enough power internally and in a sustainable fashion so that we are not reliant upon external sources. If anything this helps with improving efficiencies in the supply chain.
I personally think a nice mix of renewable energy sources (wind/solar/hydro/geothermal) + nuclear needs to be our future. We also waste a LOT of power with our transmission system and grid. I seem to recall a figure that for every 100 watts of power produced only 30-50 are actually consumed; while I realize a grid of super-conductors is prohibitive there are much better designs available now than there were in the 1940s-1970s when much of the grid infrastructure was put in place. Granted there are risks in a technologically advanced grid- but I think these can be addressed if we acknowledge and deal with them outright.
IIRC transmission line losses are in the 0.1 to 10% range depending on technology (AC or DC), voltage and distance involved.
Agree...according to Wikipedia (not the best reference, but good enough) it's about 6.5%. What that doesn't account for though is the inefficiencies of the generation process (which I consider as a loss for anything non-renewable); or the inability to quickly respond to changing power needs- and therefore wasted capacity. The nice thing about Hydro is you can run the system at 100% all the time and don't really lose anything...so by adding 1200MW of hydro capacity to the grid (current or modernized) you can keep that as a constant and run other sources as the variable...
BF66389 - From the point of view of the operators of a major electric transmission system Hydro power has the advantage of being easily and rapidly controlled. It is not, in the gigantic sizes, instantaneous, but is much faster than any steam electric. Gas or oil fired turbine electrics are nearly as quick but burn very expensive fuel. Hydro power uses potential energy derived from sunlight through rain.
There are several nuclear technologies that could replace our current fossil fuel burning sources. They range from "conventional" central station low temperature reactors to gas cooled high temperature technology. There are small scale devices (> 100 MWe) based on submarine size power systems. Distributed and automated nuclear power would reduce the need for the high capacity transmission lines. It would also increase the systems resistance to continent wide blackouts created by failure of the transmission grid.
I think the ban on "breeder" reactors was implemented not to reduce "Nuclear Proliferation" but to increase the cost of nuclear derived electric power in order to keep coal and oil competitive. All nuclear reactors "breed" transuranic fissionable material. No commercial reactors breed material suitable for use in a fission or as a trigger in a thermonuclear weapon. The advantage of having electricity producing breeder reactors in a continental size power system are that more fissionable fuel is created then used, non fissile materials can be transformed into fissile materials and otherwise waste materials can be converted into more fuel or split into daughter products that do not require geological storage.
In order to transform our continent wide electrical power system into safe non polluting nuclear energy will require a massive amount of capital. So long as we continue to throw away money protecting the foreign profits of international petroleum cartel’s profits that capital will not be available and the American consumers will continue to pay private monopoly profits to support the coal and oil industries. Those profits are good for the investors but damaging to the consumers and the environment.
Sory for the diversion from the transmission line thread but the comments aree relevant.
GregW, I don't think the nuclear discussion is a digression at all. As I've mentioned before, if not Northern Pass, then what? Nuclear and Hydro are very comparable generating options in terms of scale and renew-ability. Theoretically, we could build nuclear in the U.S. (such as expanding Seabrook) without the need for "foreign" sources.
I'm curious as to what folks here think of the idea? Good, bad, just plain ugly
What is that video of on your link above?
Mentioned a snow mobile, but it looked more like a small Berr Mug mortar, an 18th century device.
I looked again this time with some volume, and I still don't know what I saw. An arc but how would any one know there would be, ahead of time and film it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) reactors, either.
this time with some volume, and I still don't know what I saw. An arc but how would any one know there would be, ahead of time and film it?
