Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-29-2009, 10:49 AM   #1
Massasauga
Member
 
Massasauga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winter=Gilford / Summer=Rattlesnake
Posts: 25
Thanks: 0
Thanked 39 Times in 9 Posts
Default Windmills along the lake

A neighbor of mine wants to build a residential 51' windmill on a 1.75 acre lakefront lot near Belknap Point. It would surely be visible from a number of locations including from the lake.

I am interested in peoples opinions, for example:

1 - Windmills along the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee will diminish the natural beauty inherent to the landscape and will negatively impact property values of those who are forced to view them

2 - Windmills are good for the environment and therefore we should accept how they look and expect to see more of them if/when the cost/benefit improves

3 - Residential windmills in NH is are not typically cost effective or logical (50-100 year payback). Effective wind-power is more appropriately achieved with a carefully selected rural location via a well designed wind-farm (with multiple windmills clustered together).

4 - Other?
Massasauga is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 10:54 AM   #2
dpg
Senior Member
 
dpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,559
Thanks: 149
Thanked 229 Times in 166 Posts
Default

Are you stating opinion or fact? For instance #3
dpg is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 11:25 AM   #3
Massasauga
Member
 
Massasauga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winter=Gilford / Summer=Rattlesnake
Posts: 25
Thanks: 0
Thanked 39 Times in 9 Posts
Default

All are opinions... I am mostly interested in peoples thoughts on the impact on the lake, the scenery and property values.

Although I am not an expert I have done a little reading which suggests that these residential windmills don't generate much power even in a good location (typically 20% of an average home monthly electrical usage) and given most NH locations do not provide consistent winds, a residential windmill costing $20k to install would take 50+ years to pay for itself.
Massasauga is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 11:29 AM   #4
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,656
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 342
Thanked 614 Times in 277 Posts
Default go for it!

The beauty of windmills is, unfortunately, in the eye of the beholder. I like looking at them, because they represent decreased dependency on oil and I guess I must like watching whirly things. However, I'm not sure I'd like my neighbor to have one if I could hear the constant noise. The article in today's (9/29) LDS projects the out-of-pocket expense will be under $15K (after rebates) and it will bring in $100-$150/month. Projections rarely work out like planned, but the most optimistic calculation says it will break-even in under 8 years. My guess would be double that. The case in Belknap seems well planned, but it needs variances from the town. Good luck! I hope the project is approved.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 12:31 PM   #5
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 319 Times in 181 Posts
Default

You may want to mention to your neighbor to verify that nobody behind him/her has a View Easement. Putting it up is expensive, but putting it up and being sued and having to take it down is even more so.

Other than that I think windmills are cool, but the returns do not justify the means in this area. The winds just do not have enough fetch. Anyone that has driven out west through the windfarms will agree that there is not much blocking the wind from reaching them.

The following is only slightly off topic, but is worth mentioning.

Electricity is really not the most expensive thing to replace in New England home when it comes to using nature to offset those costs.

One of the gentlemen that works in my company, designed and installed himself (he has the background and knowledge) a solar hot water heating system, using 6 hydronic panels and 600 gallons of storage he can heat his home all winter (3800SF) with the boiler only picking up 5-10% of the load on the coldest darkest days and that includes all domestic hot water. After winter he turns a valve and continues to make hot water all year long. I will not get into exactly how the system works as there is alot of information about it, but he invested about $28K and has not had to refill his 500 gallon propane tank yet (2+ years). This system is very cool to see how it works, it also adjusts the temperature of the water in the heat loops based on the outdoor air temp, so it only makes the water as hot as it needs to. Disclaimer is that this system would only work with Radiant heat as you do not want all that work to heat and store the water just to let it go to waste heating air.
jmen24 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 09-29-2009, 12:34 PM   #6
Sman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 102
Thanks: 3
Thanked 27 Times in 8 Posts
Default noise

Quote:
I'm not sure I'd like my neighbor to have one if I could hear the constant noise.
Don't know enough about them, but the noise point is a good one if it exists, if it sounds like my neighbor has a generator going 24/7 that would be a no vote for me, maybe they are quite?? Would need to know more on that.

As far as the view, my initial reaction is if they started going up everywhere on the water front it would look a bit ugly. Not sure how close to the shoreline you can built a fixed structure.
Sman is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 12:38 PM   #7
Slickcraft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Welch Island and West Alton
Posts: 3,211
Thanks: 1,167
Thanked 1,999 Times in 913 Posts
Thumbs up Yes, go for it

My opinion: Wind turbines are both good for the environment and interesting to look at. We have a direct view of Belknap Point from Welch Island and would be happy to have a wind turbine improve the view (relative to the motel, condos, Gunstock acres and such).

Last year we visited the large wind farm on Tug Hill in upper NY state. Watching the 195 large turbines slowly turn in synchronism and realizing that a light breeze was pumping power into the grid was satisfying. In no way way was the view objectionable. We were able to walk to about 300' from one of the 260' tall machines with a 270' rotor diameter. You could hear only a faint whish as each blade passed by.

I can't see how the small unit proposed here could be an issue for anyone.

As for being cost effective and payback time, that is for the property owner to decide.
Slickcraft is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 12:59 PM   #8
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 5,907
Thanks: 2,279
Thanked 4,924 Times in 1,906 Posts
Default Kudos!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Massasauga View Post
A neighbor of mine wants to build a residential 51' windmill on a 1.75 acre lakefront lot near Belknap Point. It would surely be visible from a number of locations including from the lake.

I am interested in peoples opinions
Kudos to your neighbor for being energy conscious. I too have a direct view of Belknap Point and would more than welcome the sight! Everyone has put up with telephone and light poles for all these years, a wind turbine would certainly be a welcomed addition!

This is the way we should all be thinking! Renewable resource energy is our future and should be welcomed by all.

FWIW;

Dan
ishoot308 is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 01:12 PM   #9
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,612
Thanks: 1,082
Thanked 433 Times in 209 Posts
Default

Instead of the traditional Wind Mill for electrical power why not try one of these. http://www.mariahpower.com/ They used them on ABC's Extreme Makeover Home Edition last season.

__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 01:21 PM   #10
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts
Default

The school board of Prospect Mountain High School (Alton, NH) have been exploring alternative energy sources. There was a presentation on July 21, 2009 about windmills (wind turbines) that you might find of interest: HERE

Last edited by Argie's Wife; 09-29-2009 at 06:07 PM.
Argie's Wife is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 02:12 PM   #11
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

I love windmills... in fact anything that can reduce our energy footprint when it comes to foreign oil... not saying they are the prettiest things to see in and around the lake. But they might be a necesary evil.

We need a multi-tiered approach to energy usage...

1. Solar panels should be mandatory on all new construction. Solar panels coupled with small windmills on single family dwellings will save vast amounts of energy. Its not new tech, but it will work and on a big scale it will not be cost prohibitive.

2. Geothermal heating.... works everywhere else. Why not here?

3. Nuclear power.... the big hot button! Time to revisit nuclear power with a fresh set of eyes and new technology. The only thing we have to do is standardize the powerplants to reduce startup costs....

4. Hybrid vehicles... the technology is there!

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 02:27 PM   #12
Lakesrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,129
Thanks: 380
Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts
Default

And make sure you contact the town to see if it is allowed. I know I saw an article on TV about some Maine folks complaining about the really big ones bothering their eyes with the "Flicker issue". the windmills create a rapid shadow and messes with peoples minds.... But abutters are really the biggest problem. like mentioned, it would have to be approved by any neighbors and addressed in a town meeting I'll bet. Here is an article from last year.

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/...s-regulations/
Lakesrider is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 02:50 PM   #13
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default Be carefull what you wish for

A modern windmill that produces electricity is a turbine. Turbine as in jet engine turbine. They are loud and produce a deep bass thumping sound that has had reported adverse effects on people and wildlife.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, while some might find a wind turbine a great addition to the lake, others might disagree vehemently.

Keep in mind this is my opinion and it is worth exactly what you paid for it.
Kracken is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 03:10 PM   #14
Slickcraft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Welch Island and West Alton
Posts: 3,211
Thanks: 1,167
Thanked 1,999 Times in 913 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
A modern windmill that produces electricity is a turbine. Turbine as in jet engine turbine. They are loud and produce a deep bass thumping sound that has had reported adverse effects on people and wildlife.
You are absolutely wrong about the noise. I stood near the base of one of the largest wind turbines made when in full operation. No sound from the generator equipment and only a faint whish as each blade passed by. I had to listen carefully to hear it.

Turbine means only a rotor or vanes driven by movement of a fluid or air. The comparison to a jet engine noise is as far off base as anyone could ever get.
Slickcraft is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 03:11 PM   #15
Gatto Nero
Senior Member
 
Gatto Nero's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Isola Gatto Nero
Posts: 696
Thanks: 162
Thanked 263 Times in 81 Posts
Default

I wouldn't want one in my direct view or have to listen to it all the time but I'm pretty sure I could power the whole damn island with one with the wind I get.
__________________
La vita č buona su Isola Gatto Nero
Gatto Nero is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 03:17 PM   #16
Dr. Green
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Yes, there are a lot of opinions about windmills. More and more towns are coming up with regulations about them, so if planning to install, please check first to make sure you will not run afoul of a regulation requiring you to take it down after built.

I am a strong supporter of windmills (besides being a retailer of windmills at www.sustainabilitynh.com, based in Laconia), but in general, NH is not a good location for residential windmills (in terms of being cost-efficient). Windmills do best with wind that blows close to the ground without obstructions. Iowa (where I used to live) is a good place for wind - wind comes off the Rockies and blows close to the ground for hundreds of miles. In NH, the hills break up the flow of the wind near the ground, and the trees add lots of turbulence to the wind, making the wear on the windmill more intense.

The large (commercial scale) windmills have been implicated in some deaths of birds - it is an issue; but smaller wind generators will not provide much of a hazard (and the spinning ones even less). It turns out it is not the collision with the blades of the large windmill rotors that is the major problem - bird usually avoid the blades. It is that the large blades create a low pressure zone just following the blade, and when an animal (bird, bat) flies into it, their inner cavities and blood vessels can burst from the sudden near vacuum (according to autopsies of dead birds and bats). Small residential wind generators don't create a big enough low pressure area to injure the animals.

The same rebate available to solar electric installers is available to those who install wind power. There is a 30% rebate - off your next years taxes (not off your taxable income) from the Federal Government. There is an up to $6000 rebate from the State of NH, and if you are a grid tied NHEC customer, there is a rebate of up to $3,500

I would agree with jmen24 that solar hot water (and solar electric) are both better deals than wind power in NH. We get more usable sunlight in NH than almost anywhere in Germany, which produces the most solar electricity per capita in the world. Sure we get less than California or Arizona, but we also have the advantage of a cooler climate (esp cold winters) which means we produce more electricity per hour of sunshine with the same solar electric panels than they do. With rebates, solar is now cheaper than the utilities over about 20-25 years (and that's not including an factoring in of increasingly expensive electric rates over the coming years.

In NH there are relatively few places where wind by itself will be economically feasible - lakefront is one, where wind blows across the lake toward the windmill. Ridgetop without trees is another. Some funnel valleys are also good for windmills.

If you are thinking of installing wind power, first, measure the wind for a while. While you might have three or four months of good wind at your chosen location, it might be not very good the other eight months of the year. Another difficulty about wind is its unpredictableness. You might measure the wind at one location and decide it just isn't a good location. But because of the lay of the land and the way the land channels the wind, it is possible that a spot just 100 yards away is an excellent site for wind. The problem is that it is very hard to tell from just looking at what are good sites for an invisible commodity.

The general rule of thumb is that your wind generator should be located 30 feet above any obstruction within 200 feet. In Iowa, that means building a 37 foot high tower so it is 30 feet above the corn. Here, that might mean an 80-100 foot tower, which are A LOT more expensive than a 37 foot tower (another reason why it isn't very feasible in many locations in NH).

There is one situation where a windmill may work well in NH. If you have an off-the-grid home and are using (and entirely dependent on) solar power, the winter months are the toughest, as sunlight is on average 60% less than summer. A wind generator USUALLY does best in the winter months here, just when solar power is at its minimum. So a windmill complementing a solar installation allows you to downsize both and find a practical balance.

As to the sound windmills make, that is primarily a problem with "propeller windmills", with the turning propellers. The type of windmill pictured in Reply 9 by Just Sold produces very little sound. Additionally, these spinning turbines pick up power better from lighter winds. For residential applications in NH, I would recommend them over the propeller systems (though Sustain Ability can order and install both types). I myself am planning to build with a spinning windmill as a back-up to off-grid solar next year.

On the commercial scale (300 foot high windmills) NH is an excellent state for wind-power - on ridgetops; but for residential size, there are surprisingly few places that are economically feasible in NH. I know this is not everyone's primary consideration. Whereas Solar Power (with rebates) is cheaper than buying from the power company (over the life of the system); wind power, even with rebates, usually will not break-even compared with grid-power.
Dr. Green is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 03:21 PM   #17
Dr. Green
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slickcraft View Post
You are absolutely wrong about the noise. I stood near the base of one of the largest wind turbines made when in full operation. No sound from the generator equipment and only a faint whish as each blade passed by. I had to listen carefully to hear it.
Paradoxically, small turbine wind generators are significantly noisier than the large ones. You would NOT want to have a small turbine (propeller) one attached to your house, and nearby neighbors might not like it either, depending on how nearby they are. Residential propeller generators are best when they can be 50-100 feet away from the structure they are supplying power to.

This is not a problem with the rotating (spinning) ones pictured in Reply #9
Dr. Green is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 03:24 PM   #18
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slickcraft View Post
You are absolutely wrong about the noise. I stood near the base of one of the largest wind turbines made when in full operation. No sound from the generator equipment and only a faint whish as each blade passed by. I had to listen carefully to hear it.

Turbine means only a rotor or vanes driven by movement of a fluid or air. The comparison to a jet engine noise is as far off base as anyone could ever get.

I have to respectfully disagree with you.

The noise is not necessarily generated near the rotors or tower. It is the turbine that is loud and they can be located several hundred meters away from the tower. A turbine is necessary to generate electricity.

While the health risks are debatable…physics are not.
Kracken is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 03:33 PM   #19
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,937
Thanks: 532
Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts
Default

My aunt/uncle have a place on the shore of Saginaw Bay (basically Lake Huron) with an older windmill (it came with the house 20 years ago, and wasn't new then). That mill can power the entire house and send enough electricity back up the line to net them $50 or so each month.

It's been several years since I've been there, but when it was running it really wasn't very loud at all. I would imagine that newer units would be even quieter and most likely more efficient as well.

The windmill may never pay for itself, but few "green" alternative energy sources are really economically viable anyway. When you have power during a storm, the "pay off" period will suddenly shorten dramatically
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 04:59 PM   #20
twoplustwo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 456
Thanks: 51
Thanked 39 Times in 21 Posts
Default I want one

I would love to have one of those Mariah windspires, even if it meant cutting down part of the back 40 to get enough wind to make it worth bothering. They are too, too cool. Put them all around the lake, I'd love it.

Woodsy, it would be great to see more geothermal and solar use up here. The geothermal is catching on, but solar panels are far too cost prohibitive, still. If the gov't would pump some cash into the solar panel manufacturers instead of throwing it at jackhole companies like Bank Of America and AIG, I'd be thrilled. Every time I see a sign on 93 with a bank of solar panels powering it, I always want to bring those suckers home and slap them on my roof. Eventually I'd cover it
twoplustwo is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 06:01 PM   #21
travaler18
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default the future

once we run out of oil, its gonna be windwills and sailboats everywhere
travaler18 is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 06:10 PM   #22
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,612
Thanks: 1,082
Thanked 433 Times in 209 Posts
Default

From the articles I have read Geothermal is not always a good investment in certain areas of the country. New England is OK but the temperature down at the point where you drill to get the heat is not as warm as you would like. So you have to pay a little more in oil/gas/wood to get the water to where it will heat the home. Sure you save some but what is it costing in the pump to move the water down and back up? You will still have a hot water furnace like you would would without Geothermal.

Now in the Rocky's and where ever there is geology with thermal springs, old volcanic activity etc. that is where you get the best return on investment. Colorado is one area North and West of Denver. Washington and Oregon too.

I have not been convinced that New England is the place to invest in Geothermal. It is just OK here but the payback seem a little long. My brother looked into it in his new construction home near Blue Hill Maine. An engineering study was done for his home to select the best system and fuel to heat with and Geothermal was not even near the top of heating options.

As for wind power my brother looked into that and no system offered a reasonable payback for the investment. Something like 60 years. Not at his age then of 67. His home has a lot of open land to the NE and N and gets indirect wind off the Ocean a few miles away.
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 07:14 PM   #23
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,946
Thanks: 80
Thanked 968 Times in 431 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
I have to respectfully disagree with you.

The noise is not necessarily generated near the rotors or tower. It is the turbine that is loud and they can be located several hundred meters away from the tower. A turbine is necessary to generate electricity.

While the health risks are debatable…physics are not.
Kracken...

I dont know how familiar you are with the principles of generating electricity, but it basically requires magnets (attached to an axle) spinning inside a coil of wire... (the principle of induction) The bigger the magnets & coil winding the more electricity you can generate... but like any mechanical device, the more mechanical energy (electricity) you want to produce the more kinetic energy (wind, steam, water) you need to convert to mechanical energy to spin the magnets. Anyway.. I digress.

A wind tubine (windmill) is no different from any other turbine.. (water, steam etc.) The axle shaft is always directly attached to the spinning blades converting the kinetic energy to mechanical energy. In the case of a wind turbine the spinning axle is directly connected to the blades. This puts the turbine on top of the support post directly behind the blades... not anywhere on the ground.

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 07:19 PM   #24
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 319 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Just Sold, I agree with your statement 100%.

Electric solar panels that are large enough to power your home and hopefully backfeed the grid are super expensive including all the components to go with them.

In new contruction with Radiant heat the hot water solar system explained above carries a cost savings of about $2500 per year in fuel, that nets a payoff of about 11 years, and you are no longer dependant on oil to heat your home and hot water. I forgot to mention that he also suppliments with a wood stove and in case the power goes out and the gas range is not usable, they also have a second stove in the kitchen that uses wood, you know the old school way of cooking. It is a pretty cool setup.
jmen24 is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 07:20 PM   #25
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 400
Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts
Default

Lots of speculation going on here. Portsmouth, RI now has a municipally owned large wind turbine that was brought on line this spring. It's pretty big by most standards at 1.5 Mega Watts. The town "Voted" to do this project. I voted against..but have since become a supporter. The initial cost was to have been $4 million. A deal was struck and it was a done deal at $3 million.

Portsmouth has plenty of wind.... overlooking Narragansett Bay...the Sailing Capitol of the world.

I have been there when the turbine is running Full Tilt....which is most of the time ...@ 19 RPM. The only sound you hear is the Whoosh Whoosh of the blades as they pass the tower, You can stand directly under the blades if you wish during operation. The turbine is accesable to the public...not surrounded by a fence. It is a worthwhile experience. It is a magnificent "Machine" ...AND a "Sculpture" at the same time. It makes over 2000 Horse Power. NB

Click on the Wind Energy button which is prominent on the town homepage. below:

http://www.portsmouthri.com/frames.htm
NoBozo is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 07:44 PM   #26
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 319 Times in 181 Posts
Default

I have to agree about the windmills being a very cool site. While enroute to Colorado last fall for a hunting trip (we drove via 1986 Ford RV) we were traveling through Kansas somewhere between midnight and 3:00 am, anyway I was driving along when we noticed off in the distance a single red light (constantly on), as we got closer it was like a light switch and the entire horizon lit up with red lights evenly spaced as far as you could see both left and right, after two seconds or so they went out. About 20 or so minutes later we were finally close enough to realize that they were windmills along a ridge. What amazed us is that the lights on these did not stay on constantly as I would think that would not be very fun coming up on that with an aircraft. That was my first experience with seeing these windmills up close, we later so more in the daylight on the way back in Wyoming.

I attached a photo that I took while driving of blades being transported over the road while in Iowa as they had a recall on the blades due to a failure.

I was really cool to see one up close, and as you can see with the full size SUV is added for scale.
Attached Images
 
jmen24 is offline  
Old 09-30-2009, 04:51 AM   #27
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Default Ambient Noise...Like?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Massasauga View Post
"...Windmills along the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee will diminish the natural beauty inherent to the landscape and will negatively impact property values of those who are forced to view them..."
Energy is an essential to our local and national economic future: maybe you weren't here when we had dozens of 12-foot satellite dishes in our lakeside view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Sold View Post
"...Geothermal is not always a good investment in certain areas of the country. New England is OK..."
The drilling at North Conway has apparently escaped Google's normally-awesome reach, but my Dad remembers a 3000-foot-deep geothermal drilling at Redstone Mountain near North Conway in the 80s. Petroleum company helicopters flew mapping flights from "The White Mountain Airport", where he was employed. (As "The Red Baron" pilot).

Geothermal in New Hampshire was apparently not feasible then—but now?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
"...I'm not sure I'd like my neighbor to have one if I could hear the constant noise..."
Sound travels best when ambient noise is least (no wind). Some noises the windmill could make would be "covered" by ambient noises—like Jet-Skis!

(Meaning, a windmill would be silent when there's no wind, and somewhat-less noticeable when wind is present).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmen24 View Post
"...You may want to mention to your neighbor to verify that nobody behind him/her has a View Easement...Other than that I think windmills are cool, but the returns do not justify the means in this area...Electricity is really not the most expensive thing to replace in New England home when it comes to using nature to offset those costs...""
1) Firewood can be considered "solar" energy, but the cost of firewood has jumped since I last bought a pile. (I also supply my own firewood from trimming and windfalls—but not enough).

2) Returns aren't justified as yet; moreover, when I asked two years ago about a windmill for my lakefront location, I was told the Town would have no objection.

3) For payback, a modest windmill would supply the grid in winter (when I'm not here), and move my meter backwards in summer, when I'm out sailing in a Windmill-class wood sailboat.

(Note the windmill emblem at the peak of the sail).



4) A view easement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ishoot308 View Post
"...This is the way we should all be thinking! Renewable resource energy is our future and should be welcomed by all..."
The industry won't just be a new boost to the economy, it's now a national-security measure!

BTW: Spain—once the "poor-man" of Europe—was once my home in 1970. At my last visit in 1990, nearly the entire Mediterrean Coast was lined with big new windmills.
ApS is offline  
Old 09-30-2009, 06:59 AM   #28
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default Article in today's laconia Daily Sun

Belknap Point wind turbine decision delayed for want of expert testimony
By Adam Drapcho
THE LACONIA DAILY SUN

GILFORD — Hearing last night the case of the waterfront residents who wish to place a wind turbine on the non-waterfront portion of their Belknap Point Road land, the Zoning Board of Adjustment decided to continue the matter until its next scheduled meeting. However, Chairman Andrew Howe said at the conclusion of the meeting that he isn’t leaning in the applicant’s direction. Referring to two of the five criteria applicants must satisfy to achieve a variance from zoning restrictions, Howe said “I struggle with the hardship, I struggle with [whether] granting the ordinance will do substantial justice — I think they’ve got a long way to go to convince me that they’re going to meet all five of these.”
Representing her clients, Lorraine and Richard Lavalliere, Laconia attorney Regina Nadeau explained to the board that it is an accepted use to place a wind turbine on their property at 62 Belknap Point Road. However, their technical consultant advised them that they should construct a tower at least 52 feet in height to make best use of the availablewind as it sweeps from the north across Lake Winnipesaukee.
Gilford’s zoning ordinances state that wind turbines must be set back from property lines by a distance equal to or greater than 150-percent the total height of the turbine system, including tower and blades. Because of the shape of the property, the only suitable location for such a tower, adhering to the setback requirements, would be along the shorefront. Instead of placing it on the shorefront, Nadeau told the board that her clients wished to locate the tower behind their tennis court and before the stand of trees that fills the back of the lot. She said this placement, on the highest point on the lot, would produce more energy than on the shore and would be visible only by one neighbor instead of everyone who boats past Belknap Point. At that point, though, the turbine would be greater than the 110-percent setback recommended by state guidelines but less than the more restrictive setback adopted by Gilford.
When asked by board member Ellen Mulligan why the town chose a 150-percent setback, Code Enforcement Officer Dave Andrade explained “when the town started hashing out what [setback] to utilize, we didn’t have a whole lot of information.” The state required each town to enact ordinances permitting wind energy systems and limited towns to a maximum setback requirement of 150-percent. Andrade explained that the town, when writing the ordinance, was cautious about issues such as shadow flicker, sound and the dangers of ice and broken propellors flying off the systems. “There’s a lot of unknowns, so what they did was take the maximum setback for liability reasons and say we did the best we could.” There were a lot of unknowns at the meeting last night as well. Without a technical consultant present, Nadeau couldn’t answer questions from the board such as how loud the system would be from the nearest property boundary, how fast the turbine spins, how far ice or a broken propellor would fly and if the proposed site was the best location on the lot for a turbine. “I think it’s fair to say in a residential area as affluent as it is there, the public interest there is peace and quiet,” noted Howe.
The board ultimately decided to continue the matter until its meeting on Oct. 27. In the meantime, they requested that the applicants hire an independent engineer to study whether the proposed location on the lot would indeed be the best in terms of energy production. Many board members also indicated they would travel to Hill, where a similar turbine has been constructed on private property. A couple of abutters spoke during the meeting. Alexandra Breed asked “are there any maintenance issues?” She noted that the Lavallieres spend much of the year in Florida, and she worried that the year round residents would endure an eyesore if something happened to the turbine while they were away. Dick Hickok, the one abutter who Nadeau said would be able to view the turbine from his property, said he would prefer if the turbine was allowed to be built at 52 feet, because the noise would be diminished compared to a shorter rig. He also said he’d prefer if the turbine was constructed on the shoreline, so it would be further from his property.
Hickok noted that there was a risk living near such a device, especially when it flings ice or if it should let loose a propellor. “It’s a crapshoot — if the think breaks at the wrong time, its going in my house, it’s going the distance,” he said.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 09-30-2009, 07:27 AM   #29
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default

There's a wind farm north of here on the NY state side, I'll have to see if I have a picture. Most people would view them as not particularly attractive. We have a few of them around here, and they are usually placed right in the way of a pretty mountain view.

Everyone seems to tie electric power to foreign oil. While most foreign oil this decade came from Canada and Mexico (they are foreign), most electric power generation was fueled by coal and, increasingly, by natural gas. The DOE estimates that over 90% of the electric plants built the next two decades will be natural gas fired. Virtually all distributed power generation will also be NG fueled.

Accelerating the proliferation of Energy Star devices would be a huge plus in reducing the need for more and more power plants. Switching homes in New England to other than oil for heating would also be a huge plus in reducing oil consumption. But now there's a glut of it, so maybe not

Foreign oil is a great way to stave off reliance on very expensive domestic oil, and an easier way of controlling inventories. Massive drilling when it bottomed at $30 plus per barrel would have been pretty painful for many companies.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 09-30-2009, 08:12 AM   #30
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

I read a story this month....National Geographic or Smithsonian,not sure which one,that indicated that 100's of thousands of birds were being killed by the windmills out west.Mostly golden eagles,hawks and owls.For some reason they are mostly raptors.I'm puzzled why people who profess to care about the enviroment would want a windmill anywhere near them.
As I recall,Exxon got fined millons of $$ for accidentally killing 80 migrating birds.The have stopped road and bridge projects for a nesting eagle,osprey or owl.There is a federal law that calls for huge fines for causing the death...or even harrassing or interferring with migrating birds.
Hey,I'm with ya' on solar,wave energy, ethanol,nuclear....you name it,but if you want windmills ,say goodbye to your little birdies.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 09-30-2009, 10:22 AM   #31
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 319 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post

4) A view easement? snip
To answer your question, source is sited below.

Easements may be specifically described by boundaries or by its purpose. There is also a "negative easement" such as a prohibition against building a structure which blocks a view. Title reports and title abstracts will usually describe all existing easements upon a parcel of real property. The location, maintenance, and uses of the easement are defined by the agreement, use, or instrument creating the easement. In some cases, the owner of the servient property charges the easement holder a maintenance fee, however, maintenance may be subject to any type of agreement between the parties involved. Easements may be renegotiated under contract law principles. All claims involving claims on land need to be carefully drafted.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/real-estate-easements/

We have run into this issue with projects before that limit the height of projects to protect someones view.
jmen24 is offline  
Old 09-30-2009, 10:46 AM   #32
Dr. Green
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twoplustwo View Post
...but solar panels are far too cost prohibitive, still.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmen24 View Post
Electric solar panels that are large enough to power your home and hopefully backfeed the grid are super expensive including all the components to go with them.
I don't know where you are getting the idea that solar is not cost-competitive now. Sure, over 5 years it isn't cost-competitive, but systems are guaranteed for 25 years, and should last 40 years easily. At 25 years, with Federal and State rebates (which equal up to 1/2 the price of purchase and installation), solar is cheaper than the power company (assuming you have a full solar exposure). If the cost of electricity keeps increasing at the rate it has increased the last 10 years (approximately doubling) I would expect solar to have closer to a 15 year payback than the closer to 25 it is if you assume the cost of electricity will not increase at all in the next 25 years (the rate we use for cost comparisons).

See: http://www.sustainabilitynh.com/?post_id=40
Dr. Green is offline  
Old 09-30-2009, 07:15 PM   #33
travaler18
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default go green

to be completly green we must shed our clothes move into caves and eat only what we scavange
travaler18 is offline  
Old 09-30-2009, 10:05 PM   #34
upthesaukee
Senior Member
 
upthesaukee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 5,545
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 2,393
Thanked 1,918 Times in 1,061 Posts
Default Brrrrrr

Quote:
Originally Posted by travaler18 View Post
to be completly green we must shed our clothes move into caves and eat only what we scavange
Sure will be cold on the snowmobile.
__________________
I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!
upthesaukee is online now  
Old 10-01-2009, 06:02 AM   #35
dpg
Senior Member
 
dpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,559
Thanks: 149
Thanked 229 Times in 166 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy View Post
I love windmills... in fact anything that can reduce our energy footprint when it comes to foreign oil... not saying they are the prettiest things to see in and around the lake. But they might be a necesary evil.

We need a multi-tiered approach to energy usage...

1. Solar panels should be mandatory on all new construction. Solar panels coupled with small windmills on single family dwellings will save vast amounts of energy. Its not new tech, but it will work and on a big scale it will not be cost prohibitive.

2. Geothermal heating.... works everywhere else. Why not here?

3. Nuclear power.... the big hot button! Time to revisit nuclear power with a fresh set of eyes and new technology. The only thing we have to do is standardize the powerplants to reduce startup costs....

4. Hybrid vehicles... the technology is there!

Woodsy
Just curious do you own, have you invested in any of these?
dpg is offline  
Old 10-01-2009, 06:23 AM   #36
IslandRadio
Senior Member
 
IslandRadio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Mirror Lake - Full time resident
Posts: 398
Thanks: 70
Thanked 156 Times in 61 Posts
Default

Interesting topic! Personally, I believe solar (photovoltaic cells) would be a better solution, at least for the individual.

With wind power, you're dealing with a large, mechanical device - and machanical devices wear out and require regular maintenance and repair. If they are not properly maintained, you have a large eyesore that will be very expensive to remove.

Contrast that with photovoltaic - with no moving mechanical parts (save some relays), no noise, and very little maintenance. Of course the downside of current photovoltaic systems is energy storage - batteries.

There is a large photovoltaic installation in my town at a farm. Apparently, the system generates sufficient electricy to power everything the farmer's got going, and return a small monthly payment from Unitil. But, he has a perfect, unobstructed Southern exposure and a large barn roof to hold the panels.

I looked at a place on Diamond Island (no electricity there), and a good solar installation would have been the most practical way to provide usable and constant electric power.

With constant improvements in battery technology, and increasing conversion efficiencies, it just seems that solar might be a better solution....

Just my opinion
IslandRadio is offline  
Old 10-01-2009, 11:50 AM   #37
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,937
Thanks: 532
Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IslandRadio View Post
Interesting topic! Personally, I believe solar (photovoltaic cells) would be a better solution, at least for the individual.
Solar is a bit tricky in this area. I've been playing with some solar equipment/systems (importing panels direct from China. At under $5/watt you can start to consider it in places you might not have thought of traditionally), our sun exposure in New England isn't that great...especially in the winter months.

To get the best yield from your panels they need to be tilted toward the sun, and if you're not installing them on a roof each row needs to be spaced back to eliminate shadows from the row in front.

The best solution in this area is probably a solar farm plus a small/mid sized windmill. Depending on your location, you can get decent wind almost continuously, especially at night when there is no sunlight. This reduces the investment you need to make in batteries to store the solar power.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline  
Old 10-01-2009, 12:43 PM   #38
Grady223
Senior Member
 
Grady223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Hope, PA & Barndoor Island
Posts: 463
Thanks: 93
Thanked 24 Times in 18 Posts
Default Encourage Windmills on the Islands

I would encourage all the islands to mount as many of the big windmills as would fit - bet Rattle Snake could fit 25 -30, Diamond could fit another dozen, as could Barndoor and Sleepers. With the strong NW winds and no winter usage, payback from selling power back to the grid would be short. What a benefit to the envoronment. And, what an improvement it would be to the beauty of the Lake - should really improve everyone's view!
Grady223 is offline  
Old 10-01-2009, 12:53 PM   #39
Grady223
Senior Member
 
Grady223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Hope, PA & Barndoor Island
Posts: 463
Thanks: 93
Thanked 24 Times in 18 Posts
Default One more thing...

how about a cell phone tower on Rattlesnake, it would really improve reception and, with the windmills, you'd never notice it.

Last edited by Grady223; 10-01-2009 at 01:48 PM.
Grady223 is offline  
Old 10-01-2009, 01:32 PM   #40
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 400
Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grady223 View Post
I would encourage all the islands to mount as many of the big windmills as would fit - bet Rattle Snake could fit 25 -30, Diamond could fit another dozen, as could Barndoor and Sleepers. With the strong NW winds and no winter usage, payback from selling power back to the grid would be short. What a benefit to the envoronment. And, what an improvement it would be to the beauty of the Lake - should really improve everyone's view!
This would prolly require the Clear Cutting of ALL the trees on the islands which would also provide even more Renewable Energy to warm us for many winters to come. YES..? NB
NoBozo is offline  
Old 10-04-2009, 10:21 PM   #41
StephenB
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 33
Thanks: 9
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
I read a story this month....National Geographic or Smithsonian,not sure which one,that indicated that 100's of thousands of birds were being killed by the windmills out west.Mostly golden eagles,hawks and owls.For some reason they are mostly raptors.I'm puzzled why people who profess to care about the enviroment would want a windmill anywhere near them.
As I recall,Exxon got fined millons of $$ for accidentally killing 80 migrating birds.The have stopped road and bridge projects for a nesting eagle,osprey or owl.There is a federal law that calls for huge fines for causing the death...or even harrassing or interferring with migrating birds.
Hey,I'm with ya' on solar,wave energy, ethanol,nuclear....you name it,but if you want windmills ,say goodbye to your little birdies.
From what I understand, the vast majority of windmill bird deaths in the West happen at one early and rather poorly planned windfarm in Atamont (sp?) near San Francisco. Due to poor knowledge of the time of bird migration routes, this particular facility is in a uniquely poor place as well as having a large number of pretty small windmills turning so fast the birds can't avoid the blades.

Ordinary skyscrapers are estimated to kill many times more birds than all of the more modern windfarms presently operating in the US.
StephenB is offline  
Old 10-05-2009, 04:04 AM   #42
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Cool NIMBY, but...

"Bird-strikes" into skyscrapers are devastating in numbers, but the ordinary house cat kills many more songbirds than any of today's technologies. (The relatively small island of Key West has about 40,000 housecats and is a major US flyway for migrating songbirds).

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve
"...most electric power generation was fueled by coal ..."
New coal-fired plants are to be bankrupted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grady223 View Post
I would encourage all the islands to mount as many of the big windmills as would fit - bet Rattle Snake could fit 25 -30, Diamond could fit another dozen, as could Barndoor and Sleepers. With the strong NW winds and no winter usage, payback from selling power back to the grid would be short. What a benefit to the envoronment. And, what an improvement it would be to the beauty of the Lake - should really improve everyone's view!
Let's take another view at Lake Winnipesaukee and "view":

Lake Winnipesaukee's first windmills should be copies of those off US coasts and be built at "The Witches".

(Improving the "view" of The Witches!)


ApS is offline  
Old 10-15-2009, 01:32 PM   #43
Rattlesnake Gal
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Central NH
Posts: 5,252
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 1,447
Thanked 1,349 Times in 475 Posts
Arrow Old Windmill in Alton

I just found this old postcard in McDude's gallery. It has a windmill! Can I guess for it would have been a pump for water?


Click here to see the postcard in PhotoPost, where you can super-size it.
Rattlesnake Gal is offline  
Old 10-15-2009, 06:06 PM   #44
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 10-15-2009, 07:09 PM   #45
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts
Default

How about a farm at the witches? We could set a good example for the cape and islands.
Attached Images
 
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
Old 10-15-2009, 07:53 PM   #46
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??
...gee whiz...if they can build fish ladders so the salmon can migrate up and down river around a dam.....then they should just build some big safety cages around the whirling propellers to protect the birds. On second thought....how about bird ladders so the birdies can climb around the windmills?
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 10-15-2009, 11:17 PM   #47
trfour
Senior Member
 
trfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX.
Posts: 3,694
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 3,069
Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts
Default Out Of The Woods....

No worries here in the Lakes Region, FLL.


Link; http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm
__________________
trfour

Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU!

Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html
trfour is offline  
Old 10-16-2009, 07:02 AM   #48
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??
Thought about it.

Decided to pass on it until you posted again.

And actually, Acres Per Second did make remarks on your post (see above). So did StephenB and I believe he said something about "poor planning" on the part of the engineers. If that's the case then the company who installed those things out west should move them.

I've lived in CA and seen the hills covered by wind turbines. They're awesome to see. I believe there's a mandate in the state that calls for a certain amount of renewable energy to be supplied. I think it's smart on their part because our dependence on foreign countries supplying our oil is hurting us.

Did you watch the video I posted? It's addressed by an engineer who designs the wind turbines, when he spoke to the Alton & Barnstead school boards at a meeting. (Alton & Barnstead share a high school and have a joint maintenance agreement - both school boards meet together to manage the high school.)

There's an excellent study here: http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

And a good article about it here:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...n_misconce.php

Now, take into consideration the availability of wind, the use of a "renewable" source for energy, and a source that is local vs. being from a foreign country, like oil, and the benefits of the wind turbine far outweigh the negatives, in my opinion. I'd wager that far more damage is done from an oil spill than from a wind turbine.
Argie's Wife is offline  
Old 10-16-2009, 07:34 AM   #49
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Here is an interesting article about a person who put a WindMill on her land in Ossipee. The article was in the Granite State News sometime in early 2008.



BY ELISSA PAQUETTE
Staff Writer

OSSIPEE — A 34-foot windmill reaches toward the sky from Cecily Clark’s hilltop acreage in Ossipee. The three, six- foot long fiberglass
blades rotate continuously downwind atop a tapered pole, producing a slight hum when the wind picks up. As the wind direction shifts, so
do the blades. Clark, a sculptor, admires the elegant design. “I always wanted one,” she says, “and the technology is here now.” A chance meeting with contractors Greg and Leonah Simon, recent residents from Nova Scotia who specialize in windmill installation, enabled Clark to fulfill her desire to run her studio on clean energy. “It’s a natural extension for me. My father was a product of the Depression. He saved tinfoil, made sure we turned out the lights when we left the room, and always emphasized conservation,” says Clark. “I can remember when we had to return our toothpaste tubes before buying a new one at the pharmacy. There was lead in them.” Clark,who has lived in the area since 1968, just beyond the Wolfeboro-Ossipee town line on Pork Hill, is a pioneer of sorts. She is the first person to generate wind energy
harnessed to the Wolfeboro Municipal Electric Department grid. Learning the process has been a challenge for her as well as Barry Muccio,
manager of the electric facility. Since the department is not under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, he had to gather
information to draft Wolfeboro’s own policy for a “net metering” pilot program. The pilot program was recently approved by Wolfeboro selectmen. The eight-page document states, “the goal will be to establish future policies which will remain consistent with prudent electrical practices set forth by the National Electric Safety Code,National Electric Code and any other Federal, State and local government codes, while offering a mutual service agreement which is legal, objective, reliable and safe to both participating parties (utility and customer).” Net metering allows a person to be connected to the grid with a meter that runs both ways. When the windmill is generating more electricity than needed, the electric meter runs backward and the electric company records a credit. When the customer’s needs exceed production, the meter reverses course. At the end of a month, there is either a bill to pay or a credit. Since there is no one else currently in her position, Clark will be a primary source of feedback over the course of the year – as well as any others who might want to emulate her. Standing on her hilltop, gazing over the Ossipee Mountain range, she points to a complex of white buildings in a clearing within the rolling, forested vista off in the distance. “They are interested in installing a windmill too,” she points out. Her neighbors also have expressed an interest. They’ll be able to
benefit from her journey through the installation steps and now, production. The anemometer on Clark’s sunroom wall tells her the highest rate of wind in a given day. Thirty to 40 mph gusts are frequent, making her location ideal for generating wind energy. Seventy mph is the highest rate she has recorded, Early in October 2007, Clark ordered her windmill. The cost? $12,000 for the fixed costs, excluding having to
hire an electrician and contractor, and wire at $1 a foot. Her windmill is 300 feet from the meter, necessitating a $300 expense for wire alone.
Trees had to be cut, a trench dug to hold a conduit for the wires, and a hole excavated for the 3,000 pounds of concrete in the six-foot deep base. The rebar cage itself, embedded in the concrete foundation, weighed 750 pounds. Every day brought excitement as the project progressed. Clark’s photo diary shows the men working with snow underfoot as winter approached. Clark terms it “most exciting” to watch the workers hoist the tower into place on its base with their gin pole, but she declares Dec. 22, 2007, the first day of operation,“ the real McCoy.” Clark can now look at her computer screen and see detailed, current information on her windmill’s productionrate. That data is interfaced with Arizona-based Southwest Wind power, a company that just started producing her Skystream 3.7 model a year ago. When
there are glitches, as there have been in the early months of the year, Greg and Leonah Simons have access to the data and are able to
communicate with the company. Soon after installation, production stopped while the inverter (the device that converts direct current to alternating current) had to be reconfigured. Currently, when the blades get to a certain speed, the turbine shuts off. The Simons are communicating with the company to resolve the issue. Clark is “unphased.” She recognizes that a venture into new territory is not without
obstacles to solve, saying, “Somebody has to be the first.” She estimates that she’ll be able to cover the electrical production for the kiln in her sculpture studio, but most important is that she is using clean, renewable energy. If there is any surplus, she has the satisfaction that other users will also be able to power their homes, even if only in part, from energy that is not polluting the air. The electric department installed the necessary meter with a kill switch to be used at any point that work needs to be done on the wires, and another meter shows her total production to date. On days when the wind is blowing, “it’s great to watch the electric meter run backwards.” Her Skystream 3.7 produced 14 kilowatt hours of electricity in a 20-hour period in March. To date, with various starts and stops, she’s produced close to 130 kilowatt hours. “I know it’s only a drop in the bucket, but it’s a step in the right direction. We should be encouraging clean energy use in some fashion.”
According to figures suppliedby the N.H. Public Utilities Commission, Clark’s wind turbine is among only 15 such units generating into
electric grids in New Hampshire. A few installations have been around since the 1980s. As for incentives, Wolfeboro voters passed a warrant article (31) to adopt the provisions of RSA72:66 for a property tax exemption of $5,000 for home owners equipped with a wind-powered
energy system. Under the state’s net-metering law, final rules have been established and are readily available online under Final Rules – PUC 900. Tom Frantz of the Public Utilities Commission urges interested parties to look at RSA362-a:9, which lists the conditions that net metering customers must follow. The Wolfeboro Muncipal Electric (WMED) Department’s pilot program adopted most of the rules set forth by the state, but as a separate entity, the department has the right to establish its own guidelines. One deviation is that the monthly base rate to customers, which stays the same in utility companies throughout the state, is currently double the rate for Wolfeboro’s net metering customers. Also, while the state’s net metering rules offer customers the opportunity to sell electricity to up to three retail customers, the
WMED draft states that the agreement with a customer will be “based on the premise of offsetting part or all of the customer’s own electrical requirements through the use of renewable energy technology.” That includes solar or hydro as well as wind. Cecily Clark is Wolfeboro’s first net metering customer, but more are sure to follow. Already, Peter Goodrich, who will be retiring in June to live full-time inWolfeboro in his solar home, is contributing to the grid too. New manufacturing and service economies are on the rise state and nationwide. Wolfeboro is on its way to going green.
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 10-16-2009, 08:02 AM   #50
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

Around the lake, Gunstock Mt ski area stands out as potential windy spot to build a wind turbine. Gunstock already has numerous chairlift towers that go unused for about eight months/year. Building an introductory wind turbine somewhere up on Gunstock Mountain might be a year round energy maker?


Oops... I forgot that Gunstock belongs to Belknap County....so it has an unlimited source of money and generating income is not a problem......sorry....
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 10-16-2009, 10:38 AM   #51
Rattlesnake Gal
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Central NH
Posts: 5,252
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 1,447
Thanked 1,349 Times in 475 Posts
Arrow Historic Windmills



The Long Island Inn used to have a windmill too. Used I would guess to pump water?
Rattlesnake Gal is offline  
Old 10-16-2009, 08:00 PM   #52
StephenB
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 33
Thanks: 9
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??
Ummm, read up. I responded to your post already. Repeat: most of the birds killed out west are killed at one wind farm at Atamont Pass outside of the Bay area. Most folks now agree that this particular area, combined with lots of smaller, earlier generation windmills with smaller, higher speed blades, are responsible for the bird deaths. Please read up for the rest of my comments.
StephenB is offline  
Old 10-16-2009, 08:13 PM   #53
SteveA
Deceased Member
 
SteveA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gilford, NH
Posts: 2,311
Thanks: 1,070
Thanked 2,053 Times in 496 Posts
Default I read something about this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??
Your post caught my eye. I knew I had read a similar report. I remembered where I say it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...nd-farms_N.htm
__________________
"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry he'll be a mile away and barefoot!" unknown
SteveA is offline  
Old 10-16-2009, 09:26 PM   #54
Dr. Green
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Around the lake, Gunstock Mt ski area stands out as potential windy spot to build a wind turbine. Gunstock already has numerous chairlift towers that go unused for about eight months/year. Building an introductory wind turbine somewhere up on Gunstock Mountain might be a year round energy maker?
Interestingly, Gunstock approached my store (www.sustainabilitynh.com) about the possibility of installing solar panels on Gunstock Mtn. to help power their huts, etc. I pointed out that all ski areas face north, to keep the sun off the slopes so the snow stays longer, so the return on the installation would likely never equal the outlay of purchase and installation (unlike normal south facing residential solar installations, which can pay for themselves in 15-20 years (with State and Federal rebates).
Dr. Green is offline  
Old 10-17-2009, 04:26 PM   #55
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default Solar Panels

There was a good article in the Meredith News this week about a family that runs their house on solar panels (or hopes to anyway).

Click on picture below to read the article:

Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 10-17-2009, 06:37 PM   #56
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 10-17-2009, 07:26 PM   #57
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.
You know what... I'd agree with you whole-hog if it meant we could drill on US territory.

The problem I have with our reliance on petrol isn't because I'm a "treehugger" (which is somehow a dirty word on this form) or "green". I don't suggest these things to "feel good" - but I do hate how dependent we are on foreign suppliers for our fuel.

That being said... why not more water or steam or gas turbines to create energy - it doesn't have to be solar or wind. It's hardly a warm-fuzzy thing, as far as I'm concerned. It's more about self-reliance to me than anything else.

As far as our infrastructure goes, it takes time to implement these things so that there is an impact on the power grid. The initial implementation takes upfront costs that other energy sources don't call for simply because they are "common".

I'll leave you with this graph from the NY Times about where things are going with energy (graph #1) and how much has been spent to develop new sources (graph #2):






Graphs and article can be read (and a lot bigger, I might add!) HERE: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html
Argie's Wife is offline  
Old 10-17-2009, 07:42 PM   #58
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,386
Thanks: 716
Thanked 1,375 Times in 951 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.
Samiam, you just always have so much common sense!! What you say is true, however I must admit, it is kind of fascinating fooling around with these alternatives. Too bad they couldn't do more with them-make them worthwhile.
tis is offline  
Old 10-17-2009, 08:01 PM   #59
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH
Posts: 5,504
Thanks: 3,113
Thanked 1,089 Times in 783 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Green View Post
Interestingly, Gunstock approached my store (www.sustainabilitynh.com) about the possibility of installing solar panels on Gunstock Mtn. to help power their huts, etc. I pointed out that all ski areas face north, to keep the sun off the slopes so the snow stays longer, so the return on the installation would likely never equal the outlay of purchase and installation (unlike normal south facing residential solar installations, which can pay for themselves in 15-20 years (with State and Federal rebates).
Gunstock should take their competitor Wachusetts as a green initiative. Wachusetts harness the heat from the air and water compressors use in snowmaking to heat their main lodge. Wachusetts received commendation from the fed for their initiatives.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 10-18-2009, 09:12 AM   #60
Nagigator
Senior Member
 
Nagigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Central Ma.
Posts: 290
Thanks: 268
Thanked 55 Times in 39 Posts
Smile Not only that......

Wachusett Mountain in Princeton, Ma is installing 2 rather large windmills on the summit.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSFKdARjCFM

Hope this goes through!

Clarification: The Princeton Light Dept. is installing 2 windmills on the summit of Wachusett Mountain.

Last edited by Nagigator; 10-18-2009 at 09:23 AM. Reason: clarify
Nagigator is offline  
Old 10-18-2009, 01:08 PM   #61
Dr. Green
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.
Samiam

When you point out solar is only 1% and will only double to 2%, the reasonable person would conclude that power companies and big business have fought solar for years, denying it subsidies while enjoying massive subsidies of their own. That we only use 1% is a sign of our short-sightedness, not that we don't need it.

You notice petroleum declines 15% over the next 20 years. Why? Because petroleum production has been level and is beginning to decline, while energy demand keeps increasing. That is behind the spike in oil prices from $1.50 to $4.00 last year. How do we prepare to live in a future of declining petroleum availability? We should be changing as much as we can to solar and wind. That said, wind is not a very good residential resource in NH (though commercial wind is great).

If we continue to use most of the oil for warming the house and producing electricity, there will be much left in the future for transportation, etc., when we get to the point that we don't have enough to do both. Since our economy is so dependent on oil, it will be hit harder than other economies (for example 3rd world) which don't rely so much on fossil fuel when the crunch comes. We will be hit much harder than economies like Germany, which have developed solar resources much more than us.

As to your thoughts about "the global warming thing...", I am getting more and more upset over time while the deniers delay our global response to a crisis that reputable scientists are in almost complete unanimity about. Read the Limits to Growth, 30 Year update (published in 2002) and see why they continue to warm about an ecological collapse facing us if we don't focus on sustainability. We are living in serious overshoot (a technical term) where we are using resources much faster than we can renew them, and EVEN IF global warming scenarios were totally wrong (in the face of all evidence that they are right) we would still be facing massive challenges to maintain oour standard of living.

The hoodwinking is by those trying to convince us that science is not...well....science, but a mere set of untested opinions.
Dr. Green is offline  
Old 10-18-2009, 05:36 PM   #62
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Angry Science is more

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Green View Post
Samiam

science is not...well....science, but a mere set of untested opinions.
Science is not all facts. It is also hypothesis, which IS opinion of the scientist!
Don't assume because you can call it science that it is fact!
Pineedles is offline  
Old 10-19-2009, 07:53 AM   #63
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Green View Post
Samiam

When you point out solar is only 1% and will only double to 2%, the reasonable person would conclude that power companies and big business have fought solar for years, denying it subsidies while enjoying massive subsidies of their own. That we only use 1% is a sign of our short-sightedness, not that we don't need it.

You notice petroleum declines 15% over the next 20 years. Why? Because petroleum production has been level and is beginning to decline, while energy demand keeps increasing. That is behind the spike in oil prices from $1.50 to $4.00 last year. How do we prepare to live in a future of declining petroleum availability? We should be changing as much as we can to solar and wind. That said, wind is not a very good residential resource in NH (though commercial wind is great).

If we continue to use most of the oil for warming the house and producing electricity, there will be much left in the future for transportation, etc., when we get to the point that we don't have enough to do both. Since our economy is so dependent on oil, it will be hit harder than other economies (for example 3rd world) which don't rely so much on fossil fuel when the crunch comes. We will be hit much harder than economies like Germany, which have developed solar resources much more than us.

As to your thoughts about "the global warming thing...", I am getting more and more upset over time while the deniers delay our global response to a crisis that reputable scientists are in almost complete unanimity about. Read the Limits to Growth, 30 Year update (published in 2002) and see why they continue to warm about an ecological collapse facing us if we don't focus on sustainability. We are living in serious overshoot (a technical term) where we are using resources much faster than we can renew them, and EVEN IF global warming scenarios were totally wrong (in the face of all evidence that they are right) we would still be facing massive challenges to maintain oour standard of living.

The hoodwinking is by those trying to convince us that science is not...well....science, but a mere set of untested opinions.
I think it's fair to say that us "deniers" are equally upset with those of you that have fallen for this hoax. You don't need to be a scientist to see that we are cooling, not warming. This whole thing is just a scheme to let government control more and more of our economy....bet you love the new cap and trade bill..you won't even be able to start a chain saw without forking over come kind of "carbon" tax.
What's even more insulting to our intelligence is the hypocrisy of people like Al Gore who scold us about warming up our car in the winter while he maintains a mansion that uses enough fuel to run 50 standard homes and crosses the country in a Gulfstream jet.......but I almost forgot...it's OK because he bought some "carbon credits" in his own company. Plant a few trees and the guilt is gone.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 10-19-2009, 05:24 PM   #64
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,386
Thanks: 716
Thanked 1,375 Times in 951 Posts
Default

We need a thanks button here for that post Sam. I know I sound like your champion, I just can't help it, I usually agree with you.
tis is offline  
Old 10-19-2009, 07:15 PM   #65
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
I think it's fair to say that us "deniers" are equally upset with those of you that have fallen for this hoax. You don't need to be a scientist to see that we are cooling, not warming. This whole thing is just a scheme to let government control more and more of our economy....bet you love the new cap and trade bill..you won't even be able to start a chain saw without forking over come kind of "carbon" tax.
What's even more insulting to our intelligence is the hypocrisy of people like Al Gore who scold us about warming up our car in the winter while he maintains a mansion that uses enough fuel to run 50 standard homes and crosses the country in a Gulfstream jet.......but I almost forgot...it's OK because he bought some "carbon credits" in his own company. Plant a few trees and the guilt is gone.
I agree with you SAMIAM.

When I wake up in the morning and it’s cold out, then it’s global cooling. If I wake up in the morning and it’s hot, then it’s global warming.

All kidding aside, this is what I believe:

The Earth's rotation axis is not perpendicular to the plane in which it orbits the Sun. It's offset by 23.5 degrees. This tilt, or obliquity, explains why we have seasons and why places above the Arctic Circle have 24-hour darkness in winter and constant sunlight in the summer.

When the offset changes (wobbles) from what we believe is the norm, then the earths temperature changes to make it cooler or warmer depending on where you are located on the earth.

The sun will ultimately determine whether it’s going to be hot or cold in the future and not some wannabe global warming scientist like Al Gore.
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 10-19-2009, 08:09 PM   #66
gtxrider
Senior Member
 
gtxrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Piscataway, NJ
Posts: 1,030
Thanks: 2
Thanked 46 Times in 24 Posts
Default Costs

I took a course and the one thing the teacher said to take from the class is "There is no such thing as a free lunch." This was a data class and the example was higher speed = more errors per second.

I think about this when I read about ZERO EMISSIONS CARS. Where does the power come from to recharge the batteries? What are the windmills made of? How do we refine the metal to build them? Where will we put them? Who pays for the land? Who wants the farms in their back yard?

Don't get me wrong every little bit helps but nothing is perfert.

Remember everything has a cost.

Nuclear?
gtxrider is offline  
Old 10-19-2009, 08:32 PM   #67
Shedwannabe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laconia
Posts: 133
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Default

This is fascinating.

I'd heard there were people who didn't believe in global warming despite all the scientific evidence, but to hear from one is kind of like discovering a "flat-earth-er" who really believes there is an edge to the earth. I don't personally know anyone who would admit to it - I just imagine anyone would be embarrassed to be caught making statements like that.

Just because Al Gore is a hypocrite in that regard has no bearing on whether his message is true or not, and unfortunately his message is true (as far as science can determine). Pineneedles, I do see your comment about Dr. Green's post that science is hypotheses, and you are right, just because all the evidence supports a hypothesis doesn't mean it is right. BUT it does mean you have to point out some evidence that it isn't right, and to say "its a cold October" totally misses the point. The southwest of the US had one of the hottest years recorded.... while New England took a tiny step back.

Samiam - I hear you that you feel this is a conspiracy by the US government to take more and more control. Of course, that control is being demanded by the majority of the people who saw what happened when the government pretended, in the face of massive evidence, that there was no problem. I don't want government taking control of my life, but I like even less wholesale slaughter of any environmental protection and the laying to waste of the planet my descendants will (try to) live on.

I hear Al Gore is the target of ridicule. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is that the personal attacks on him are somehow used as an explanation of why global warming is wrong. Unfortunately for you deniers, in any scientific venue, the reality of the damage we are doing to our life-support system, our planet, is documented and the evidence grows clearer every month. That is why ALL the governments of the world are coming together to take action, because those whose responsibility it is to care for their citizens are looking ahead and seeing that without drastic curtailment of carbon emissions, they will fail in their responsibilities.
Shedwannabe is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 06:37 AM   #68
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Al Gore only wants to report global warming in the summer time.

Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 09:56 AM   #69
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
Default

Look Shed, it's this simple to explain. First off, when we talk about global warming, it usually is meant as "man-made global warming. There in lies the rub. We have records of our climate for a whole, what, 130 years? Not much of a sample when the earth has been here, what, a billion years? The earth has warmed and frozen many times over before man ever walked on it. The itsy bitsy solar system we live in with it's itsy bitsy planets have had eons of change and will continue to till our miniscule sun burns itself out. Put it this way, there are billions of solar systems in our galaxy in which there are billions of galaxys. For you and your so called experts to call out anyone who disagrees with this absolute conclusion based on such a microscopic sample of a microscopic view is, well,v ery much like our current administration's attitude of "how dare you question anything I do?". It should scare the hell out of any open minded person.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 10:23 AM   #70
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
Look Shed, it's this simple to explain. First off, when we talk about global warming, it usually is meant as "man-made global warming. There in lies the rub. We have records of our climate for a whole, what, 130 years? Not much of a sample when the earth has been here, what, a billion years? The earth has warmed and frozen many times over before man ever walked on it. The itsy bitsy solar system we live in with it's itsy bitsy planets have had eons of change and will continue to till our miniscule sun burns itself out. Put it this way, there are billions of solar systems in our galaxy in which there are billions of galaxys. For you and your so called experts to call out anyone who disagrees with this absolute conclusion based on such a microscopic sample of a microscopic view is, well,v ery much like our current administration's attitude of "how dare you question anything I do?". It should scare the hell out of any open minded person.
You da man!! Very well put!

AND........."Drill Baby Drill"
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 11:05 AM   #71
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,874
Thanks: 521
Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
Look Shed, it's this simple to explain. First off, when we talk about global warming, it usually is meant as "man-made global warming. There in lies the rub. We have records of our climate for a whole, what, 130 years? Not much of a sample when the earth has been here, what, a billion years? The earth has warmed and frozen many times over before man ever walked on it. The itsy bitsy solar system we live in with it's itsy bitsy planets have had eons of change and will continue to till our miniscule sun burns itself out. Put it this way, there are billions of solar systems in our galaxy in which there are billions of galaxys. For you and your so called experts to call out anyone who disagrees with this absolute conclusion based on such a microscopic sample of a microscopic view is, well,v ery much like our current administration's attitude of "how dare you question anything I do?". It should scare the hell out of any open minded person.
Insert "Thanks" here.
Very well said SS.
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 11:52 AM   #72
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,855
Thanks: 459
Thanked 659 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Oh this is going to be good, if we can keep it civilized and to the point and our webmaster indulges us.

My problem with windmills is they are not economically viable without large subsidies (read taxpayer payments) to offset the costs. Take away these subsidies and no one in their right minds would pay for them. I believe solar suffers from the same issue, although long term maintenance and endurance may allow it to reach a point of break even with out subsidies.

The Global Warming issue, now called Global Climate change (easier to defend) is a sham as far as I am concerned. I was hoping for a little global warming as I watched the Patriots trounce the Titans. The problem I have with cap and trade is the HUGE cost to families if it is enacted, for a very minimal impact if I accept the premises of the bill and anthropogenic climate change.
ITD is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 12:05 PM   #73
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default

Not to throw water on the party, and SIKSUKR nailed it when he said "man-made global warming", but there are geology findings that point to periods of the earth's history, and I'm talking 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years ago where warming and cooling has been influenced by carbon and other particulates in the atmosphere. Although we may be contributing to warming, it is an amount that is so miniscule in comparison to other natural occurences, like volcanoes. This should be the meeting point for both sides of the arguement. I do think the global warming thing has been blown way out of proportion and we should be concerned about the general overpopulation of the earth and concentrate on how we can feed and shelter future generations using our God given natural resources but keep an eye on where our next source of energy will come from and try to develop them. But that does not mean abandon nuclear, and fossil fuels, on the false premise that the earth will be destroyed in 50 or 100 (pick a year) years.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 12:19 PM   #74
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
Default

Not to mention sunspots and slight wobbles in earths rotation that have a far more reaching effect than man has had. I'm not saying we should not develop cleaner forms of energy. We absolutely should, have already done so, and will continue to but not at the end of the gun!
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 12:23 PM   #75
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
Not to mention sunspots and slight wobbles in earths rotation that have a far more reaching effect than man has had. I'm not saying we should not develop cleaner forms of energy. We absolutely should,have already done so, and will continue to but not at the end of the gun!
Particularly a gun held by the likes of Al Gore. Wait a minute, given his inaccuracy with quotes like "I invented the Internet", maybe his inaccuracy is just as bad with a .357. Fool would probably shoot himself in the foot.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 01:21 PM   #76
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
Particularly a gun held by the likes of Al Gore. Wait a minute, given his inaccuracy with quotes like "I invented the Internet", maybe his inaccuracy is just as bad with a .357. Fool would probably shoot himself in the foot.

Poor AL, he tries, but most of us can see right thru him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
Not to mention sunspots and slight wobbles in earths rotation that have a far more reaching effect than man has had. I'm not saying we should not develop cleaner forms of energy. We absolutely should, have already done so, and will continue to but not at the end of the gun!
The earths rotation and angular location to the sun plays a big role in our temperatures. Any variance from "norm" and we can/should expect changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
Not to throw water on the party, and SIKSUKR nailed it when he said "man-made global warming", but there are geology findings that point to periods of the earth's history, and I'm talking 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years ago where warming and cooling has been influenced by carbon and other particulates in the atmosphere. Although we may be contributing to warming, it is an amount that is so miniscule in comparison to other natural occurences, like volcanoes. This should be the meeting point for both sides of the arguement. I do think the global warming thing has been blown way out of proportion and we should be concerned about the general overpopulation of the earth and concentrate on how we can feed and shelter future generations using our God given natural resources but keep an eye on where our next source of energy will come from and try to develop them. But that does not mean abandon nuclear, and fossil fuels, on the false premise that the earth will be destroyed in 50 or 100 (pick a year) years.

Excellent points!!!
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 02:08 PM   #77
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,874
Thanks: 521
Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineedles View Post
Not to throw water on the party, and SIKSUKR nailed it when he said "man-made global warming", but there are geology findings that point to periods of the earth's history, and I'm talking 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years ago where warming and cooling has been influenced by carbon and other particulates in the atmosphere. Although we may be contributing to warming, it is an amount that is so miniscule in comparison to other natural occurences, like volcanoes. This should be the meeting point for both sides of the arguement. I do think the global warming thing has been blown way out of proportion and we should be concerned about the general overpopulation of the earth and concentrate on how we can feed and shelter future generations using our God given natural resources but keep an eye on where our next source of energy will come from and try to develop them. But that does not mean abandon nuclear, and fossil fuels, on the false premise that the earth will be destroyed in 50 or 100 (pick a year) years.
And don't forget about Greenland. No, not the town in NH, but the country up north. Currently covered under a sheet of ice. You may be asking yourself "Why would anyone name a country that is buried under ice Greenland?". Well, the answer should be clear...Greenland has not always been covered by ice. Back when it was Green, there were very few humans (if any at all) influencing the climate in any way. Interesting, eh?
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 02:11 PM   #78
Shedwannabe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laconia
Posts: 133
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Default

For information on the "climate change denier" movement, see http://www.realclimate.org/, an organization formed by climate scientists appalled at the lies being put out (I'm not talking about "disagreements" I'm talking outright lies) to persuade the public that the scientific community was not in substantial agreement about climate change.

To the comment that volcanos put out a lot of CO2... yes they do... but nothing compared to what humans put out.

"Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial eruptions is carbon dioxide. It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller than the sources from human activity.. .Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year." From Wikipedia

So Pineedles - it seems your idea that volcanoes put more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity is just plain wrong.

Now there are natural feedback loops that can handle increased carbon dioxin:

"The good news: The earth’s carbon cycle has natural negative feedbacks that reverse natural surges in carbon dioxide.

The bad news: We are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere 14,000 times faster than nature has over the past 600,000 years, far too quickly for those feedbacks to respond.

“These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change … that we’re going to see in the next several hundred years,” Zeebe said by telephone from the University of Hawaii. “Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium.“

Zeebe notes that, “the average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume.” Humans have run up CO2 levels 100 ppm over the last two centuries!

In the ancient past, excess carbon dioxide came mostly from volcanoes, which spewed very little of the chemical compared to what humans activities do now, but it still had to be addressed.

This antique excess carbon dioxide — a powerful greenhouse gas — was removed from the atmosphere through the weathering of mountains, which take in the chemical….

The natural mechanism will eventually absorb the excess carbon dioxide, Zeebe said, but not for hundreds of thousands of years."

Additionally, it seems the carbon dioxide level has been below the current level for at leat the last 600,000 years.

So what would ignoring increasing carbon dioxide levels do to us? At 800 to 1000 ppm, the world faces multiple miseries, including:

1. Sea level rise of 80 feet to 250 feet at a rate of 6 inches a decade (or more).
2. Desertification of one third the planet and drought over half the planet, plus the loss of all inland glaciers.
3. More than 70% of all species going extinct, plus extreme ocean acidification.

"Imagine sea level rise of nearly 20 inches a decade lasting centuries — a trend perhaps interrupted occasionally by large chunks of the West Antarctic ice sheet disintegrating, causing huge sea level jumps in a span of a few years. And imagine that by 2100, we lose all the inland glaciers, which are currently the primary water supply for more than a billion people. Now imagine what future generations will think of us if we let it happen."

But come to think of it, if science doesn't mean anything to you...then showing the results of scientific research won't either...

One further thought. Suppose that its true that "natural processes" over the long run cause more effect on the CO2 rate than humans do (as several have suggested). So, what if natural processes lead to an increase in the CO2 rate to say 800 ppm. If human activity has added another 200 ppm after that, then we would have put ourselves over the edge into extinction, whereas if we had done what we could to reduce emissions, maybe we would have survived. People's arguments on natural CO2 processes always seem to imagine them in opposition to the effect of human activity but they are just as likely to synergize and more rapidly increase the impact of human caused emissions.
Shedwannabe is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 02:48 PM   #79
Boater
Senior Member
 
Boater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 74
Thanks: 4
Thanked 12 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Goody, my favorite topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedwannabe View Post
I'd heard there were people who didn't believe in global warming despite all the scientific evidence, but to hear from one is kind of like discovering a "flat-earth-er" who really believes there is an edge to the earth. I don't personally know anyone who would admit to it - I just imagine anyone would be embarrassed to be caught making statements like that.
Shed, the statement above shows your political bias on this topic. Calling people who have a reasoned honest disagreement with you "deniers" or "flat-earthers" is really offensive. It is a typical Liberal tactic. It infers that skeptics are like Holocaust deniers and hinders any constructive conversation.

You really don't know ANYONE who is skeptical about AGW? Wow, you don't get out much. There are thousands of scientists that are skeptical. Climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, astronauts and more. You can see that many posting here are also skeptical. Many members of the IPCC itself now don't agree. How, in good conscience, can you ignore and discard their concerns? Any theory you present can be disputed and debated. Problem is, Liberals aren't listening (see Algore shutting off the mike of a questioner). Like you, they simply DECLARE the conversation over and won't even listen to other points of view. This is science?

You also imply that people you know may have doubts but you don't "know anyone who would admit to it". Do you realize what you are saying? Apparently the suppression of non-PC scientific opinion has been accomplished. How low we have sunk when a scientist doesn't dare speak his opinion.

I could get into an extended debate about the very foundations of the AGW theories but what's the use if you've already closed your mind? It is very doubtful that Co2 is the problem here. There is a direct correlation between sun activity and climate change. The connection between Co2 and AGW is highly debatable. 97% of the Co2 on the planet comes from fires, decomposition and volcanoes. Lakes like Winnipesaukee and oceans are huge factories of Co2. They pump it out in mass quantities.

The real endgame for AGW worshipers is to tax and control. While Liberals plot to burden businesses with new taxes and regulations that will further cripple our economy while having minimal impact on climate, emerging economies like China are building power plants like there is no tomorrow. They know that without energy there can be no growth and prosperity. They know that they need oil and electricity. They will drill anywhere (even off our coasts) and do what is necessary to ensure their economic growth. Too bad we won't. While we refuse to create any energy China and others will become the economic superpowers and will laugh at our feeble attempts to control the climate.

Nothing is settled, nothing is beyond debate. Defend your beliefs vigorously but don't demean or discard opposing opinions. Most likely they are not completely wrong and you are not completely right.
Boater is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 03:09 PM   #80
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default I'll bid 30,000 scientists

I have pulled some excerpts from an an article in Carbon Offsets Daily. You can find lots of information out there, no matter which side of the arguement you are on, but 30,000 scientists? Come on! They went out of their way to sign a petition!

Here's the link.

http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/ca...woes-15421.htm

It may be of interest to you to know that over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition which denies that human- produced CO2 or any other greenhouse gas is causing or will cause dangerous warming of the planet.

What does the evidence actually show? The global temperature record starts in 1856 showing a warming trend until 1880 then cooling until 1910; warming again until 1942, then cooling until 1975 (scientists were concerned we were heading for an ice age); warming again until 1998 and currently cooling again.

All of this while CO2 was steadily increasing in the atmosphere.

Where is the correlation? Surely if the UN theory is right, temperatures should show an increasing rise along with CO2; it simply is not there. Furthermore with CO2 currently increasing at roughly two parts per million per year, temperatures certainly should not be dropping now as they are.

We should be seeing an alarming increase but it is simply not there. This brief period of history completely destroys the whole man-made global warming scenario being caused by human CO2 output. It also destroys the current computer-climate models as none of them predicted the current situation.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 03:17 PM   #81
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
Default One other thing

You are right about the volcanoes. I researched my statement and I was wrong. But if you hadn't posted a bunch of facts and figures I wouldn't have gone in pusuit of my own. I guess I was trying to find some middle ground with my first post, but you wouldn't have any of it. Nobody is going to convince anyone of anything here on the forum and we can go back and forth with mountains of "evidence". Bottom line is, you think the world is coming to an end and I don't. Without my cooperation, your scenario is going to come true according to you. Guess what? The harder you push the more I'll push back.
Pineedles is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 04:00 PM   #82
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 319 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
And don't forget about Greenland. No, not the town in NH, but the country up north. Currently covered under a sheet of ice. You may be asking yourself "Why would anyone name a country that is buried under ice Greenland?". Well, the answer should be clear...Greenland has not always been covered by ice. Back when it was Green, there were very few humans (if any at all) influencing the climate in any way. Interesting, eh?
The story I have heard about the naming of Greenland goes more like this. When the Vikings discovered Greenland and Iceland they reversed the names of the two islands to prevent any other Europeans from discovering the better of the two, Iceland. This information came to me via a world history paper in college, it could be wrong.

But remember, when undiscovered land masses were discovered by humans that had the technology to build a boat and sail accross the pond, the climate was not much different than today. I believe the reference to Greenland at one point being green would be correct, but the time period would be well beyond the reach of even old world science. They were not doing core samples back then either.
jmen24 is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 05:23 PM   #83
Dickie B from HB
Senior Member
 
Dickie B from HB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 62
Thanks: 9
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Shed , you have really drunk the kool aid.
Dickie B from HB is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 06:44 PM   #84
NoBozo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Portsmouth. RI
Posts: 2,231
Thanks: 400
Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts
Default Bored

I really get BORED with Too LONG posts that just ...Go ON..... And ON..... And ON. This happens from both sides of an argument. If you can't make your point in a couple of paragraphs.......................Brevity is...

I admire SHED for digging up the TRUTH about Seaplane Permissions on Pickerel Pond.....And posting his findings....essentially canceling his original premis. It takes a Man to do that. ....SHED: What's come over you..?? Nb
NoBozo is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 07:11 PM   #85
This'nThat
Senior Member
 
This'nThat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 534
Thanks: 19
Thanked 134 Times in 61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmen24 View Post
The story I have heard about the naming of Greenland goes more like this. When the Vikings discovered Greenland and Iceland they reversed the names of the two islands to prevent any other Europeans from discovering the better of the two, Iceland. This information came to me via a world history paper in college, it could be wrong.
Hmmmmmm. I wonder if the same guys who discovered and named those two islands also worked for the Public Works department to name Driveways (where you park your car) and Parkways (where you drive your car)?

Or perhaps their names were Abbott and Costello?
This'nThat is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 07:19 PM   #86
SAMIAM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,834
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,625 Times in 561 Posts
Default

Boater,that was a great and thoughtful response....I'm sending that to everyone on my mailing list.
Also, tis made a good point that, while GW is a scam...that people should be free to pursue alternative energy for their own use. I am totally in favor of that as long as the government is not shoving it down our throats.
SAMIAM is offline  
Old 10-20-2009, 08:11 PM   #87
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedwannabe View Post
This is fascinating.

I'd heard there were people who didn't believe in global warming despite all the scientific evidence, but to hear from one is kind of like discovering a "flat-earth-er" who really believes there is an edge to the earth. I don't personally know anyone who would admit to it - I just imagine anyone would be embarrassed to be caught making statements like that.
Proud to introduce you to another. Me. Check back in a few decades. I will be willing to reevaluate the data as it comes, will you?
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 06:42 AM   #88
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,386
Thanks: 716
Thanked 1,375 Times in 951 Posts
Default

It never ceases to amaze me at how easily so many are so willing to "drink the cool aid". I am so proud there are so many of us here who aren't afraid to question.

I also hate reading long posts, as a rule I don't think most people bother to read them all.

If we get cap and trade, we are done as a country. Just MHO.
tis is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 08:51 AM   #89
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

Go google 'Middlebury College willow trees' to read a recent newspaper article on how this northern Vermont school powers their multi building heating plant. The fast growing willow trees are grown nearby.

Believe the central boiler heats 17 different college buildings with cast iron radiators having switched from oil to wood chips to locally grown willow trees.

About one mile west of Route 93 Exit 24, the Bridgewater Power Co powers wood chips into electricity for the grid, and simultaneously powers down the local property tax. It also creates jobs for local loggers and truckers. Been runn'n for ovah 20 years now, crank'n lectricty with nary a white plume of steamy smoke to show for it......ayuh!.

NH has a long history of smokestack industry. Too bad that NH's paper mill biz has unrolled. Seems like wood chip powered electricity could be a good fit. You probably noticed that all the miles and miles of trees, up north, have been growing like crazy for the last three growing seasons what with all the rain.
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 10-21-2009 at 09:32 AM.
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 09:22 AM   #90
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
Default I will support shed

Having posted what I did, I feel shed might feel like he/she is being ganged up on. Unlike what shed posted, I support anybody's right to disagree which really set me off. I normally don't like to get dragged into these battles but the mentality and current trend towards "listen to what I say and don't disagree or you are an idiot" tone of the latest administration has me a little sensitive. Does this me a racists also? Scary stuff.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 09:36 AM   #91
Newbiesaukee
Senior Member
 
Newbiesaukee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Coral Gables, winter; Long Island, summer
Posts: 1,349
Thanks: 921
Thanked 569 Times in 295 Posts
Default

I admit to being a "can't we all get along" kind of guy. My other trait is to cut off the extreme opinions on any issue ( I also buy the medium price washing machine which is usually a better value than the most expensive or the cheapest).

This discussion has been pretty reasonable and a number of good points have been made (again cutting off the extremes).

In my opinion, SIKSUKR made the most important point. There is a fundamental distinction between those who believe global warming exists, meaning that the changes ARE occurring, and those who also believe that humans are the CAUSE of global warming.

And a lot of the comments do not address this so that we are comparing apples and oranges. Of course, if you do not believe that GW is occurring then ANY suggestion to modify it, by definition, has to be wrong. It is vital in considering different opinions to know whether the person believes it is occurring or not. An atheist really can have no valid opinion on whether the Mass should be in Latin or English or the "correctness" of the Sunni or Shia interpretation of Islam.

I do believe that the preponderance of evidence is that GW is real and the average temps are increasing worldwide. Just because we've had some cold winters, etc. in no way refutes the argument any more than the stock market going up for a bit means "happy days are here again." I am NOT so convinced that humans are the direct cause or of the prudence of some of the proposals.

The difficulty is to separate the best answer form the cr*p and there is a lot more of the latter. But you gotta keep trying.

Mixing up ones own political views, strong emotions, social views rarely leads to the correct answer to what is, in reality, a scientific question and this includes both Gore and the fanatics at either end.

Finally, even my position that the "middle" is always correct is not always true and is an "extreme" position itself. Sometimes those at the extremes are correct, just not usually for most of the issues we face as a society.
Newbiesaukee is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 01:55 PM   #92
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,656
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 342
Thanked 614 Times in 277 Posts
Default

Pinning blame seems to be partly an exercise to extract reparations, when disasters from climate change strike, from those who benefited from energy The US culture is to not accept blame; just ask an American Indian. The real question, rarely asked, is; what can be done about it? If we cut carbon emissions by 50%, would it help, and by how much? My theory (and we all should have one) is that a cycle has begun, much like how the lake melts in the fall. Once the lake starts melting, the cycle continues till it is complete - and the earth is in its own cycle. Maybe humans sped up the cycle, maybe they triggered it - but the cycle has begun. I believe the tipping point has been passed. We can ride it out or try to slow it down - but what says we'll make things better? The carbon tax seems like a huge fraud waiting to happen, but if the worst case impact of climage change happens, lots of money will be required to repair the damage. That money has to come from somewhere. And, that gets back to blame. There will be lots of countries looking for help, and they will be wagging their fingers at the carbon consumers. Will we pay up, ignore them, or help them build casinos? How does this impact the lakes region? We currently need lots of carbon to stay warm and the climate changes could continue the water quality decline; impacting the local economy.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 02:22 PM   #93
John A. Birdsall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 599
Thanks: 27
Thanked 51 Times in 35 Posts
Default windmills

This conversation is somewhat over my head, but in the beginning of this thread it was about windmill power. I am assuming that Rattlesnake has an association. It would seem to me that two things could go on the peak of Rattlesnake, Cell towers for At&t and windmills to give the island electricity.

I think the wind would generate enough for the whole island. Other Islands Large ones) would or could do the same thing.

As for Al Gore, let him keep thinking he invented the internet, Someone once said that he could be replaced, and they were right he was replaced.
John A. Birdsall is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 06:30 PM   #94
Rattlesnake Gal
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Central NH
Posts: 5,252
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 1,447
Thanked 1,349 Times in 475 Posts
Arrow Rattlesnake Island Windmills

Quote:
Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall View Post
This conversation is somewhat over my head, but in the beginning of this thread it was about windmill power. I am assuming that Rattlesnake has an association. It would seem to me that two things could go on the peak of Rattlesnake, Cell towers for At&t and windmills to give the island electricity.

I think the wind would generate enough for the whole island. Other Islands Large ones) would or could do the same thing.
A windmill or perhaps windmills were looked into by Rattlesnake Island Association.
"Not only was it cost prohibitive, but the town was not in general favor of the project." - Quote from the RIA Secretary.
Rattlesnake Gal is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 06:58 PM   #95
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,506
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 291
Thanked 950 Times in 692 Posts
Default

The July 27, 2008 Union Leader: "For homeowners, powering with wind mills a tall order" by Clynton Namuo is helpfull and informative.. It includes links to the 2008 state law that regulates installations of renewable energy such as solar, wind,and something else and the state law seems to help exclude some arbitrary decisions by local town zoning boards as it provides State of NH guidelines for approving installations.

How 'bout a great big wind mill with an arty red & orange diamond rattlesnake displayed along the large tail structure of the windmill! What the heck....Rattlesnake Island already has an alligator on the shoreline....so how about a MONEY-MAKING rattlesnake atop the cliffs!
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Old 10-21-2009, 08:20 PM   #96
trfour
Senior Member
 
trfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX.
Posts: 3,694
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 3,069
Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts
Default I'm All For New Technology....

Knowing that humans have been using wind power for at least 5,500 years. Windmills have been used for irrigation pumping and for milling grain since the 7th century AD.

Brings to mind that sometimes first ideas just need to be tweaked a little, to keep up. And when all is said and done, just maybe our getting back to basics could make our planet better.

Link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

PS. I'm also curious as to how far new tech wind power has progressed since the Rattlesnake Island Association did their study.
__________________
trfour

Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU!

Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html
trfour is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 08:04 AM   #97
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
Cool One Word: Mylar

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedwannabe View Post
"...Just because Al Gore is a hypocrite in that regard has no bearing on whether his message is true or not, and unfortunately his message is true (as far as science can determine)...Samiam - I hear you that you feel this is a conspiracy by the US government to take more and more control..."
Just Sunday, a scientist interviewed on FOX-TV said that "Cap & Trade" won't reduce CO2 levels. Worse, we can't be certain that reducing CO2 levels won't create some other, unanticipated global disaster.

While there have been inter-space countermeasures available for decades, none have been suggested so far—only to increase taxes.

The "mylar spider web", placed into geostationary orbit, has the greatest potential to reduce global temperatures, but nobody seems to want it colder!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedwannabe View Post
"...I hear Al Gore is the target of ridicule. I don't have a problem with that..."
Tennessee (the voters who knew Al best) kept Al from being an even bigger spokesperson!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITD View Post
"...Oh this is going to be good, if we can keep it civilized and to the point and our webmaster indulges us..."
The last discussion didn't turn out so well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Green View Post
"...That we only use 1% is a sign of our short-sightedness, not that we don't need it...energy demand keeps increasing...wind is not a very good residential resource in NH (though commercial wind is great)..."
"Ridge development" is the worst kind of housing to have upslope from any lake. Windmills around Winnipesaukee's windy ridges would be a far better use of land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
"...Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power...and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.
Think of the local economy and remember that's a "whopping" 100% increase in a burgeoning new technology!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
"...Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas...I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills, but they won't power a motor vehicle.
For a free charge, just park your all-electric "Windmobile" into the wind!



Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
"...nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors...anyone care to comment...??
The prey of raptors' includes songbirds: windmills could "even out" mankind's toll on birdlife. A wind farm at The Witches might take out an occasional cormorant—but leave Loons alone.

If no countermeasures were taken, it needn't be a net loss. Birds and other critters respond to sights and sounds: putting a whistle on a blade—or a narrow, highly-reflective, mylar strip—might go a long way to limit birdstrikes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy View Post
"...anything that can reduce our energy footprint when it comes to foreign oil..."
...And the future of those "gallon-per-minute" boats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM View Post
"...GW is a scam...that people should be free to pursue alternative energy for their own use. I am totally in favor of that as long as the government is not shoving it down our throats..."
1) That "shoving" may come from foreign governments. The last two weeks have seen rumored meetings to change to a different currency than the US dollar. (In case you thought "world depression" was in the past, try $5+ per gallon gasoline).

Now is not too early to begin the change from petroleum.

2) Natural gas seems like a "natural" for this country.

It should have been required long ago, that all Government vehicles get the simple conversion from gasoline to natural gas—and do it tomorrow with a signature!

IMHO.
ApS is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 10:59 AM   #98
Shedwannabe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laconia
Posts: 133
Thanks: 3
Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts
Default Interesting quote on another thread relevant to the debate on global warming above

Quote:
Originally Posted by granitebox View Post
Found this article today that fits the profile of a few vociferous members - I am not voicing an opinion but its what many have said, the vocal minority can can often really believe what they are saying is the truth.

Stanford Study Explains Internet Trolls

In a study conducted at Stanford, psychologists discovered that people who hold extreme opinions are more likely to voice them loudly than those who hold moderate opinions. At last, science has explained most of what you read on the internet.

Ohio State professor Kimberly Rios Morrison polled Stanford University students about what they thought about students drinking alcohol. What she discovered was that the students with the most extreme pro-alcohol stance expressed their opinions most readily, in general because they believed that they were voicing the majority opinion. But polls showed that the majority of students had a moderate to anti-alcohol stance. When pro-alcohol students were shown evidence that most people didn't support their views, they were far more reluctant to express their extreme opinions.

Said Morrison:

It is only when they have this sense that they are in the majority that extremely pro-alcohol students are more willing to express their views on the issue.

Sounds like this study explains internet trolling and flame wars too. People with extreme views who are extremely loud about them manage to delude themselves into thinking everybody agrees. Morrison added:

You have a cycle that feeds on itself: the more you hear these extremists expressing their opinions, the more you are going to believe that those extreme beliefs are normal for your community.

No word yet on how to break the cycle. But we can only hope further research will lead to a simple way to cure extremists of their belief that everybody shares their opinions and wants them to keep talking.
I have no idea whom granitebox was referring to in his post, but people who hold the extreme position that near unanimous research conclusions by climate scientists are bogus in my mind fit the criteria above.

The vast majority of American's are (rightly) worried by the inaction by governments on steps to combat global warming. An influential (and loud) minority work to block efforts to respond, such as at the Copenhagen UN conference this December.
Shedwannabe is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 11:54 AM   #99
Gearhead
Senior Member
 
Gearhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Alton
Posts: 166
Thanks: 13
Thanked 19 Times in 8 Posts
Default Forget the windmill, I've got a better idea!

I'm world renown for my half-baked ideas, so here's one of mine to ponder:

Remove the oil or gas-fired furnace, and replace it with a fuel-efficient diesel or gas engine (outside, and with a good muffler). Capture the heat from the water jacket and hot exhaust to heat the house in the Winter, and generate power with the drive shaft. When the engine's running, it's back-feeding the grid; when it's not running you're taking power off the grid. In the cold weather I'll bet one would produce more than a household would consume. The question, therefore: Do I need a VW TDI or a Peterbilt?
Gearhead is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 12:23 PM   #100
Argie's Wife
Senior Member
 
Argie's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton
Posts: 1,908
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 533
Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhead View Post
I'm world renown for my half-baked ideas, so here's one of mine to ponder:

Remove the oil or gas-fired furnace, and replace it with a fuel-efficient diesel or gas engine (outside, and with a good muffler). Capture the heat from the water jacket and hot exhaust to heat the house in the Winter, and generate power with the drive shaft. When the engine's running, it's back-feeding the grid; when it's not running you're taking power off the grid. In the cold weather I'll bet one would produce more than a household would consume. The question, therefore: Do I need a VW TDI or a Peterbilt?
What you've described is basically what a gas or steam (or combo) turbine does with applications. For example, a paper company may use the turbine for power while having steam available for part of their processing, all generated off the same turbine. So, no... this isn't half-baked. It's something that's pretty much going on already just in a different form.
Argie's Wife is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.98639 seconds