Snow Journal - Serious About Snowsports!

Home

Forums : General Discussion : The Pit
Moderated by: Chris, nelsap, Betsy

Anonymous posts are not allowed in this forum

The Northern Pass: How PSNH plans to destroy the White Mountain National Forest

Page: 1

Author	Post
TimberLeaf Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Sep 19, 2003 Posts: 230 Location:West Concord, MA	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 2:37 AM GMT Google Earth simulation of what this abomination is going to do to northern New Hampshire if it is built: youtube video If you love the White Mountains, join the opposition at: Facebook Page Opposition blog

newman Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Aug 21, 2008 Posts: 2124 Location:The mighty SKI WARD Shrewsbury MA	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 3:18 AM GMT Ugly, but that could clear out some great hike up ski locations.

davew Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Jan 10, 2007 Posts: 350 Location:	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 1:29 PM GMT So, would you rather build a new power plant, with it's associated environmental impact, or run lines from a hydro plant that may or may not impact someone's view, and provide less expensive power for NH and N.E.?

rocket21 Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Sep 13, 2001 Posts: 8404 Location:USA	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 1:39 PM GMT Huh? Aren't there already high tension lines in all of those places? __________ NewEnglandSkiHistory.com

itzthebigo Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Feb 22, 2005 Posts: 42 Location:	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 1:59 PM GMT Does anybody have a link to a blog or a facebook page where we can show our support for the project?

davew Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Jan 10, 2007 Posts: 350 Location:	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 2:12 PM GMT Quote: Does anybody have a link to a blog or a facebook page where we can show our support for the project? try this one

TimberLeaf Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Sep 19, 2003 Posts: 230 Location:West Concord, MA	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 2:31 PM GMT The power doesn't go to NH - it goes to MA and CT. NH doesn't need additional electricity, it's for the population centers in the south. There are wires along most of the route, but they are carried by 40' wooden poles and don't generally exceed the tree heights. The new lines will be carried on towers up to 140 feet tall making them visible across the entire region. There is a 40 mile segment of the route that will need to be clear cut to provide a right of way for the new power lines. I would rather build domestic green and renewable energy sources to reduce both the environmental impact and our dependence on foreign energy sources. This project is Big Hydro which is neither renewable nor is it "green" according to EPA standards. At the end of the day, what's the difference between Hydro Quebec shutting off the juice and the House of Saud shutting off the oil? Either way, you set yourself up to be dependent on somebody else for your energy needs. And isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place?

snowngr Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Apr 22, 2004 Posts: 424 Location:Goffstown, NH	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 2:44 PM GMT With Respect, TimberLeaf, while much of the skiing community holds a soft spot in our collective hearts for mother nature and the environment, and many of us don't have quite so much of the Not In My BackYard thinking. After all, we're in favor of cutting swaths of trees down and putting up metal towers with wires on them on otherwise beautifully forrested mountains! While I understand the concerns on the website you linked to that Quebec Hydro isn't environmentally responsible enough, I disagree. While the rivers they develop are incredible wild and scenic, they are also incredibly remote. Similarly to the argument for drilling in ANWR, the area developed for hydro power out of the whole of undeveloped, wild, scenic northern Quebec is miniscule. Also, this generation is being built because there is a market for it. This is not like not purchasing a fur coat because you're against fur. This power will be produced no matter who buys it, becuase hydro is both very reliable and very cheap. Decisions on whom to buy electricity from are made at the supplier level anyway and you are already getting a healthy dose of Quebec Hydro electricity. This project will make great increases in the reliability of the grid, especially in Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The already existing Moore, Comerford and Quebec Hydro lines that run through the Vermont and New Hampshire mountains to Scobie Pond in Derry, NH have been largely responsible for the power reliability and comparitively low electric rates we enjoy today. Had the NIMBY crowd not bankrupted PSNH and prevented the second unit at Seabrook Station, there may well have been no need for this project. I personally believ the chosen routing is the best possible choice, and the impact on views is no different that any other infrastructure in the area. Most people think of the WMNF as being between I-93 and NH-16. I think the route avoids most of this area as well as can be expected, and wisely lies west of Cannon staying out of Franconia Notch and nowhere near the Mount Washington valley. Would skiing at Cannon be a little nicer if I-93 had never been built? Maybe, but I think the average skier can see their way clear to just enjoy the other parts of the view considering the faster ride north in the morning. Similarly, the lifts run on electricity, and we want that electricity to be uninterrupted. Granted, much of this power is Massachusetts-bound. There are times we're 50 states with our own interests and there are times we're one country serving the needs of us all. Quebec has power, they're selling is cheap, and Boston needs it. Guess who's in the middle? While we shouldn't let ourselves get steamrolled on the details, and groups such as yours ABSOLUTELY SHOULD make your opinions known, we need to be able to accept infrstructure within reason that serves interests other than our own. Now maybe Mass could be a little more cooperative about getting us some rail transit up here?

davew Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Jan 10, 2007 Posts: 350 Location:	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 2:57 PM GMT here here on the rail transit - would be excellent to extend the metro to at least MHT (would prefer Concord though). but that's another conversation. No one wants to built power plants, factories, or anything else for that matter. Not sure how one expects to meet future demands. The Pacific Northwest has done great on Hydro - they have the lowest electric rates in the nation I believe. We lived there for a time and paid 30% of the electric rate we pay now (of course, there wasn't a fee per month just to be connected). I'm a firm believer in green energy (go ahead, try and build a wind farm somewhere - it's met with all kinds of opposition as well. Solar in New England, where it's cloudy 80% of the time, not as efficient) - an alreay built facility with spare capacity willing to sell to another locale - it really is a good thing.

snowngr Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Apr 22, 2004 Posts: 424 Location:Goffstown, NH	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 3:07 PM GMT Apologies, we were typing at the same time.... Quote: The power doesn't go to NH - it goes to MA and CT. NH doesn't need additional electricity, it's for the population centers in the south. Thats half true. This power will be going in to Scobie Pond and distributed throughout the state. We already have enough. But its more complicated than that. We as rate payers in NH can benefit from Massachusetts utilities having to pay for transmission line cost here in NH, offsetting some of what we pay. PSNH occasionally has to buy power from Massachusetts (expensive), especially when Seabrook is offline. This project will make that unlikely to ever be needed again. The fact that NH is a net exporter of power is a GOOD THING, and this will ensure we continue to be. Also, as cheap as hydro is, is could very well displace one or more of NH's coal plants. They aren't as cheap as they used to be, and shutting one down due to more economical power being available would most definitely be a good thing for the environment. Quote: At the end of the day, what's the difference between Hydro Quebec shutting off the juice and the House of Saud shutting off the oil? Either way, you set yourself up to be dependent on somebody else for your energy needs. And isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place? I could not more strongly disagree with you comparison. Our trade relationship with Canada at large and in bulk electricity is symbiotic in nature and very healthy. They won't stop selling to us because they profit from the sale and we're happy buying it cheaper from there than we can produce it here. If you go down to Niagara Falls you'll find it working the other way around. Sir Adam Beck Station on the Canadain side and Robert Moses Station on the American side send nearly all their power to metro Toronto.

bobbutts Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Nov 20, 2006 Posts: 610 Location:Central NH	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 3:10 PM GMT So to sum up, power lines to be installed in the 93 corridor? And if we protest and win, where do they get built instead?

rocket21 Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Sep 13, 2001 Posts: 8404 Location:USA	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 3:11 PM GMT Quote: There are wires along most of the route, but they are carried by 40' wooden poles and don't generally exceed the tree heights. The new lines will be carried on towers up to 140 feet tall making them visible across the entire region. That doesn't make sense...why would they be installing power lines at the height of a 14 story building? __________ NewEnglandSkiHistory.com

rickbolger Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Mar 14, 2005 Posts: 2299 Location:Great Gorge, NJ	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 3:14 PM GMT Quote: With Respect, TimberLeaf, .....I personally believ the chosen routing is the best possible choice, and the impact on views is no different that any other infrastructure in the area. +1

TimberLeaf Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Sep 19, 2003 Posts: 230 Location:West Concord, MA	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 3:40 PM GMT The interesting thing is that there are alternative routes and/or technologies that could mitigate most or all of of the concerns of the people affected by this project. There are other projects currently underway in other areas of the country that use buried superconducting cables to carry electricity. The energy loss along the line is reduced to almost 0% (which is both an economic and an environmental benefit) and the negative impact on tourism and property values is completely eliminated. We bury gas pipelines, why not electric power lines? And why doesn't PSNH just do that? Think about it: if you are going to build the project and it is going to adversely affect one group of people in favor of another group of people, can't you at least try to mitigate the impact on the non-beneficiaries? Otherwise it is just plain unfair. It all comes down to profits for PSNH and HQ. On one hand they tout the economic benefit of the jobs created building the overhead lines but when the suggestion of burying the line (which would create thousands of additional jobs) comes up, they say it's too expensive. Is this about cheap power? If so, then the that cheapness in southern New England is at the expense of people along the route in NH (IOW: it may be cheap for you but it's expensive for someone else). On the other hand, if it's about additional power and grid stability, then why not charge market rates and invest the difference in burying the line to mitigate the effect on the people who have to live next to your power conduit? At the end of the day it really isn't about cheap power for consumers, they will charge market rates anyway with the delta going to shareholders and not consumers. That's the way the market works.

TimberLeaf Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Sep 19, 2003 Posts: 230 Location:West Concord, MA	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 4:23 PM GMT Quote: [quote]There are wires along most of the route, but they are carried by 40' wooden poles and don't generally exceed the tree heights. The new lines will be carried on towers up to 140 feet tall making them visible across the entire region. That doesn't make sense...why would they be installing power lines at the height of a 14 story building?[/quote] This is a very high capacity DC power line and the clearances required for it are rather extraordinary. The benefit of using High Voltage DC is the reduced energy loss along the line. So that's the trade off. In this case, PSNH could have chosen to run HVDC along the entire route into MA but decided instead to stop the HVDC line in Franklin NH and continue south with a less imposing and less efficient HVAC line from there. Their rationale is that there would be too much resistance to a HVDC line and its required infrastructure from residents in the southern part of the state. So, in their view they can steamroll the people in the northern part of the state into putting up with the Godzilla sized towers, but once you get down into the population centers, you have to tone it down. It's ridiculously unfair. If the energy benefits are so overwhelmingly positive, and the towers are such a minor blemish, then why stop at Franklin? Because they aren't a minor blemish: they are an economic trade-off used to reduce the cost of the project and therefore increase the profit to the companies. They have calculated the siting of the HVDC portion of the project in an area where they believe their economic prowess will prevail over the concerns of the residents. Further south where that equation is reversed, they change their tune and reconfigure the system. So if you live in Bethlehem it's OK for you to live under the 140' towers, but if you live in Bedford, not so much.

TimberLeaf Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Sep 19, 2003 Posts: 230 Location:West Concord, MA	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 4:30 PM GMT Quote: [quote]With Respect, TimberLeaf, .....I personally believ the chosen routing is the best possible choice, and the impact on views is no different that any other infrastructure in the area. +1[/quote] How are towers and lines that are over 3 times the height of any other infrastructure in the area no different than any other infrastructure in the area? That doesn't make sense to me. I can see someone making the argument that the additional blight is a necessary evil (I don't agree, but I can see the argument). What I can't see is somone trying to play it off as no additional blight. Try telling Andy Roddick that he should just get used to playing tennis with a basketball because there's no difference.

TimberLeaf Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Sep 19, 2003 Posts: 230 Location:West Concord, MA	Posted: Jan 11, 2011 - 5:25 PM GMT Quote: So to sum up, power lines to be installed in the 93 corridor? And if we protest and win, where do they get built instead? Generally, yes. The devil is in the details of course and they are being coy with the details right now. There are several alternatives - not building the system being only one of them. Again, this isn't a federal project per se - sure there is a good deal of federal permitting required but at the end of the day it comes down to the State and local municipalities. If the State decides that the project is not good for New Hampshire (by comparing reduced tourism and construction revenues against the additional revenue generated by the lines) then they really have no choice but to deny permits. This is where the compromise comes in: Bury it. It's a better deal for everyone in the long run - no blight, increased efficiency - but not such a good deal for PSNH in the short run - increased construction cost. So the question is do we cave to PSNH's short sighted financial goals or do we hold out and do what's right for everyone in the long run?

photogf128 Profile \| Galleries Rank: Member Since: Apr 10, 2004 Posts: 2605 Location:MRV Vermont	Posted: Jan 12, 2011 - 12:44 AM GMT Vermont has been getting about 25% of it's power from HQ mostly from power stations along the Conn River for several years and recently entered into a new contract. Once Vermont Yankee is shut down they will play a bigger role for Vermont's power in the future. http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=12122758 __________ facebook.com/profile.php?id=1454198707#!/pages/American-Photoart-Gallery/90884206988

Page: 1