YOUR COMMENTS

One more thing,

China is moving past us in this arena. According to the New York Times
“This year China is on track to pass the United States as the world’s largest market for wind turbines — after doubling wind power capacity in each of the last four years.”

Here’s the link
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/business/energy-environment/03renew.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Some of you people really need to learn some basic research skills before you go on the attack. We can either lead, follow, or get out of the way. I for one would like America to lead on this issue rather than allow you ideologues to put America last.
- Jim, Raymond NH

Congrats to NH. We spent 5 Millions to an out of state company and we get 10 new jobs to operate the wind farm. Or maybe less than 10 jobs since ConEdison can send their crew anytime across the border.
Mr. Lynch: I thought the stimulus money for for NH to invest in NH. MA has got LOTS of money, why not us?
- Jack, Hampstead, NH

Jim Peschke, Croydon, NH
You have obviously received your information from Rush, which explains why you are so misinformed. Cape Wind is currently installing 130 turbines off the Cape that will produce up to 420 megawatts of clean, renewable energy. In average winds, Cape Wind will provide three quarters of the Cape and Islands electricity needs.

These turbines can’t even be seen from shore and they will not disrupt any wind patterns. They don’t require fuel of any kind and farms like this have been used effectively worldwide.

If you want to talk unsightly Seabrook takes up a massive chunk of prime beachfront real estate in a heavily traveled tourist area. The ugly thing can be seen for miles in all directions.

I know change is scary but don’t you think you’re over reacting just a tad? Honestly you guys have reduced it to the point where you’re just making stuff up now.

Regardless of your argument I still see no reason for us to subsidize another reactor so we can pay some of the highest rates in America when we have a viable lower cost alternative. It calls into question the mental state of the person who wants to pay more.
- Jim, Raymond NH

"massive disruption of wind patterns "???? Jim P, could you quote your sources on that one? I've heard lots of arguments against wind farms, but never that they would change global weather patterns

Sorry, but you lose all credibility when you start throwing that argument around.(sort of like monadnock mike trying to make his point with calculations, but ending up off by a factor of 100...)
- pete, randolph

Sorry Jim, Raymond, but nuclear power doesn't require massive disruption of wind patterns to produce a few megawatts of electricity. It also doesn't cover hundreds of square miles with ugly noisy towers.

Wind power seems great to those who fail to consider the consequences of widespread application. I'm sure Diesel's little puff of smoke seemed innocent enough coming from his prototype engine. He couldn't have imagined some former vice president hypocrite would someday demonize this exhaust as the bane of humanity.

Three Mile Island proved the inherent safety of light water reactor design, as the total radiation release was trivial. Chernobyl proved the perils of graphite moderated reactors, which is why we don't use them. Facts sure can hurt Jim, can't they?

You also might want to check you facts about fuel supply. The United States has an abundance of nuclear fuel, even if we only used the inefficient once-through fuel cycle. Last time I checked, the largest reserves of uranium were in Australia, not South Africa.

Nuclear power is expensive for two reasons: 1) Its underdeployed and 2) Its over regulated. The Chinese are planning to build hundreds of reactors using a standard design, and I promise you they're not going to pay $15 billion each.

Thank you, Jim from Raymond, for demonstrating by example the perils of those who do not understand energy production trying to set policy. I didn't expect a demonstration so soon.
- Jim Peschke, Croydon, NH

Jim Peschke, Croydon, NH

Nuclear power is not safe, clean, or reliable in the long term. According to other articles in the UL each family of four produces a shoebox of waste in a lifetime. In one generation just from Americans alone we will produce enough waste that if stacked on top of each other it would reach all the way to the moon and half way back. As far as reliable Seabrook is due to be decommissioned meaning that if we want to keep it running it will require more subsidies as nuclear power can’t support itself. As far as safe all I have to say is Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.

Wind power if deployed properly is safe, reliable, cost effective, and produces zero waste.

As far as your noise and view complaints they can be deployed at sea or in unpopulated areas. There are many alternative sites and much like Cape Wind compromises can be made as far as location.

Also we would not have to get our reactor fuel from South Africa because wind power doesn’t need fuel.

So, what we have here is a lower cost, lower polluting, reliable, and cheaper energy source. What’s the problem?
- Jim, Raymond NH

You people are too funny,
Traditionally wind, solar and hydropower are far less expensive than oil, coal, or nuclear (or “nukular for those D students out there).

For example Washington State has multiple wind farms and my friend pays 700.00 a year for electricity in a home twice the size as mine. Check the prices where renewable energy is used and you will find much lower rates.

What I don’t get is why so many people are opposed to saving 1500.00 per year? Along with those savings our money will be staying here in America rather than going out to Saudi Arabia and other terrorist supporting nations.

But hey, who has time for rational solutions
- Jim, Raymond NH

It also seems a bit strange to me. Especially since electrons travel their own way, and it would be tough to track them from some windmill far away.
However, the calculation indicates 42 million KWH, not 4.2, so the cost per KWH is closer to 10 1/2 cents, not 1$.
And, yes NH is a net exporter of energy!
- Richard Barry, Merrimack, NH

I often wonder why we don't spend more time in the colder states seeking ways to build our homes under ground. You don't have to go down that far to increase the level at which the temperature is warmer. Not to mention the insulating value of being surrounded with earth. I've had an idea for one floating around in my head for a few years now.

Maybe we are just to set in what our idea of a home should look like. But then if it could work one party would feel the need to force you to tear down your home to build the one that saves the planet. Or so you will be told.
- Deb, Derry

mike in monadnock, you may want to check your math before posting. It is .0005 CENTS per KWH which equals .000005 $/KWH.

Now redo the calculation and let us know what you get

and mike in bedford- $4M won't get you too far in opening up Seabrook II

Florida Light & Power is proposing a similar sized new reactor in FL. The initial estimate is $15 BILLION.And if prior nuclear installations are an indicator of final costs vs estimated, I suspect final costs will be several times that number. $4million might get an engineering study started...
- pete, randolph

With several hundred years worth of coal occupying American soil and technologies available to burn it cleanly, talk of any other technology is pure politics. Wind power is terribly inefficient hence terribly expensive. Windmills enough to replace one average coal plant would occupy hundreds of square miles. Wind power is pure nonsense that only a fiscally irresponsible government would endorse.
- AJ, Windham

I don't know what to believe anymore. All know is it takes energy to power this country, If someone can tall me how many of these monstrosities are needed to power a home year round let me know. All I know is that oil is costing a small fortune and from what I hear electricity and gas ain't so go either. Which tells me we better start doing something soon
- Jack Alex, Manchester

You people are too funny,
Traditionally wind, solar and hydropower are far less expensive than oil, coal, or nuclear (or “nukular for those D students out there).

For example Washington State has multiple wind farms and my friend pays 700.00 a year for electricity in a home twice the size as mine. Check the prices where renewable energy is used and you will find much lower rates.

What I don’t get is why so many people are opposed to saving 1500.00 per year? Along with those savings our money will be staying here in America rather than going out to Saudi Arabia and other terrorist supporting nations.

But hey, who has time for rational solutions
- Jim, Raymond NH

This is a paper trail scam. How many more places are they going to sell the same "wind powered" energy?
- dave, bow

How is wind power "from wind installations across the country" going to help NH's environment? It will not impact how the local generators are run one milli-amp!

And, the numbers don't seem to add up. If wind "adds a premium of 0.0005 cents per kilowatt hour used, equal to about $21,000," that would mean the state government is using roughly 4.2 Million KWH of electricity ($21,000 / 0.0005¢/KWH). The state then says the total contract is worth about $4 Million. That would make the cost of the energy neary ONE DOLLAR PER KWH! (PSNH's cost is less than a DIME per KWH!)

Good thing the state is not having budget woes.....
- Monadnock Mike, Milford

Let the uglification of New Hampshire begin. Windmills are a scam. They're a blight on the landscape, can't be hidden, take many acres to generate power. They're unreliable, often noisy, and God only knows what their large-scale application would do to the weather patterns.

This is what you get when people who know absolutely nothing about energy production try to set energy policy for the rest of us.

Nuclear power is clean, safe, reliable, energy dense, and does not depend on a windy or sunny day. It also doesn't depend on "foreign oil" (nor does coal, but don't tell the windmill nuts about that)

Nuclear power also doesn't increase the amounts of that evil, all-life-on-earth-depends-on-it, make Al Gore rich "pollutant" CO2.
- Jim Peschke, Croydon, NH

No, no, no, can't, shouldn't, oughtn't, fear, fear, degradation, evil, Democrats, liberals, ebole, salmonella, decay and I forgot, somebody actually trying to do something about our economy. When you whiners start producing some other ideas that don't involve cutting your taxes and raising everyone else's perhaps we'll tune in again. Conservative carping, whining, squealing, pleading is unAmerican to say nothing of unattractive. I would recommend a union job. They tend to pay more, have benefits and accomplish something.
- Will, Deerfield

This all sounds like the kind of deal that Bernie Madoff would like to invest in.
- Don Armstrong, Henniker

Can't the state save us a few $$$ and get their electricity from Seabrook?
- Tom, Campton

This is a scam. Wind power is neither reliable nor controllable. There is no way to store large quantities of electrical energy to make this viable in the first place.
The tax payers are being ripped off by the government and its vote-buying power.
I agree with Leo above. Why can't a single news source ask pertinent and hard questions so that the scam can be exposed? Is the newsroom so devoid of basic knowledge of physics and engineering?
I have a question to ask. If the wind power is so great, why don't we install on top of the State house to power it with its connection to the grid completely cut off? Let us see how long the "clean" energy powered by dirty money last?
We are allowing these people to kill this state and the country.
- Spiritof76, Hampton

$4 million could have gone towards building Seabrook Unit 2, which would have been actually logical instead of a feelgood WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY.

Let's see. A 1400MW continuous, silent reactor, or about 1-2MW of wind power, when the wind is actually blowing. Huh.

These clowns are out of here next year.
- Mike R., Bedford

Leo Canterbury: I thought the same thing when I read the article. I'd like to know the answers, too.
However, if the UL HAD asked these questions, all the greenies would be piling on with their strident and vociferous single-minded voices accusing the UL trying to destroy our precious planet for whatever.
But, Con Edison Solutions is a subsidiary of “The” Con Edison the utility according to their website.

We send all the power from Seabrook et.al. to them, they repackage it, add a surcharge and send it back. I guess it is all just "symbolic", huh?
- Sandy, Thornton

the truth is it's taxpayers who are really buying this which in turn is re-sold to the taxpayer at a higher rate-and which will not be able to deliver to the consumer actuall savings of any kind-thank you enviro-wackos for this utter corruption!
- jon rand, derry nh

Let's see now - I have seen it written that NH is a net exporter of power due to the superb Seabrook nuclear power station. Now, some company referred to as "ConEdison" in the story (sounds suspiciously like NY's ConEd, but I don't think it is) is going to somehow deliver, from some windmills somewhere, power to some state offices somewhere, at some price that is somewhat higher than that that we export to other states, when the wind blows. Sometime. Maybe. And, some group called ENH, tells us this power game of checkers will save us money in the long run. Unbelievable!
Union Leader - would it kill you to ask some of the obvious questions before reporting silliness like this?
- Leo, Canterbruy