Wind Power at Ski Areas

[Harvey]

I can't stand daytime snowmaking.

That goes without saying, but I take it one step further. Even if the guns aren't being used, just seeing them standing there is a huge buzzkill for me -- it upsets the manmade illusion of a natural environment (grooming, lifts, snowmaking, etc.).
:?

I'm absolutely fine with daytime snowmaking. And I'm one of those nuts who skis next to the guns. I ALWAYS have ear plugs in my butt bag for this purpose. I probably like it because compression is such a limited resource at Gore. When conditions are perfect Gore will blast on the full length of 2 trails per day and that is it.

Not sure why, but I have the same feeling as James, but oddly only about the permanently mounted tower type guns. I know they are more efficient, but I don't like the way they look. For some reason the little sled ones don't bother me. The whole thing is odd because the lifts, the lodges the parking lots, the snowcats, the hamburgers...the whole thing is pretty unnatural. But its those tower guns I don't like.

Hey James...how do you like looking at these? Artist rendering of proposed wind towers at Gore:

http://harvey44.blogspot.com/2009/10/ba ... owers.html

 

[jamesdeluxe]

They look awful, but if that's what'll keep a ski area open...

In this thread from 2.5 years ago, there's a pic of the real thing (scroll 2/3 down):
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2971&p=16893

 

[Tony Crocker]

They look awful, but if that's what'll keep a ski area open...

Don't whine about fossil fuel use if you're going to oppose wind power installations. Seems to me Mammoth should be thinking about this, especially since California's electricity isn't cheap.

One of the raps on wind power (vs. solar for example) is that the power is not necessarily produced during the time/hours it is most needed. But at a ski area needing to run snowmaking at night, less of an issue.

 

[Admin]

Out here they more typically look like this:

 

[Harvey]

FYI those towers won't be on Gore's land, and the juice produced would not be exclusively used for Gore. The towers would be on private property owned by the Barton family.

The Barton's pretty much owned the garnet/sandpaper business in the US for years. The abandoned mine is a huge gash in the side of Gore that looks like a moonscape and is sitting idle.

It's a windy spot. The Barton family home was a backcountry ski center and is named "Highwinds."

There are already big time power lines in place that brought electricity to the mine.

Warren County would like to put the installation in to power the county. While I find it difficult to believe, the estimates are that the towers would provide half of all the power used in the county.

http://www.adirondackwind.com/

 

[flyover]

Nonetheless:

Out here they more typically look like this:

I'll admit that looks pretty grim, but in some landscapes they're not so bad IMO. There are at least hundreds, if not thousands of turbines in western MN. Unlike, say a lot of Saskatchewan, the prairies out there roll around a bit and the turbines get clustered on the low ridge lines. Because the turbines have relatively small footprints, they also tend to be placed right in the middle of productive agricultural fields. In some parts of western MN, you can drive for 45 minutes or an hour straight and always be in sight of dozens of the things. In that otherwise bucolic landscape, when the turbines are spinning, the effect can somewhat dazzling in a Blade-Runner-meets-Giants-of-the-Earth kind of way.

I don't think wind turbines are appropriate in relatively pristine natural environments, but I also don't think most ski areas really come close to being relatively pristine natural environments.

 

[icelanticskier]

The whole thing is odd because the lifts, the lodges the parking lots, the snowcats, the hamburgers...the whole thing is pretty unnatural.

this whole sport of lift served skiing is pretty silly, and we partake cuz we're silly. i mean think about it. sitting on yer a$$ and riding some huge, ugly, silly contraption just to get to the top of the same damn runs that we ski day after day, year after year. i mean at least conditions change, but c'mon!

rog

 

[Marc_C]

Nonetheless:

Out here they more typically look like this:

I'll admit that looks pretty grim, but in some landscapes they're not so bad IMO. There are at least hundreds, if not thousands of turbines in western MN. Unlike, say a lot of Saskatchewan, the prairies out there roll around a bit and the turbines get clustered on the low ridge lines. Because the turbines have relatively small footprints, they also tend to be placed right in the middle of productive agricultural fields. In some parts of western MN, you can drive for 45 minutes or an hour straight and always be in sight of dozens of the things. In that otherwise bucolic landscape, when the turbines are spinning, the effect can somewhat dazzling in a Blade-Runner-meets-Giants-of-the-Earth kind of way.

I don't think wind turbines are appropriate in relatively pristine natural environments, but I also don't think most ski areas really come close to being relatively pristine natural environments.

Actually the most recent farm in Utah is at the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon:

 

[Admin]

Actually the most recent farm in Utah is at the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon:

Nope, Delta. The Spanish Fork farm was begun 2 years ago.

 

[Marc_C]

Actually the most recent farm in Utah is at the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon:

Nope, Delta. The Spanish Fork farm was begun 2 years ago.

Oh jeeze. OK. The most recently completed farm. And who the hell cares about what happens in desolate Delta anyway?

 

[Admin]

I just like calling you out when you're wrong. I can't let those arguments with Tcope go to your head.

 

[joegm]

They look awful, but if that's what'll keep a ski area open...

Don't whine about fossil fuel use if you're going to oppose wind power installations. Seems to me Mammoth should be thinking about this, especially since California's electricity isn't cheap.

One of the raps on wind power (vs. solar for example) is that the power is not necessarily produced during the time/hours it is most needed. But at a ski area needing to run snowmaking at night, less of an issue.

amen to that tony...typical Ted Kennedy lefty hypocrisy ... they should be planting wind turbines everywhere they can, as many as they can, as often as they can....except of course, if it ruins the view of the " beautiful people "....

 

[Patrick]

amen to that tony...typical Ted Kennedy lefty hypocrisy ...

For some Americans, I would probably be defined as Left of Communist, however I don't have one issue regarding Wind Turbines at Miller or other areas. I stated it in the past and I'm repeating here.

 

[berkshireskier]

Yea, the first wind turbine at a ski area in the US was put up at Jiminy Peak in Massachusetts, which is not too far from me. I thought it would look terrible before they installed it, but it really is not too bad looking. In fact, it looks almost like a large sculpture on the landscape. Admittedly, it might look much worse if there were four or five turbines on the mountaintop. Furthermore, (let's face it) ski areas are not exactly pristine wilderness areas these days. Condos, ski homes, base lodges, equipment sheds, lift towers, snowmaking equipment, large parking lots, and all sorts of other ugly man-made structures litter the base area and mountainside. A wind turbine might actually be the most aesthetically pleasing structure on the mountain. Plus, they can generate a substantial amount of the ski area's electrical needs.

 

[jasoncapecod]

Yea, the first wind turbine at a ski area in the US was put up at Jiminy Peak in Massachusetts

when your up close to it, you hear the coolist sound..woosh woosh woosh....