• The project would cause "significant adverse impacts to water quality, fish and wildlife and upland vegetation at Mount Hope Lake." • The transmissionwould create "significant adverse visual and land use impacts." -- Source: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, November 1989
"Rockaway Township Mayor Louis Sceusi said that, if the permit is allowed and the subsequent licensing process begins again, the township will work to make sure that the historic mining site is again protected. He said the project would be a benefit to the township"
How the hell could Lou be for this thing? I will be calling him today to let him know how I feel - I suggest you all do the same! There is more to life than squeezing every last resource for every last dollar until it's gone.
Need to understand the facts and impact on the environment before jumping on the Mayor. Have you seen the area they are talking about? The quarry has completely raped the land up there, anything would be an improvement. If they can prove it to be an environmentally sound concept, it would be a great tax ratable for the township. No IMPACT on traffic, environement and surrounding residents is a must.
• The project would cause "significant adverse impacts to water quality, fish and wildlife and upland vegetation at Mount Hope Lake." • The transmission would create "significant adverse visual and land use impacts."
I assume the subject is the Mt Hope Hydro Pumped Storage Project. There is a similar project in some respects in Blairstown and as a result, Blairstown taxes are a fraction of what they would otherwise be. Through a separate mechanism, the owning utility pays a "gross receipts and franchise tax" to the state which then gets allocated back to those municipalities hosting utility projects. In a case like this, those revenues would be very substantial. Look into the financial benefits before concluding that it's a bad deal. Those additional revenues could be used to finance the acquistion of the property on 140 GPR and turning it into a much needed school. That get's my vote.
Silt from the quarry has already impacted the lake and the previous owners of the land jumped the gun and cleared all the trees upland a decade ago. Take a ride up there on the week end and walk the property. Its a mess.
I am not saying I am for or against it. We just need to understand the facts. The study you reference was done over 15 years ago; the quarry has blasted away a significant portion of the land since then, and hydro-technology has advanced. All I am saying is don't poo-poo it yet. There could be significant financial advantages for RT if it could be proven to be a sound plan.
It most certainly provides much more benefit to RT compared to a megachurch. Right now, the Mt Hope property is just a Hell Hole, not unlike cc. I suspect that the pro's exceed the con's.
I find it funny that the Daily Record states some of the region's growing demand for electricity could be met by flushing thousands of gallons of water through generators perched underground in old mine shafts.
I wonder if the Daily Ragord understands that this project does NOT "create" electricity, but in reality is nothing more than a very large "rechargable battery" - charging (pumping water up) at night when electric rates are cheap and reselling the energy back (dropping the water into the shafts / generating electricity) during the daytime when electric rates are high. Does this paper research any of their articles???
__________________
This message is posted to the "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Internet Forum. Reproduction of this post on any other website is expressly forbidden without prior permission of the author.
You are exactly correct on that. My dad, developed the conceptual aspects of this technology back in the mid 1950's while working for PSE&G in a colaboration with JCP&L. He worked out all of the math and economics associated with the concept of energy storage during off peak hours which ultimately resulted in the Yards Creek energy storage project.
The idea is this. Electrical generators operate most efficiently when running at 100 % output. That is to say that the conversion of a given amount of fuel produces the maximum amount of KWH (Kilowatthours) when the machinery operates full tilt. However, at night time, these machines run at only a small fraction of their peak load value seen during the daytime. So, by storing the energy in the form of a head of water during off peak hours, the actual electrical generators can be operated higher up on their efficiency curve at night. During the daytime at peak loading conditions the water can reverse its flow and backfeed the power grid reducing the number of generators required to satisfy peak daytime demand.
So, because of the improvement in generator efficiency due to this technology, polutants are also reduced. Why? Because as the efficientcy of the system (a Carnot cycle) increase, the smaller number of ppm of polutants are produced by the system per unit KWH produced. So, there is a very strong "Green" effect that results from these facilities, besides the more obvious monetary ones.
ps - and yes again, the DR demonstrates it complete lack of knowledge and competitance. So what else is new?
I remember when it was first proposed up there, but I dont really recall why it never went thru. I dont recall hearing a lot of negatives about the plan particularly environmentally. That lake (?) is pretty much a slime pit anyway. I cant imagine it being worsened by some recirculation. I guess I would have to see the studies and understand the pros and cons before formulating an opinion. You know, just like we did with CC. Now if we could get them to put the church at the bottom of the mineshafts....
