or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Proposed expansion at The Balsams
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Proposed expansion at The Balsams - Page 4

post #91 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post


No, I don't think he directed that at me. We just posted stuff at the same time.

 

I didn't check the timestamps. :-) I'm glad I asked. I've responded to posts in the past that I thought were related and ended up with egg on my face.

 

@PolePlant , THAT is why we quote the post we are responding to. And you can quote a post then delete a section of the quote so that it doesn't have to include all of the previous post.

post #92 of 129
So, it's about the turbines, but not how they look, it's that they would be sitting on skiable terrain and visible? You don't feel that's counteracted by acquiring clean, non-polluting energy? And so much better looking (even though you say it's not about looks) than your cited strip mine?

The rest of your rant may have meaning to someone who's been reading the local papers for a while, but doesn't mean anything to me. It just sounds like an objection to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePlant View Post

It isn't all about how the turbines look, sibhusky. It is about how the resort can no longer access so many acres of the ridgeline now. It is about the overall negligence of siting any turbines there. Especially when it had to be obvious to their engineers that the turbines would be seen, clear across the state like a billboard,  from the Maine state line to the Vermont state line. Essentially treating this slivver of the state about as respectfully as a strip mine. It had to be obvious that a nearby ski area would lose all hope of every enjoying a natural maximal vertical drop. That our elected and appointed officials never even gave it a second thought that the money supply might become less constricted at some point. The lackadaisical seat of their pants approach to this resort just sort of begs the question of whether they know something about the near future that they don't have to worry about. The hell with anybody but them. That is just the gut feeling I get.
post #93 of 129

Temporarily locked for Moderator review.

post #94 of 129

mod note - thread is unlocked

post #95 of 129
My note- this thread has gotten really weird.
post #96 of 129
Warning, Readers of the Sentinel: Before entering thread put on tinfoil hat.

So it seems the issue was lack of foresight to stick wind turbines on future valuable ski resort land. Two faults, aesthetic and waste of space. Plus they can be seen from every where including space. Apparently from the east and west borders of NH but no one is up there to confirm this. You think I jest, but use the Google and their map. With much better access than the entire Soviet Military 30 yrs ago, when the real skiers roamed the planet with long skis, you will see the turbines by clicking "satellite".

That and skiers who have the money to ski at the new Balsalms won' t because of the unsightliness and possible danger. Ice chunks flying off the blades, hapless children getting stupid, creating a horror film- "Turbine: The Gloaming". Other kids getting too adventurous base jumping in between the blades and failing.

More probs with wind turbines: how is one supposed to keep a flock of carrier pigeons? Sheesh, even in Brooklyn you can have those. But the turbines will shred them.

The state of NH is presumably aligning itself with a hopeless project destined to fail. We know this from the poor website among other clues such as failure to raise the $150 million.

It's NH's Solyndra so to speak. Lego version.

It's taken many posts and insults to arrive at that paragraph.

Now if you have questions about it, you are obviously a Les Otten disciple looking to destroy any dissent. (What do his disciples eat? Surely more than wafers.)
post #97 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

More probs with wind turbines: how is one supposed to keep a flock of carrier pigeons? Sheesh, even in Brooklyn you can have those. But the turbines will shred them.
 

 

The Brooklyn pigeons are much taster than their Central Park cousins. :rolleyes

 

Naturally grounded pigeons - lettuce wrap, anyone? :D 

post #98 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingGrump View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

More probs with wind turbines: how is one supposed to keep a flock of carrier pigeons? Sheesh, even in Brooklyn you can have those. But the turbines will shred them.
 

 

The Brooklyn pigeons are much taster than their Central Park cousins. :rolleyes

 

Naturally grounded pigeons - lettuce wrap, anyone? :D 

 


Lets not even get into European vs. African Swallows. 

post #99 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Warning, Readers of the Sentinel: Before entering thread put on tinfoil hat.

So it seems the issue was lack of foresight to stick wind turbines on future valuable ski resort land. Two faults, aesthetic and waste of space. Plus they can be seen from every where including space. Apparently from the east and west borders of NH but no one is up there to confirm this. 
 

 

And its important to mention that the East and West borders of NH at that point are a whopping 25 miles apart. Which, as everyone knows, is a two day trip. With long skis on. 

post #100 of 129
Truly bizarre. It is a skinny state at the top.

68191-004-6E1B0B99.gif
post #101 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Truly bizarre. It is a skinny state at the top.

68191-004-6E1B0B99.gif

Yup, and the Balsams is right about where the first "O" in "COOS" is. Meaning the turbines can be seen from a whole TEN MILES AWAY!

post #102 of 129

I think I found the issue - http://www.livefreeorfry.org/

 

It seems Hydro Quebec wants to run an overhead power line thru NH (instead of burying the line) to sell electricity to the New England grid.  Hydo Quebec has a ton of excess generating power right now.

post #103 of 129
Why intermingle a ski area expansion with the hydro project in the thread? Is the developer financing the expansion with money from this Quebec outfit? Seems like the wind turbines would provide power in competition to the hydro company.
post #104 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Why intermingle a ski area expansion with the hydro project in the thread? Is the developer financing the expansion with money from this Quebec outfit? Seems like the wind turbines would provide power in competition to the hydro company.

To be honest, I don't think our friend PP had much going in the way of coherence in thought patterns. Just his posts here were convoluted, contradictory, and as clear as ink. I can only imagine him in the position of talking to anybody involved with either of these projects. 

post #105 of 129

I was thinking as I looked at the terrain maps for the area in Dixville Notch, there is another use for the area that would be cheaper, have less environmental impact, and possibly be a better use for the area. Set up some minimal lift capacity, some double chairs, the minimal amount to access the terrain available. Then open the areas as lift accessed sidecountry zones. Not nearly as much investment needed, and if your'e talking about limited vertical, likely a much better use of the vert you have. I know it takes me much longer to ski 1000' of vertical in the trees than it does on an open trail. 

post #106 of 129

Just got off the phone with one of the prime movers in this project. We are meeting next week to discuss the future and what (if any) my role will be.

 

Been a long time since I was East of the Mississippi let alone way East.

 

Always interested in yet another "New" ski area, this one is no different.

post #107 of 129

I'll let you in on a secret. Poleplant's profile read:

 

What I do for a living:
 

Wind turbine design and development.

 

 

I queried him about that in a PM and his wind turbines are VERTICAL AXIS as opposed to the installed horizontal access ones he berates. https://sites.google.com/a/temple.edu/urbanwind/services/turbine-options-and-specifications

 

Edit: lest someone else think this is Poleplant's website, it is for Temple University and is provided as a primer on vertical vs horizontal turbines only.

 

If they'd gone with Vertical Access Turbines, I wonder if the arguments would be different.

 

Can of worms opened.


Edited by MastersRacer - 9/2/15 at 2:17pm
post #108 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastersRacer View Post
 

I'll let you in on a secret. Poleplant's profile read:

 

What I do for a living:
 

Wind turbine design and development.

 

 

I queried him about that in a PM and his wind turbines are VERTICAL AXIS as opposed to the installed horizontal access ones he berates. https://sites.google.com/a/temple.edu/urbanwind/services/turbine-options-and-specifications

 

If they'd gone with Vertical Access Turbines, I wonder if the arguments would be different.

 

Can of worms opened.

Hold the phone. PP was going on about the Balsams having a basic, poorly designed website, and THAT's his site? I could have made that site after I took intro to CompSci back in college, in the 90's. Pot, meet kettle. 

post #109 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastersRacer View Post
 

I'll let you in on a secret. Poleplant's profile read:

 

What I do for a living:
 

Wind turbine design and development.

 

 

I queried him about that in a PM and his wind turbines are VERTICAL AXIS as opposed to the installed horizontal access ones he berates. https://sites.google.com/a/temple.edu/urbanwind/services/turbine-options-and-specifications

 

If they'd gone with Vertical Access Turbines, I wonder if the arguments would be different.

 

Can of worms opened.


It seems Hydro Quebec is going to sell the power to the NE grid for $.03 (cheap). This could curtail demand for wind or solar projects. The new HQ/Romaine project started construction in 2009 (and planning way before 2009) before US natural gas prices dropped through the basement. At the moment there seems to be very little demand for the power from this station.

http://www.hydroquebec.com/projects/romaine.html

 

 

post #110 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post
 

Hold the phone. PP was going on about the Balsams having a basic, poorly designed website, and THAT's his site? I could have made that site after I took intro to CompSci back in college, in the 90's. Pot, meet kettle. 

No. Not his site unless my google search for vertical vs horizontal turbines brought up his site. That thought didn't even occur to me.

post #111 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Studebaker Hawk View Post

Just got off the phone with one of the prime movers in this project. We are meeting next week to discuss the future and what (if any) my role will be.

Been a long time since I was East of the Mississippi let alone way East.

Always interested in yet another "New" ski area, this one is no different.
Do keep us informed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Why intermingle a ski area expansion with the hydro project in the thread? Is the developer financing the expansion with money from this Quebec outfit? Seems like the wind turbines would provide power in competition to the hydro company.
I think the gist is everything is going wrong, the state is selling out, and the locals just don't know about ski resorts. "Don't Tread on Me" - they're getting trampled. "Live Free or Die"- they're going to be enslaved by poor development that will fail then put people further in chains.

The area is about as remote as you can get in the northeast with the exception of up there in Maine. Kind of hidden in the middle on the edge. I'm sure Quebecois feel closer to it.

Some road improvement might have to be part of this to make it worthwhile.
post #112 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post



Some road improvement might have to be part of this to make it worthwhile.

 

From Sherbrooke, yeh?  :duck:

post #113 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad J View Post
 

I live in Newbury and cannon is 2:15 how fast are you going??? how are you getting to 93??? 

 

I live in Chelmsford and can get to Cannon in 1:50. As long as you live close to the highway it's a straight shot. Of course this does not stop me from making further drives. I am one of those first chair, last call people based out of the ski clubs in North Conway. We primarily ski Wildcat.

post #114 of 129

I know this topic has stagnated for a while but I figured I'd throw these images out there. The are the expansion plan overlaid over aerial imagery and terrain in Google Earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

View close to the summit with the row of wind turbines running roughly through the middle of the picture:

 

 

 

IMHO cut the number of trails in half and glade the rest. 

post #115 of 129

I suspect the scope of the project is designed to allow the developer to 'scale back' as a 'concession' to get permits. There is no evidence that they can get the numbers necessary to sustain that much infrastructure.

post #116 of 129
Yeah, the skier in me initially says YES! But then I look at the topography and it seems relatively flat. A lot of flat. Mostly intermediate terrain. So, good for a local metro area, where they're bussing in the kids. But not a huge draw as "destination" ski areas go. So, I start looking at the metro situation. Four hour drive from Boston past lots of other known areas? Scratch that. Montreal seems far more likely, only three hours. But a bit long for Boy Scout buses. Stowe will peel off the "real skiers". Quebec? Still a bit long. Seems like the clientele is going to be those that buy weekend houses and value empty slopes. In which case, that network seems more like a fifty year plan.
post #117 of 129

When I look at ^that^ topography I see... creekbed crossings and traffic snarls.    Lots and lots and lots of them.     Just look at the backside of the existing area and how one would return to the front.

post #118 of 129

It could be a major player in the early and late season market with the two highest pods at the top of the ridge offering both a north facing 3175-2500 (675' vert) pod and a NE facing 3440-2600' (840' vert) pod.

The area is cold and snowy and is typically one of the first places to get permanent snow in the Fall and last to lose it in the Spring.

The thousands of snowmobilers that frequent the area each winter are there for a reason.

post #119 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

But then I look at the topography and it seems relatively flat. A lot of flat. Mostly intermediate terrain. 

 

Yep - everything I see is mostly low to mid 20 degrees at the steepest, with a few spots getting up to 30. Can a resort that size survive having only terrain like that? It is probably the most popular/busiest terrain, but do you lose the halo effect of having some harder stuff? (Is there a halo effect?)

post #120 of 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbostedo View Post
. Can a resort that size survive having only terrain like that? It is probably the most popular/busiest terrain, but do you lose the halo effect of having some harder stuff? (Is there a halo effect?)

 

There is for iconic runs like the Front Four at Stowe or Outer Limits at Kmart. 

And yes, I think it can - if they play the game right with glades, moguls, touring/XCD access and extended-stay lesson packages. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Proposed expansion at The Balsams