Morning Read: New opposition to Champlain power cable

Must be something in the air.  First a North Country town bans wind farms, now there’s fresh opposition to the proposed underwater power cable that would stretch from Quebec’s big hydro installations to New York City — using an underwater route in Lake Champlain and the Hudson River.

This from the Plattsburgh Press-Republican.

Mike Winslow, a staff scientist with the Lake Champlain Committee, said the proposal could impact some of the least-understood parts of the lake. He questioned whether there is enough need for this supply of power in the metro New York area.

Winslow also asked if the underwater route is the least environmentally damaging alternative. He said the process is likely to result in an incredible disturbance of sediment and damage to underwater vegetation, especially in the southern portion of the lake.

Before this week’s hearing the project had drawn little opposition or public scrutiny (outside of the government agencies assigned to review it).

The biggest concern heretofore had been the cable’s lack of real economic benefit to the North Country.

Read the full article here.

Tags: , , ,

9 Comments on “Morning Read: New opposition to Champlain power cable”

Leave a Comment
  1. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Moving electricity over long distances is very inefficient anyway. Losses in transmission are very high and the initial cost is enormous. In simple economic terms it would be better to put thousands of small solar and wind generators closer to the end user.

  2. That paints quite a picture, the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center running off an extension cord to NorhterQuebec? :-)

  3. DBW says:

    Conservation first! The cheapest power source is the one you don’t need to build. It seems like the top priority needs to be promote energy conservation, and then as that is being done, see what really needs to be built. The goal should be using as little as necessary, not as much as possible. When it comes to our non-renewable resources, wasting the energy they generate is a real travesty. More efficient appliances combined with some behavior changes can make a huge difference with no impact on our quality of life. A lot of these controversial projects would be unnecessary, and there would be a lot less conflict.

  4. PNElba says:

    I don’t understand the need to bury the cable.

  5. raul says:

    You are right that moving electricity over long distances is very inefficient, but I am pretty sure the type of line they are talking about is a low-loss form of technology.

    I like the idea because its supposed to come from renewable sources. Hopefully they do it in the least env. damaging way.

  6. digger says:

    pnelba- outof site, out of mind

  7. Mervel says:

    It is probably moving hydro power from Northern Quebec.

    Would this help or hurt the Champlain Valley, jobs ,development etc?

  8. Notinthevillage says:

    Moving electricity over long distances is very inefficient anyway. Losses in transmission are very high and the initial cost is enormous.

    I guess if over 90% is “very inefficient” you would be right.

    In simple economic terms it would be better to put thousands of small solar and wind generators closer to the end user.

    Not a chance. The proposed line is for 335 mile 1000 MW DC transmission line. I don’t think you have any idea how much the equivalent capacity using solar and wind would cost.

  9. Mervel says:

    A little off topic.

    But what development ARE people for around here?

    No wind turbines, no four lane interstate, no Wal-Marts or large retailers, no power cables, certainly no new nuclear plants, no increases in Seaway traffic; where does it end?

    If you were a business assessing where to grow why would any business choose a place that fights any new construction any large business, you can bet many mid western and Southern states are saying YES to everyone of those, they are COMPETING for them not fighting to keep them out.

Leave a Reply