Latest News
Gilford's Eastman promoted by Fish & Game
CONCORD — Lt. Michael Eastman of Gilford was recently tapped...
Mite 1 Lakers finish regular season in 2nd place
The Fay’s Boat Yard Mite 1 Lakers hockey team battled agains...
Local independent business group hoping to define itsel…
LACONIA — The Belknap Independent Business Alliance (BIBA) h...
GHS swim team wraps up regular season
The Gilford Golden Eagles swim team swam its last team meet ...
Video camera captures start of 3 a.m. cafe kitchen fire
LACONIA — The fire that ravaged the kitchen of the Water Str...
Get involved now or hold your peace on wind farms scarring N.H.
To the editor,
Wind Farms promise more jobs in a cleaner environment here in New Hampshire. They promise a new economy driven by cleaner electricity, electric cars, electric lawnmowers, less pollution, and of course, the gratitude of generations to come. There's just one problem — the lack of credible evidence that any of that can actually occur.
Our neighboring state, Vermont, just stated on January 30, 2013 "that some big wind projects in the region are not performing as planned due to constraints on the transmission grid." The operator of the New England Electric Grid has told these wind projects that "they can't put electricity on to the network because it would de-stabilize the grid." The problem derives from the electrical grid getting out of sync when wind turbines produce more power than is being used at any given time.
This is a hugely important story — one that should shake New Hampshire politicians to their core. If Vermont is experiencing these issues so will New Hampshire, right?
Vermont is seeing additional issues with other wind projects as well. And it's rumored that the Groton, N.H. wind farm may be looking at the same situation. Groton residents should add another word to their vocabulary, a little device called the synchronous condenser (cost about $10.5 million) is needed and should help Vermont's transmission issues or not.
Across the pond in countries like Spain, Denmark and Germany, who are heavily invested in wind technology, they have seen their electricity rates soar. Here in the United States — all states with wind power have seen increases in their electrical rates. Another fair business question to ask is: "Will higher electrical rates push businesses out of the New Hampshire?"
As New Hampshire politicians discuss a new energy policy in dealing with Northern Pass, Wind Farms and other energy related issues, the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear the words "new energy policy" is: How much will our electrical rates increase to compensate for this so called "change"? A second question that comes to mind is: Why are we financially responsible for shipping electricity through our state to southern states. And if our politicians find a way to pass everything in return for additional revenues, my third question would be: what are our politicians going to do with all the new revenue?
As I continue my research on wind farms I have been searching for a few answers: First: "Has anyone seen a decrease in their electrical rates due to wind energy being added to the grid?" I have yet to find anyone that can say yes to that question. Second: "Why does New Hampshire have to revamp its entire electrical grid to pass electricity through to southern states?" Keep in mind we will pay higher electrical rates by passing that electricity on — not using it. Third: "Is it our obligation to sacrifice our mountain tops to feed southern states with electricity?" And fourth: "Why is Massachusetts subsidizing their renewable energy credits through New Hampshire land?"
How does anyone really know the true impact of these projects? It truly is a project divided up into many individual parts. It's designed to be confusing and is great for finger pointing. I urge all of you to look at the Groton wind farm. How many individual parts were involved in that project? You had developers, transmission lines, substation, maintenance, town officials, state government, federal government, etc. It got confusing — didn't it? And the turbines still aren't spinning.
Get involved now or forever hold your peace. Or, take your hats off and bow your heads, for the death of another state treasure, here in New Hampshire, will be foretold.
There are many reasons why people have fought so hard against the concentration of wind farms around Newfound Lake. Here are just a few examples: 1. turbines should not be placed in the middle of a recreational area that depends on tourism; 2. we already have three renewable energy plants in the area; 3. it could jeopardize our watershed; 4. no sufficient funds set aside for dismantling them; 5. they are too tall, too close and too many of them near the shoreline; 6. many think the lake will have an airport setting with the red lights blinking at night. Residents, real estate agents, business owners and vacationers alike will add many concerns to this list. . . I'm sure.
A moratorium on Big Wind Farms in New Hampshire, makes absolute sense. I applaud Representative Harold "Skip" Reilly (R-Grafton) for his forward thinking on this matter. Reilly has proposed legislation calling for a moratorium on all wind power construction until the state updates its energy plan. (HB-580 and HB-484).
Get back to basics and start asking important questions. Questions that will define your future here in New Hampshire. Speak up at the State Legislative Bills Hearing on February 19 at 1 p.m. Location: NH Statehouse in Concord.
Ray Cunningham
Bridgewater
Wind Farms promise more jobs in a cleaner environment here in New Hampshire. They promise a new economy driven by cleaner electricity, electric cars, electric lawnmowers, less pollution, and of course, the gratitude of generations to come. There's just one problem — the lack of credible evidence that any of that can actually occur.
Our neighboring state, Vermont, just stated on January 30, 2013 "that some big wind projects in the region are not performing as planned due to constraints on the transmission grid." The operator of the New England Electric Grid has told these wind projects that "they can't put electricity on to the network because it would de-stabilize the grid." The problem derives from the electrical grid getting out of sync when wind turbines produce more power than is being used at any given time.
This is a hugely important story — one that should shake New Hampshire politicians to their core. If Vermont is experiencing these issues so will New Hampshire, right?
Vermont is seeing additional issues with other wind projects as well. And it's rumored that the Groton, N.H. wind farm may be looking at the same situation. Groton residents should add another word to their vocabulary, a little device called the synchronous condenser (cost about $10.5 million) is needed and should help Vermont's transmission issues or not.
Across the pond in countries like Spain, Denmark and Germany, who are heavily invested in wind technology, they have seen their electricity rates soar. Here in the United States — all states with wind power have seen increases in their electrical rates. Another fair business question to ask is: "Will higher electrical rates push businesses out of the New Hampshire?"
As New Hampshire politicians discuss a new energy policy in dealing with Northern Pass, Wind Farms and other energy related issues, the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear the words "new energy policy" is: How much will our electrical rates increase to compensate for this so called "change"? A second question that comes to mind is: Why are we financially responsible for shipping electricity through our state to southern states. And if our politicians find a way to pass everything in return for additional revenues, my third question would be: what are our politicians going to do with all the new revenue?
As I continue my research on wind farms I have been searching for a few answers: First: "Has anyone seen a decrease in their electrical rates due to wind energy being added to the grid?" I have yet to find anyone that can say yes to that question. Second: "Why does New Hampshire have to revamp its entire electrical grid to pass electricity through to southern states?" Keep in mind we will pay higher electrical rates by passing that electricity on — not using it. Third: "Is it our obligation to sacrifice our mountain tops to feed southern states with electricity?" And fourth: "Why is Massachusetts subsidizing their renewable energy credits through New Hampshire land?"
How does anyone really know the true impact of these projects? It truly is a project divided up into many individual parts. It's designed to be confusing and is great for finger pointing. I urge all of you to look at the Groton wind farm. How many individual parts were involved in that project? You had developers, transmission lines, substation, maintenance, town officials, state government, federal government, etc. It got confusing — didn't it? And the turbines still aren't spinning.
Get involved now or forever hold your peace. Or, take your hats off and bow your heads, for the death of another state treasure, here in New Hampshire, will be foretold.
There are many reasons why people have fought so hard against the concentration of wind farms around Newfound Lake. Here are just a few examples: 1. turbines should not be placed in the middle of a recreational area that depends on tourism; 2. we already have three renewable energy plants in the area; 3. it could jeopardize our watershed; 4. no sufficient funds set aside for dismantling them; 5. they are too tall, too close and too many of them near the shoreline; 6. many think the lake will have an airport setting with the red lights blinking at night. Residents, real estate agents, business owners and vacationers alike will add many concerns to this list. . . I'm sure.
A moratorium on Big Wind Farms in New Hampshire, makes absolute sense. I applaud Representative Harold "Skip" Reilly (R-Grafton) for his forward thinking on this matter. Reilly has proposed legislation calling for a moratorium on all wind power construction until the state updates its energy plan. (HB-580 and HB-484).
Get back to basics and start asking important questions. Questions that will define your future here in New Hampshire. Speak up at the State Legislative Bills Hearing on February 19 at 1 p.m. Location: NH Statehouse in Concord.
Ray Cunningham
Bridgewater
Last Updated on Friday, 15 February 2013 01:19
Hits: 332
Everyday, ordinary citizens just don't want to be the next victim
To the editor,
To sing along with Steve Earle's letter (Jan. 22), how many trillions of our taxpayer dollars were wasted in the past on alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs and now we hear the ever-so-righteous uproar by "gun-ignorant zealots" for more "gun control" on top of all the other illogical, ineffective measures already law? Too bad all that money couldn't go to improving the lot of those of us who need it badly because that's what historians have always reported is the real cause of violent crime anytime. Criminals will always get guns to gain their ends, just like big business always find a way to raise the price on a gallon of gas or heating oil or anything else they can get away with just to boost profits.
It wasn't just "gun-crazed" NRA members cleaning out gun stores before the dreaded "ban on guns" might begin being screamed about in the media. It was everyday, ordinary citizens who didn't want to be the next victim before the police could come to investigate over their dead bodies after the deed was done. As the oh-so-highly-educated "gun-ignorant, gun control zealots" have chosen to overlook because it offends some noble principle, the Centers for Disease Control and FBI crime statistics show an overall decline in gun violence in the last 40 years.
Say what! The media hasn't been screaming about that because that won't upset people and jack-up ad sales on everything else we buy. Don't believe me, it's easy to look up. Except of course for our neighbors in liberal, wealthy Massachusetts where their "feel-good" Gun Control Act began in 1998 and now we see how the Mass. Dept of Health reports today that their violent crime is up 70 percent. Ouch! How does "gun control" feel now? Better call your elected N.H. politician before taxes go up on more such Massachusetts Madness during these continuing difficult times for ordinary people right up here.
Bill Chase
Belmont
To sing along with Steve Earle's letter (Jan. 22), how many trillions of our taxpayer dollars were wasted in the past on alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs and now we hear the ever-so-righteous uproar by "gun-ignorant zealots" for more "gun control" on top of all the other illogical, ineffective measures already law? Too bad all that money couldn't go to improving the lot of those of us who need it badly because that's what historians have always reported is the real cause of violent crime anytime. Criminals will always get guns to gain their ends, just like big business always find a way to raise the price on a gallon of gas or heating oil or anything else they can get away with just to boost profits.
It wasn't just "gun-crazed" NRA members cleaning out gun stores before the dreaded "ban on guns" might begin being screamed about in the media. It was everyday, ordinary citizens who didn't want to be the next victim before the police could come to investigate over their dead bodies after the deed was done. As the oh-so-highly-educated "gun-ignorant, gun control zealots" have chosen to overlook because it offends some noble principle, the Centers for Disease Control and FBI crime statistics show an overall decline in gun violence in the last 40 years.
Say what! The media hasn't been screaming about that because that won't upset people and jack-up ad sales on everything else we buy. Don't believe me, it's easy to look up. Except of course for our neighbors in liberal, wealthy Massachusetts where their "feel-good" Gun Control Act began in 1998 and now we see how the Mass. Dept of Health reports today that their violent crime is up 70 percent. Ouch! How does "gun control" feel now? Better call your elected N.H. politician before taxes go up on more such Massachusetts Madness during these continuing difficult times for ordinary people right up here.
Bill Chase
Belmont
Last Updated on Friday, 15 February 2013 01:05
Hits: 99
Liberals believe if we love our enemies they will love us back
To the editor,
Until I read The Sun this morning (Wednesday, Feb. 13), I wasn't aware that overnight the sky had opened up and rained moonbats.
First Ray Corliss: I love the way the left throws around facts without doing any research. Ray, I hate to burst your bubble but President Reagan was shot by a mentally impaired liberal (aren't they all?) and his gun of choice, taken from a family member, was a .22 cal. revolver. Yes, there are people advocating taking away all firearms, such as Mayor Bloomberg of New York. Regarding immigration, Ray, look up the word illegal in the dictionary. Quoting John Lennon as you did immediately caused an image of you to pop into my head — head band and pony tail. Please don't send me a picture to prove I'm wrong.
Next, Dick Devens: As soon as you can explain to me how the Vikings were able to plant vegetable gardens on Greenland in the 15th Century, which for the most part is now ice and snow covered year round, and how plants flourished in the Sahara desert on more than one occasion in the past then I might consider buying into the global warming fiasco that is making some people wealthy (see Al Gore) but making most of us poorer.
Professor Maloof: Please name the "social scientists" and economists that you quote. Do they also believe in global warming?
L.J. Siden: Okay, LJ, yes there are people talking about disarming us and there are people who hate us for what we are, not for what we have done. North Korea, all of the Middle East, yes all, but especially Iran, parts of Central and South America are turning against us, and the old standbys China and Russia would love to have control of our natural resources. Imagine if we got hit with a nuclear bomb and they who survived had no protection from the following invasion. Will it ever happen? I don't know but I don't see any problem with being prepared and I really think it would be stupid not to be. Oh, I forgot, liberals think if we only would love them they would love us in return. Sure they would! Keep in mind L.J., that gun owners protect the unprotected by making gun ownership a mystery to those who would break the law. Lastly, remember that most all of the multiple murders occurred in gun free zones. The creeps from Vermont that murdered the Zantops, the professors from Dartmouth, came to a liberal area of N.H. to commit their crime. I wonder if it was because Vermont has zero gun laws. Makes sense to me.
Dave Schwotzer
Meredith
Until I read The Sun this morning (Wednesday, Feb. 13), I wasn't aware that overnight the sky had opened up and rained moonbats.
First Ray Corliss: I love the way the left throws around facts without doing any research. Ray, I hate to burst your bubble but President Reagan was shot by a mentally impaired liberal (aren't they all?) and his gun of choice, taken from a family member, was a .22 cal. revolver. Yes, there are people advocating taking away all firearms, such as Mayor Bloomberg of New York. Regarding immigration, Ray, look up the word illegal in the dictionary. Quoting John Lennon as you did immediately caused an image of you to pop into my head — head band and pony tail. Please don't send me a picture to prove I'm wrong.
Next, Dick Devens: As soon as you can explain to me how the Vikings were able to plant vegetable gardens on Greenland in the 15th Century, which for the most part is now ice and snow covered year round, and how plants flourished in the Sahara desert on more than one occasion in the past then I might consider buying into the global warming fiasco that is making some people wealthy (see Al Gore) but making most of us poorer.
Professor Maloof: Please name the "social scientists" and economists that you quote. Do they also believe in global warming?
L.J. Siden: Okay, LJ, yes there are people talking about disarming us and there are people who hate us for what we are, not for what we have done. North Korea, all of the Middle East, yes all, but especially Iran, parts of Central and South America are turning against us, and the old standbys China and Russia would love to have control of our natural resources. Imagine if we got hit with a nuclear bomb and they who survived had no protection from the following invasion. Will it ever happen? I don't know but I don't see any problem with being prepared and I really think it would be stupid not to be. Oh, I forgot, liberals think if we only would love them they would love us in return. Sure they would! Keep in mind L.J., that gun owners protect the unprotected by making gun ownership a mystery to those who would break the law. Lastly, remember that most all of the multiple murders occurred in gun free zones. The creeps from Vermont that murdered the Zantops, the professors from Dartmouth, came to a liberal area of N.H. to commit their crime. I wonder if it was because Vermont has zero gun laws. Makes sense to me.
Dave Schwotzer
Meredith
Last Updated on Friday, 15 February 2013 00:55
Hits: 88
Protect our aquifer by voting no on Belmont Article 2
To the editor,
Since no one else in the Belmont Town Hall is keeping you informed I would like to let you know about one of the articles on the town warrant you will be asked to vote on.
"Article #2: Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment number #1 as proposed by the Planning Board for the town Zoning Ordinance as follows: Adopt a definition of the regulations for Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Station and allow Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Stations only in the Industrial Zone. Vote Yes or No"
My concern as a resident and taxpayer of Belmont in allowing this zoning change to occur is that the Industrial Zone is on top of our water supply (our aquifer). If this is allowed they will be bringing in the garbage they collect from Laconia and every other town or city they collect garbage from to Belmont. Presently the collection of garbage by Bestway goes to the Laconia Transfer Station which is not near any municipal water supply.
Bestway has gotten permission from the town to operate the collection and removal of demolition materials. They now want us to approve a garbage collection transfer station. The problem with Bestway is they are now selling their company to an out-of-state garbage collection service.
This aquifer supplies water to Belmont, Tilton and Northfield — approximately 800,000 gallons/day
At the Deliberation meeting of February 2, 2013 when this article came up for discussion the chairman of the Conservation commission called for a study to be made of the proposed transfer station.
In view of the conservation commission concern as well, putting this approval on hold until the study is completed would be the safest thing to do. A NO vote would be appropriate for now.
George Condodemetraky
Belmont
Since no one else in the Belmont Town Hall is keeping you informed I would like to let you know about one of the articles on the town warrant you will be asked to vote on.
"Article #2: Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment number #1 as proposed by the Planning Board for the town Zoning Ordinance as follows: Adopt a definition of the regulations for Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Station and allow Municipal Solid Waste Transfer Stations only in the Industrial Zone. Vote Yes or No"
My concern as a resident and taxpayer of Belmont in allowing this zoning change to occur is that the Industrial Zone is on top of our water supply (our aquifer). If this is allowed they will be bringing in the garbage they collect from Laconia and every other town or city they collect garbage from to Belmont. Presently the collection of garbage by Bestway goes to the Laconia Transfer Station which is not near any municipal water supply.
Bestway has gotten permission from the town to operate the collection and removal of demolition materials. They now want us to approve a garbage collection transfer station. The problem with Bestway is they are now selling their company to an out-of-state garbage collection service.
This aquifer supplies water to Belmont, Tilton and Northfield — approximately 800,000 gallons/day
At the Deliberation meeting of February 2, 2013 when this article came up for discussion the chairman of the Conservation commission called for a study to be made of the proposed transfer station.
In view of the conservation commission concern as well, putting this approval on hold until the study is completed would be the safest thing to do. A NO vote would be appropriate for now.
George Condodemetraky
Belmont
Last Updated on Thursday, 14 February 2013 01:16
Hits: 191
Help put Gilmanton on the right track by supporting Article 38
To the editor,
I see household trash as a revenue stream, a source of income to the Town of Gilmanton. Our selectmen have demanded frugality from our department heads, as has the Budget Committee. Yet the town stands by and watches our fellow citizens turn this revenue stream into a whirlpool that sucks not only our tax dollars down the drain but also the savings from recyclers. Waste disposal is becoming more expensive. The practical solution is to divert and possibly process various components of our trash. On March 12, Gilmanton will have an opportunity to vote on warrant article #38 which states: To see if the town will vote to authorize the selectmen to require separation of all recyclables deposited at the Gilmanton Transfer Station and to set such rules and regulations in place as soon as possible in order to maximize the cost benefits.
Let's look at what's being proposed. The article reads "required." What's the difference between required and mandatory? Mandatory is like if you attended Catholic School, a noogie or a wrap on the knuckles with a ruler, that's mandatory. Required, on the other hand, is letting students know why they shouldn't behave in a destructive way and giving options and encouragement to improve their behavior.
Required separation of recyclables is just an extension of what we already do. You can't put construction debris, brush, or hazardous waste in the dumpster. With today's voluntary process, we separate under 20 percent of our household waste. Again, the household waste stream is a revenue source which should enable us to manage costs in an orderly and economical way.
Further in the article, we read "set rules and regulations." What could those be? Maybe that education, encouragement and assistance to separate recyclables will be provided by the town. Or maybe that all possible efforts will be made to make separation of recyclables as convenient and easy as possible.
Why do we want to start this program as soon as possible? One, it could be done with little or no start-up costs. Two, savings start immediately both by reducing tipping fees and selling recyclables. Three, the benefits are not a one-time deal. They continue year after year.
Help put Gilmanton on the right track by supporting separation of recyclables, and remember "Our town gets cash when you separate your trash."
Tom Scribner
Gilmanton
I see household trash as a revenue stream, a source of income to the Town of Gilmanton. Our selectmen have demanded frugality from our department heads, as has the Budget Committee. Yet the town stands by and watches our fellow citizens turn this revenue stream into a whirlpool that sucks not only our tax dollars down the drain but also the savings from recyclers. Waste disposal is becoming more expensive. The practical solution is to divert and possibly process various components of our trash. On March 12, Gilmanton will have an opportunity to vote on warrant article #38 which states: To see if the town will vote to authorize the selectmen to require separation of all recyclables deposited at the Gilmanton Transfer Station and to set such rules and regulations in place as soon as possible in order to maximize the cost benefits.
Let's look at what's being proposed. The article reads "required." What's the difference between required and mandatory? Mandatory is like if you attended Catholic School, a noogie or a wrap on the knuckles with a ruler, that's mandatory. Required, on the other hand, is letting students know why they shouldn't behave in a destructive way and giving options and encouragement to improve their behavior.
Required separation of recyclables is just an extension of what we already do. You can't put construction debris, brush, or hazardous waste in the dumpster. With today's voluntary process, we separate under 20 percent of our household waste. Again, the household waste stream is a revenue source which should enable us to manage costs in an orderly and economical way.
Further in the article, we read "set rules and regulations." What could those be? Maybe that education, encouragement and assistance to separate recyclables will be provided by the town. Or maybe that all possible efforts will be made to make separation of recyclables as convenient and easy as possible.
Why do we want to start this program as soon as possible? One, it could be done with little or no start-up costs. Two, savings start immediately both by reducing tipping fees and selling recyclables. Three, the benefits are not a one-time deal. They continue year after year.
Help put Gilmanton on the right track by supporting separation of recyclables, and remember "Our town gets cash when you separate your trash."
Tom Scribner
Gilmanton
Last Updated on Thursday, 14 February 2013 01:10
Hits: 181
More Articles...
