Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines

[Ice Man]

Another example of how most Pennsylvanians disagree with the extremist doctrine of "green" electricity at any cost was made evident last spring when an Harrisburg Patriot-News poll revealed that 83% of Pennsylvanians oppose industrial wind farms on State Forest Land.

[Ice Man]

Wind turbines generate very little electricity during the period when it is needed the most - hot afternoons in the summertime. Adding thousands of huge wind turbines to our grid region will not prevent the construction of new power plants, which will be needed to meet the increasing demand for electricity during the summer.

If PA allows 10,000 MegaWatts (MW) of gigantic wind turbines to be installed along its mountaintops - which likely will cover roughly 750 miles of ridges at a spacing of seven 2.0-MW turbines per mile - they effectively would have the same ANNUAL output of electricity as a 3,150 to 3,500 MW nuclear or coal-fueled powerplant. However, during the 3 summer months, the same 5,000 huge wind turbines (10,000 MW) would be matched in electricity output by one 1,600 to 1,800 MW coal or nuclear power plant.

Each wind turbine that Gamesa installs will cost them up-front at least $3-million. However, they recover $2-million for each wind turbine installed from the huge federal tax credits and other tax shelters which have been created to support the wind industry. The federal treasury will lose $2-million per wind turbine! If Gamesa and other wind energy developers install 5,000 wind turbines in PA, they and their investors will escape payment of $10-billion in otherwise-owed federal income taxes.

ENRON was a leader in the wind industry before it went bankrupt (now GE owns ENRON's wind energy division). Many of the first wind turbines built in PA were from ENRON. Taxpayers and ratepayers will not see the benefits of the "green" from wind turbines, but Gamesa and other ENRON-esque companies will see lots of "greenbacks".

Imagine if that $10-billion from the federal treasury were instead earmarked for incentives to use less electricity or to support technologies which supply power when we needed it most - such as solar...far more environmental and economic benefits would accrue to our region.

Excellent points!

[Luke]

Is there a chance that they would put a hiking trail up there for folks who still want to enjoy the mountain? Maybe we could get a win-win out of this a hiking/moutain bike trail would be a nice thing.

[sandstone]

A 30 turbine windplant on Ice Mt and surrounding lands will have no measurable effect on air quality. Gamesa said "baby steps", but these steps should be taken at sites that are not designated as "unique", "exceptional conservation value", or County Natural Heritage Areas.

Does anyone on this forum disagree with the above statement? If so, please explain why.

- I think, just my opinion, it will make an impact all be it maybe small. But if it slows down the production of a coal-fired plant at all then it has done something.

Please show us data substantiating your claim that a 30 turbine windplant on Ice Mountain will have a measurable impact on air quality.

You should know that winds in PA range from Class 1 - Class 5, with Class 5 being the most powerful. Ice Mountain is mostly Class 2 wind with a 1/2 square mile area of Class 3 wind and a 1/4 square mile area of Class 4 wind. Even worse, the ridge to be used in Taylor Township is all Class 2 wind.

No matter how it is measured, you will come back with something else that will make whatever I have to say invalid.

This admission on your part indicates the weakness of your argument.

I have heard everything from it taking 3000 Wind Turbines to produce only 2% of PA's energy needs to 8500 Wind Turbines to provide 10% of Pa's needs.... The mileage has been as fluctuating as the number of Wind Turbines needed. This last one we just heard was 4000 Wind Turbines to provide 10% of our needs over 500 miles of ridge lines. Now is there 500 miles of unwanted ridgelines that can support 4000 Wind Turbines? If there is not then it sounds like some sacrifices may have to be made. 8500 Wind Turbines sounded like a bit of an unrealistic goal, but 4000 does not. Let's see how many different answers we can get to this question. How many installed Wind Turbines are needed to take care of 10% of Pennsylvania's electricity needs? This is a loaded question.

The range you give of (3000 industrial turbines to provide 2% of PA's electricity) to (8500 industrial turbines to provide 10% of PA's electricity) equates to a range of 8500 - 15,000 industrial turbines to provide 10% of PA's electricity. According to John Hanger, CEO of PennFuture (a rabidly pro-wind lobbying group), about 2000 industrial turbines would be required to meet 5% of PA's electricity needs, thus 4000 for 10%.

Since industrial wind turbines cannot be spaced any closer than 8 per mile (due to interference with each other), 4000 industrial turbines would require 500 miles of ridgetop (at least).

You state that sacrifices will have to be made. If County Natural Heritage Areas that are unique and "of exceptional conservation value" are the first to be sacrificed, then can any ridgetop be saved? Please explain how.

Keep in mind that the same reduction in air pollutants (as could be provided by 4,000 industrial-scale wind turbines on 500 miles of ridge) can be achieved by adding just ~500 MegaWatts of capacity to each of Pennsylvania's existing 5 nuclear plants ( each of which have 2,000+ MegaWatts of capacity at present).

At worst, industrial windfarms, because they are so large and visible, give the impression that something meaningful is being done to curb greenhouse gas emissions. These same reductions can be achieved by modest expansions of the US's nuclear power capability. The US lags far behind other nations in nuclear capacity, which is able to provide electricity reliably, 24/7 365 days a year. France, Sweden, and Finland all get more than 70% of their electricity from nuclear plants, the US only 20%.

[sandstone]

Is there a chance that they would put a hiking trail up there for folks who still want to enjoy the mountain? Maybe we could get a win-win out of this a hiking/moutain bike trail would be a nice thing.

You'll be able to use the access roads and ride from turbine to turbine while listening to this:


Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
by Bill Latchford on Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:08 pm

As much as I didn't want to pop back in here I just had to....I spent 5 hours today walking through snow and knocking on doors up in the Portage / Blue Knob area. If my mind weren't already made up it is most certainly solidified now. At every stop of my ride through the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm...There was not one point where I could not hear them. At some times ever so faint and at the worst of times it made me pity the people whom have to suffer with the Wind Turbines. I put around 12-18 miles on my car in just this area. I spoke to several people and did not ask their names. I wanted them to know what I was doing and did not want them to feel I would expose them to the media or the like. I will tell you that in some spots where I did not see the turbines because of the fog, I could hear them even better. Some people will say that you can hear them because you can see their movement, sort of a psychological thing. But guess what I could not see them because of the fog and the noise was there...My last stop was a very interesting and pleasant surprise. I introduced myself and the person said she knew me, because of the posts on here. I should add that before she answered the door, I was just amazed at how these things towered over the mountain in front of their home. Then to hear them was so surreal. It really does sound like a jet plane circling overhead. I thought it was an exaggeration, until I heard it myself. Then the blades start to pitch and turn into the wind again to make the best of the blowing winds and you can hear the metal to metal adjustments and then as the blades pitch and they thump through the air until they are in position. Then after all that you are back to the jet plane effect. Now while I was there I was expressing my pity that they have to put up with that, only to find out this was a calm day in comparison to how it can get. Even though the Turbine slated for Tyrone are decently far away from Tyrone proper, I feel it would be a serious disservice to our Snyder Township neighbors to let this go through. I was everywhere from 2000 feet to 1.2 miles maybe a touch further in some cases and could hear these giants. Though I am one who thinks they look majestic blowing in the wind. I for one will take this as a hindsight is 20/20 test and not put our citizens or Snyder Townships citizens through such an ordeal that these folks up in Portage / Blue knob area are going through. All is fine in our community now, let’s just leave things well alone and learn from other's misfortune. My many many heartfelt thanks to those who shared their day and time, and property with me today. I learned a great deal and will certainly ask all other Council Members here in Tyrone to make another trip to hear these Giants from a distance. I have an open invitation and I certainly hope I can get some of the other Council Members up there. Thanks "InMyBackYard"Bill Latchford
http://www.protectchildrenonline.org
Bill Latchford
MVP Member

Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 2:09 pm
Location: Tyrone, Pa
Private messageWebsiteMSNM/WLMYIMAIM

[Luke]

Well...when I ride along any road or train track there is always some kind of noise so that is not the issue. I would just enjoy the physical challenge. One can always wear the IPod if it is too bad. Can't do that when you are on the real roads....

[My2Cents]

Well...when I ride along any road or train track there is always some kind of noise so that is not the issue. I would just enjoy the physical challenge. One can always wear the IPod if it is too bad. Can't do that when you are on the real roads....

Just guessing Luke.. but, most likely, they will probably have no trespassing signs up along the way.

[Bill Latchford]

A 30 turbine windplant on Ice Mt and surrounding lands will have no measurable effect on air quality. Gamesa said "baby steps", but these steps should be taken at sites that are not designated as "unique", "exceptional conservation value", or County Natural Heritage Areas.

Does anyone on this forum disagree with the above statement? If so, please explain why.

- I think, just my opinion, it will make an impact all be it maybe small. But if it slows down the production of a coal-fired plant at all then it has done something.

Please show us data substantiating your claim that a 30 turbine windplant on Ice Mountain will have a measurable impact on air quality.

You should know that winds in PA range from Class 1 - Class 5, with Class 5 being the most powerful. Ice Mountain is mostly Class 2 wind with a 1/2 square mile area of Class 3 wind and a 1/4 square mile area of Class 4 wind. Even worse, the ridge to be used in Taylor Township is all Class 2 wind.

No matter how it is measured, you will come back with something else that will make whatever I have to say invalid.

This admission on your part indicates the weakness of your argument.

- As much as it would be fun to argue...It is not worth it. I have to look a bit further ahead than you do.

Why do you claim to have to look further ahead than I do? What do you mean by this remark?

- IceMan....Please try to keep a level head here...You have some good information that I am getting to a bit further down...All I am saying is that the Decision that this Council makes effects this entire community. If I have people on the left saying it is good and people on the right screaming it is bad? Do I just take the word of the people screaming? I know that there is an abundance of information provided as Cons but I have always believed that we had to do something no matter how small, to help. You just don't take something that is rooted deep and throw it away. Now keep calm over this and let me look over your information about the ridge tops.

[My2Cents]

Bill... Sorry for running my mouth last night... I shouldn't get on here when I'm tired !!! One thing for sure, I do appreciate you sticking your neck out on this subject... it is so frustrating. I just can't imagine them coming in here with their plows and destroying our little corner of the world with something that is not going to work.
Are they going to be taking a vote at the next council meeting? Luke has some good comments and info on the other windmill vote site.

[Bill Latchford]

A 30 turbine windplant on Ice Mt and surrounding lands will have no measurable effect on air quality. Gamesa said "baby steps", but these steps should be taken at sites that are not designated as "unique", "exceptional conservation value", or County Natural Heritage Areas.

Does anyone on this forum disagree with the above statement? If so, please explain why.

- I think, just my opinion, it will make an impact all be it maybe small. But if it slows down the production of a coal-fired plant at all then it has done something.

Please show us data substantiating your claim that a 30 turbine windplant on Ice Mountain will have a measurable impact on air quality.

You should know that winds in PA range from Class 1 - Class 5, with Class 5 being the most powerful. Ice Mountain is mostly Class 2 wind with a 1/2 square mile area of Class 3 wind and a 1/4 square mile area of Class 4 wind. Even worse, the ridge to be used in Taylor Township is all Class 2 wind.

No matter how it is measured, you will come back with something else that will make whatever I have to say invalid.

This admission on your part indicates the weakness of your argument.

I have heard everything from it taking 3000 Wind Turbines to produce only 2% of PA's energy needs to 8500 Wind Turbines to provide 10% of Pa's needs.... The mileage has been as fluctuating as the number of Wind Turbines needed. This last one we just heard was 4000 Wind Turbines to provide 10% of our needs over 500 miles of ridge lines. Now is there 500 miles of unwanted ridgelines that can support 4000 Wind Turbines? If there is not then it sounds like some sacrifices may have to be made. 8500 Wind Turbines sounded like a bit of an unrealistic goal, but 4000 does not. Let's see how many different answers we can get to this question. How many installed Wind Turbines are needed to take care of 10% of Pennsylvania's electricity needs? This is a loaded question.

The range you give of (3000 industrial turbines to provide 2% of PA's electricity) to (8500 industrial turbines to provide 10% of PA's electricity) equates to a range of 8500 - 15,000 industrial turbines to provide 10% of PA's electricity. According to John Hanger, CEO of PennFuture (a rabidly pro-wind lobbying group), about 2000 industrial turbines would be required to meet 5% of PA's electricity needs, thus 4000 for 10%.

Since industrial wind turbines cannot be spaced any closer than 8 per mile (due to interference with each other), 4000 industrial turbines would require 500 miles of ridgetop (at least).

You state that sacrifices will have to be made. If County Natural Heritage Areas that are unique and "of exceptional conservation value" are the first to be sacrificed, then can any ridgetop be saved? Please explain how.

- Thank you for the information. It has been said by JVA that they don't mind Wind Turbines if they are sited correctly...If Wind Turbines are our only source at this time to help, then all I am asking is, Is there enough strip mine areas and areas that are not unique and of exceptional value to support 4000 Wind Turbines?

[Bill Latchford]

Wind turbines generate very little electricity during the period when it is needed the most - hot afternoons in the summertime. Adding thousands of huge wind turbines to our grid region will not prevent the construction of new power plants, which will be needed to meet the increasing demand for electricity during the summer.

If PA allows 10,000 MegaWatts (MW) of gigantic wind turbines to be installed along its mountaintops - which likely will cover roughly 750 miles of ridges at a spacing of seven 2.0-MW turbines per mile - they effectively would have the same ANNUAL output of electricity as a 3,150 to 3,500 MW nuclear or coal-fueled powerplant. However, during the 3 summer months, the same 5,000 huge wind turbines (10,000 MW) would be matched in electricity output by one 1,600 to 1,800 MW coal or nuclear power plant.

Each wind turbine that Gamesa installs will cost them up-front at least $3-million. However, they recover $2-million for each wind turbine installed from the huge federal tax credits and other tax shelters which have been created to support the wind industry. The federal treasury will lose $2-million per wind turbine! If Gamesa and other wind energy developers install 5,000 wind turbines in PA, they and their investors will escape payment of $10-billion in otherwise-owed federal income taxes.

ENRON was a leader in the wind industry before it went bankrupt (now GE owns ENRON's wind energy division). Many of the first wind turbines built in PA were from ENRON. Taxpayers and ratepayers will not see the benefits of the "green" from wind turbines, but Gamesa and other ENRON-esque companies will see lots of "greenbacks".

Imagine if that $10-billion from the federal treasury were instead earmarked for incentives to use less electricity or to support technologies which supply power when we needed it most - such as solar...far more environmental and economic benefits would accrue to our region.

Excellent points!

- GeorgeM as well as yourself and a few others have provided excellent information...nothing else can be said.

[Bill Latchford]

Is there a chance that they would put a hiking trail up there for folks who still want to enjoy the mountain? Maybe we could get a win-win out of this a hiking/moutain bike trail would be a nice thing.

- Luke according to what I have gleaned from this the Borough's use of this property will be unchanged, Hunting and hiking and the like will still be allowed. I do not know how that still is accomplished with the Wind Turbines there. I will find out for sure and let the board know. It is still Borough property as long as there is not vandalism and such I think, and I don't know this for sure, but I think you would be able to walk right by the Turbines and such as long as you are still on public lands. Private property is another story though.

[Bill Latchford]

A 30 turbine windplant on Ice Mt and surrounding lands will have no measurable effect on air quality. Gamesa said "baby steps", but these steps should be taken at sites that are not designated as "unique", "exceptional conservation value", or County Natural Heritage Areas.

Does anyone on this forum disagree with the above statement? If so, please explain why.

- I think, just my opinion, it will make an impact all be it maybe small. But if it slows down the production of a coal-fired plant at all then it has done something.

Please show us data substantiating your claim that a 30 turbine windplant on Ice Mountain will have a measurable impact on air quality.

You should know that winds in PA range from Class 1 - Class 5, with Class 5 being the most powerful. Ice Mountain is mostly Class 2 wind with a 1/2 square mile area of Class 3 wind and a 1/4 square mile area of Class 4 wind. Even worse, the ridge to be used in Taylor Township is all Class 2 wind.

No matter how it is measured, you will come back with something else that will make whatever I have to say invalid.

This admission on your part indicates the weakness of your argument.

I have heard everything from it taking 3000 Wind Turbines to produce only 2% of PA's energy needs to 8500 Wind Turbines to provide 10% of Pa's needs.... The mileage has been as fluctuating as the number of Wind Turbines needed. This last one we just heard was 4000 Wind Turbines to provide 10% of our needs over 500 miles of ridge lines. Now is there 500 miles of unwanted ridgelines that can support 4000 Wind Turbines? If there is not then it sounds like some sacrifices may have to be made. 8500 Wind Turbines sounded like a bit of an unrealistic goal, but 4000 does not. Let's see how many different answers we can get to this question. How many installed Wind Turbines are needed to take care of 10% of Pennsylvania's electricity needs? This is a loaded question.

The range you give of (3000 industrial turbines to provide 2% of PA's electricity) to (8500 industrial turbines to provide 10% of PA's electricity) equates to a range of 8500 - 15,000 industrial turbines to provide 10% of PA's electricity. According to John Hanger, CEO of PennFuture (a rabidly pro-wind lobbying group), about 2000 industrial turbines would be required to meet 5% of PA's electricity needs, thus 4000 for 10%.

Since industrial wind turbines cannot be spaced any closer than 8 per mile (due to interference with each other), 4000 industrial turbines would require 500 miles of ridgetop (at least).

You state that sacrifices will have to be made. If County Natural Heritage Areas that are unique and "of exceptional conservation value" are the first to be sacrificed, then can any ridgetop be saved? Please explain how.

Keep in mind that the same reduction in air pollutants (as could be provided by 4,000 industrial-scale wind turbines on 500 miles of ridge) can be achieved by adding just ~500 MegaWatts of capacity to each of Pennsylvania's existing 5 nuclear plants ( each of which have 2,000+ MegaWatts of capacity at present).

At worst, industrial windfarms, because they are so large and visible, give the impression that something meaningful is being done to curb greenhouse gas emissions. These same reductions can be achieved by modest expansions of the US's nuclear power capability. The US lags far behind other nations in nuclear capacity, which is able to provide electricity reliably, 24/7 365 days a year. France, Sweden, and Finland all get more than 70% of their electricity from nuclear plants, the US only 20%.

- Very good points SandStone...Thank You....So in your opinion, is it just fear that no one is touching the Nuclear Plants and upgrading them. Surely the money spent on other energy products would be a huge benefit to the Nuclear industry for upgrades.

[Bill Latchford]

Well...when I ride along any road or train track there is always some kind of noise so that is not the issue. I would just enjoy the physical challenge. One can always wear the IPod if it is too bad. Can't do that when you are on the real roads....

Just guessing Luke.. but, most likely, they will probably have no trespassing signs up along the way.

- Only on the private property...As far as I understand it the Borough's use of these lands are not restricted because of the Wind Turbines. So Hunting and Hiking and such are still allowed. Like I said I will verify that and get back to this board on the topic.

[Bill Latchford]

Bill... Sorry for running my mouth last night... I shouldn't get on here when I'm tired !!! One thing for sure, I do appreciate you sticking your neck out on this subject... it is so frustrating. I just can't imagine them coming in here with their plows and destroying our little corner of the world with something that is not going to work.
Are they going to be taking a vote at the next council meeting? Luke has some good comments and info on the other windmill vote site.

- Believe me I totally understand and I know it is frustrating to you all that I am taking a non-emotional approach to this, but I have to. Even if the end result is no Wind Turbines I still have to try and do it unemotional. If I would have done this on emotion I would not have listened to a single word on here, But I have and I still am listening. Thanks for trying to understand my position. Like I said luckily the vote was not taken the day it was announced that there was interest in Wind Turbines. I am a big fan of alternate energy and I would have voted yes right away without any of the knowledge that I have gained from this board. I would not and was not worried about monetary compensation, because I would have been under the impression all would be fine and good and we were doing something for the environment. So lets try and just keep the topic flowing and I will try to stay unemotional.