Why did you lock the wind mill vote???

[exbellwoodian]

Why is the windmill vote blog locked?? I am new to this site and also new to Tyrone. I fail to see the negative aspects of windmill energy. It has been proven in Europe, California, Texas, and alot of other states across our great nation. Why do we not want to be part of this solution? Won't the borrough get approximately $80,000 annually from this venture? Don't we want that kind of income for our town? I do have one question though....will all that money go to fixing up this town? Or will some of it line the pockets of certain corrupt individuals?

Can someone please prove to me how these slow moving blade KILL bats? Bat's have radar and can pick out a mosquito from a great distance away...how could a bat fly into one of these things?? Oh yea....are these the same "bats" that were supposedly in the path of I99 that were NEVER FOUND?!?!?! I've been to Blue Knob and I have seen how slow they actually move. Seams like it would be almost impossible for a blade to hit a "stray" bird or bat.

This just seams to be a case of narrow mided small town mentality. Unless you have a better answer to alternative energy, let's move forward with these windmills! At least it's a start in the right direction!

[sandstone]

The answers to all your questions are on the Gamesa windmill forum.

Read it.

[Luke]

Actually it was locked because of people like me. I was posting about the same thing on two different topics. When it was brought to my attention that this was a problem, I went back to try and unpost my comments and move them to the right place but it was locked so I could not do that with my misplaced quotes

[sandstone]

Why is the windmill vote blog locked?? I am new to this site and also new to Tyrone. I fail to see the negative aspects of windmill energy. It has been proven in Europe, California, Texas, and alot of other states across our great nation. Why do we not want to be part of this solution? Won't the borrough get approximately $80,000 annually from this venture? Don't we want that kind of income for our town? I do have one question though....will all that money go to fixing up this town? Or will some of it line the pockets of certain corrupt individuals?

Can someone please prove to me how these slow moving blade KILL bats? Bat's have radar and can pick out a mosquito from a great distance away...how could a bat fly into one of these things?? Oh yea....are these the same "bats" that were supposedly in the path of I99 that were NEVER FOUND?!?!?! I've been to Blue Knob and I have seen how slow they actually move. Seams like it would be almost impossible for a blade to hit a "stray" bird or bat.

This just seams to be a case of narrow mided small town mentality. Unless you have a better answer to alternative energy, let's move forward with these windmills! At least it's a start in the right direction!

From the National Center for Policy Analaysis

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/renew/renew2d.html

Robert L. Bradley, Jr.
Problems of Wind Power
Killing Birds: The "Avian Mortality" Problem

The universal rationale for this massive public commitment to wind power is that it is environmentally benign. But wind power has at least one major environmental problem -- the massive destruction of bird populations -- that has begun to draw serious concern from mainstream environmentalists.

Wind blades have killed thousands of birds in the United States and abroad in the last decade, including endangered species, which is a federal offense subject to criminal prosecution. While bird kills are not considered a problem by everyone, it is a problem for some environmental groups who lobbied to put the laws on the books, made cost assessments for dead birds and other wildlife pursuant to the Valdez accident, and vilify petroleum extraction activity on the North Slope of Alaska as hazardous to wildlife. While such groups as the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society have criticized wind power's effects on birds, many eco-energy planners have ignored the problem in their devotion to wind power.

There have been numerous mentions of the "avian mortality" problem in the wind power literature (the Sierra Club labeled wind towers "the Cuisinarts of the air"). An article in the March 29-April 4, 1995, issue of SF Weekly was particularly telling. The cover story in the San Francisco newspaper was no less than an expose, written not by a free-market critic but by an author sympathetic with the environmentalist agenda.

The article concerns the world's largest wind power farm, the 625-megawatt Altamont Pass project, owned by independent developers with long-term purchase contracts with Pacific Gas and Electric. Some major points of the article follow.
"It now appears that windmills are annually killing thousands of birds worldwide [including] . . . red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, turkey vultures, assorted owls--and federally protected species like Aquila chrysaetos, the golden eagle. And it turns out that the Bay Area . . . is the windmill bird-death capital of America."

The National Audubon Society has called for a moratorium on new wind farms until the bird kill problem is solved, a position that the wind industry opposes.

Some of the bird kills at Altamont Pass are a federal crime under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; killing Bald Eagles is also a crime under the Bald Eagle Protection Act. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is considering prosecution.

Traditional environmental groups will not condemn wind, which they see as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." They hope that the mortality is not too great and that current remediation efforts will succeed.
"So intense has the windmill `avian mortality issue' become in wind and wildlife circles, some fear for their jobs if they speak out; others fear for their research dollars, while the companies fear for their futures."
"How many dead birds equal a dead fish equals an oil spill?" asks the author. One wind energy expert responds: "The trade-offs aren't easy -- there aren't any charts or formulas to guide you."

Environmentalists blocked a proposed wind farm in eastern Washington state because of the avian mortality problem.
Federal money is going toward trying to find a solution to the bird kill problem, such as a study by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Author Amy Linn pointedly concludes her article:
By accepting the compromises of the real world and enthusiastically supporting the establishment of the wind industry, [environmentalists] entered the devil's bargain that now prevents them from fighting the power companies. . . . Here in the almost wilds of Altamont Pass, the environmentalists and Kenetech have reached the point where solutions become problems -- the point at which there is blood on the answer.

The avian mortality problem of wind power is different from bird mortality from stationary objects. Explained one study: "Wind farms have been documented to act as both bait and executioner -- rodents taking shelter at the base of turbines multiply with the protection from raptors, while in turn their greater numbers attract more raptors to the farm."110
"How many dead birds equal a dead fish equals an oil spill?" Ten thousand cumulative bird deaths from 1,731 MW of installed U.S. capacity is the equivalent of 4.4 million bird deaths across the entire capacity of the United States electric market (approximately 770 gigawatts). A 20 percent share of U.S. capacity, a figure that the American Wind Energy Association put forward some years ago in congressional hearings (see above), would equate to 880,000 cumulative bird deaths. Calculated on an average operating basis, the number would rise severalfold. Not every potential wind farm would be an Altamont Pass, which was sited to be near existing transmission systems with little thought as to bird activity, but the mortality-per-megawatt ratio of existing capacity should give pause.

A 1992 study commissioned by the California Energy Commission (CEC) "conservatively" estimated that 39 golden eagles were being killed at Altamont Pass each year, a significant figure given a total population of 500 breeding pairs. On a percentage basis, the mortality rate per year at Altamont Pass under that estimate is eight times greater than the bald eagle kill from the Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound in 1989.

American kestrels and red-tailed hawks were also considered to be at risk from Altamont Pass, according to the CEC study. While these facts could be ignored by the prowind power community, the National Audubon Society's call for a moratorium on wind power projects in bird-sensitive areas (a position spearheaded by Audubon's San Francisco chapter) cannot. Jan Beyea, Audubon's vice president for science policy, explained the national chapter's stand:

"We do not want to see the wrong types of wind turbines built, nor do we want to see them built in the wrong places. That is why I, and some Audubon chapters, have called for a moratorium on new wind developments in important bird areas. This has gotten some of our environmental friends worried and some in industry very angry. The National Audubon Society is not taking such a strong position because of a concern for individual bird kills; rather, we are concerned about possible impacts on populations in the decades ahead when wind turbines may be all over the country."

Beyea elsewhere expressed specific concern about "golden eagles in California and the situation with the Griffon Vulture in Spain. We are also wondering what's going to happen to cranes and ducks that migrate through Nebraska, Kansas and the Dakotas."

With opposition from local Audubon chapters in Maine, Oregon, and Washington, Beyea warned that "wind power could face the same fate as low-head hydro, which was dropped from the environmentalist agenda and from significant government support, even though, in fact, there may have been a middle ground that could have been located through dialogue." The problem of avian mortality is not unique to the United States. Windpower Monthly reported that the largest wind farm in Europe was "wreaking havoc with the natural order of raptor life on two continents." The feature story added:

The data collected so far include telling photographs of decapitated vultures that collided with some of the site's 269 wind turbines [and that were] . . . either killed on impact or by electrocution on power cables. All of the species are protected by Spanish and European Union law.
The "From the Editor" section of that same issue echoed the concerns of Audubon, explaining its decision to show a full-color photograph of a bloody vulture cut in half by a windmill blade on its cover as follows:

The decision to print this month's cover was not taken lightly. It will have a significant impact, both on the world of wind power and elsewhere. . . . There is a real problem with bird deaths at Tarifa. It cannot be kept quiet and it will not go away of its own accord. . . . There are parallels between the problems of raptors in the Altamont Pass. . . and the Tarifa controversy.

Wind power proponents have argued that the bird death problem is being effectively addressed and should not slow down the growth of the industry. Yet the problem has been studied since the mid-1970s and continues unabated two decades later. Like the claims that wind power will soon be economic, such claims that (in the words of a U.S. wind power representative) "we have almost met our objective of being an environmentally benign power resource" ring hollow. But even if a technological breakthrough addressing bird kills were achieved (which is certainly possible), any incremental cost of using that technology would further worsen the competitive plight of wind power.

[sandstone]

Can someone please prove to me how these slow moving blade KILL bats? Bat's have radar and can pick out a mosquito from a great distance away...how could a bat fly into one of these things?? Oh yea....are these the same "bats" that were supposedly in the path of I99 that were NEVER FOUND?!?!?! I've been to Blue Knob and I have seen how slow they actually move. Seams like it would be almost impossible for a blade to hit a "stray" bird or bat.

This just seams to be a case of narrow mided small town mentality. Unless you have a better answer to alternative energy, let's move forward with these windmills! At least it's a start in the right direction!

Exbellwoodian;

This remains the best general article on bat mortality at industrial windfarms in the Appalachians:

From the Washington Post:

Researchers Alarmed by Bat Deaths From Wind TurbinesBy Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 1, 2005; Page A01

Jessica Kerns thought her survey of new power-generating wind turbines on a mountaintop in West Virginia would yield the standard result: a smattering of dead birds that were whacked by the whirring blades.
But the University of Maryland doctoral student turned up something unexpected amid the trees and rolling ridges of Backbone Mountain: hundreds of bat carcasses, some with battered wings and bloodied faces. "It was really a shock," Kerns said.

Thousands of bats have died at Backbone and on another nearby wind farm in Meyersdale, Pa. -- more per turbine than at any other wind facility in the world, according to researchers' estimates. The deaths are raising concerns about the impact of hundreds more turbines planned in the East, including some in western Maryland, as the wind industry steps up expansion beyond its traditional areas in the West and Great Plains.

The bat deaths, which have baffled researchers, pose a problem for an industry that sells itself as an environmentally friendly alternative to conventional power plants. Wind proponents already have had to battle complaints about bird deaths from the blades and about unsightly turbines marring pristine views.
The white turbines in Appalachia rise more than 340 feet above the ground -- well above the tree canopy -- and are lined up close to one another to catch the wind as it blows over the mountains and ridges.

The bat problem could worsen, conservationists fear, as wind developers rush to erect new turbines following the recent renewal of a federal tax break for a year. The wind industry, which had been virtually dormant since the last tax break expired a year ago, projects more wind turbines to be built around the country this year than in any previous year. In the areas near where bats have been killed in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, activists said, roughly 700 new turbines have been proposed or approved.

"Take the most conservative estimates of mortality and multiply them out by the number of turbines planned and you get very large, probably unsustainable kill rates," said Merlin D. Tuttle, president and founder of Bat Conservation International, whose Austin-based group is leading the research effort in Appalachia. "One year from now we could have a gigantic problem."

Bats serve an important role in nature, and their populations are believed to be in decline, scientists said. The bats getting killed in Appalachia devour insects that pose grave threats to crops such as corn and cotton. They also feast on pests that can spread disease, such as mosquitoes.
On Backbone Mountain, at a facility called Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, the first dead bats were found in 2003, soon after the project's 44 turbines came online. Conservationists and the wind industry hoped the deaths were a fluke.

But Kerns and other researchers returned last year and now estimate the 2004 death toll at between 1,500 and 4,000 bats. Nearby, another group of researchers, working at the 20-turbine wind farm in Pennsylvania, which came online a year ago, found a raft of bat carcasses as well.

Researchers do not know why bats are flying into the turbines. Armed with radar and thermal imaging cameras, they are trying to come up with recommendations for wind power developers to avoid the problem. Researchers are uncertain whether bats are attracted to the spinning blades or if their sonar, which allows them to find food and avoid trees and other objects, fails to detect the turbines.

None of the species of bats found on the two mountains is endangered, said Albert M. Manville II, a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The carcasses found include those of hoary, red and eastern pipistrelle bats. The deaths appear to violate no federal laws, Manville said, but the threat is serious. Unless a solution is found, he said, the turbines could get a reputation as being "bat Veg-o-matics."

The large number of dead bats caught the wind power industry by surprise, and now its leaders are scrambling to find a solution.
"It was something that when we found out about it we felt we needed to respond to immediately," said Laurie Jodziewicz of the American Wind Energy Association in Washington, which also is participating in the research. "What we wanted to do this year was to get a handle on what's going on. "
The wind industry confronted its biggest environmental challenge when early model turbines in Northern California killed large numbers of birds. The industry says newer turbines and more attention to site selection have dramatically cut the number of bird deaths in subsequent projects around the country, though some environmentalists say too many birds are still dying.

The turbines tend to attract a lot of attention as they pop up around the country, but they are responsible for generating a tiny amount of electricity in the United States.
Last year, the industry said, it provided nearly 17 billion kilowatt hours, enough to serve some 1.6 million households -- less than 1 percent of the country's electricity production. Analysts said future expansion of the industry will be tied largely to whether the tax break remains on the books.
Wind power is generally more costly than generating electricity by more conventional methods -- though analysts said federal and state subsidies make the alternative more attractive. In addition, they said that as natural gas prices rise, wind becomes more competitive.

An increasing number of states require that a certain amount of power come from renewable sources, such as wind. During debate over federal energy legislation in previous years, some interest groups called for a requirement that renewable sources account for a certain percentage of the nation's electricity production.

In the East, wind has only recently caught on, and the most preferable areas are on mountains where wind tends to be most powerful.
In West Virginia and Pennsylvania, the turbines are positioned on wide paths cleared amid maple, oak and other hardwood trees.
And that may have something to do with the bat deaths. Bats appear to be attracted to the open areas cleared by the wind developers because they can more easily find insects there, researchers said. But they are unsure why the bats hit the blades of the turbines -- whether they're attracted or accidentally fly into them.

Some of the bats are migrating south and others live near the wind farms, researchers said. Most of the deaths occurred between July and September, which includes the months of peak migration.
The two sites where researchers have found a large number of bat deaths are operated by FPL Energy of Juno Beach, Fla., the largest U.S. generator of wind power.
"There is something going on . . . that we don't fully have our arms around," said Steve Stengel, a spokesman for FPL, which has helped fund the bat research. "Our hope is that there are some suggestions based on the research of things that can be done to potentially reduce the number of collisions."
Some in the industry argue that there's no evidence that the bat deaths in Appalachia will be repeated on other wooded mountaintops or ridges in the East. Bat conservationists disagree, saying the evidence gathered so far suggests the problem will recur.

Several wind developers working on projects in Appalachia said they were concerned but planned to move ahead. Among them is Clipper Windpower Inc. of Carpinteria, Calif., which is planning a project on a portion of Backbone Mountain in Western Maryland, about 20 miles from the Mountaineer project.
"We're hopeful that they're going to identify some of the major issues there and we'll be able to respond to those," said Kevin Rackstraw, the company's development leader for eastern North America. "I don't think it's an acceptable response . . . to stop everything until we have answers. You can't just bring everything to a screeching halt. You move forward diligently trying to respond to the concerns as best you can."

The bats' deaths have caused a painful split among environmentalists. Some continue to support new wind power projects, saying any harm they cause bats would be far less severe than the environmental problems associated with mining for coal and burning it to produce electricity. The industry concurs, saying the public needs to consider the overall harm other forms of energy production cause the environment compared to wind.

But other environmentalists are calling for a moratorium on development of wind projects on wooded mountaintops in the region until researchers figure out how to prevent bat deaths. Some, such as Dan Boone, spokesman of a group called Citizens for Responsible Wind Power and conservation chair for the Maryland chapter of the Sierra Club, said the amount of power generated by the windmills is not worth killing bats and birds.

"We have an industry targeting that area, and it's not doing it sensibly," Boone said. "We're blowing the promise of wind as a good, renewable energy source."
Some other environmentalists who disagree have launched an Internet petition calling on Boone to resign from his Sierra Club position.
Kerns, who studied the problem in 2003 for a contractor for FPL and is now working with the bat conservation group, said she has started to see patterns in the deaths. She has not reached any conclusive findings.
For example, before and after large storms, more bats tend to die. On warmer nights when wind speeds are lower, more have died. But researchers do not know why.

Kerns feels a sense of urgency to complete the research as developers ready their plans for nearby mountains.
"It's likely the same thing will occur," she said. "I look at the areas that are around here and I worry about the mortality that will occur there."


Since that article was written, bat mortality has been recorded at windplants throughout the world, with the highest kill rates occurring at windplants on forested ridges in the Appalachians: 50-100 bats per turbine per year.

We are lucky to have one of the US's foremost bat experts right here in Blair County, Dr. Michael Gannon, who is a professor of biology at PSU Altoona. You can contact him at mrg5@psu.edu. Dr. Gannon was interviewed by the Tyrone Daily Herald and has testified against the proposed Ice Mt windplant.

[no-it-all]

First off, Texas, California, and the parts of Europe that have these windmills are all mostly flat plains and farmland. I have yet to see a windmill pop up in the swiss alps, or near a German castle or anything with much natural beauty at all. Next, I detest the bat and bird arguement; I would love to see all of these folks focusing on saving bats turn their attention to the whack jobs that get 9 to 21 months for abusing kids(local resident within the last year) or drunks that destroy families and plead out to 2-7 year sentences(also local) or trying to do something about the 69% of the Tyrone students that are classified as "at risk or disadvantaged" or a probably very similar % that have done an illegal drug this week.
I agree that the windmills don't belong on our watershed or on any ridgetop, but it gives me a stomach ache to agree with alot of the people that feel that way.
How's that for abrasive?

[Luke]

.............. :guns:

[no-it-all]

What wasn't civil about my comment? I just have a different opinion on where bats and well anywildlife stand in the pecking order of life as compared to people. I know all living things have an importance in this world, but when they put human needs and safety in the back seat it really bothers me. I didn't mean any kind of shot at you with the " abrasive" comment. But when people disagree, both parties don't necessarily have to get their panties in a twist. I just felt like making that comment after 69 pages on the other thread with 200+ references to bats. You want to save a bat, steal a Louisville Slugger from the Pirates, they let them die of boredom or often break them after they themselves did something stupid...now that's inhumane treatment.

[exbellwoodian]

Wow! You guys really crack me up! I'm not even going to try to argue this point with any of you. It's not worth my frustration. Have a wonderful life.....

"In the United States, cars and trucks wipe out millions of birds each year, while 100 million to 1 billion birds collide with windows. According to the 2001 National Wind Coordinating Committee study, “Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States," these non-wind mortalities compare with 2.19 bird deaths per turbine per year. That's a long way from the sum mortality caused by the other sources."

"High capacity turbines are a relatively recent commercial product. Consequently, any field study of "avian mortality" done on a wind farm constructed prior to approximately the year 2000 (maybe a bit later in the US) is inappropriate for estimating bird mortality based on modern turbine designs."

"Wind energy works because it is one of the cleanest, most environmentally friendly energy sources in the world, helps reduce our country’s dependence on foreign sources of energy, creates jobs and supports local economies," said Randall Swisher, Executive Director of the American Wind Energy Association. "But despite all of these benefits, there is an ongoing effort by wind energy opponents to mislead the public and hinder or block further wind energy development across the country. This new coalition will make the positive case for continued wind energy development and engage the public with the facts."

Myth 1. Wind turbines spoil the landscape
Fact: This is a highly subjective issue. Being visible is not necessarily the same as being intrusive. While some people express concern about the effect wind turbines have on the beauty of our landscape, others see them as elegant and beautiful, or symbols of a better, less polluted future.
The landscape we inhabit is largely human-made and it evolves over time. In comparison to other energy developments like nuclear, coal and gas power stations, or open cast mining, wind farms have relatively little visual impact. Nevertheless sites within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) or National Parks are unlikely to be appropriate for large wind farms.
The increased utilisation of renewable energy and greater use of wind power will mean that we will have more of these structures visible in our townscape and landscape in the future. But all the organisations supporting this web site believe that wind energy is one of the most environmentally benign ways of producing the electricity we need to power our daily lives.
If we don't switch to cleaner forms of energy, climate change will severely and irrevocably alter much of our landscape as well as the animal and plant life it contains.

Myth 2. Wind turbines kill lots of birds
Fact: Monitoring of existing wind farms suggests that with sensitive siting there is no adverse effect on bird populations. Applications for consent for wind farms submitted to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and local councils must be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that includes details of the likely impact of the project in question on the environment and wildlife, among other things. In considering an application, the Department consults with a range of stakeholders, including the statutory advisers on nature conservation, as well as others with an interest in the project. This ensures that decisions on whether to grant consent for a wind farm are considered in the light of the best available information about its likely impacts.
According to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds. The RSPB supports the sustainable development of renewable energy such as wind power because it helps mitigate climate change, which they believe "poses the most significant long-term threat to the environment...The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds." The RSPB's conclusion is supported by a report last year for the Swedish State Energy Authority, which found that only 14 of the total 1.5 million migrating seabirds that each year passes two wind farms at Kalmarsund in south east Sweden are at risk of being killed.
Developers should contact specialists such as the RSPB and conduct a thorough analysis of the risk to birdlife as part of the environmental impact assessment of their wind farm proposal. With rigorous EIAs and thorough monitoring wind power can be deployed without significant detriment to birds (and other wildlife).
For example, the 9 harbour-wall turbines at Blyth are in a busy bird area. Of the bird flights through the wind farm, only 1 in 10,000 have resulted in a collision. This translates to 1-2 collisions per year per turbine. To put the issue into perspective, every year more than 10 million birds are killed by cars in the UK.
Projects like the Black Law windfarm demonstrate that, if properly sited, such developments not only produce zero emissions, but can also have a positive impact on the environment. The RSPB make clear that the Black Law windfarm, on the site of an abandoned opencast coalmine, represents an exciting opportunity to deliver real biodiversity benefits through habitat management. In any case, the likely impact on wildlife must be kept in context. A paper in Nature, by a large group of scientists including one from the RSPB, indicated that in sample regions covering about 20 per cent of the Earth's land surface - 15 per cent to 37 per cent of species (not just birds) will be committed to extinction as a result of mid-range climate warming scenarios by 2050.

Myth 7. Wind produces little power
Fact: A single 1.8-megawatt turbine can produce enough power for 1,000 homes. Wind power provides enough electricity to supply 1.2 million UK homes every year. Offshore wind farms like the London Array (1,000MW) are planned on a scale that will generate the equivalent of the electricity needs for 750,000 homes, the equivalent to a quarter of Greater London's households or every home in Kent and East Sussex. In 30 years of monitoring there have been no days when the wind has not blown throughout the UK. Wind farms generate power for approximately 85% of the time.
According to the DTI, renewable energy technologies could cost effectively provide one third of UK electricity requirements by 2025. The UK is the windiest country in Europe but in 2001 only 0.3 per cent of our electricity supply came from wind power – less than 500 megawatts (MW). According to the Low Carbon Buildings Programme, the UK has 40% of Europe’s total wind energy. Germany has built more than ten times our wind farm capacity despite the fact that our wind is stronger and more constant than theirs. Germany added 2,650MW of wind power capacity during 2001, giving a total of 8,750MW (equivalent to 3.5 per cent of Germany’s electricity consumption). Germany also plans a massive increase over the next 25 years, with a target of one quarter of present electricity needs coming from wind power. Spain is another rapidly growing wind energy market (second fastest in 2001), with a total of over 3,340 MW of installed capacity and has built over five times more than we have in just a few years. In Denmark 18 per cent of electricity already comes from wind and this is set to increase.
At present the National Grid can be operated effectively and economically with up to 20 per cent of the electricity capacity being provided by variable energy sources such as wind. At the levels being considered over the next few decades for wind energy production, such variability can easily be accommodated by the grid system. It is true that we could never rely on wind turbines alone to provide for all our electricity needs. But there are storage technologies we can use, such as pumped storage hydro power schemes (where water is pumped up-hill, thus acting like large batteries for the electricity system), as well as more flexible renewable technologies such as energy from bio-waste and bio-crops.

http://www.yes2wind.com

Good Bye, and you will not get any more responses from me on this subject.

[Something to say]

Everyone is sick it seems with the bat/bird mortality rate discussion. But I believe that the only reason it's peated and repeated is because 1. it's factual, 2. There are still some people that are iffy in making up their minds that the turbines do not belong on Ice Mountain, 3. When ruining the view, digging up the earth, making huge roads, water run-offs and the such doesn't seem to deter the decision of producing a wind farm up there,...... hopefully educating these people about the demise of certain living species....will jar some into deciding it's maybe not a good idea. Especially when bats, in particular, are essential to the health of human beings.

I couldn't agree more that we need to pay more attention to the problems that are facing us such as "the whack jobs".......but that doesn't make this problem any less important.

[Luke]

Well I think the most compelling argument which you don't address with your myth busters is what can happen to the water shed if something goes wrong. We all know what happened when I99 exposed rock that could ruin wells. This mountain leads right into the resevoir. Imagine all of the folks in Tyrone enjoying windmills on their horizon with not a drop to drink. Priceless for the ones who will cause the havoc, leave town and us to deal with the issues.

[Something to say]

Well I think the most compelling argument which you don't address with your myth busters is what can happen to the water shed if something goes wrong. We all know what happened when I99 exposed rock that could ruin wells. This mountain leads right into the resevoir. Imagine all of the folks in Tyrone enjoying windmills on their horizon with not a drop to drink. Priceless for the ones who will cause the havoc, leave town and us to deal with the issues.

I agree....just another problem facing Tyrone residents ....... I can't understand why anyone would vote the windfarm on that ridgetop. Just makes no sense to me at all... I think the revenue is tempting to some. But where's the benefit if the money will have to be used to fix the problem the installment has caused....... :banghead:

[Ice Man]

Well I think the most compelling argument which you don't address with your myth busters is what can happen to the water shed if something goes wrong. We all know what happened when I99 exposed rock that could ruin wells. This mountain leads right into the resevoir. Imagine all of the folks in Tyrone enjoying windmills on their horizon with not a drop to drink. Priceless for the ones who will cause the havoc, leave town and us to deal with the issues.

Do your part to protect conservation land from Energy Unlimited

October 2, 2006 by Henry F. Smith Jr., Wright Township in Times Leader

After years of innuendo, the word is finally out. Energy Unlimited is not only eager to industrialize Luzerne County’s premier conservation land purchase, it is planning to exclude you, the taxpayer, from ever visiting it. Thus, public property, with wonderful resources for hunting, hiking, biking, cross-country skiing and other uses, will likely be “off limits” to the public.

Let us review the situation. In 2004 Luzerne County spent $4 million to buy the roughly 4,000-acre Crystal Lake Parcel for “conservation and recreation.” What was not revealed at the time was that the “wind rights” were not included with the purchase. We later learned that a large wind energy industrial site was planned for the property’s most scenic and important acres, the pristine wooded slopes that form the watershed for Crystal Lake, the water supply for much of Mountain Top. We at Defend our Watershed have long held that not only will the construction of this facility destroy the pristine beauty of this parcel, but also require that access to the area around the installation (essentially 1,700 acres of the land nearest to the lake) be denied. We began to suspect this because of the restrictions that operators have enacted at other installations. For instance, in an article from 2005 in the Citizens’ Voice, Florida Power and Light spokesperson Mary Wells said of their Waymart Wind facility: “We build our facilities on private property and it’s our expectation that people abide by posted signs,” she said.

You see, wind farms are potentially dangerous places. 200-ton turbines with 120-foot long blades with tip speeds in excess on 100 mph can pose a hazard to nearby humans (not to mention birds and bats). Occasionally, blades can actually fall off and can be propelled some distance. We’ve learned from the Bald Mountain wind site, currently operating in Bear Creek Township, that oil leaks are not uncommon, and can be difficult to resolve.

Then there is another problem. Again from the Citizens’ Voice: “Turbine blades can accumulate ice that can be thrown several hundred feet,” according to Wells, “which makes safety a concern.” It seems unlikely in these litigious times that an operator would tolerate the risk that an injury might occur. Energy Unlimited, the developer of the Crystal Lake installation, has been coy about this, but over the months of zoning and planning hearings held at Bear Creek Township, their true intentions are leaking out.

Consistently EUI touts as an advantage to the site, the lack of public access, conveniently ignoring the fact that there are multiple access points, including an official state snowmobile trail, on adjacent State Game Commission property, which leads directly to the proposed turbines.

In a recent planning board hearing, representatives from Energy Unlimited asserted that the “wind rights agreement” gives them the legal right to exclude visitors from the property. Our reading of the agreement suggests they’re probably right, as the document states: “ (the) Lessor will not otherwise use the property for any use which interferes with, or is incompatible, or take any action which interferes with, or is incompatible with the lessee’s use of the property.” So if having a bunch of pesky hikers, hunters, or snowmobilers near the roads or turbines is incompatible with the wind facilities operation, then the “wind park” operator has the right to exclude them from the area.

Energy Unlimited has also announced their intention to prevent public use of the extensive road system that they will gouge out of the forest to construct and maintain the facility. So extensive is this road system, that it will be difficult to traverse large sections of the parcel without incurring EUI’s potential wrath. We have no doubt that the wind park operator will actively control the site. During the recent zoning hearings in the township, when asked how the public might be protected from the hazards posed by the installation, EUI’s attorney, Ernie Preate had a quick answer: “Guards and fences” he quipped.

The “Penobscot Wind Park” is clearly an inappropriate and incompatible use of county conservation and recreational land. We support the efforts of the current Bear Creek supervisors as they attempt to bring order to this project, which was given a free reign by the previous township administration. For our part DOW, with our partners from Bear Creek Township, will continue to fight for taxpayers rights in court. Concerned sportsmen, and Luzerne County residents should demand that the majority Luzerne County commissioners begin to protect this property and the rights of the taxpayers who will ultimately pay for it.

[Ice Man]

Well I think the most compelling argument which you don't address with your myth busters is what can happen to the water shed if something goes wrong. We all know what happened when I99 exposed rock that could ruin wells. This mountain leads right into the resevoir. Imagine all of the folks in Tyrone enjoying windmills on their horizon with not a drop to drink. Priceless for the ones who will cause the havoc, leave town and us to deal with the issues.

I agree....just another problem facing Tyrone residents ....... I can't understand why anyone would vote the windfarm on that ridgetop. Just makes no sense to me at all... I think the revenue is tempting to some. But where's the benefit if the money will have to be used to fix the problem the installment has caused....... :banghead:

Wind farm contaminates well.

Transformer Blast: DEC says tests show just one residential water supply affected by spill at wind farm

A mineral oil spill caused by an Independence Day transformer explosion at the Maple Ridge Wind Farm has apparently contaminated a residential well.
However, it doesn’t appear to have affected neighboring wells according to state Department of Environmental Conservation officials.

The July 4 explosion at the wind farm substation up the hill from the hamlet on Rector Road – which caused a temporary shutdown of the facility – led to 491 gallons of oil leaking from the damaged transformer said DEC spokesman Steven W. Litwhiler.

“They reported the spill and they were quick-acting at commencing the cleanup” Mr. Litwhiler said.

However, a West Martinsburg resident in late November reported the presence of oil in his well water and tests ultimately determined that contaminant had the characteristics of oil used in the electrical transformers, he said. Wind farm officials have been notified of the findings which suggest the contaminants are remnants of the July 4 spill.

Neighboring wells were also tested for contaminants, with negative results, Mr. Litwhiler said.

We tested about 15 different homeowners’ wells in the area,” he said. “That was the only one that had a confirmed presence of oil.

Future testing is planned, he said.

DEC provided all residents with bottled water until confirming their wells were not contaminated, Mr. Litwhiler said. Agency officials are also working with the state Department of Health to determine potential long-term solutions like installation of a filtering system for the affected home he said.

DEC has taken no action against the wind farm, but the file on the spill hasn’t yet been closed. Wind farm officials have been cooperating thus far, Mr. Litwhiler said.

Tod W. Nash, the wind farm’s operations manager was unavailable for comment Friday afternoon.

Wind farm officials were planning soon to change the transformer that malfunctioned and had a replacement part on hand, PPM Atlantic Renewable’s William M. Moore who developed the 195-turbine wind farm in the towns of Martinsburg and Lowville said in July.

The transformers’ insulation system consists of insulating oil and cellulous materials and that mixture generates small amounts of combustible and non-combustible gases under normal use, Mr. Nash said last month in an e-mail.

According to Mr. Nash, wind farm officials – as part of their routine maintenance schedule – in August and September took oil samples from randomly selected transformers and found that some had higher-than-normal levels of gases and subsequently tested the rest of them. Less than one-third were identified as having above-normal levels.

While the July 4 explosion was caused by equipment failure, not gas build-up, wind farm officials still decided to implement a 17-day around-the-clock “de-gassing effort” to avoid any potential incidents, Mr. Nash said. Two tractor trailers were used to filter gases from oil in the targeted transformers.

Wind farm staff are “working with the transformer manufacturer and several consultants specializing in transformer construction testing and operation to determine the cause of the gases being generated,” Mr. Nash wrote. “Based on their results, all transformers are tested rather than portion to provide the earliest possible detection of any abnormal condition.”

Web link: http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/

[sandstone]

I detest the bat and bird arguement; I would love to see all of these folks focusing on saving bats turn their attention to the whack jobs that get 9 to 21 months for abusing kids(local resident within the last year) or drunks that destroy families and plead out to 2-7 year sentences(also local) or trying to do something about the 69% of the Tyrone students that are classified as "at risk or disadvantaged" or a probably very similar % that have done an illegal drug this week.
I agree that the windmills don't belong on our watershed or on any ridgetop, but it gives me a stomach ache to agree with alot of the people that feel that way.
How's that for abrasive?

Why do you assume that people who are concerned about wildlife are not concerned about other people? As a health care provider, I spend most of my time caring for people, but that doesn't mean that I can't help wildlife too.