Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines

[silent majority]

How do you know they will increase Anne? They definetely will increase if we do nothing.

[anne onimous1]

It's sounds the same to those who oppose windfarms coming from the other side. I'm opposed. Whatever happens, happens. I just think that when I hear what is going on in other communities with the wind turbine noise issues and the failure of anyone taking responsibility should be a red flag. That's all.

[anne onimous1]

Because the miniscule amount of energy being produced will not benefit you, it will benefit someone buying it in say, New Jersey.

[anne onimous1]

Do you think it is fair that a community has to hire someone to come in and measure the noise level of a turbine because the windfarm company doesn't care. It could end up costing you more in the long run.

[Something to say]

Something to say said something on a previous page about people who braved the harsh winter weather and whatever else they had to do. I admire the passion of people who truly believe in something but sometimes we need to measure the things we take action on in terms of the good it will do for others. All I've seen and heard from those who oppose the wind farm is hatefullness towards those who don't think as they do. Passionate..yes...good...no.

Hatefulness? I don't hate anyone on this board, and I believe what you have seen is frustration. People in this thread have given reasons as to why they oppose this development, only to have someone constantly question those reasons, thus the repeating of the same stuff over and over.

If you have followed this thread from the beginning you have seen that people are passionate as to why they don't believe Ice Mountain is a good location for the wind farm. The only positive comments made by those that approve the develpment are... it will bring money to the community and my light bill might go down. That reasoning is not sound. Your light bill is NOT going to decrease. Your watershed may suffer consequences, so on and so forth.

[My2Cents]

If nothing else, maybe the success or failure of wind energy will prompt further development of alternate energy sources. Any way you look at it the cost of gas and home heating bills are absolutely rediculous. We need to do something and wind energy seems to be a start. I would need to hear better arguements than the degredation of birds and bats. Animals are very adaptive so I don't believe for a minute that a big fan moving slowly through the air is going to have a major impact on them. Sure the construction process will affect wildlife for a little while but they'll overcome. I do agree that I wouldn't like to see the mills on ice mountain but what else are we to do?

We have already been thru the "big fan" scenerio a long time ago on this board. That was streightened out a long time ago.... silly me. Thanks to educated professionals, those individuals that are being affected by the results of these turbines in other areas, individuals with common sense, along with those that have been keeping up on subject and doing their homework overtime are well versed and know exactly what major impact the "big fans" will have on Ice Mountain.

[My2Cents]

Something to say said something on a previous page about people who braved the harsh winter weather and whatever else they had to do. I admire the passion of people who truly believe in something but sometimes we need to measure the things we take action on in terms of the good it will do for others. All I've seen and heard from those who oppose the wind farm is hatefullness towards those who don't think as they do. Passionate..yes...good...no.

Hey "silent majority," you wouldn't happen to be Bill Latchford in disguise would you ??

[Kelly]

I was asking myself the exact same thing My 2 Cents. Whoever it is sure is bitter and seems to have a very large chip on their shoulder.

[salaman]

It's time to hear from the silent majority. Where are the "supposed" 1400 petitioners. I guess the local bars didn't have ballot tables stationed in front if them huh? :mob: If you got to pull somebody's head off the bar to have them sign a petition that shouldn't count.

Yes, there were some petitions signed at the Bullpen, (it is also a restaurant) but the overwhelming majority of the signatures came from people stopping at the house at the bottom of Clay Ave. Those same people kept stopping back to check on the progress and wish Bob luck! On December 22nd a friend and I stood in front of Family Dollar and Dollar General with petitions in hand. It was a cold day but we had chosen that day for good reason, it was the last Saturday shopping day before Christmas. It only took me about a hour to figure out that when a pickup truck parked and a guy got out wearing a camo hat or jacket it meant a sure signature. We stood out there for nearly eight hours that day and were rewarded with 200 signatures. There were petitions at PPG, Albermarle, American Eagle, Tyrone Hospital, a local barber shop and the high school (for students over 18). I was contacted through this forum by people that I had never met before that took petitions door to door. If council actually took the time to read the signatures on the petition they would have seen that many of them were from local business owners, teachers, engineers and other fine citizens of the community. Not the "drunks" you speak of. I wonder how many of the 600 people that voted "yes" actually think that there electric bill is going to go down. Someone was circulating that BS around town. Silent majority it is time to put your keyboard away and stop stealing oxygen.

[silent majority]

Once again...People being mean. Just because I may have below average intelligence doesn't mean I should stop breathing.

[silent majority]

Kelly...I am not bitter nor do I have a large chip on my shoulder. I have been a casual observer of the wind mill debate for some time now. In fact, I actually agree with everything you folks who oppose wind energy have presented. You people are not only passionate about your position but also well-informed. To the point where I am very impressed. However, as a casual observer I've noticed that what some of you refer to as frustration, the casual observer sees it as somewhat meanspirited. You've got to remember, those who serve as our elected officials for the boro seem to be trying to get as well informed as they can. I believe however, if I were trying to make a decision as vital to the area as these folks are, I too would have some trouble with others jumping all over me for every statement I make or information I attempt to find. From almost the beginning, I watched as those who oppose wind energy began to practically pounce the leaders of our community. It is natural human instinct when one is feeling even a subtle hint of aggression towards them, to jump on the defensive. Thus, there will be hesitation in the decision-making process. Like it or not, it's human nature. I was just being an idiot when I jumped in this forum and attacked the good folks who signed the petition and those who worked so hard to make council see that there is alot of opposition to the wind farm on ice mountain. If I upset any of you I truly apologize. This is why I let you know quickly that I was joking in regards to the "drunk" comments :drink:. My admiration for Bob and Skip and all others who have worked hard over these past months is endless, just like their efforts. I might add that my admiration is not easilly attainable. While I must admit that I am still somewhat of a fence-sitter on the idea of wind energy, due in part that I believe with the way technology is today, that wind energy may be obsolete in a few years then what do we do with the mess on ice mountain. I just hope that we as community and as individuals can take a few steps back and not lose compassion for one another over something such as the huge wind farm debate. I've listened to both sides and this one thing I can conclude with is that I love all of you and will be praying for a suitable ending to this apparent community-dividing debate. Tyrone is still the best place to live. AMEN!

[My2Cents]

I jumped in this forum and attacked the good folks who signed the petition and those who worked so I've listened to both sides and this one thing I can conclude with is that I love all of you and will be praying for a suitable ending to this apparent community-dividing debate. Tyrone is still the best place to live. AMEN!

.... and with that said Bill, and if you continue to do your homework... you will find that it is well known, and it is documented, that this company is known for causing turmoil within communities and has caused ill feelings with (at one time) very good neighbors and for many years to come, if not forever. It is happening here already... what else do we need ?? It's in our face right now and we can stop this before it even starts. Come on.... think about it.... look what is happening already to the community and the lease isn't even signed yet.

[Ice Man]

I would need to hear better arguements than the degredation of birds and bats. Animals are very adaptive so I don't believe for a minute that a big fan moving slowly through the air is going to have a major impact on them. Sure the construction process will affect wildlife for a little while but they'll overcome.

Read the article below, and, if, after reading it, you still believe that the Ice Mt wind farm will have no major impact on wildlife, please give us some data or scientific evidence to back up your claim:


Wind Power Development on Public Lands – It Isn’t Worth It

By the Pennsylvania Biological Survey

The Pennsylvania Biological Survey is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to increase the knowledge of and foster the perpetuation of the natural biological diversity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Our membership includes scientists, representatives of state and federal agencies concerned with natural resource management, and representatives of non-profit conservation organizations.
\
PABS technical committees serve as official advisory committees to several natural resource agencies in the state, including the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Game Commission, and Fish and Boat Commission.

After reviewing evidence on the environmental costs and benefits of wind energy, PABS is opposed to wind energy development on Pennsylvania natural resource agency lands.

We are aware of the serious environmental costs of fossil fuel energy sources, including the threats of global climate change to Pennsylvania’s natural biological diversity. We therefore support the responsible development of alternative energy sources, including properly sited wind energy development.

However, because wind energy development has associated environmental costs, wind energy development should only be instituted on state lands if the environmental benefits can be demonstrated to exceed the environmental costs.

Based on the available evidence, it is our conclusion that wind energy development is not suitable on state-owned lands where natural resource conservation is a major goal (i.e., primarily lands owned and managed by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Pennsylvania Game Commission).

The reason for our opposition is outlined below but can be summarized as follows:
The environmental benefits of wind energy development, in the mid-Atlantic area in general and on Pennsylvania state lands in particular, are small relative to the negative consequences, which include habitat fragmentation and mortality to birds and bats.

The primary environmental benefit of wind energy production is that it offsets the use of fossil fuels, thereby reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas.

The Department of Energy projects that by 2020, wind power will meet 1.2 to 4.5 percent of the country’s electricity generation, and will thus offset emissions of carbon dioxide from electricity generation by 1.2 to 4.5 percent. Since electricity generation accounts for 39 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, wind power will offset between 0.5 and 1.8 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions (National Research Council 2007).

The National Research Council (2007) concludes “Wind energy will contribute proportionately less to electricity generation in the mid-Atlantic region than in the United States as a whole, because a smaller portion of the region has high-quality wind resources than the portion of high-quality wind resources in the United States as a whole.”

Thus, it is apparent that wind energy development in the mid-Atlantic will offset a very minor portion of future carbon dioxide emissions.

Because Commonwealth Natural Resource Agency Lands make up only a fraction of land in Pennsylvania, the contribution of wind energy development on these lands to future energy needs, as well as any offset of carbon dioxide emissions, will be negligible.

Energy conservation, on the other hand, could considerably reduce the demand for energy and thus reduce carbon dioxide emissions. For example, residential home energy consumption in 2020 could be feasibly educed by over 1/3 using existing technologies (Bressand et al. 2007).

The environmental impacts of wind energy are considerable. Mortality to birds and bats has been of particular concern. Bat mortality from wind turbines has been particularly high, especially along forested ridge tops in the eastern United States.

Because bats generally have low reproductive rates, cumulative negative impacts of wind energy development on bat populations are likely (Kunz et al. 2007). Based on projections of installed wind capacity, it is estimated that by 2020 annual mortality in the mid-Atlantic highlands could be as high as 45,000 birds (National Research Council 2007) and 111,000 bats (Kunz et al. 2007).

With wind energy development expanding on private lands in Pennsylvania, the forested ridge tops of state-owned lands will become even more critical for birds, bats, and other species that utilize these habitats.
Another important, and often overlooked, impact of wind development is habitat fragmentation and its associated effects. These effects include reduced habitat area, habitat isolation and loss of species from an area, disruption of dispersal, increased edge effects and loss of core habitat, and facilitation of invasive species (Groom et al. 2006).

Due to their linearity, roads and transmission lines, both of which accompany wind energy development, have particularly pronounced fragmentation effects (Groom et al. 2006, Willyard et al. 2004).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) recommends that wind energy development “avoid fragmenting large, contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat” and advises that wind turbines be placed “on lands already altered or cultivated, and away from areas of intact and healthy native habitats.”

Because natural resource agency lands are among the last remaining large blocks of unfragmented land in Pennsylvania, these lands are particularly in need of protection. A publication produced by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (Moyer 2003) emphasizes the importance of preserving these last remaining large blocks of unfragmented habitat in the state.

In conclusion, the environmental benefits wind energy development on natural resource agency lands in Pennsylvania are negligible compared with the environmental consequences. These lands should remain closed to wind energy development.

For more information on the position of the Pennsylvania Biological Survey, contact Dr. Tim Maret, Department of Biology, Shippensburg University, by calling 717-477-1170 or sending email to: tjmare@ship.edu .

[Ice Man]

TRUTH

http://www.dotpenn.com/2008/263/borough ... omment-263

[Ice Man]

VOTE!

http://www.centredaily.com:80/news/loca ... 45996.html