Excellent analysis:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/erp129/nach ... estudy.doc
Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
-
Fightin' Irish
- Member
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:25 am
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Hey Casselberry and Associates! What's the risk of this on a scale of 1-10?
Noble Environmental Power Confirms Altona Turbine Collapse
POSTED: 11:29 am EST March 6, 2009
UPDATED: 3:09 pm EST March 6, 2009
ALTONA, N.Y. -- Noble Environmental Power has confirmed that a turbine collapsed at its Altona, N.Y., wind park Friday morning, but said no one was injured in the collapse and ensuing fire.
In a statement released by the company Friday, company spokeswoman Maggy Wisniewski confirmed one turbine had collapsed and that a small fire resulted, but she refused to speak on the record with a NewsChannel 5 reporter.
PAST COVERAGE: Wind Farm Addresses Local Rumors
Local fire departments were notified and are at the scene, according to the statement. The site has been completely secured and all Noble employees have been accounted for, the statement says.
The statement also says the entire Noble wind park has been shut down pending further investigation and there is no danger to the public due to the collapse.
"Noble values the safety of its employees and neighbors above all else. Noble has committed its full resources to understanding the cause of this incident. We will keep you informed as we learn more information," Noble CEO Walt Howard is quoted as saying in the statement.
Residents reported large explosions from the scene at about 9:30 a.m. NewsChannel 5 went to the scene off Purdy Road, which leads to the wind farm, and found Noble trucks blocking the roadway. Noble officials at the scene would not provide access to the area and offered no information about the situation at that time.
Residents in the area told Newschannel 5 they heard what sounded like a large explosion and said the loud noises lasted for several minutes. Others equated the sound to an earthquake and speculated one of the company's large windmills may have thrown a blade. Another local resident told NewsChannel 5 she could see flames coming from Noble.
High winds have been reported throughout the North Country Friday.
NewsChannel 5 will provide more detail on this story as it comes available. Check back here at WPTZ.com for the latest on this story.
Coming soon to Ice Mountain? Thank the Lord Almighty that Council has voted NO so far!
Noble Environmental Power Confirms Altona Turbine Collapse
POSTED: 11:29 am EST March 6, 2009
UPDATED: 3:09 pm EST March 6, 2009
ALTONA, N.Y. -- Noble Environmental Power has confirmed that a turbine collapsed at its Altona, N.Y., wind park Friday morning, but said no one was injured in the collapse and ensuing fire.
In a statement released by the company Friday, company spokeswoman Maggy Wisniewski confirmed one turbine had collapsed and that a small fire resulted, but she refused to speak on the record with a NewsChannel 5 reporter.
PAST COVERAGE: Wind Farm Addresses Local Rumors
Local fire departments were notified and are at the scene, according to the statement. The site has been completely secured and all Noble employees have been accounted for, the statement says.
The statement also says the entire Noble wind park has been shut down pending further investigation and there is no danger to the public due to the collapse.
"Noble values the safety of its employees and neighbors above all else. Noble has committed its full resources to understanding the cause of this incident. We will keep you informed as we learn more information," Noble CEO Walt Howard is quoted as saying in the statement.
Residents reported large explosions from the scene at about 9:30 a.m. NewsChannel 5 went to the scene off Purdy Road, which leads to the wind farm, and found Noble trucks blocking the roadway. Noble officials at the scene would not provide access to the area and offered no information about the situation at that time.
Residents in the area told Newschannel 5 they heard what sounded like a large explosion and said the loud noises lasted for several minutes. Others equated the sound to an earthquake and speculated one of the company's large windmills may have thrown a blade. Another local resident told NewsChannel 5 she could see flames coming from Noble.
High winds have been reported throughout the North Country Friday.
NewsChannel 5 will provide more detail on this story as it comes available. Check back here at WPTZ.com for the latest on this story.
Coming soon to Ice Mountain? Thank the Lord Almighty that Council has voted NO so far!
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Hi folks,
Terry Doran, of Folmont, wrote a thought-provoking LTE that was published in today’s (March 6) Daily American regarding the Quemahoning wind ordinance;he raises some excellent points. The original article about the Que wind ordinance is listed below his letter. I’m sure Horizon will be pressuring the township to weaken their setbacks. After all, Horizon’s goal is quite lofty: 5,000 leased acres for 42 turbines and 124 MW. But wait, how can Horizon get 124 MW out of 42 turbines?? Are they going to construct 2.9 MW turbines? What am I missing?
Laura
03-01-09
To the Editor,
Many of us opposed to the wholesale construction of wind turbines throughout Somerset County welcomed the news that the Quecreek community has placed strict limitations on the placement and operation of wind turbines. It would be great if the surrounding communities and/or the Somerset County government would also strengthen existing ordinances or pass similar restrictions. The Quecreek ordinance strengthens the bargaining position of property owners while protecting the property values of those residents who oppose the construction of wind turbines.
The ordinance is welcome, but limited in impact. There is a much greater concern as to
the claims of the wind industry that they can provide affordable, reliable energy while protecting the environment, migratory birds and bats.
It is time for the owners of the wind factories to reveal the actual amount of electricity being generated by the turbines in times of peak usage by consumers. Many of those opposed to the continued construction of the wind turbines believe that they contribute little usable electricity to the grid and that the claims of the turbine owners are vastly overstated.
Turbines have been in operation for several years and there must be substantial data to verify actual energy production in times of peak usage. Will the turbine owners (Gamesa, E.ON, Florida Power etc.) reveal the figures to substantiate the claim that the wind turbines are efficient and reliable or will we continue to hear claims of electricity generated based upon capacity rather than production?
The turbines will be paid for by tax dollars in the form of subsidies and in higher electricity bills due to deregulation. We should make certain that the turbines are truly worth their cost in tax dollars and to the environment.
Dr. Terence Doran,
214 Old Farm Road
Central City, PA 15926
814-754-4638
Que regulations could impact 42-turbine wind farm
http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2 ... ews698.txt
February 27, 2009 by Dan DiPaolo in Daily American
QUEMAHONING TOWNSHIP - Supervisors finalized the county's strictest wind turbine ordinance during a public meeting on Thursday attended by residents and a wind energy representative.
Jeffrey Rinehart, project manager for Horizon Wind Energy, said the ordinance would affect the company's plan to build the largest wind farm in the county, some 42 turbines, in the northern part of the township.
"As far as we're concerned, it's pretty tight," Rinehart said. "We have to go back and see how it impacts the useable property."
The Texas company acquired leases on 16 properties with 2,070 acres and is seeking to add another 35 properties and 3,000 acres to a project that would generate 240 megawatts of electricity. The project would represent a $250 million investment in the township, according to a letter written to supervisors on Tuesday
.
However, the new ordinance limits placement of the nearest unit a minimum of four times the height of the turbine from the property line of a non-participating landowner.
"The township would drastically reduce the available acreage for wind farm development in the township," the letter said. "At a worst case, the ordinance would make the project unfeasible, forcing Horizon to cease development at the site."
Residents and supervisors said the ordinance was fair and that it would encourage wind companies to work more with adjoining property owners while developing projects.
"You can sign a waiver, maybe you can be paid too," said Supervisor Mark Rininger. "We don't want to take the right away for people to have a windmill. It's a tough balancing act."
The new ordinance goes beyond county code by imposing noise limits and extending the distance a turbine must be placed from property lines.
The code includes limiting turbine noise to 45 decibels as measured from the property line of the nearest non-participating landowner.
Quemahoning's ordinance also differs from the county code by using the property line as the measuring standard as opposed to an occupied structure.
The distance equates to a little over 1,600 feet for a standard 2.1 megawatt turbine.
To compare, Shade Township requires a setback of three times the hub height from the nearest property line of a non-participating landowner.
Horizon is in the preliminary planning stage of its project, Rinehart said. They have no development timetable.
Web link: http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2009/02/27/n...
Terry Doran, of Folmont, wrote a thought-provoking LTE that was published in today’s (March 6) Daily American regarding the Quemahoning wind ordinance;he raises some excellent points. The original article about the Que wind ordinance is listed below his letter. I’m sure Horizon will be pressuring the township to weaken their setbacks. After all, Horizon’s goal is quite lofty: 5,000 leased acres for 42 turbines and 124 MW. But wait, how can Horizon get 124 MW out of 42 turbines?? Are they going to construct 2.9 MW turbines? What am I missing?
Laura
03-01-09
To the Editor,
Many of us opposed to the wholesale construction of wind turbines throughout Somerset County welcomed the news that the Quecreek community has placed strict limitations on the placement and operation of wind turbines. It would be great if the surrounding communities and/or the Somerset County government would also strengthen existing ordinances or pass similar restrictions. The Quecreek ordinance strengthens the bargaining position of property owners while protecting the property values of those residents who oppose the construction of wind turbines.
The ordinance is welcome, but limited in impact. There is a much greater concern as to
the claims of the wind industry that they can provide affordable, reliable energy while protecting the environment, migratory birds and bats.
It is time for the owners of the wind factories to reveal the actual amount of electricity being generated by the turbines in times of peak usage by consumers. Many of those opposed to the continued construction of the wind turbines believe that they contribute little usable electricity to the grid and that the claims of the turbine owners are vastly overstated.
Turbines have been in operation for several years and there must be substantial data to verify actual energy production in times of peak usage. Will the turbine owners (Gamesa, E.ON, Florida Power etc.) reveal the figures to substantiate the claim that the wind turbines are efficient and reliable or will we continue to hear claims of electricity generated based upon capacity rather than production?
The turbines will be paid for by tax dollars in the form of subsidies and in higher electricity bills due to deregulation. We should make certain that the turbines are truly worth their cost in tax dollars and to the environment.
Dr. Terence Doran,
214 Old Farm Road
Central City, PA 15926
814-754-4638
Que regulations could impact 42-turbine wind farm
http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2 ... ews698.txt
February 27, 2009 by Dan DiPaolo in Daily American
QUEMAHONING TOWNSHIP - Supervisors finalized the county's strictest wind turbine ordinance during a public meeting on Thursday attended by residents and a wind energy representative.
Jeffrey Rinehart, project manager for Horizon Wind Energy, said the ordinance would affect the company's plan to build the largest wind farm in the county, some 42 turbines, in the northern part of the township.
"As far as we're concerned, it's pretty tight," Rinehart said. "We have to go back and see how it impacts the useable property."
The Texas company acquired leases on 16 properties with 2,070 acres and is seeking to add another 35 properties and 3,000 acres to a project that would generate 240 megawatts of electricity. The project would represent a $250 million investment in the township, according to a letter written to supervisors on Tuesday
.
However, the new ordinance limits placement of the nearest unit a minimum of four times the height of the turbine from the property line of a non-participating landowner.
"The township would drastically reduce the available acreage for wind farm development in the township," the letter said. "At a worst case, the ordinance would make the project unfeasible, forcing Horizon to cease development at the site."
Residents and supervisors said the ordinance was fair and that it would encourage wind companies to work more with adjoining property owners while developing projects.
"You can sign a waiver, maybe you can be paid too," said Supervisor Mark Rininger. "We don't want to take the right away for people to have a windmill. It's a tough balancing act."
The new ordinance goes beyond county code by imposing noise limits and extending the distance a turbine must be placed from property lines.
The code includes limiting turbine noise to 45 decibels as measured from the property line of the nearest non-participating landowner.
Quemahoning's ordinance also differs from the county code by using the property line as the measuring standard as opposed to an occupied structure.
The distance equates to a little over 1,600 feet for a standard 2.1 megawatt turbine.
To compare, Shade Township requires a setback of three times the hub height from the nearest property line of a non-participating landowner.
Horizon is in the preliminary planning stage of its project, Rinehart said. They have no development timetable.
Web link: http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2009/02/27/n...
-
Fightin' Irish
- Member
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:25 am
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
A recent article in VOICES OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA:
Lack of Care in Windplant Siting puts our Forested Ridges at Risk
by Dr. Stan Kotala
Central Pennsylvania’s forested ridges are the last strongholds of unfragmented wooded habitat left in our region. Such forests are critical to the survival of the wood thrush, the ovenbird, the scarlet tanager, the cerulean warbler, and many other forest interior species.
These same forested ridges are the targets of industrial windplant developers. A hundred years ago, people who opposed the damming of the Hetch Hetchy were denounced by Gifford Pinchot, Teddy Roosevelt and other nature-lovers as unrealistic preservationists, who failed to see the benefits to nature from sacrificing a few areas in order to save many others from the impacts of coal mining and burning. A century later, with the benefit of better science and more knowledge about aquatic ecosystems, we now know in detail just how devastating large hydroelectric dams can be. A similar scenario is unfolding with industrial windfarms.
There is growing consensus among the scientific community that ridgetop industrial windplants pose significant threats to Pennsylvania's natural heritage. A recent statement by the Pennsylvania Biological Survey described the impact of industrial wind plants in ridgetop forested settings as ''severe.''
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service describes three broad impacts of industrial windplants: direct mortality of birds and bats, the inducement of avoidance behavior and forest fragmentation.
The Pennsylvania Game Commission classifies many of central Pennsylvania’s ridges, including the Allegheny Front and Tussey Mountain, as ''high risk sites'' for industrial windplant development.
Dr. Keith Bildstein, director of conservation at world-famous Hawk Mountain, writes that these ''high risk'' sites should be off-limits to industrial windplant development.
Dr. Todd Katzner of the National Aviary has demonstrated through radiotelemetry that the Allegheny Front is on the major eastern golden eagle migratory route, and he states that the golden eagle is the species most at risk from industrial wind plant development. The Allegheny Front already has more than 400 industrial-scale wind turbines in various stages of planning, construction and completion between I-80 and the Maryland border.
In addition, the extensive road network associated with industrial windplants has substantial ecological costs, including increased erosion, chemical and thermal water pollution, spread of invasive exotics and forest fragmentation. Roads cause many problems when they break up continuous areas of forest in Pennsylvania, and it is getting worse by the day as more roads are built in contiguous forests.
These adverse effects of forest fragmentation 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 the facilitation of alien invasive species. Due to their linearity, roads and transmission lines have particularly pronounced fragmentation effects.
Even narrow open corridors through forests, such as roads and rights-of-way, degrade the forest by creating unfavorable habitat for many species of migratory birds because of high rates of nest predation by middle level predators of the transitional zones at the edges of forests (ecotonal meso-predators) such as such as foxes, skunks, and raccoons and nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds. Furthermore, the effects of such openings extend 300 feet into the forest from the edge. Interior forest, therefore, is defined as forest occurring more than 300 feet from an edge. Interior forest is required for successful breeding by species such as the black-throated blue warbler, the black-throated green warbler, the wood thrush, the ovenbird, and the scarlet tanager.
In addition to decimating interior forest habitat, roads produce edge effects conducive to the spread of alien invasive plants such as multiflora rose, Japanese stiltgrass, Russian olive, Japanese barberry, tree-of-heaven, and Japanese knotweed. Once established on roadsides, these alien invaders infiltrate adjacent habitats, further degrading our forests.
The construction of forest roads associated with industrial windplants constitutes a relatively permanent change in habitat structure. Because the construction of such roads involves a major investment, the incentive for long-term maintenance to provide future access is high. The longer these roads are in place, the greater the chance that forest degradation will occur.
The US Fish & Wildlife Service’s guidance document regarding “wind farm” location states:
1. Avoid placing turbines in areas where there are endangered species.
2. Avoid placing turbines in bird migration pathways.
3. Avoid placing turbines near known bat hibernation, breeding, and maternity colonies.
4. Avoid fragmenting large, contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat.
As you can see, siting industrial windplants on central Pennsylvania's forested ridges is inconsistent with the criteria for acceptable windfarm locations according to the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
It is especially troubling that wind power developers have targeted ridges such as Tussey Mountain, which has been designated as an Important Bird Area by the Pennysylvania Biological Survey because of its importance to migrating raptors, especially the golden eagle. As a matter of fact, Tussey Mountain has the highest number of golden eagles east of the Mississippi River during spring migration! Other disturbing signs include the targeting of Brush Mountain in Blair County, part of the Canoe Creek Important Mammal Area, which is home to the Commonwealth's largest hibernaculum and summer colony of the Federally Endangered Indiana bat; and the targeting of Tuscarora, Jacks, Blacklog, Shade and Canoe Mountains, which are homes to colonies of the Pennsylvania Threatened Allegheny woodrat.
Conservationists should seek a balanced approach to energy production. Industrial-scale wind complexes on the Commonwealth’s forested ridgetops offer no real response to the threat of global warming and only token gestures for improving air quality. In Pennsylvania, it would require sacrificing 800 miles of ridgetop to place the 4,000 wind turbines that would be needed to provide the Keystone State with just 10% of its electricity. A much more meaningful action would redirect the substantial tax subsides available for wind energy to fund conservation and efficiency incentives, for these would have a far greater impact in reducing the effects of fossil fuel combustion and toxic emissions responsible for endangering the world.
Dr. Stan Kotala is the Conservation Chair for Juniata Valley Audubon www.jvas.org and also serves as the Endangered Species and Wildlife Chair on the Executive Committee of the Moshannon Group of the Sierra Club www.sierramsh.org. He practices medicine in Blair County and lives with his wife and daughter in Sinking Valley.
Lack of Care in Windplant Siting puts our Forested Ridges at Risk
by Dr. Stan Kotala
Central Pennsylvania’s forested ridges are the last strongholds of unfragmented wooded habitat left in our region. Such forests are critical to the survival of the wood thrush, the ovenbird, the scarlet tanager, the cerulean warbler, and many other forest interior species.
These same forested ridges are the targets of industrial windplant developers. A hundred years ago, people who opposed the damming of the Hetch Hetchy were denounced by Gifford Pinchot, Teddy Roosevelt and other nature-lovers as unrealistic preservationists, who failed to see the benefits to nature from sacrificing a few areas in order to save many others from the impacts of coal mining and burning. A century later, with the benefit of better science and more knowledge about aquatic ecosystems, we now know in detail just how devastating large hydroelectric dams can be. A similar scenario is unfolding with industrial windfarms.
There is growing consensus among the scientific community that ridgetop industrial windplants pose significant threats to Pennsylvania's natural heritage. A recent statement by the Pennsylvania Biological Survey described the impact of industrial wind plants in ridgetop forested settings as ''severe.''
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service describes three broad impacts of industrial windplants: direct mortality of birds and bats, the inducement of avoidance behavior and forest fragmentation.
The Pennsylvania Game Commission classifies many of central Pennsylvania’s ridges, including the Allegheny Front and Tussey Mountain, as ''high risk sites'' for industrial windplant development.
Dr. Keith Bildstein, director of conservation at world-famous Hawk Mountain, writes that these ''high risk'' sites should be off-limits to industrial windplant development.
Dr. Todd Katzner of the National Aviary has demonstrated through radiotelemetry that the Allegheny Front is on the major eastern golden eagle migratory route, and he states that the golden eagle is the species most at risk from industrial wind plant development. The Allegheny Front already has more than 400 industrial-scale wind turbines in various stages of planning, construction and completion between I-80 and the Maryland border.
In addition, the extensive road network associated with industrial windplants has substantial ecological costs, including increased erosion, chemical and thermal water pollution, spread of invasive exotics and forest fragmentation. Roads cause many problems when they break up continuous areas of forest in Pennsylvania, and it is getting worse by the day as more roads are built in contiguous forests.
These adverse effects of forest fragmentation 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 the facilitation of alien invasive species. Due to their linearity, roads and transmission lines have particularly pronounced fragmentation effects.
Even narrow open corridors through forests, such as roads and rights-of-way, degrade the forest by creating unfavorable habitat for many species of migratory birds because of high rates of nest predation by middle level predators of the transitional zones at the edges of forests (ecotonal meso-predators) such as such as foxes, skunks, and raccoons and nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds. Furthermore, the effects of such openings extend 300 feet into the forest from the edge. Interior forest, therefore, is defined as forest occurring more than 300 feet from an edge. Interior forest is required for successful breeding by species such as the black-throated blue warbler, the black-throated green warbler, the wood thrush, the ovenbird, and the scarlet tanager.
In addition to decimating interior forest habitat, roads produce edge effects conducive to the spread of alien invasive plants such as multiflora rose, Japanese stiltgrass, Russian olive, Japanese barberry, tree-of-heaven, and Japanese knotweed. Once established on roadsides, these alien invaders infiltrate adjacent habitats, further degrading our forests.
The construction of forest roads associated with industrial windplants constitutes a relatively permanent change in habitat structure. Because the construction of such roads involves a major investment, the incentive for long-term maintenance to provide future access is high. The longer these roads are in place, the greater the chance that forest degradation will occur.
The US Fish & Wildlife Service’s guidance document regarding “wind farm” location states:
1. Avoid placing turbines in areas where there are endangered species.
2. Avoid placing turbines in bird migration pathways.
3. Avoid placing turbines near known bat hibernation, breeding, and maternity colonies.
4. Avoid fragmenting large, contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat.
As you can see, siting industrial windplants on central Pennsylvania's forested ridges is inconsistent with the criteria for acceptable windfarm locations according to the US Fish & Wildlife Service.
It is especially troubling that wind power developers have targeted ridges such as Tussey Mountain, which has been designated as an Important Bird Area by the Pennysylvania Biological Survey because of its importance to migrating raptors, especially the golden eagle. As a matter of fact, Tussey Mountain has the highest number of golden eagles east of the Mississippi River during spring migration! Other disturbing signs include the targeting of Brush Mountain in Blair County, part of the Canoe Creek Important Mammal Area, which is home to the Commonwealth's largest hibernaculum and summer colony of the Federally Endangered Indiana bat; and the targeting of Tuscarora, Jacks, Blacklog, Shade and Canoe Mountains, which are homes to colonies of the Pennsylvania Threatened Allegheny woodrat.
Conservationists should seek a balanced approach to energy production. Industrial-scale wind complexes on the Commonwealth’s forested ridgetops offer no real response to the threat of global warming and only token gestures for improving air quality. In Pennsylvania, it would require sacrificing 800 miles of ridgetop to place the 4,000 wind turbines that would be needed to provide the Keystone State with just 10% of its electricity. A much more meaningful action would redirect the substantial tax subsides available for wind energy to fund conservation and efficiency incentives, for these would have a far greater impact in reducing the effects of fossil fuel combustion and toxic emissions responsible for endangering the world.
Dr. Stan Kotala is the Conservation Chair for Juniata Valley Audubon www.jvas.org and also serves as the Endangered Species and Wildlife Chair on the Executive Committee of the Moshannon Group of the Sierra Club www.sierramsh.org. He practices medicine in Blair County and lives with his wife and daughter in Sinking Valley.
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
I just read on another thread that borough council voted for the turbines. Don't give up! All the hundreds of people who signed the petitions and voted no at the polls should go to the next meeting and let their feelings be known.
-
sandstone
- MVP Member
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:09 am
- If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
- Location: Sinking Valley
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Juniata Valley Audubon thanks Mayor Jim Kilmartin and Councilman Steve Hanzir for their votes to save Ice Mountain. Their respect for the watershed and for Blair County's natural heritage will be remembered. :flag:
Ice Mountain is designated as a Blair County Natural Heritage Area of exceptional conservation value. The Blair County Natural Heritage Inventory specifically recommends that no additional roads be built in that area. By voting YES to the windplant proposal Councilwomen Stoner, Werner and Bryan, and Councilmen Grazier and Kosoglow have shown their enormous disrespect for Blair County's Natural Heritage.
Stan Kotala, M.D.
Conservation Chair
Juniata Valley Audubon
Ice Mountain is designated as a Blair County Natural Heritage Area of exceptional conservation value. The Blair County Natural Heritage Inventory specifically recommends that no additional roads be built in that area. By voting YES to the windplant proposal Councilwomen Stoner, Werner and Bryan, and Councilmen Grazier and Kosoglow have shown their enormous disrespect for Blair County's Natural Heritage.
Stan Kotala, M.D.
Conservation Chair
Juniata Valley Audubon
-
One lone voice
- New Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:23 pm
- If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 7
- Location: TYRONE
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Hi everyone. I just have one comment for now.....the poll that was taken last April was not an accurate assessment. There were only a little over 1000 people who answered the poll outside the polling areas, and Boro Council decided that that showed the will of the voters?? If that was the will of the people, what about the opinions of the rest of the registered voters in town? At last count, the number of registered voters IN the Boro was 3,348.
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Can someone correct me if I am mistaken here but, if Fish and Game have rules, regulations and laws regarding our forests then how can ANY vote anywhere override the law. Can Council vote for us to hunt on property Fish and Game says we may not, I don't think so!! Clearly the devastation of the forests and wildlife for a mere 10% of our states needed power, over the long haul, is not worth what this will cost the citizens of the surrounding areas. Not to mention, once again, the wildlife and eco system. Again, look to places that already have these windmills in place, lets spend a little money up front (the vendor should pay for this) to do some surveys of areas that already have permitted these windmills. We need to SEE hard evidense from the environment and the PEOPLE who live in these areas and see if they are still 'thrilled' with their decisions to place these windmills. The 'vendor' should have no problem paying for these surveys because I am sure they KNOW that everyone everywhere that they have placed these windmills are just so darn happy with them and the 'end result'. So let's hear from the 'masses' on this one.
Hey, I have an idea, the windmill vendor should hook up with the strip miners and put their windmills on the property that has been stripped, look everybody wins!! The property already is void of foliage (and everything else for that matter), big wide roadways already in place for the equipment the 'strippers' used, ready to install windmills. On the 'strippers' side of things, they won't need to replace the foliage ( I believe that used to be the 'law' they had to replant once they were finished with the strip mine op) as apparently these windmills need to be free of 'debris'. So, 'Bob's your uncle' there ya go!!
Hey, I have an idea, the windmill vendor should hook up with the strip miners and put their windmills on the property that has been stripped, look everybody wins!! The property already is void of foliage (and everything else for that matter), big wide roadways already in place for the equipment the 'strippers' used, ready to install windmills. On the 'strippers' side of things, they won't need to replace the foliage ( I believe that used to be the 'law' they had to replant once they were finished with the strip mine op) as apparently these windmills need to be free of 'debris'. So, 'Bob's your uncle' there ya go!!
-
One lone voice
- New Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:23 pm
- If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 7
- Location: TYRONE
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Hey jumper56, I love the idea of siting the windmills on old strippings. As someone who has hunted in the strippings, I can tell you that they are certainly windy enough to keep those blades turning, and the heavy duty roads used for the draglines and coal trucks are a cheaper alternative than building them from scratch, but there is a problem. The disturbed ground in the strippings will not support the huge behemoths weight, and the constant vibrations will turn the ground to soup underneath. I think you can guess what happens then. Thats why they have to blast the footings into bedrock.
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
"They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind." Hosea 8:1-14
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
I have a question and hope someone here can answer it... When the Tyrone Borough voted regarding the windmills didn't it show that the majority of the community voted for them? I didn't vote for them but I do believe that we still need to go with the majority. I don't understand why it came into question at the borough meeting if the community already voted for them? confused here!
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
No one in Tyrone voted for the windplant last April. There was NO VOTE. There was only an informal poll by high school students of some of the people who emerged from the voting booths.Beck wrote:I have a question and hope someone here can answer it... When the Tyrone Borough voted regarding the windmills didn't it show that the majority of the community voted for them? I didn't vote for them but I do believe that we still need to go with the majority. I don't understand why it came into question at the borough meeting if the community already voted for them? confused here!
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Amen.One lone voice wrote:Hi everyone. I just have one comment for now.....the poll that was taken last April was not an accurate assessment. There were only a little over 1000 people who answered the poll outside the polling areas, and Boro Council decided that that showed the will of the voters?? If that was the will of the people, what about the opinions of the rest of the registered voters in town? At last count, the number of registered voters IN the Boro was 3,348.
-
Something to say
- MVP Member
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:42 pm
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Oh boy... Im going to peeve some people but I can't sit on my fingers forever. Save Ice Mountain has been trying to reach out to Tyrone Citizens for nearly 2 yrs to educate and alert them to what was coming down the road. Sadly...only a handful of Tyrone citizens stepped up to the plate in an effort to save YOUR mountain.
There was a petition which garnered 1500 signatures AGAINST this project, but your council decided to ignore that petition and instead held an INFORMAL POLL of their own. They along with some high school students manned tables at the Democratic Primary voting booths and 55% of the voters who turned out voted in favor of the project. THE MEDIA in nearly every article or report given to the general public....turned that 55% into 55% OF THE TOWN being in favor. TOTAL AND COMPLETE FALLACY.
( note: In the actual election 61% voted for McCain as opposed to 37% voting for Obama in Blair County ...makes one wonder if the vote for the windfarm would have included the majority of republicans in Tyrone if it would have changed the outcome )
Anyway... I find it sad that people that live outside of the Tyrone Borough were more concerned about property owned by Tyrone than the Tyrone citizens themselves.
What is happening down there with your police force is unfortunate, but at least TYRONE has come alive and is banding together to SUPPORT SOMETHING. I just wish there would have been as much interest shown in your Mountain which has been designated as a Blair County Natural Heritage Area of Exceptional Conservation Value.
Now, a Spanish-based company has been given the go-ahead to come in and desecrate that mountain...
SO VERY SAD.
There was a petition which garnered 1500 signatures AGAINST this project, but your council decided to ignore that petition and instead held an INFORMAL POLL of their own. They along with some high school students manned tables at the Democratic Primary voting booths and 55% of the voters who turned out voted in favor of the project. THE MEDIA in nearly every article or report given to the general public....turned that 55% into 55% OF THE TOWN being in favor. TOTAL AND COMPLETE FALLACY.
( note: In the actual election 61% voted for McCain as opposed to 37% voting for Obama in Blair County ...makes one wonder if the vote for the windfarm would have included the majority of republicans in Tyrone if it would have changed the outcome )
Anyway... I find it sad that people that live outside of the Tyrone Borough were more concerned about property owned by Tyrone than the Tyrone citizens themselves.
What is happening down there with your police force is unfortunate, but at least TYRONE has come alive and is banding together to SUPPORT SOMETHING. I just wish there would have been as much interest shown in your Mountain which has been designated as a Blair County Natural Heritage Area of Exceptional Conservation Value.
Now, a Spanish-based company has been given the go-ahead to come in and desecrate that mountain...
SO VERY SAD.
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Yo, 'one lone voice' you reckon that is what happened to the "collapsed" windmill I read about, it was not blasted into the bedrock? And, 'something to say' are you telling us this is a done deal? Short of sabotage, and chaining ourselves to trees, we are 'boned'? Is it too late to have Legislature pass something to stop the destruction of the ridges? Unfortunately, I only learned of this ( not living in Tyrone presently ) on this site. It sure seems that the 'council' passed this with the public having very little real knowledge of how this would take place. Also, did not realize this was a company from another country. Hey, way to go council, not only 'give' away the mountain but give it to outside interests who will surely attempt to own Tyrone once they break ground. One more time, they are in business, to make money, don't care about people at all. This will be a costly lesson to earn. It can't be too late, we must do something!! There is way too much involved here and little to no return for the people of PA to give up and walk away from this debacle. Who can we turn to that would give us constructive suggestions to counter this project. If these things are put on our mountains, I will most assuredly retire elsewhere. And I am sure I am not alone. All I wanted to do was come back to nice quiet Tyrone and between the Greg Ray thing and the windmill crap, the Tyrone I knew and loved is gone, gone forever!! By the way, has anyone 'followed the money' on the windmill project. Maybe the 'private investigators' were looking at the wrong end of the stick. Would be interesting to 'see' the financial records of those people whom passed this project on through as it seems this passed with the dispproval of most of their constituants? And in the age of the Internet it is just so easy to find out that information. I wouldn't 'go there' except for Council clearly passed this knowing the majority did not approve, there is only one reason they would do that?? Think about it. Another thought, how long after the mountain is covered with windmills do you all reckon it will take the 'council' members to move to another town and forget all about Tyrone. Are most of the members of council actually from Tyrone? I feel nautious, I gotta go lie down.