Pretty much says it all.Ice Man wrote:Costs associated with renewables, primarily wind, are high, said Michael Early, executive director of Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, tagged with some of the steepest hikes.steelerswally wrote: We heard more about the environmental impact windmills have, but I would like to know more about what impact they have on overall electicity production. They mentioned that the power lines get tied into a "grid" that services many areas around the Allegheny Mountains. Sure, maybe we don't benefit directly from any reduction in electrical costs, but it has to help.
"We have a renewable energy portfolio, but it doesn't come without a cost."
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
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Altoona Mirror
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Officials weigh wind power waiver
Gamesa asks Snyder Township to OK windmills in bird area
By Greg Bock
gbock@altoonamirror.com
TYRONE - Snyder Township will take at least another month to review a waiver request by wind power developer Gamesa USA.
Under the township's ordinance regulating wind farms, Gamesa can't place turbines on Ice Mountain because they fall within a Pennsylvania Audubon Important Bird Area.
"I'll tell you now, if I had to vote tonight, it would be no," Supervisor Jim Burket said at Monday's meeting after Josh Framel, Gamesa's project manager for the Sandy Ridge Wind Farm, pressed the board for a decision on the waiver from the 500-foot setback requirement from the IBA.
Framel told the board that the sites of some of the 16 wind turbines planned have already been moved, and the proposed wind farm was "in a small portion" of the IBA - one that stretches between the Maryland border and State College along the Allegheny Front ridge line.
Framel said the issue was brought before the board last year. He said the delay would wreck havoc with Gamesa's timetables for getting state permits, which would further delay construction. Before the meeting, Framel estimated it would take at least a year before construction of the wind farm began.
"For us, a month is a pretty significant delay," Framel said.
Burket said he had "mixed emotions" about granting the waiver and had fielded numerous calls from concerned residents. He said he was concerned because Gamesa was vocal during the drafting and approval of the ordinance and said he worried that it would set a precedent in which the Township basically would have to rewrite regulations to fit Gamesa's plans.
"We bent alot on the ordinance already," Burket said. "Where does it stop?"
Dave Bonta, township resident and vice president of the Juniata Valley Audubon Society, explained that Ice Mountain's large expanse of undeveloped forest is integral to scores of interior forest songbirds and its high ridge to migrating golden eagles and osprey.
He further stressed Audubon only administers the IBA program, but the 86 areas in the state are designated by a committee of ornithologists and other experts. The IBA at issue is called the Allegheny Front IBA and includes 195 species of birds, Bonta said.
Cutting additional roads and clearing land on Ice Mountain will drive many birds from the area for at least the 30-year life of the wind farm, Bonta said. He added that birds of prey are vulnerable to flying into the whirling blades of the turbines.
Supervisor Charlie Diehl said he hadn't made a decision on the issue but pointed out to Bonta that airplanes also kill birds, but no one is proposing stopping flights.
Supervisor Robert Nelson indicated that he was in favor of the wind farm and wanted to grant the waiver Monday night.
"We need something that we can someday come back to say we've done something, and our grandchildren won't have to go outside with an oxygen tank on their backs," Nelson said, referring to the smog and smoke created by traditional power generation that uses coal.
Laura Jackson, executive director of the Juniata Valley Audubon Association's Save Our Alleghenies Ridges advocacy, cautioned Nelson that the costs of wind power outweighed any benefits. She said it doesn't decrease coal use, and because Pennsylvania wind isn't constant, the power grid provides for only 13% capacity from turbines.
"Wind [energy] doesn't do much to stop pollution," Jackson said.
_____________________________________________________
Mirror Staff Writer Greg Bock is at 946-7446
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Officials weigh wind power waiver
Gamesa asks Snyder Township to OK windmills in bird area
By Greg Bock
gbock@altoonamirror.com
TYRONE - Snyder Township will take at least another month to review a waiver request by wind power developer Gamesa USA.
Under the township's ordinance regulating wind farms, Gamesa can't place turbines on Ice Mountain because they fall within a Pennsylvania Audubon Important Bird Area.
"I'll tell you now, if I had to vote tonight, it would be no," Supervisor Jim Burket said at Monday's meeting after Josh Framel, Gamesa's project manager for the Sandy Ridge Wind Farm, pressed the board for a decision on the waiver from the 500-foot setback requirement from the IBA.
Framel told the board that the sites of some of the 16 wind turbines planned have already been moved, and the proposed wind farm was "in a small portion" of the IBA - one that stretches between the Maryland border and State College along the Allegheny Front ridge line.
Framel said the issue was brought before the board last year. He said the delay would wreck havoc with Gamesa's timetables for getting state permits, which would further delay construction. Before the meeting, Framel estimated it would take at least a year before construction of the wind farm began.
"For us, a month is a pretty significant delay," Framel said.
Burket said he had "mixed emotions" about granting the waiver and had fielded numerous calls from concerned residents. He said he was concerned because Gamesa was vocal during the drafting and approval of the ordinance and said he worried that it would set a precedent in which the Township basically would have to rewrite regulations to fit Gamesa's plans.
"We bent alot on the ordinance already," Burket said. "Where does it stop?"
Dave Bonta, township resident and vice president of the Juniata Valley Audubon Society, explained that Ice Mountain's large expanse of undeveloped forest is integral to scores of interior forest songbirds and its high ridge to migrating golden eagles and osprey.
He further stressed Audubon only administers the IBA program, but the 86 areas in the state are designated by a committee of ornithologists and other experts. The IBA at issue is called the Allegheny Front IBA and includes 195 species of birds, Bonta said.
Cutting additional roads and clearing land on Ice Mountain will drive many birds from the area for at least the 30-year life of the wind farm, Bonta said. He added that birds of prey are vulnerable to flying into the whirling blades of the turbines.
Supervisor Charlie Diehl said he hadn't made a decision on the issue but pointed out to Bonta that airplanes also kill birds, but no one is proposing stopping flights.
Supervisor Robert Nelson indicated that he was in favor of the wind farm and wanted to grant the waiver Monday night.
"We need something that we can someday come back to say we've done something, and our grandchildren won't have to go outside with an oxygen tank on their backs," Nelson said, referring to the smog and smoke created by traditional power generation that uses coal.
Laura Jackson, executive director of the Juniata Valley Audubon Association's Save Our Alleghenies Ridges advocacy, cautioned Nelson that the costs of wind power outweighed any benefits. She said it doesn't decrease coal use, and because Pennsylvania wind isn't constant, the power grid provides for only 13% capacity from turbines.
"Wind [energy] doesn't do much to stop pollution," Jackson said.
_____________________________________________________
Mirror Staff Writer Greg Bock is at 946-7446
-
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
Correct. Both the European and American experiences have shown that the addition of industrial windplants to the grid increases the cost of electricity. Why? Because, although the wind is free, capturing the wind is extremely expensive. Each 2MW turbine costs about $4,000,000. On a per unit of electricity produced basis, a windplant costs about 8x as much as a nuclear plant. That figure does not even take into account the fact that windplants are subsidized at 14x the rate of nuclear plants. Without continuous massive subsidies, the windplant developers would be bankrupt.Fightin' Irish wrote:Pretty much says it all.Ice Man wrote:Costs associated with renewables, primarily wind, are high, said Michael Early, executive director of Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, tagged with some of the steepest hikes.steelerswally wrote: We heard more about the environmental impact windmills have, but I would like to know more about what impact they have on overall electicity production. They mentioned that the power lines get tied into a "grid" that services many areas around the Allegheny Mountains. Sure, maybe we don't benefit directly from any reduction in electrical costs, but it has to help.
"We have a renewable energy portfolio, but it doesn't come without a cost."
Keep this fact in mind: to produce as much electricity as ONE nuclear plant, we'd need 5,000-6,000 industrial-scale wind turbines covering 1,000 miles of Pennsylvania ridgetop.
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Wind power is a complete disaster
April 7, 2009 by Michael J. Trebilcock in National Post
(Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government's legislative committee On Bill 150.)
There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark's largest energy utilities) tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions." The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that "Germany's CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram," and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.
Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario's current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, "windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense." Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it "a terribly expensive disaster."
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 - compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call "a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy." The Wall Street Journal advises that "wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners."
The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, "Wasting Money on Climate Change," that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.
Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.
The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government's promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.
A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?
In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.
Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).
This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government's Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.
Web link: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment...
http://www.windaction.org/opinions/20676
April 7, 2009 by Michael J. Trebilcock in National Post
(Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government's legislative committee On Bill 150.)
There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark's largest energy utilities) tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions." The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that "Germany's CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram," and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.
Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario's current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, "windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense." Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it "a terribly expensive disaster."
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 - compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call "a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy." The Wall Street Journal advises that "wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners."
The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, "Wasting Money on Climate Change," that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.
Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.
The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government's promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.
A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?
In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.
Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).
This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government's Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.
Web link: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment...
http://www.windaction.org/opinions/20676
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
[quote="sammie"]Wind power is a complete disaster
April 7, 2009 by Michael J. Trebilcock in National Post
Thanks Sammie.....I was just about to post that!
April 7, 2009 by Michael J. Trebilcock in National Post
Thanks Sammie.....I was just about to post that!
-
Fightin' Irish
- Member
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:25 am
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
sammie wrote:Wind power is a complete disaster
April 7, 2009 by Michael J. Trebilcock in National Post
(Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government's legislative committee On Bill 150.)
There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark's largest energy utilities) tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions." The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that "Germany's CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram," and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.
Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario's current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, "windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense." Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it "a terribly expensive disaster."
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 - compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call "a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy." The Wall Street Journal advises that "wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners."
The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, "Wasting Money on Climate Change," that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.
Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.
The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government's promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.
A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?
In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.
Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).
This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government's Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.
Web link: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment...
http://www.windaction.org/opinions/20676
Case closed! :thumb:
Fightin' Irish
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Hi folks,
National Wind Watch is sponsoring this global petition to gather signatures worldwide, thus educating others about the health impacts due to industrial turbine noise. Please read the petition and sign at: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/wind-watch.html
You’ll see my name, Jill Stull’s, Dr. Kotala's and others who are fighting rampant industrialization of rural areas throughout the world.
Thanks,
Laura
National Wind Watch is sponsoring this global petition to gather signatures worldwide, thus educating others about the health impacts due to industrial turbine noise. Please read the petition and sign at: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/wind-watch.html
You’ll see my name, Jill Stull’s, Dr. Kotala's and others who are fighting rampant industrialization of rural areas throughout the world.
Thanks,
Laura
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Caution on wind turbines
April 14, 2009 in Times Argus
A lot of publicity about wind farms has been reported lately but there has been a notable lack of publicity about continuing failures at Searsburg, as well as other areas throughout the country.
On Sept. 15, 2008, turbine #10 at the wind facility experienced a catastrophic failure when one of the blades came in contact with the turbine's tower, causing it to buckle during high winds. The turbine's 28-ton nacelle and three-blade rotor assembly crashed to the ground, scattering debris several hundred feet from the structure. Approximately 20 gallons of heavy oil spilled from the unit when its fluid reservoirs were damaged.
Lisa Linowes, executive director of Industrial Wind Action, stated that these turbines have been plagued by performance issues and blade failures for some time, citing specific incidents. Weather conditions and climate are taking a toll on wind turbines all over the country and reports of failures are increasing, including blade throws, oil leaks, fires and collapse.
It should be noted that their touted life expectancy is speculative and not substantiated since so very few have been operating for even 10 years. Moreover, information on the number and types of failures is sparse and poorly reported, making estimates of longevity unreliable. Apparently, of the approximately 75 wind farm operators in this country, some 60 percent are significantly behind in their maintenance procedures! Business Week (Aug. 2007) reported, "The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years (this in 2007, please note), the difficulties seem to be mounting."
While wind development continues to be an important part of our energy solution, would it not be wiser to seriously consider public safety and appropriate placement (not near schools, for instance, as has been done ... or in harsh weather areas).
Are we going down another black hole?
Web link: Rosalie Vear"
April 14, 2009 in Times Argus
A lot of publicity about wind farms has been reported lately but there has been a notable lack of publicity about continuing failures at Searsburg, as well as other areas throughout the country.
On Sept. 15, 2008, turbine #10 at the wind facility experienced a catastrophic failure when one of the blades came in contact with the turbine's tower, causing it to buckle during high winds. The turbine's 28-ton nacelle and three-blade rotor assembly crashed to the ground, scattering debris several hundred feet from the structure. Approximately 20 gallons of heavy oil spilled from the unit when its fluid reservoirs were damaged.
Lisa Linowes, executive director of Industrial Wind Action, stated that these turbines have been plagued by performance issues and blade failures for some time, citing specific incidents. Weather conditions and climate are taking a toll on wind turbines all over the country and reports of failures are increasing, including blade throws, oil leaks, fires and collapse.
It should be noted that their touted life expectancy is speculative and not substantiated since so very few have been operating for even 10 years. Moreover, information on the number and types of failures is sparse and poorly reported, making estimates of longevity unreliable. Apparently, of the approximately 75 wind farm operators in this country, some 60 percent are significantly behind in their maintenance procedures! Business Week (Aug. 2007) reported, "The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years (this in 2007, please note), the difficulties seem to be mounting."
While wind development continues to be an important part of our energy solution, would it not be wiser to seriously consider public safety and appropriate placement (not near schools, for instance, as has been done ... or in harsh weather areas).
Are we going down another black hole?
Web link: Rosalie Vear"
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
I found this on another forum on renewable energy and thought it would fit in here....
Posted by: old progrmr
Apr 13, 01:02 PM Report Abuse
Reply
________________________________________
As an engineer, I am not trashing wind power or solar because I simply dislike the eco-freaks. Yes indeed, there are many alternative energy approaches out there, but wind and solar are just not practical as large scale energy generators. One of the significant attributes of a viable, economic energy source is the relationship between the net energy generated per the volume, area, and/or density of the generation device(s) and as a function of its reliability or consistency of generation. Another multiplier is the ability to connect to the grid and implement adequate controls. In a mathematical analysis Wind and Solar rank way down the scale as effective large scale energy sources. The mathematics do not lie, although politicians and eco-freaks lie constantly. Solar and wind are effective small scale alternatives as economical supplants to large scale energy sources; i.e. heating residential water, swimming pools, emergency supplies, etc. But, solar and wind will never replace traditional large scale sources.
Why do we keep searching for a panacea when we already have Nuclear and Clean Coal technologies, as well as vastly improved and compact natural gas turbines? Why do we keep searching for some magical auto engine technology when we already have Diesel Engines whose efficient development is in its infancy? Computerized fuel injector controls and weight savings steps can produce comfortable autos at 50-60 mpg, and has already been accomplished! The continuing infatuation with Solar and Wind, as well as Ethanol and Hydrogen will blind us to the development of really efficient and economic technologies either based on fine tuning existing approaches or looking for truly dramatic breakthroughs. Solar and wind have been around for 50 years, lack of widespread use should be proof of their shortcomings.
We should be looking for means to implement a more distributed power generation system focusing on distributed residential and business power generation means interconnected to a larger supporting power grid. Large solar and wind farms are a move in exactly the wrong direction. Just as the large mainframe computer was replaced by the personal computer making distributed computing the winner over centralization, so too will distributed power generation supplant and reduce the burden on the immense, centralized power grid. We must look at the nationwide power grid as a "power internet" connected to distributed, dedicated smaller power generation devices. But, we will see no such real innovation if we focus on failed technology like gigantic, centralized Wind and Solar farms.
Posted by: old progrmr
Apr 13, 01:02 PM Report Abuse
Reply
________________________________________
As an engineer, I am not trashing wind power or solar because I simply dislike the eco-freaks. Yes indeed, there are many alternative energy approaches out there, but wind and solar are just not practical as large scale energy generators. One of the significant attributes of a viable, economic energy source is the relationship between the net energy generated per the volume, area, and/or density of the generation device(s) and as a function of its reliability or consistency of generation. Another multiplier is the ability to connect to the grid and implement adequate controls. In a mathematical analysis Wind and Solar rank way down the scale as effective large scale energy sources. The mathematics do not lie, although politicians and eco-freaks lie constantly. Solar and wind are effective small scale alternatives as economical supplants to large scale energy sources; i.e. heating residential water, swimming pools, emergency supplies, etc. But, solar and wind will never replace traditional large scale sources.
Why do we keep searching for a panacea when we already have Nuclear and Clean Coal technologies, as well as vastly improved and compact natural gas turbines? Why do we keep searching for some magical auto engine technology when we already have Diesel Engines whose efficient development is in its infancy? Computerized fuel injector controls and weight savings steps can produce comfortable autos at 50-60 mpg, and has already been accomplished! The continuing infatuation with Solar and Wind, as well as Ethanol and Hydrogen will blind us to the development of really efficient and economic technologies either based on fine tuning existing approaches or looking for truly dramatic breakthroughs. Solar and wind have been around for 50 years, lack of widespread use should be proof of their shortcomings.
We should be looking for means to implement a more distributed power generation system focusing on distributed residential and business power generation means interconnected to a larger supporting power grid. Large solar and wind farms are a move in exactly the wrong direction. Just as the large mainframe computer was replaced by the personal computer making distributed computing the winner over centralization, so too will distributed power generation supplant and reduce the burden on the immense, centralized power grid. We must look at the nationwide power grid as a "power internet" connected to distributed, dedicated smaller power generation devices. But, we will see no such real innovation if we focus on failed technology like gigantic, centralized Wind and Solar farms.
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Interesting info, salaman.
You got me thinking about a response I copied and saved a few months ago to an article regarding wind power. I thought this information about how much they break down and what it costs was eye opening. This guy, Jay, is responding to someone saying the wind is free:
Post by: Jay H
Dec. 22, 11:44 AM
-------------------------------------------------
Barry Robins wrote
>Once you put up a wind farm the wind is essentially
>free for the next 25 years. That's seems like a
>pretty good deal to me.
I work for a power company and am our liason to a wind project we purchase from. "Free" only in your dreams - the wind farm is less than five years old, yet over 1/2 of the turbines have required either a main bearing or gearbox replacement, some have needed both! In one year the crane rental fees alone (to lower the damaged parts and lift the new ones into place) was nearly $1 million. An adjacent wind farm, using a different manufacturers turbines has had to have almost 75% of their generators removed and rewound. There are significant ongoing mantenance issues (which are covered by non-disclosure agreements!) with wind farms which show this is not a mature, reliable technology.
Sure, the gas backup can be ramped up and down, but the part-load efficiency is much lower (and produces much higher emissions), plus, if the gas generator runs 75-80% of the time, how much are you really reducing emissions?
You got me thinking about a response I copied and saved a few months ago to an article regarding wind power. I thought this information about how much they break down and what it costs was eye opening. This guy, Jay, is responding to someone saying the wind is free:
Post by: Jay H
Dec. 22, 11:44 AM
-------------------------------------------------
Barry Robins wrote
>Once you put up a wind farm the wind is essentially
>free for the next 25 years. That's seems like a
>pretty good deal to me.
I work for a power company and am our liason to a wind project we purchase from. "Free" only in your dreams - the wind farm is less than five years old, yet over 1/2 of the turbines have required either a main bearing or gearbox replacement, some have needed both! In one year the crane rental fees alone (to lower the damaged parts and lift the new ones into place) was nearly $1 million. An adjacent wind farm, using a different manufacturers turbines has had to have almost 75% of their generators removed and rewound. There are significant ongoing mantenance issues (which are covered by non-disclosure agreements!) with wind farms which show this is not a mature, reliable technology.
Sure, the gas backup can be ramped up and down, but the part-load efficiency is much lower (and produces much higher emissions), plus, if the gas generator runs 75-80% of the time, how much are you really reducing emissions?
-
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
I have been doing research and found out a few interesting facts:
Gamesa only warranties for TWO years after they build the windfarm and run the initial startup tests.
It is Gamesa's practice to list the windfarm as asset for sale as soon as it is built and tested.
The average lifetime of a windmill is about 8-10 years.
We do not have the fire-fighting equipment to fight a fire at the top of the equivalent of a 30 storey building.
Gamesa hired Robert Jubelirer as a lobbyist in 2007.
Babcock and Brown( BBW's parent company) has gone belly-up and the off-shoot Babcock and Brown Wind is trying to distance itself from them by having a shareholders' meeting April 29 to approve changing their name to Infigen. Their major shareholder TCI is pushing to have BBW sell off their assets to recover some of their losses.
Gamesa only warranties for TWO years after they build the windfarm and run the initial startup tests.
It is Gamesa's practice to list the windfarm as asset for sale as soon as it is built and tested.
The average lifetime of a windmill is about 8-10 years.
We do not have the fire-fighting equipment to fight a fire at the top of the equivalent of a 30 storey building.
Gamesa hired Robert Jubelirer as a lobbyist in 2007.
Babcock and Brown( BBW's parent company) has gone belly-up and the off-shoot Babcock and Brown Wind is trying to distance itself from them by having a shareholders' meeting April 29 to approve changing their name to Infigen. Their major shareholder TCI is pushing to have BBW sell off their assets to recover some of their losses.
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Hi folks,
I’m happy to announce that the Allegheny Front Alliance, centered in Keyser, West Virginia has joined forces with SOAR to strengthen efforts in protecting our forested mountains from industrial wind development. This new grassroots group is organized, has a lawyer, and is also working closely with the Highlands Conservancy.
Right now, AFA is fighting two major wind projects. One is in Grant County and is called the AES New Creek Project. It is the first mountain range east of the Allegheny Front in WV.
The other wind project is named Pinnacle Knob Project, located on the Allegheny Front, locally called Green Mountain. The wind developer is US Wind Force.
Click to read more: http://www.times-news.com/opinion/local ... ndarystory
http://www.times-news.com/opinion/local ... ndarystory
Allegheny Front Alliance does not have a web page, but you can contact:
Frank J. O'Hara
94 Orchard Street
Keyser, WV 26726
(304) 788-5112 Home
AlleghenyFrontAlliance@verizon.net
Frank would appreciate receiving information, news articles, or reports that describe how wind companies are paying out money to local communities “in lieu of taxes”. He wants to show how wind companies are paying their way into areas by offering paltry financial incentives – which look wonderful to local government officials, but are really just short-term incentives that mask long term environmental and cultural damage.
Please copy any resources to mljackson2@embarqmail.com when you send them to Frank.
Thanks,
Laura
I’m happy to announce that the Allegheny Front Alliance, centered in Keyser, West Virginia has joined forces with SOAR to strengthen efforts in protecting our forested mountains from industrial wind development. This new grassroots group is organized, has a lawyer, and is also working closely with the Highlands Conservancy.
Right now, AFA is fighting two major wind projects. One is in Grant County and is called the AES New Creek Project. It is the first mountain range east of the Allegheny Front in WV.
The other wind project is named Pinnacle Knob Project, located on the Allegheny Front, locally called Green Mountain. The wind developer is US Wind Force.
Click to read more: http://www.times-news.com/opinion/local ... ndarystory
http://www.times-news.com/opinion/local ... ndarystory
Allegheny Front Alliance does not have a web page, but you can contact:
Frank J. O'Hara
94 Orchard Street
Keyser, WV 26726
(304) 788-5112 Home
AlleghenyFrontAlliance@verizon.net
Frank would appreciate receiving information, news articles, or reports that describe how wind companies are paying out money to local communities “in lieu of taxes”. He wants to show how wind companies are paying their way into areas by offering paltry financial incentives – which look wonderful to local government officials, but are really just short-term incentives that mask long term environmental and cultural damage.
Please copy any resources to mljackson2@embarqmail.com when you send them to Frank.
Thanks,
Laura
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Governor Rendell needs to read this and act accordingly!
Laura
http://amountainjourney.wordpress.com/2 ... flections/
YES, IN MY BACK YARD (YIMBY)!
May 8th, 2008 by Administrator
By George E. Beetham Jr.
People who support wind farms on mountain ridges keep referring to those who oppose them as “NIMBY”, an acronym for Not In My Back Yard. I have to admit to being puzzled why people think everybody who opposes wind in the mountains is either a NIMBY or a wind opponent.
I am neither. I am, if anything, a YIMBY. That is, Yes In My Back Yard. I live in southeastern Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia. Electricity generated in the mountains of West Virginia is marketed in Philadelphia and other major urban centers
I see several problems with this. First and foremost, if the cities are the major users of electricity, and anybody who has visited any East Coast city would have to agree that we are major users, then why shouldn’t the generation facilities be close to where the electricity is used? There are designs for wind turbines that can sit atop skyscrapers, in effect providing the electricity the building needs. Granted, current buildings would have to be retrofitted, but I would prefer to see that instead of wind turbines along Appalachian ridges. Build turbines along the medians of interstates.
I live in the city. I go to the mountains of West Virginia to experience what is left of nature here in the East. Admittedly, there isn’t a whole lot left, but that makes what is left that much more valuable and meaningful. And I submit that its highest and best value is as wilderness, or at least natural.
Transmitting electricity from mountains to cities involves high capacity transmission lines, like TRAIL, which will degrade even more natural land. Further, transmitting wind generated power over long distances is very inefficient. Much of the generated power is lost along the way; only a fraction of it actually gets to the city.
With mountaintop removal devastating wide areas of West Virginia, why in the world would you want to see what little natural areas there are left in the state crowned with wind turbines poking their way above treeline into the sky? Can’t one area of West Virginia remain free of blight? Can’t we have a sliver of wilderness left?
If wind power would stop mountaintop removal, I could understand why people would be for it. But wind will never provide more than a fraction of our electricity needs no matter how many ridges are ruined with towers. There are two things that are generated in the mountains of eastern West Virginia that we sorely need: water and forests that store carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Stripping trees off a ridge and planting wind turbines will have the effect of lessening the water retention capabilities of the mountains, and obviously have negative impacts on global warming.
It’s time for the cities, my back yard, to take on the responsibility for producing the power we over-use. If we are the energy hogs, then we should bear the burden here, in the cities. And if we are not willing to bear the burden, then guess what? The lights should start going out.
It seems to me that for too long development of urban America has plundered the wilds of West Virginia for its needs. It pains me to see native West Virginians pointing fingers at one another, grasping for panaceas for problems they have not created. Wind power is no panacea. It is not going to save one single coal bearing mountain from being plundered. It will never be more than a drop in the bucket if we depend on all the mountain ridges in West Virginia. Build the generation capacity where it will be used. That is the message that West Virginians should be rising up and shouting in unison.
And why would power companies not locate wind generators in cities? Because too many residents, the real NIMBYs, would object to it and the cost would escalate because of court fights. West Virginians should have enough pride in place to fight for your own back yards and shift the burden back on the people burning the lights all night long. All of West Virginia should rise up and oppose the abortion of mountaintop destruction, done for a few brief hours of power in some city that looks like a Christmas tree on steroids. The problem is my back yard and the solution should not be more blight in West Virginia. We destroyed our natural land long ago. What would a few more wind turbines mean here?
Frankly, West Virginia’s answer to the rest of the country should be to cut us off. The cities are what is destroying West Virginia. The mountains define West Virginia, known after all as the Mountain State. If West Virginia wants to market something, market the mountains as places where people can go to find a piece of nature: hike a trail, fish a stream, look off at ridge after ridge to infinity with no sign of human blight.
Whenever I travel to West Virginia, I cannot help but spend some of my Yankee dollars. Gas, food, lodging, maple syrup, sausage, produce from farms; I leave the Mountain State with less money than I enter it with, trust me. But if all you have to offer is wind turbines stretching from horizon to horizon, or mountaintop destruction, then somebody else is going to get my money.
Mountain ridges are not desert. They are not barren. The rain forests of eastern West Virginia have more value than anybody could imagine. The area is a natural watershed. Water is released slowly, providing water that flows to cities. The oxygen is breathed by millions. The forest is home to amazing creatures and plants that exist nowhere else in the world.
Few of us have any remote idea what amazing things can be found in the rain forests of the Monongahela National Forest. New discoveries pique my curiosity from time to time, things we have not learned in hundreds of years. Those are the things for which we should fight. Those are the things that are protected by wilderness. Those are things that may not be around much longer if we keep industrializing our last remaining eastern wilderness.
That is why I am against wind generation in the West Virginia highlands. I am saying, yes, in my back yard, not in your back yard.
My impression of West Virginia when I made my first trip to your state was that it consisted of endless wilderness that stretched on forever. Sadly that was only an illusion, a fact I now realize as I see wind turbines rearing up above the hills from too many once scenic vistas. I’ve seen mountaintop destruction at Kayford and listened to Larry Gibson and Maria Gunnoe, two eloquent people who can tell us the true cost of this destructive form of coal mining.
I’ve seen that, and I’ve seen wind turbines on the horizon from the Monongahela National Forest. And I wonder to myself, why West Virginians allow people to come into your once beautiful state and rape it. Do West Virginians see the mountains as simply something to be exploited, never mind the cost? I understand the need for economic development. But raping the mountains is not going to increase the standard of living.
Look at the blight of eastern cities. Is that what you want? Do you think urban dwellers are ennobled because of blight? I have to tell you that it has the exact opposite effect. That is why many urban dwellers seek out wilderness, to escape dreary blight. Maybe we’ve found something that West Virginians have forgotten. Maybe we prize nature over industrialization.
At the same time, we urban residents are the reason they’re building wind turbines along ridges in West Virginia, and why they’re blowing up mountains right and left. We should bear the cost, not you. It should be in my back yard, not yours. And you should not be pointing fingers at one another, but at us energy hogs who have no idea of the true human and natural cost of burning lights all night long.
George E. Beetham Jr. is a newspaper editor in Philadelphia, a former board member of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, and a believer that nature has power to heal the human soul.
Laura
http://amountainjourney.wordpress.com/2 ... flections/
YES, IN MY BACK YARD (YIMBY)!
May 8th, 2008 by Administrator
By George E. Beetham Jr.
People who support wind farms on mountain ridges keep referring to those who oppose them as “NIMBY”, an acronym for Not In My Back Yard. I have to admit to being puzzled why people think everybody who opposes wind in the mountains is either a NIMBY or a wind opponent.
I am neither. I am, if anything, a YIMBY. That is, Yes In My Back Yard. I live in southeastern Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia. Electricity generated in the mountains of West Virginia is marketed in Philadelphia and other major urban centers
I see several problems with this. First and foremost, if the cities are the major users of electricity, and anybody who has visited any East Coast city would have to agree that we are major users, then why shouldn’t the generation facilities be close to where the electricity is used? There are designs for wind turbines that can sit atop skyscrapers, in effect providing the electricity the building needs. Granted, current buildings would have to be retrofitted, but I would prefer to see that instead of wind turbines along Appalachian ridges. Build turbines along the medians of interstates.
I live in the city. I go to the mountains of West Virginia to experience what is left of nature here in the East. Admittedly, there isn’t a whole lot left, but that makes what is left that much more valuable and meaningful. And I submit that its highest and best value is as wilderness, or at least natural.
Transmitting electricity from mountains to cities involves high capacity transmission lines, like TRAIL, which will degrade even more natural land. Further, transmitting wind generated power over long distances is very inefficient. Much of the generated power is lost along the way; only a fraction of it actually gets to the city.
With mountaintop removal devastating wide areas of West Virginia, why in the world would you want to see what little natural areas there are left in the state crowned with wind turbines poking their way above treeline into the sky? Can’t one area of West Virginia remain free of blight? Can’t we have a sliver of wilderness left?
If wind power would stop mountaintop removal, I could understand why people would be for it. But wind will never provide more than a fraction of our electricity needs no matter how many ridges are ruined with towers. There are two things that are generated in the mountains of eastern West Virginia that we sorely need: water and forests that store carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Stripping trees off a ridge and planting wind turbines will have the effect of lessening the water retention capabilities of the mountains, and obviously have negative impacts on global warming.
It’s time for the cities, my back yard, to take on the responsibility for producing the power we over-use. If we are the energy hogs, then we should bear the burden here, in the cities. And if we are not willing to bear the burden, then guess what? The lights should start going out.
It seems to me that for too long development of urban America has plundered the wilds of West Virginia for its needs. It pains me to see native West Virginians pointing fingers at one another, grasping for panaceas for problems they have not created. Wind power is no panacea. It is not going to save one single coal bearing mountain from being plundered. It will never be more than a drop in the bucket if we depend on all the mountain ridges in West Virginia. Build the generation capacity where it will be used. That is the message that West Virginians should be rising up and shouting in unison.
And why would power companies not locate wind generators in cities? Because too many residents, the real NIMBYs, would object to it and the cost would escalate because of court fights. West Virginians should have enough pride in place to fight for your own back yards and shift the burden back on the people burning the lights all night long. All of West Virginia should rise up and oppose the abortion of mountaintop destruction, done for a few brief hours of power in some city that looks like a Christmas tree on steroids. The problem is my back yard and the solution should not be more blight in West Virginia. We destroyed our natural land long ago. What would a few more wind turbines mean here?
Frankly, West Virginia’s answer to the rest of the country should be to cut us off. The cities are what is destroying West Virginia. The mountains define West Virginia, known after all as the Mountain State. If West Virginia wants to market something, market the mountains as places where people can go to find a piece of nature: hike a trail, fish a stream, look off at ridge after ridge to infinity with no sign of human blight.
Whenever I travel to West Virginia, I cannot help but spend some of my Yankee dollars. Gas, food, lodging, maple syrup, sausage, produce from farms; I leave the Mountain State with less money than I enter it with, trust me. But if all you have to offer is wind turbines stretching from horizon to horizon, or mountaintop destruction, then somebody else is going to get my money.
Mountain ridges are not desert. They are not barren. The rain forests of eastern West Virginia have more value than anybody could imagine. The area is a natural watershed. Water is released slowly, providing water that flows to cities. The oxygen is breathed by millions. The forest is home to amazing creatures and plants that exist nowhere else in the world.
Few of us have any remote idea what amazing things can be found in the rain forests of the Monongahela National Forest. New discoveries pique my curiosity from time to time, things we have not learned in hundreds of years. Those are the things for which we should fight. Those are the things that are protected by wilderness. Those are things that may not be around much longer if we keep industrializing our last remaining eastern wilderness.
That is why I am against wind generation in the West Virginia highlands. I am saying, yes, in my back yard, not in your back yard.
My impression of West Virginia when I made my first trip to your state was that it consisted of endless wilderness that stretched on forever. Sadly that was only an illusion, a fact I now realize as I see wind turbines rearing up above the hills from too many once scenic vistas. I’ve seen mountaintop destruction at Kayford and listened to Larry Gibson and Maria Gunnoe, two eloquent people who can tell us the true cost of this destructive form of coal mining.
I’ve seen that, and I’ve seen wind turbines on the horizon from the Monongahela National Forest. And I wonder to myself, why West Virginians allow people to come into your once beautiful state and rape it. Do West Virginians see the mountains as simply something to be exploited, never mind the cost? I understand the need for economic development. But raping the mountains is not going to increase the standard of living.
Look at the blight of eastern cities. Is that what you want? Do you think urban dwellers are ennobled because of blight? I have to tell you that it has the exact opposite effect. That is why many urban dwellers seek out wilderness, to escape dreary blight. Maybe we’ve found something that West Virginians have forgotten. Maybe we prize nature over industrialization.
At the same time, we urban residents are the reason they’re building wind turbines along ridges in West Virginia, and why they’re blowing up mountains right and left. We should bear the cost, not you. It should be in my back yard, not yours. And you should not be pointing fingers at one another, but at us energy hogs who have no idea of the true human and natural cost of burning lights all night long.
George E. Beetham Jr. is a newspaper editor in Philadelphia, a former board member of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, and a believer that nature has power to heal the human soul.
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
If one has the time, check out the program that has been running on TV this week explaining, in detail, how man and mans' devastation of the land created the Dust Bowl. It may have been the same program that told of the Black Cloud of dirt that blew all the way to New York. Am sure these were Discovery programs and you can find them on the Internet. A fine example of what happens when ideas and concepts are not clearly thought through. NO ONE knows what the long range impact on the environment will be. Heck, just the list of 'short range' issues seems incredibly frightening to me. But, all of us are well aware of what happens when you purposely destroy the forests. All you need for a reminder is to look at what has happened to the Rain Forest. Well, 'in your back yard' is gonna be 'in your face' if windmills are put on our mountains and forever is a very long time.
Re: Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines
Thanks for posting this, Ice Man. Below is a recent letter to the editor written by Mr. O'Hara.Ice Man wrote:Hi folks,
I’m happy to announce that the Allegheny Front Alliance, centered in Keyser, West Virginia has joined forces with SOAR to strengthen efforts in protecting our forested mountains from industrial wind development. This new grassroots group is organized, has a lawyer, and is also working closely with the Highlands Conservancy.
Right now, AFA is fighting two major wind projects. One is in Grant County and is called the AES New Creek Project. It is the first mountain range east of the Allegheny Front in WV.
The other wind project is named Pinnacle Knob Project, located on the Allegheny Front, locally called Green Mountain. The wind developer is US Wind Force.
Click to read more: http://www.times-news.com/opinion/local ... ndarystory
http://www.times-news.com/opinion/local ... ndarystory
Allegheny Front Alliance does not have a web page, but you can contact:
Frank J. O'Hara
94 Orchard Street
Keyser, WV 26726
(304) 788-5112 Home
AlleghenyFrontAlliance@verizon.net
Frank would appreciate receiving information, news articles, or reports that describe how wind companies are paying out money to local communities “in lieu of taxes”. He wants to show how wind companies are paying their way into areas by offering paltry financial incentives – which look wonderful to local government officials, but are really just short-term incentives that mask long term environmental and cultural damage.
Please copy any resources to mljackson2@embarqmail.com when you send them to Frank.
Thanks,
Laura
http://www.windaction.org/opinions/20820
Wind energy opinion survey just ‘snake oil'
April 15, 2009 by Frank O'Hara in Cumberland Times-News
Again, US Wind Force spins their claims and half-truths in the April 14 article "US Wind Force Counters Commissioner's Concern." Mr. Friend's cites a West Virginia statewide opinion survey that 57 percent of individuals polled were pro-wind. At best, this survey is misleading, dubious and outdated. This is nothing more than a "snake oil" opinion survey.
The uninformed opinion of pro-wind is diminished when individuals learn that industrial wind turbines are planned on fragile mountain ridges. Individual opinions are quickly changed when they learn projects are publically tax subsidied projects. Industrial wind project destroy wild life habitat, creates forest fragmentation, threatens residential and migrating birds and bats, and affects beautiful scenic areas, including cultural and historical places.
The local economy is impacted and residents' opinions change when they realize that wind energy is unreliable and PJM grid system policy only allows 13 percent of electrical generation to enter their system. Opinion dissolves when residents realize they receive no service benefit, lower electrical rates, because all generated energy sell to outside interests.
Please remember when an opinion survey is offered ask questions:
• First, ask to view the completed study.
• Who conduct the survey for possible bias?
• What is the survey sample design and sampling size?
• Does the survey reflect a representative population sample?
• Are questions reliable and valid?
• For accuracy, what statistical tests were performed?
• What is the margin of error?
For the record: The 2006 survey was commissioned by West Virginia Manufacturing Association in conjunction with representatives of the wind energy industry was conducted by RMS Strategies of Charleston. Since completed the entire study has not been publically released. A survey question not asked, "If people would like live in view of an industrial wind site?" But wait,there is more ...
In the Liberty Gap Wind Farm Project, US Wind Force unsuccessful spins the same story to the West Virginia Public Service Commission. This project is located in beautiful rural Pendleton County, W.Va., was opposed by Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County (http://www.fobpc.com ) Here are some highlights offered to WVPSC.
US Wind Force CEO Mr. Matthews, under testimony, states Liberty Gap received tremendous response and support from their local community. The real facts were that public comments received by the WVPSC shows that 715 received, of which 587 (82 percent) opposed the project and 128 (18 percent) supported the project. Of the 128 that supported the project 70 (55 percent) were form letters from union members, the majority do not live in Pendleton County.
US Wind Force is peddling "snake oil." Be a smart consumer, don't be fooled by a slick bottle label. Learn what ingredients you are buying and taking or it could make you and the community very ill.
Web link: http://www.times-news.com/opinion/local_story_1052...