Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines

[TOM111378]

i was at the zoneing meeting and half of the 30 show up that why but now the people are paying for it they found out that with out zoneing a pig fram can move in and nothing can be done but back 2 the win mills they was going if sup voteed yes or no be cause tyrone all ready passed them. so u talk a bout un name person look at u your un name u and the people like 2cent come on there and say thing why dont u do it off there u guys are nuts that why.

[Something to say]

i was at the zoneing meeting and half of the 30 show up that why but now the people are paying for it they found out that with out zoneing a pig fram can move in and nothing can be done but back 2 the win mills they was going if sup voteed yes or no be cause tyrone all ready passed them. so u talk a bout un name person look at u your un name u and the people like 2cent come on there and say thing why dont u do it off there u guys are nuts that why.

Tom...I didn't say anything about un name person. I said unarmed. Give it up....nobody is buying it. Are you afraid to post with your other identity? Have you been advised to stop posting until elections are over? "2cent" hasn't said a word to you, TOM, in this thread...leave "2cent" out of it.

As far as me being nuts...lol....isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

[Ice Man]

they was going if sup voteed yes or no be cause tyrone all ready passed them.

False. The ultimate decision on whether the industrial wind turbines could be put in Snyder Township is up to the Snyder Township Board of Supervisors. Although the Borough of Tyrone is the landowner, laws governing the land are made by the municipality in which the property is located.

The neighboring townships of Antis and Tyrone prohibit industrial wind turbines in Important Bird Areas and County Natural Heritage Areas. Snyder Township also prohibits industrial wind turbines in Important Bird Areas, but Supervisors Nelson and Diehl voted to ignore that provision of the Snyder Township ordinance.

In summary, a landowner must abide by the rules of the municipality in which his land is located.

[TOM111378]

ice man your wrong about what u put. they was buting 16 in if they voted yes or no tyrone all ready passed it u can ask tyrone and the win mill people they was going up and no one told me not to post un tell may 19 over i know how i am voteing . :flag:

[My2Cents]

.... :huh: Ice Man is not wrong !!! He is an educated individual who knows precisely what he is talking about !!!
Shame on you for bashing and belittling any these individuals.... it is obvious that you do not understand the facts.
You need to do your homework.... in more ways than one !!!
Chill, :stick: take a break, TRY to understand what is a stake here.
Try to understand what could be on the other side of those turbines if they are placed in our area....
The future is in our hands..... full knowledge of this particular subject is very important..... votes should never be cast haphazardly.

[Something to say]

ice man your wrong about what u put. they was buting 16 in if they voted yes or no tyrone all ready passed it u can ask tyrone and the win mill people they was going up and no one told me not to post un tell may 19 over i know how i am voteing . :flag:

You're slipping! You've been using 2 e's in the word voted...voteed. You know how to spell signatories...... most people would have used the word signatures....and yet....you can't spell the word WIND. You are such a coward. ( You all ready proved your ignorance a long time ago...no need to hide under a new identity. )

[My2Cents]

You are soooo right Something to say. I've been watching too...
I'm fairly sure I know who this pot stirrer is....

[Something to say]

Yeah. Or. A council member has gone extremely quiet on this board since the whole Greg Ray issue started. He/she sooo wants to gloat over the windplant victory, and yet, elections are coming up. If I were him/her ....I wouldn't want to say anything that might upset the masses......and since there were wayyyyy more people opposed to the windplant ...than for it...gloating at this point would only peeve people off. But his/her arrogance won't allow him/her to remain completely quiet.... so the internet allows him/her to conceal his /her identity and gloat at the same time. However I am kinda puzzled as to why he'd /she'd dumb himself/herself down even further...there was no need for that... Seems that's been established a long time ago.

[My2Cents]

WOW Zap !!! I'm impressed !!! You lost me when you got to the octal (base though.
I guess I really have more homework to do since I can't understand how T=20= Ch.... I keep getting T=20=B.
I probably got my hexadecimal in the wrong place..... Darn it !! I'll have to do some re-thinking now.
Actually, the first time I did this I came up with; 8+5+3+3+6+2+5=pigfarm.
I noticed you came up with; hello 8+ 5+3+3+6=25 and no pig farm.
I thought for sure the pig farm was going to be the dead give away.... so much for that theory.

[My2Cents]

Wait, I got it. You have; hello 8+5+3+3+6=25 !! You are right !!!
25=turbines, not pigs.... ie.,wind farm not pig farm.... whew, I was way off. I had my hexadecimal point in the wrong place and I was using the
Chaldean calculation method only. Thanks Zap... Now all I have to do is figure out why you have T=20=Ch.... I am still coming up with T=20=B.
Once I figure out how you arrived at the T=20=Ch , the 111378 should fall right into place,lol.

[Ice Man]

ice man your wrong about what u put. they was buting 16 in if they voted yes or no tyrone all ready passed it u can ask tyrone and the win mill people they was going up and no one told me not to post un tell may 19 over i know how i am voteing . :flag:

Tom;

See http://www.logantownship-pa.gov/vertica ... DE4%7D.PDF

A developer must abide by the rules of the municipality in which his/her development is located.

[sandstone]

From our neighbors to the south, on the Bedford/Somerset County line: http://www.shaffermountain.com/

Hi folks,

Gamesa’s Dan Noble wrote a ridiculous piece in the Johnstown Tribune several weeks ago, extolling their efforts to protect Shaffer Mountain (isn’t that a scream?).

Dr. Dennis McNair, biology professor at UPJ, has written a rebuttal that was printed in today’s Tribune. His analogy of the wife beater is especially good.

Laura

Here is his Op-Ed:

Dan Noble suggests that the Shaffer Mountain wind project represents a model of environmental concern (“Wind farms are subjected to strict development guidelines,” Tribune-Democrat, April 22). Gamesa’s industrial wind turbine installation proposal must meet the minimum guidelines that apply to any large scale construction project, no more and no less. Meeting those legal requirements is portrayed as if Gamesa were a paragon of environmental consciousness. That is analogous to a man claiming to be a model husband because he hasn’t yet beaten his wife badly enough to be arrested.

In fact, the application was rejected twice and is now being allowed a third submission to try to address DEP’s persistent objections. An 8 page long Deficiency Letter from DEP on March 17, 2009 cites unacceptable plans for restoration of disrupted streams, an undisclosed timber disturbance, improper labeling and scaling of the construction site drawing, inadequate documentation of approval by the Federal Aviation Administration, etc.

Gamesa hasn’t satisfactorily met its legal obligation to consult with the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. This is especially egregious because of presence of state and federally endangered Indiana Bats at the site. Unaddressed discrepancies exist between Gamesa’s paid, single-season survey of migratory Golden Eagles and data gathered independently over several years at the Allegheny Front Hawk Watch. Gamesa has chosen to minimize or ignore threats to bats, eagles, and other migratory birds throughout the permitting process, collecting meager amounts of data only after the insistence of permitting agencies. Despite Noble’s implication of collaboration with US Fish and Wildlife and the PA Game Commission, Gamesa has not committed to meeting criteria suggested by USFW and has signed only nonbinding agreements with the Game Commission. Failure to meet state or federal criteria carries no penalty. Gamesa might have the “highest regard for natural resources,” as Noble stated, but they have done nothing beyond the absolute letter of the law to protect them. As evidenced by their failed applications, they have yet to do even that.

Stating that landowners have agreed to “host” the turbines implies that the people living on Shaffer Mountain approve of the project. However, the major “host” is the Berwind Corporation, a corporate absentee landowner, not a local inhabitant. The people living there have consistently shown great hostility toward this project, as evidenced by the number of protest signs lining area roads. Nearly all the citizens who live nearby, hunt, and enjoy Shaffer Mountain oppose the inevitable environmental destruction.

Damage caused by turbine and road construction, movement of construction equipment and maintenance vehicles, cleared and fenced off areas, soil compaction and erosion, invasion of exotic plant and animal life, and disruption of exceptional value streams are just some of the obvious threats to the area’s natural beauty. Our Allegheny Plateau has been economically exploited and despoiled repeatedly in the past. Logging and mining have left scars that are just now fading after decades of slow healing and laborious restoration.

The Commonwealth Constitution, Article 1 section 27, guarantees the right to “pure water and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.” It further states “[a]s trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all people.” This is a clear and explicit statement of our rights as citizens, the protection of which is the responsibility of state government. We are acutely aware that state agencies have neglected their constitutional responsibility to our region in the past, while allowing economic and political interests to run roughshod over us. We now reassert our right to protection of our natural heritage. Gamesa’s actions have repeatedly shown that they are insincere and their claims of concern are a transparent tissue of half-truths and misrepresentations.

It’s time for DEP to quit coaching them on how to patch up flawed permit applications, deny the permits for the Shaffer Mountain project, and begin preserving our natural heritage as the Constitution requires.

Sincerely,

Dr. Dennis McNair, University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, Biology Dept.

Somerset County wind turbine project to be reviewed

May 13, 2009 in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers will formally review whether the endangered Indiana bat and migratory birds could be harmed by 30 big wind turbines proposed for ecologically sensitive Shaffer Mountain in northeastern Somerset County.

The site of the 404-foot-tall turbines and 18 miles of service roads proposed by Spanish-owned Gamesa Energy on the eastern edge of the Allegheny Plateau is confirmed habitat for the Indiana bat, listed as an endangered species since 1967.

The federal review, requested by three state environmental groups, is the first U.S. Endangered Species Act assessment of the impacts of wind projects in the Eastern U.S. on bats and migratory birds.

The project has attracted opposition from the Sensible Wind Solutions, Mountain Laurel Chapter of Trout Unlimited and the Allegheny Plateau Audubon Society, because it's in the watershed of two of the state's "exceptional value" trout streams and is a migratory pathway for numerous raptor species, including the golden eagle. It's also located in a Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Area of Exceptional Significance.

Because the commercial wind project on Shaffer Mountain would impact federally protected wetlands, it cannot be built without a permit from the Corps. And the Corps may not issue a permit until it is sure that the project will not jeopardize the Indiana bat.

Pennsylvania has no regulations for siting wind turbine projects or assessing their impacts on wildlife. Instead, it relies on unenforceable voluntary siting "guidelines" negotiated by the wind power industry and the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

Web link: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09133/969643-56.stm

[sandstone]

Turbines' effect on health is underestimated

May 10, 2009 by Michael Nissenbaum, M.D. in Sun Journal

The state should not permit new wind farms until studies of their harmful effects are complete.

As physicians and clinicians, it is our foremost duty to do no harm. Therefore, we think it's reasonable to adopt the best practices of jurisdictions with decades of experience with wind power, and slow the permitting of such projects in Maine until health regulations are in place.

France enacted regulations in 2006 that stipulated a level of 25 decibels should not be exceeded in the home; the World Health Organization recommends no industry should increase ambient daytime noise by five decibels and nighttime noise by three decibels. The WHO also recommends bedroom noise levels never exceed 30 decibels.

Our work has shown that people in Mars Hill living within 3,500 feet of turbines there are truly suffering, in a real medical sense. Clearly, any regulation that results in placement of turbines, anywhere in Maine, at less than a 3,500-foot setback is courting a bad human outcome, regardless of sound modeling used by the industry to show there will be no ill effects in that range.

As clearly demonstrated by post-construction measurements at Mars Hill, the model used by the wind industry for that project was seriously flawed. Among other things, it seems to have disregarded the effects of multiple turbines in a linear arrangement perpendicular to residential neighborhoods.

It also ignores low frequency noise, even though low frequencies travel much longer distances and correlate with turbine-related health effects, particularly sleep disturbance, and all the negatives that flow from that fundamental ill effect.

We reasonably conclude the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Health and Human Services are currently unprepared and largely unaware of noise and health issues related to wind factories. We should all agree on the need to ensure that additional citizens shouldn't suffer the results as those Mars Hill residents who live within 3,500 feet of the turbines.

Also, in this regard, we note there is no research about effects on residents living between 3,500 feet and 1.25 miles or so from turbines. As such, we cannot state what distance ill effects might abate, if they do within that range. Sound regulations in European jurisdictions therefore effectively result in setbacks of between one to 1.5 miles, depending upon the topography.

We state with some confidence that ill effects are likely when homes are placed within 3,500 feet of a ridgeline arrangement of turbines. Ridgeline placements seem to be the prevalent pattern of turbine placement the industry would like to impose upon Maine.

It is logical for us to expect the state regulatory agencies to familiarize themselves as soon as possible with the relevant physics and physiology, and put appropriate setback regulations in effect before additional turbines are placed.

We note the DEP, in its variance regarding Mars Hill, described the allowance to 50 decibels as creating noise "similar to songbirds." This speaks to the lack of understanding of the nature of sound and a failure to appreciate that a decibel level alone is just one component of a sound's makeup.

One can no more describe sound by decibel level than describe a Van Gogh painting by saying "it is blue."

If poor outcomes such as Mars Hill are to be avoided, it is necessary to stop the "gold rush" mentality that relies on faulty wind modeling currently endorsed by projects, which have been rubberstamped by the DEP and the Land Use Regulatory Commission.

Furthermore, the state must have means to not only check for compliance, but also enforce compliance with credible threats to ensure it, including orders to stop turbine rotation and remove noncompliant turbines where and when necessary. We're concerned DEP is not up to this task, given recent statements about being overburdened.

There are many issues that need to be worked out. A moratorium is logical, unless we quickly move to adopt more stringent European and Australian standards.

Otherwise, the state's failure to act responsibly on this issue is the equivalent of abandoning its responsibility to protect public health, which would leave the people with few options other than seeking remedy and redress through the courts.

Dr. Michael Nissenbaum is a radiologist at Northern Maine Medical Center in Fort Kent. Dr. Albert Aniel is an internist at Rumford Hospital.

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/316588- ... estimated/

[sandstone]

Is wind the next ethanol?

May 7, 2009 by Ben Lieberman in Energy Current

WASHINGTON D.C.: Repeating past mistakes has long been a part of Washington's energy policy, but Congress used to wait a while before making the same blunder again. Not anymore. New legislation requiring wind energy closely resembles the ethanol mandate that sparked a backlash just last year.

For many years, wind has benefited from generous tax credits and subsidies, but it still provides less than 2 percent of the nation's electricity. By comparison, coal supplies around 50 percent (and with considerably fewer federal incentives). Natural gas and nuclear, meanwhile, account for about 20 percent each.

No wonder wind supporters want a federal mandate atop all the handouts. The targets in various bills range from 15 percent to 25 percent electricity from wind and other renewable sources, to be ramped up from current levels over a decade or longer.

Let's see: a heavily-subsidized energy source that needs a mandate to get it over the top. Sound familiar? It should. It's the same situation we were in with corn ethanol a few years ago. Up through 2005, ethanol's high cost, among other problems, were such that even a 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit and other giveaways couldn't enable it to capture much more than 2 percent of the motor-fuel market.

However, the minuscule market share worked to ethanol's advantage in that its shortcomings weren't noticed by the public. This made it possible for the corn lobby and other proponents to get away with calling it a success and prevailing upon the feds to mandate that more of it be mixed into the gasoline supply.

By 2008, 9 billion gallons of ethanol were required to be used, nearly triple the 2005 levels. But at these volumes, the problems were no longer so easily hidden.

Last year was one of record oil and gasoline prices. Yet ethanol still added to the overall burden on the driving public. In addition, the diversion of corn from food to fuel use raised the price not only of corn itself but of related items like corn-fed meat and dairy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that up to 15 percent of food price increases from April 2007 to April 2008 were due to the ethanol mandate.

That costly double whammy - higher costs to drive to the supermarket and higher prices once you're there - really soured consumers on the ethanol mandate. It also contributed to global food price inflation and hardships in the developing world, eroding the already-shaky moral high ground that ethanol had held. Surprisingly, many environmental activists piled on, arguing that the "green" benefits of ethanol were overstated, and claiming that this once-favored alternative actually contributes to global warming.

Congress has yet to correct its ethanol mistake. The mandated levels rise to 10.5 billion gallons in 2009 and 12 billion 2010, so the difficulties are only going to intensify.

Are lawmakers about to make the same mistake with wind energy? As with ethanol, wind is too expensive to expand without a lot of help. Right now, its added cost is an unnoticeable speck on people's electric bills. But a hefty mandate would change that.

One often-overlooked factor is wind's unreliability. Wind can stop blowing at any time, and often does during hot summer days when electricity demand peaks. Since people expect electricity 24/7, additional wind power would need to be backed up with additional conventional sources ready to carry the full load at any time _ further raising costs and undercutting the rationale for this alternative.

The new transmission lines necessary to bring more wind from where it's produced to where it's needed is another substantial cost. And like all the other costs, it would filter down to ratepayers.

There's also reason to expect that wind's green status will evaporate. For one thing, the pending proposals would require tens of millions of acres of new wind farms, much of it on land currently in its natural state. Environmentalists already object to certain wind farm sites and transmission line routes, and their complaints would greatly multiply if wind power expands. Its claimed global-warming benefits could also come under attack.

As with ethanol, familiarity is likely to breed contempt for wind - and contempt for a government that foisted this predictable mistake on the American public.

Ben Lieberman is a senior policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Readers may write to the author in care of The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002; Web site: www.heritage.org. Information about Heritage's funding may be found at http://www.heritage.org/about/reports.cfm.

http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php? ... ryid=17954

[Ice Man]

Hi folks,

SOAR members just sent in a report on Logan Twp Supervisor's mtg. held in Altoona, PA (Blair County). Gamesa is now asking for taller turbines.
Note the cost of these taller turbines. Sounds like the G87 model with the 100 meter tower.

And to think Gamesa said the project would be dead if they couldn’t get more project area!!

Laura


Here is their summary:

John (last name?) was there alone representing Gamesa. Gamesa is asking for an ordinance change from the current hub height of 270 ft (78 meters) to 335 ft (100 meters). The supervisors asked him about the visibility of them from the Horseshoe Curve, increased noise, increased foundation size, increase in base clearing, increase in road size and runnoff from compacted roads, They also asked if they had built any others this tall in our region and requested that balloons be put up again and wanted them to "tip" height. They asked how much each turbine would cost and jokingly asked if Mr. Rendell would be at their next meeting. A couple of them remarked about the number of changes Gamesa has made since this all started back in 06 and if they could expect more changes in the future. Gamesa will have to go before the Planning Commission again to lay out their new plan in detail at a date yet to be determined. It will be soon, but not at the June 2nd meeting.

This is what John said:

19 turbines in the original zoning area.

1 turbine would be at the orginal 404 foot size because of its location and setback requirements.

18 turbines would be 60 feet taller, between 460 and 470 feet tall!!! Said they have not built any in this region at this height.

All turbines are rated 2 MW, but a third party report predicts more production from the taller ones.

Said each turbine would cost between 3.5 and 4.5 million dollars.

Said they would be positioned in about the same locations as a prior proposal.

Said the foundations would be deeper.

Said the clearing around the bases and the size of the roads wouldn't change.

Said the noise difference is negligible and would be in compliance with the ordinance.

Said they hope to go forward with this in 09 or 2010.

John asked if the Planning Comission meeting would be a public hearing like the last one. The supers said most likely not.