Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines

[George M.]

Some clarifying facts about using coal and wind to generate electricity:

For each pound of coal that is burned at a powerplant to make electricity, about 1 kilowatt-hour is generated.

A kilowatt-hour represents the electricity consumed by turning on a 100-watt lightbulb and leaving it on for 10 hours.

A ton of coal burned at powerplant will result in the generation of 2,000 kilowatt-hours (i.e., 2 Megawatt-hours - aka 2 MW-hrs).

In 2000 the coal-fired powerplants operating within PA generated 112-million MW-hrs of electricity, and by 2005 they produced 121-million MW-hrs of electricity - increasing their output by an average of 1.8-million MW-hrs per year (see Table 5 in: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricit ... lvania.pdf.

1.8-million MW-hrs represents the annual production expected from 360 2MW wind turbines (i.e., about 5,000 MW-hrs per turbine per year since wind turbines installed in PA operate with an annual average capacity factor of less than 30%).

To keep pace the annual growth rate in the mining and use of coal to generate electricity within PA, you would need to install each year at least 360 2MW wind turbines. After 20 years or so of installing wind turbines at this rate the maximum development potential for wind turbines in PA will be reached, and new sources of alternative energy would need to be found and developed in order to continue matching the expected growth in use of coal by powerplants operating within PA.

Despite the construction of 360 wind turbines per year, the amount of coal that is mined in PA would be expected to continue at its current rate - i.e., extracting about 70-million tons per year.

The first utility-scale wind turbines were installed in PA by May 2000. Today, less than 300 MW of these huge wind turbines have been installed within the Commonwealth.

[watcher]

Thanks for all the great facts that are being shared about this topic...I appreciate the amount of research and constructive input that has gone into this discussion from all those sharing...I love Zapista's remark about Donkey Hoagie
George M. brings up yet another interesting point however, how long do you think with mining coal at this pace it will continue to be viable? The same can be said for natural gas, and obviously petroleum...we have not done well with using responsible choices when it comes to energy.
I have heard and can attest from a family member that geo thermal heated homes are very efficient when it comes to an alternative to natural gas, and cost productive after the initial cost.
I do wonder, however, how well the idea of a nuclear plant would go over in this area, when you are all appearing to be so opposed to windmills. I may not be the best representation of Joe Schmoe on the street, but I can tell you that I have some SERIOUS concerns that would have to be alleviated before I would be happy about a nuclear plant. Primarily, I think the public is still extremely concerned about safety issues. Now, I'm not just thinking about incidents that we all recall such as TMI and Chernobyl, but also wondering about terrorists finding out about plants and using them as a way to threaten us...which could happen, although it may seem far fetched. But hey, the idea of 9-11 would have seemed far-fetched 10 years ago...which is why I believe we didn't prepare better.
If we shoot down every possible source of efficient energy, though, I do shudder for our future. However, I do wonder, if we have even found the BEST way of producing any of these sources yet. Perhaps better homework needs to be done in order to reach peak efficiency. And I have to say that some of the things we take for granted, perhaps we need to rethink. We have lost touch with our environment when we expect to completely go through every source of energy while only thinking of ourselves...I am afraid I do believe we do NOT think about the repurcussions of energy use as a country. We need to start there, and I am speaking for myself completely also.

[George M.]

Watcher,

There are an estimated 12-billion tons of coal remaining in PA which could be "recoverable" via current mining techniques - http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/state ... pa4p1.html. Consequently, at current removal rate of 60 to 70 million tons of coal mined per year in PA - this 12-billion ton coal "reserve" could last nearly 200 years.

There are currently only 2 applications filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for new nuclear powerplant generators in our region - one involves MD and the other is in VA. Each project seeks to add new reactors to an existing nuclear powerplants, and if approved these 2 expansions of existing nuke facilities would add about 3,200 MW of much-needed generating capacity to our grid region (PJM).

It would make the most sense to encourage and allow expansions in generating capacity to occur within the borders of other existing nuclear powerplants - including several of those now operating in PA.

By the way, if the 3,200 MW of new nuclear generators are built in MD and VA, they could effectively offset the mining and burning of millions of tons of coal per year. In fact, if each kilowatt-hour produced by this proposed nuclear powerplant expansion directly offsets a kilowatt-hour produced by burning coal, it would save an amount of coal each year that is equivalent to 13-million tons. If this amount of coal were hauled by a train towing 100-ton boxcars, its length would be over a 1,000 miles long!

I'm not sure what it is that folks hope to achieve in terms of improving the future by shifting rapidly to renewable or alternative energy sources. Is the motivation for this desired transition/transformation of our energy situation largely driven by fears over global warming, or is there some other factor or factors of equal or paramount concern?

Unless we are able to both control population growth AND reduce the per capita consumption of energy, I don't see how we are going to avoid the continuation of the status quo - even if we move rapidly towards adopting alternative energy sources. It seems that wind energy is the equivalent of "snake oil" in that it is being sold as a cure-all even though it won't help with what ails us - and may even be harmful (environmentally and fiscally).

As I've mentioned before in this forum, we really need to focus on efforts which will reduce our energy demand - or at least lessen its rate of growth. Within a decade or so the annual CO2 emissions from within both China and India (combined) will surpass the quantity emitted by the US. Unless we can demonstrate to the world that we can consume a much more moderate amount of energy on a per capita basis, it will make it exceedingly tough to argue that China and India should deprive their population of the benefits we realize in consuming so much energy. On a per capita basis the US emits over 5 times as much CO2 as mainland China, and nearly 20 times as much as India (see: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2004.cap).

[My2Cents]

GeorgeM.... Basically, are you saying for example... if they add on to say, to 3MI... is that all that would be needed... and it would take care of us here in Tyrone ?? Am I reading into that correctly ???

[watcher]

Wow!!! I appreciate your knowing these facts, because I feel unacquainted with a lot of these ideas. I had believed we had a nuclear plant of some type near Ebensburg/Indiana, PA, at least something is being used. I do worry about the idea of knowing exactly where some of them are, but I'm not exactly sure how nuclear plants operate. I understand some knowledge of reaction, but how it operates on a practical basis I don't know. How can we learn more about nuclear energy? I think if this is something that is in place already, it would be good to know more and increase its capabilities...

[Rick]

Wikipedia links:

Nuclear Power Plant locations

Nulcear Power Plant history

also...

General wind Turbine info

Gamesa

[Bill Latchford]

George M,
Great information...and I totally agree that it is just as important to conserve energy as it is to come up with other ways to produce it. I ask around here at work and I have not had anyone express displeasure towards wind power generation. I brought information that I have learned here and they were surprised to find out how inefficient wind energy was. But some did mention, where do you start then....good question. I may walk through town this evening and just go door to door and get a feel from people around town. I will try to get 100 people's opinions. We have heard a great deal of information in this forum, but not much from the people in our Municipality. I will add my finding here as quickly as possible.

[George M.]

Watcher,

You can learn more about PA's nuclear powerplants via: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/pa ... tespa.html. The closest nuclear powerplant to Tyrone is located west of Pittsburgh (Beaver Valley).

Here's another weblink to explanatory info that may be helpful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power; keep in mind that material posted to Wikipedia should not be considered authoritative or unbiased, however it is generally OK for background.

For My2Cents, it's important to understand that PA produces considerably more electricity than is consumed annually within the Commonwealth. A significant fraction (perhaps 1/3 - i.e., 70-million MW-hrs) of the electricity annually generated by powerplants located in PA is exported - primarily to satisfy the demand for power originating in NJ, DE, MD and VA. This point can be verified by comparing the quantity of electricity sold (retail sales) to consumers within PA as shown in Table 8 for 2005 (148-million MW-hrs), with the amount of electricity (net generation) listed in Table 5 for 2005 that was produced by the Total Electric industry in PA (218-million MW-hrs) - see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricit ... lvania.pdf.

However, in terms of meeting the demand for electricity in the PJM grid region during the summer months, adding 1,600 MW of new reactors at 2 of the 5 existing nuclear powerplants in PA (adding 3,200 MW) would contribute considerably more electricity to the grid during the period when this power is needed most in comparison to the amount of electricity which could be supplied by lining PA's ridgetops with over 8,500 2MW wind turbines (the maximum development potential in PA according to the wind industry's trade group - AWEA).

[Bill Latchford]

How many long-term jobs would this create for any Tyrone resident?

I spoke with Gamesa and it seems that there would be like 2 - 5 permanent jobs created for maintenance and such. Gamesa has created around 1000 jobs in the state of Pennsylvania

[zapatista]

I spoke with Gamesa and it seems that there would be like 2 - 5 permanent jobs created for maintenance and such.

I'd wager they'll need at least 4 people to clean up all the dead birds and bats and 1 to drive the truck.

[My2Cents]

GeorgeM... Thank you for the feedback information.... It was very informative and greatly appreciated. :flag:

[sandstone]

Regardless of which energy choice is best, Ice Mountain has the highest possible scientific certification as being a "unique" area "of exceptional conservation value." If a place with this kind of scientific certification can't be spared from development, then no place is safe. Why destroy it with miles of heavy-duty roads, transmission line corridors, substations, and other obtrusive infrastructure, especially for as poor a source of electricity as industrial wind turbines?

In addition, most of Ice Mountain's water runoff drains into Sink Run, the water source for Tyrone's reservoirs. Most forward-looking communities are buying or easing land in their drinking water watersheds to protect this imperiled resource. High-quality water is getting harder and harder to come by. The City of New York, for example, has spent millions in aquiring and easing land to protect its water supply. The city calculated that this would be much cheaper than having to continuously upgrade their water treatment plants. It just seems like enlightened self-interest for the Borough of Tyrone to protect the watershed of its water supply from development. Forested watersheds without development have been shown to be the source of the highest quality water.

[My2Cents]

I may walk through town this evening and just go door to door and get a feel from people around town. I will try to get 100 people's opinions. We have heard a great deal of information in this forum, but not much from the people in our Municipality. I will add my finding here as quickly as possible.

Bill, this has not been made public enough to the people in town !! Many people in this community do not even understand what these things are for. Nor, will they know the implication of these things if they are brought into this area, unless they are sitting at home with a computer and reading all the informative information put forth on this site. The public has not been informed accurately as to the pros and cons of these things.
Yes, granted... there were a few articles in the paper. Still, this was not enough to actually get public attention.
This is exactly what has happened in some of these other communities. These things came thru their back door.... they started tearing up the roads, acres of trees started to come down....all of a sudden, the people started to pay attention... by then, it was too late !!!!

[George M.]

Bill,

All of the permanent maintenance jobs created for the 63.5 MW Waymart windplant on Moosic Mtn in Wayne County were filled by non-local workers. These positions require trained personnel.

I question Gamesa's claim that their workforce in PA has 1,000 employees. The company's Annual Report for 2006, which was approved by Gamesa's board on March 28, 2007, indicates that they only have 600 employees in the United States - see top of right column on page 9 in: http://www.gamesa.es/files/File/ANNUALREPORT2006.pdf. The 600 employee total was mentioned by the Chairman and CEO of Gamesa in his "letter" prefacing this report. It seems possible that Gamesa does not have 600 employees in PA since they have staff at 2 other US offices (in MN and TX). Gamesa's claim to have 1,000 employees working for them in PA appears to be yet another "overblown" and unsubstantiated claim made by the wind industry.

It's great that you will seek opinions of 100 folks. However, I suspect that most will support wind energy development and/or be unaware of any concerns or problems with wind energy. It would be interesting to ask the opinion of folks before and after they were informed about benefits and drawbacks of wind energy - particularly if they are made aware of:

1) how little electricity they produce compared to conventional powerplants (about 1/3 as much on a per MW basis),
2) how variable their output is depending on the seasons of a year (e.g., summer production is very low - wind turbines yield 1/6 as much electricity in the summertime as conventional powerplants on a per MW basis),
3) the fact that the greatest demand for electricity occurs during summer months - primarily due to air conditioning,
4) the fact that wind turbines will not reduce our nation's dependence on oil since only a tiny fraction of petroleum is used to generate electricity,
5) the fact that wind energy development will not appreciably lessen the emissions of air pollutants associated with asthma or related human health concerns (emissions by powerplants of NOx and SO2 likely will remain unchanged by wind energy development due to EPA's cap & trade program),
6) the fact that for each wind turbine that is installed the federal treasury will lose otherwise-owed income tax revenue because of the tax subsidies and shelters which the owners and investors in "wind farms" can utilize to avoid paying their fair share (approx. $2-million in federal taxes is avoided for each 2MW machine installed),
7) the fact that very little property tax or other revenue is provided to state or local jurisdictions from wind energy development (no other industry or business provides such a small contribution to local governments in comparison to the size of its capital investment in an area),
8) the fact that PA is receiving far less in property taxes from wind energy development on a per MW basis compared with the national average paid by this industry,
9) the fact that wind energy development will not actually reduce the rate of mining or burning of coal in PA (the number of tons of coal that is mined and burned in PA will continue to grow), and
10) the fact that wind energy development will not prevent the building of new powerplants which are needed to accomodate the ever-growing demand for electricity in our region (due to their inability to provide dispatchable power and since they produce very little electricity during the periods/seasons of highest demand - i.e., during summer and afternoons),
11) the fact that NJ, DE, MD and DC have passed laws requiring their utilities to provide a mandated amount of electricity from wind turbines and other renewable sources, and that the demand created by these legislatures is primarily responsible for the installation of wind turbines in PA (since these states and DC do not have the ability to satisfy the demand level they set from development within their borders),
12) the fact that huge, multi-national corporations are pushing for wind energy development in order to "milk" the US tax code and avoid paying their fair share of income taxes (ENRON was a early leader in the push for wind energy development, and 2 of the first 3 wind farms built in PA were projects of ENRON),
13) the fact that a very high percentage (perhaps over 50%) of the economic value of each Gamesa wind turbine is due to imported components from overseas; although turbine blades and towers are made in PA and the turbines are assembled here, the most expensive and essential components of the wind turbine are imported from Gamesa's manufacturing facilities located in Spain (see pages 15 & 16 to learn that the Gearboxes, Generators and Convertors needed for each wind turbine are ONLY manufactured in Spain: http://www.gamesa.es/files/File/EOLICA-ING_2007-6.pdf).

[kayaker-one]

I'm impressed that so much information is being shared on this site about wind turbines. I visited the turbines near Lilly and at Blue Knob and can't get over how huge they are. The 60 foot wide roads and the huge substation near Lilly have turned the forest into an industrial zone. When I think of the miniscule amount of electricity that these huge turbines produce, and how much forest is chewed up for their construction, I can not condone another industrial project subsidized heavily by taxpayer's money.

Due to subsidies, wind companies will garner a huge profit. That's what this is all about - money. The turbines themselves have a very low capacity. Just look at the PJM grid applications for wind projects - a project that has 10 turbines that are 2 MW has the potential to produce 20 MW of electricity, but in PA there isn't much wind, so the PJM grid only projects 4 MW of actual production.

Wind turbines on Ice Mountain will damage a very precious habitat and important watershed. Let's protect our natural resources. Afterall, the PA Game Commission realizes that wind energy on state game lands is incompatible with their mission. We should also protect Ice Mountain.