Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines

[My2Cents]

HuggyBear... you forgot something.... you're cutting corners...

[Something to say]

OMG..........SITTING ON MY HANDS ( biting my tongue ) SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME NOT TO LET MY FINGERS DO THE WALKING.....

[Something to say]

Tyrone Borough Councilman Bill Latchford's statement about industrial windplants only working 30% of the time is not correct. 30% represents the capacity factor, that is the % of rated capacity that a windplant operates at. For example, a windplant consisting of 30 2 MegaWatt turbines would have a "rated capacity" of 60 MW. However, industrial windplants in the eastern US operate at an annualized capacity factor of 30% or less. This would translate into a true capacity of ~ 20 MW for this windplant. By comparison, nuclear plants operate at 90% of capacity and coal plants at 80% of capacity on an annualized basis. Most shockingly, however, when electicity demand is the highest, in June, July, and August, industrial windplants operate at less than 15% of capacity, due to poor wind conditions.

I have been told that this account is Dr Stan Kotala's:
I regretfully do not except anything you say Dr Kotala.......You may be "Lifelong Nature Enthusiast and Conservationist" and "began birding at age 12" but I don't see anything under your credentials as being a Wind Energy expert or even an Energy expert in general. So if you can put things out here that you think are the facts then by all means this board can get cluttered with all types of "FACTS". I am not doubting your passion for this topic, but I certainly don't share that passion and there is no reason for me to feel bad about that anymore. You just posting this has made my blood boil....Your facts or my facts, neither of us are experts when it comes to energy.

Sandstone....could you kindly tell us where you got those facts??? I believe you are being called on the carpet because you are not an energy "expert".........so if your facts are supported by an energy "expert" would you please share. Thank You.

[sandstone]

Tyrone Borough Councilman Bill Latchford's statement about industrial windplants only working 30% of the time is not correct. 30% represents the capacity factor, that is the % of rated capacity that a windplant operates at. For example, a windplant consisting of 30 2 MegaWatt turbines would have a "rated capacity" of 60 MW. However, industrial windplants in the eastern US operate at an annualized capacity factor of 30% or less. This would translate into a true capacity of ~ 20 MW for this windplant. By comparison, nuclear plants operate at 90% of capacity and coal plants at 80% of capacity on an annualized basis. Most shockingly, however, when electicity demand is the highest, in June, July, and August, industrial windplants operate at less than 15% of capacity, due to poor wind conditions.

I have been told that this account is Dr Stan Kotala's:
I regretfully do not except anything you say Dr Kotala.......You may be "Lifelong Nature Enthusiast and Conservationist" and "began birding at age 12" but I don't see anything under your credentials as being a Wind Energy expert or even an Energy expert in general. So if you can put things out here that you think are the facts then by all means this board can get cluttered with all types of "FACTS". I am not doubting your passion for this topic, but I certainly don't share that passion and there is no reason for me to feel bad about that anymore. You just posting this has made my blood boil....Your facts or my facts, neither of us are experts when it comes to energy.

Sandstone....could you kindly tell us where you got those facts??? I believe you are being called on the carpet because you are not an energy "expert".........so if your facts are supported by an energy "expert" would you please share. Thank You.

From http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/pa ... power.html :
Opinions vary regarding the future of nuclear power, but it is a fact that existing U.S. plants are performing well. Nuclear power plants now operate at a 90 percent capacity factor, compared to 56 percent in 1980. Additionally and in contrast to oil and gas, nuclear fuel costs are low and relatively stable. Fuel costs now average less than one half cent per kilowatthour. This is well below the costs of major competing fossil fuels. Production costs for nuclear power, operation and maintenance plus fuel costs, are also low, averaging 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. This cost roughly matches coal and is significantly below the costs of operating a natural gas plant.

From "Wind Power: Capacity Factor, Intermittency, and what happens when the wind doesn’t blow?"
by the Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, University of Massachusetts at Amherst ( online document at http://www.windaction.org/documents/4032 :
Because wind is intermittent, variable, uncontrollable and largely unpredictable (except for the very short term), a recent study determined that it is difficult to generalize the capacity credit for wind as ‘it is a highly site-specific quantity determined by the correlation between wind resource and load”….with values ranging “from 26 % to 0% of rated capacity”
and
In the Fact Sheet’s discussion of capacity factor, please note that some fossil fuel plants (peakers) have ‘low’ capacity factors by choice, i.e. they are run less for economic reasons, not because they are not ‘available’. Wind plants have relatively low capacity factors because of wind ‘s intermittency and volatility. Please also note that we are unaware of any wind plant in the U.S. that has a capacity factor approaching 40%. It is well known that the average capacity factor for all wind plants in the U.S. approximates 29% with capacity factors in the low 30% range considered quite good.

From http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:-g ... d=63&gl=us :
–COAL - CF increased from 59% to 69% in last 10 years– CF projected to increase to >80% by 2010

[Something to say]

Thanks sandstone!

[Something to say]

Those d*mn conservationists...always spouting off about the environment and how we need to conserve, and preserve our rivers, forests, wildlife, and other natural resources, while others are always trying to conserve our human rights. How dare them try to protect and preserve through prudent management.

I'm sick of them. I'm especially sick of the bird talk and how we need to save the ridges as a migratory corridor for eastern golden eagles. I have seen some folks post in here, and other places on the web, stating they would be willing to sacrifice the bats for wind energy...we need to start somewhere and besides who likes flying rodents anyway? I sure don't.

Who cares if Microbats feed mainly on insects, using their echolocation ability to find flying or crawling insects and their superb flying skills to catch them. Or that Insect-eating bats are supremely good at what they do - a single little brown bat can catch and eat 600 mosquitoes in an hour.

I don't care that Bats are an integral part of the ecosystem. Fortunately, because of human misunderstanding, as well as practices such as habitat destruction, many bat species are now on the brink of extinction.

Oh but wait.. MAYBE I am not giving much thought to the future...hmmm. 30 Yrs from now when we may be polluted with mosquitoes and other insects that carry malaria, Dengue fever, St. Louis Encephalitis,and the West Nile Virus among other diseases ( all found in the USA ), maybe we'll be forced to further damage the environment with insecticides in mass quantities. ( I think we all know where I could take this...so I won't bother )

And Golden Eagles and Vultures...I don't care if The Golden Eagle is one of the best known birds of prey in the Northern Hemisphere. I certainly don't care if the small population of eagles hinges on our ability to make responsible and informed decisions concerning the development of wind farms in this region.

Oh..but wait... MAYBE once again I am not giving much thought to the future...hmmm. 30 yrs from now...I may have wished I cared... Being as their prey includes marmots, hares and mice, and sometimes birds, martens, foxes, and young deer. Or that during winter months when prey is scarce, Golden Eagles scavenge on carrion to supplement their diet. Or that Vultures clean up more road kill than we do. I can see it all now


December 07, 2037
*******************************************HEADLINE ********************************************
"Dead and putrefying flesh becoming problematic...Our fault..we disposed of Nature's Garbage Disposals." Needed immediately...people willing to clean up the disease infested rotting flesh on I-99. Bring a plastic bag...it will house that rotten flesh and in 1000 yrs it will biodegrade.

THE PLAGUE OF THE CENTURY....Pharmaceuticals cannot mass produce ....Insurance will not cover...We will vaccinate 300 people per county...first come first serve basis. NOTE: The elderly and children will be priority. THE REST OF YOU...Well...Maybe you should have cared 30 yrs ago.

BUT hey...we have the turbines.

[Something to say]

PS- Has anyone asked the Gamesa reps that were at the meeting if they have these things in their backyards?

- Anne - Yes that question was asked and Tim Vought "Senior Project Developer" says he has them in his back yard.

Proving that the noise isn't bothersome, proving that he stands behind his project, proving that he wouldn't expect others to if he himself didn't, proving that HE'LL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO SELL HIS PROJECT.

[kayaker-one]

I was at the Gamesa meeting on Dec. 5, and I'm wondering if Ellen Lutz followed up on her promise to provide Tamara's contact information to Mr. Latchford. I'm a member of TNC and I found it hard to believe what Ellen said, so I called TNC and talked to Tamara Gagnolet, the person that Ellen quoted. At the meeting last night Ellen said: "I met with The Nature Conservancy, along with many other wind developers, this week for many hours to understand their designations. We left that meeting understanding that when The Nature Conservancy is saying 'no' to major fragmentation in the forests, they mean major fragmentation is a highway. A wind farm has a minute impact compared to a highway. They (meaning TNC) do not consider wind farms to be a major fragmentation of forests." This is exactly what Ellen said - I have it on videotape.

When Mr. Latchford asked Ellen who said that, she said, "Tamara". Well, I called Tamara, who is a mapping and GIS specialist for TNC, and asked her to verify Ellen's claim. She could not. Tamara said that she (Tamara) did give a presentation recently to wind developers, but that she (Tamara) has not been directly involved in the wind issues until recently. Tamara said that she thought Ellen misunderstood and that Ellen misquoted her. Tamara seemed really astounded that Ellen would use The Nature Conservancy to back up her argument that wind farms have "minute impacts" on forests.

I am also going to follow up on Ellen's reference to the Environmental Resources Trust. I noted that she said a Mr. Hathaway has done a lot of "simulations"....in other words, computer models to show that wind reduces carbon dioxide emissions. Why can't she quote factual data released by utilities or power-generating plants?

Gamesa and other wind companies keep making the claim that we will have clean air in PA if we install thousands of wind turbines....isn't it ironic that a lot of our pollution comes from the midwest, due to the prevailing westerlies? Yes, our local coal-fired power plants need to be cleaned up. But why isn't PA spending more money to clean up our operating power companies? Ellen wanted us to think that wind companies only receive two types of subsidies, but she did not mention the fact that PA is giving outright gifts of our tax money to wind companies. According to the Tribune Democrat article in 1/15/05, GAMESA RECEIVED $9.3 MILLION DOLLARS IN STATE ASSISTANCE, for its plant in Ebensburg. PPM Atlantic is another wind company that has received taxpayer's money for wind projects. I feel our money would have been more effective being spent on scrubbers and other pollution-preventing devices, instead of being wasted on wind companies.

Another point that Ellen made was that all the various types of energy producers receive subsidies and that wind power receives very little compared to the other types. What she failed to mention is that wind power receives the HIGHEST amount of subsidy per electrical output. I wonder why Ellen failed to mention that?

There was a lot of talk last night about introduced pests. Introduced pests are dangerous because they are foreign species that appear in an area and they proliferate rapidly due to lack of natural predators. I used to think that gypsy moths were one of the worst examples of invasive species, but now I see that Gamesa is rapidly becoming one of the worst introduced pests to ever set foot in PA.

Gamesa's team( Ellen, Josh, Tim, and Mike) last night was very composed and they could talk for hours, but they just didn't have the answers to very pressing questions. They are very adept at giving superficial answers, but they can't answer the questions that really question whether wind will make a difference in fighting pollution. At one time I was 100% pro-wind - like Mr. Latchford - until I started looking below the gleaming white exterior of the turbines and found that profit drives the business without regard to environmental impact. Wind companies should follow the letter of the law. Gamesa and others ignore the US Fish and Wildlife guidelines, because those guidelines are voluntary. The US Fish and Wildlife guidelines state that forested ridges are the WORST place, ecologically, to build industrial wind facilities.

But why are we only listening to Gamesa? Like the G-team said last night, we live in a democracy. Why is Gamesa the only wind company trying to lease Tyrone's land? Why aren't other wind companies competing against Gamesa? This is another very troubling concern that I hope Mr. Latchford can research. If this is truly an honest enterprise, then why is it just Gamesa? Why is only one wind company trying to develop a project in the watershed? Who coordinated the wind companies so that Gamesa gets most of the Allegheny Front? There are over a dozen wind companies in PA, how do they divide and conquer so efficiently? What happened to healthy competition?

The bottom line is that Gamesa is the problem and it doesn't matter how much homework the G-team does, the problem will only be solved when the Tyrone Borough Council tells them to go away!

[Conan_the_Hoagarian]

This is exactly what Ellen said - I have it on videotape.

You should contact Rick via email or PM.

I think he's considering streaming that video so everyone can check out what was said at the meeting.

If that's not what he was thinking - I hope he considers it.

Another option would be posting it to youtube.

I know there are a lot of people who'd like to see it.

[sandstone]

I was at the Gamesa meeting on Dec. 5, and I'm wondering if Ellen Lutz followed up on her promise to provide Tamara's contact information to Mr. Latchford. I'm a member of TNC and I found it hard to believe what Ellen said, so I called TNC and talked to Tamara Gagnolet, the person that Ellen quoted. At the meeting last night Ellen said: "I met with The Nature Conservancy, along with many other wind developers, this week for many hours to understand their designations. We left that meeting understanding that when The Nature Conservancy is saying 'no' to major fragmentation in the forests, they mean major fragmentation is a highway. A wind farm has a minute impact compared to a highway. They (meaning TNC) do not consider wind farms to be a major fragmentation of forests." This is exactly what Ellen said - I have it on videotape.

When Mr. Latchford asked Ellen who said that, she said, "Tamara". Well, I called Tamara, who is a mapping and GIS specialist for TNC, and asked her to verify Ellen's claim. She could not. Tamara said that she (Tamara) did give a presentation recently to wind developers, but that she (Tamara) has not been directly involved in the wind issues until recently. Tamara said that she thought Ellen misunderstood and that Ellen misquoted her. Tamara seemed really astounded that Ellen would use The Nature Conservancy to back up her argument that wind farms have "minute impacts" on forests.

This says it all. How much more of Gamesa's misinformation can a person stand? Looks like the CONS can always back up their statements, but those favoring converting the mountain into an industrial windplant don't have a leg to stand on.

[anne onimous1]

The only thing green about "green energy" is the money changing hands......

[Bill Latchford]

Vol. 9, No. 5 – December 5, 2007

PJM on wind


Wind power is growing rapidly in the United States and in Pennsylvania where 8 wind farms that total 259 megawatts now operate. Those wind farms already generate enough power for about 80,000 homes. Another 4,714 megawatts are in various stages of development within Pennsylvania, which would create enough power for an additional 1.4 million homes.

Just in the Keystone state, wind power is creating thousands of jobs. Across the nation, wind power provides hundreds of millions of dollars of tax payments and rental fees to landowners, and displaces more and more electricity that would otherwise be made by burning coal, oil, or natural gas.

Wind farms create zero air pollution; require no destructive mining to obtain fuel to make electricity; and use no water, unlike coal and nuclear plants that must have massive amounts of water to cool them. They also diversify how electricity is made and reduce the price volatility of energy, providing another substantial economic benefit.

While wind energy is not perfect, wind's impact on the environment is minor, unlike burning fossil fuels to make electricity. In fact, for global warming, the top threat to biodiversity and our environment, wind power is also medicine for a fevered planet. Every new wind turbine produces more electricity with no global warming pollution and reduces the amount of electricity that would otherwise be produced from coal and other fossil fuels that are dangerously heating the earth.

Given all these environmental and economic benefits of wind power, it is especially good news that wind is growing rapidly. Yet, not everyone supports wind.

Organized opposition to wind power has emerged and opponents of wind power and wind farms have actively spread substantial misinformation about the nature of wind power and its role on the electric grid. Some opponents have said things like wind power is phony and does not provide real electricity; wind power does not reduce the need to burn fossil fuels to make electricity; and new coal plants must be built to back up wind farms.

To get the real story about wind farms and their role on the electric grid, PennFuture interviewed Karl Pfirrmann, Interim President and CEO of PJM Interconnection (PJM). PJM is the organization that operates the grid for the entire PJM region that includes nearly all of Pennsylvania and much of 14 other states. The PJM region runs from Delaware in the East to Illinois in the West and New Jersey in the North to Kentucky in the South.

PJM is independent of all utilities, generators, and consumers. Its legal responsibility is to make sure that the grid is reliable and the wholesale electric market is competitive. PJM plays a role much like an air traffic controller who cannot favor one airline over another and must insure safety of the skies.

PennFuture: For the benefit of our readers, please briefly describe how the grid is kept in balance in real time, tracking demand and ensuring generation is available to meet that demand?

Pfirrmann: All power supply systems must balance demand (use of electricity) and generation in real time. Either having too much or too little energy on the system causes problems. Maintaining the balance between electricity demand and production actually begins one or more days ahead of "real time" with the analysis of planned and unplanned equipment outages, bids by suppliers, schedules of generation resources, and energy transactions (imports or exports) between PJM and PJM's neighbors. Based on this analysis, PJM establishes a least-cost mix of generation for each hour of the day to meet forecasted demand, scheduled transactions and system reserve requirements. On a real-time basis, PJM adjusts the mix of generation to ensure that variations in demand and imports/exports are met while providing adequate reserves to meet established performance criteria. This real-time adjustment also accommodates energy supply which becomes available but was not scheduled, such as wind energy. Because wind generators have very low operating costs and thus can accept virtually any market price, if wind generation is available, it is invariably included in the supply mix.

PennFuture: How does the system accommodate wind generation when it comes onto the system as you have described?

Pfirrmann: When wind generation is available, in order to keep the system in balance, supplies from other sources are either reduced or are not brought on line. Almost always, it is the most expensive power which is "backed down" or "avoided". In 2006, about 70 percent of the time coal-fired generation is the most expensive generation on the system and is displaced when wind becomes available. The other 25 percent of the time natural gas-fired generation is the most expensive.

Because PJM is an extremely large system, with approximately 1,270 sources of generation interconnected to an extensive transmission grid, we have a great deal of flexibility in identifying the appropriate sources to back down as wind generation - even unscheduled wind generation - comes onto the system.

PennFuture: Are there significant costs associated with this process of identifying and backing down generators when wind generation becomes available?

Pfirrmann: No. Wind generation does not pose significant costs as a result of its variable nature. The transmission system is sufficiently flexible that it can readily accommodate the change in power flows. And, most generators are sufficiently flexible that they can be backed down with minimal effects on their operating efficiency.

PennFuture: We hear questions about whether wind energy, because of its variable nature, needs to be "backed up" by conventional generation resources. For example, does having wind on the system increase the need for operating reserves?

Pfirrmann: The costs of managing wind as a variable resource are modest, and the owners of wind generators bear their allocated portion of that cost.

The principle reserve we maintain is synchronized reserve. It's comprised of generation units which are synchronized to the grid and ready to deliver energy on extremely short notice. They serve as protection against a sudden loss of the single largest generating unit on the entire system, and the amount we maintain is based solely on the size of that largest generating unit. We also maintain a "regulation reserve" to manage the short-term variability in demand. Although demand, or usage, varies in predictable ways which we manage by scheduling resources we can reasonably anticipate needing, demand also varies in less-predictable ways. To match these moment to moment variations in usage, we pay generators to be ready to deliver additional energy on a near-term basis if needed. The costs for maintaining this state of readiness are allocated to power users.

The one form of reserve for which wind can create a need is the "supplemental reserve". Supplemental reserve protects the system from falling below the amount of generation needed to serve demand and to maintain the synchronized reserve I discussed earlier. If a generator goes off line suddenly, some of the synchronized reserve may actually be required to serve load pushing the synchronized reserve below its required level. This in turn requires the activation of supplemental reserve in order to replenish the synchronized reserve that has been converted to energy. PJM pays generators to be available to provide this supplemental reserve. Because the need for this reserve is based partially on supply-side considerations, we allocate a portion of the costs to the generators in instances when their actual production deviates from their scheduled production. Its cost is deducted from the payments they otherwise receive for their energy deliveries. The cost is nominal, however, ranging from about 75 cents to $2 per megawatt-hour.

PennFuture: Do you see this changing as more wind generation comes onto the system?

Pfirrmann: That will depend. The PJM system is so large that we will be able to integrate a good deal of wind into the system without operational difficulties, and the wind generators themselves are carrying costs associated with their variable nature. Smaller transmission systems have studied this issue and found that, at levels below 20 percent penetration, the costs of integrating wind generation are a small fraction of the value of that generation.

PennFuture: You now have several years' experience with wind generation. How variable is wind in reality?

Pfirrmann: Wind is not as variable as people may think. Our experience shows that, if a wind generator is operating at a certain level at present, there is an 80 percent probability that it will be operating within ±10 percent of that level one hour from now. And, there is a 60 percent probability that it will be operating within ±10 percent of that level five hours from now. We're also encouraged that better forecasting will enable us to better predict the output from the wind generators on our system.

PennFuture: What has been your experience with wind's capacity value?

Pfirrmann: Development-stage wind projects are analyzed on the basis of having a capacity value of 20 percent of their nameplate value. Although electricity demand on the PJM system reach a relative peak during winter when wind generation is greatest, the highest peak demand occurs in summer when wind generation is not as great. As we study the feasibility of interconnecting a proposed wind project with the grid, we anticipate that, during the summer peak demand periods, we will receive from that project an average of 20 percent of its maximum output. Experience is telling us that the amount is somewhat less than that, but wind does definitely have a capacity value. As the amount of installed wind capacity becomes more substantial, it will displace the need for some conventional, typically fossil-fuel-based, generation capacity.

PennFuture thanks Mr. Pfirrmann for this interview and information.

[anne onimous1]

Well, we all know what a great job those air traffic controllers are doing.

[My2Cents]

OMG..........SITTING ON MY HANDS ( biting my tongue ) SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME NOT TO LET MY FINGERS DO THE WALKING.....

OMG YOU'RE GOOD !!!

[anne onimous1]

kayaker-1

I would love to see the video also. You tube would be a great place to post it. Much more exposure.