Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines

[My2Cents]

Gotcha' Bill... Thanks!!! I do understand where your thoughts are coming from also. Like I said, I will respect the final decision as long as I am assured that all the facts were in, digested by all, and a vote wasn't cast haphazardly. That's all I ask. Then, if these things are allowed to come in here, I will know there is a reason... and I will accept that.

[My2Cents]

Well...when I ride along any road or train track there is always some kind of noise so that is not the issue. I would just enjoy the physical challenge. One can always wear the IPod if it is too bad. Can't do that when you are on the real roads....

Just guessing Luke.. but, most likely, they will probably have no trespassing signs up along the way.

- Only on the private property...As far as I understand it the Borough's use of these lands are not restricted because of the Wind Turbines. So Hunting and Hiking and such are still allowed. Like I said I will verify that and get back to this board on the topic.

I can't stand it... sarcastic me just has to throw this in.... Luke, If all of the above should occur... make sure you have plenty of bug and mosquito spray with you when you venture up there... the bats will no longer be in the area to take care of that problem for us. At ease disease... there's malaria in the area.... and fungus among us !!!

[sandstone]

A 30 turbine windplant on Ice Mt and surrounding lands will have no measurable effect on air quality. Gamesa said "baby steps", but these steps should be taken at sites that are not designated as "unique", "exceptional conservation value", or County Natural Heritage Areas.

Does anyone on this forum disagree with the above statement? If so, please explain why.

- I think, just my opinion, it will make an impact all be it maybe small. But if it slows down the production of a coal-fired plant at all then it has done something.

Please show us data substantiating your claim that a 30 turbine windplant on Ice Mountain will have a measurable impact on air quality.

You should know that winds in PA range from Class 1 - Class 5, with Class 5 being the most powerful. Ice Mountain is mostly Class 2 wind with a 1/2 square mile area of Class 3 wind and a 1/4 square mile area of Class 4 wind. Even worse, the ridge to be used in Taylor Township is all Class 2 wind.

No matter how it is measured, you will come back with something else that will make whatever I have to say invalid.

This admission on your part indicates the weakness of your argument.

I have heard everything from it taking 3000 Wind Turbines to produce only 2% of PA's energy needs to 8500 Wind Turbines to provide 10% of Pa's needs.... The mileage has been as fluctuating as the number of Wind Turbines needed. This last one we just heard was 4000 Wind Turbines to provide 10% of our needs over 500 miles of ridge lines. Now is there 500 miles of unwanted ridgelines that can support 4000 Wind Turbines? If there is not then it sounds like some sacrifices may have to be made. 8500 Wind Turbines sounded like a bit of an unrealistic goal, but 4000 does not. Let's see how many different answers we can get to this question. How many installed Wind Turbines are needed to take care of 10% of Pennsylvania's electricity needs? This is a loaded question.

The range you give of (3000 industrial turbines to provide 2% of PA's electricity) to (8500 industrial turbines to provide 10% of PA's electricity) equates to a range of 8500 - 15,000 industrial turbines to provide 10% of PA's electricity. According to John Hanger, CEO of PennFuture (a rabidly pro-wind lobbying group), about 2000 industrial turbines would be required to meet 5% of PA's electricity needs, thus 4000 for 10%.

Since industrial wind turbines cannot be spaced any closer than 8 per mile (due to interference with each other), 4000 industrial turbines would require 500 miles of ridgetop (at least).

You state that sacrifices will have to be made. If County Natural Heritage Areas that are unique and "of exceptional conservation value" are the first to be sacrificed, then can any ridgetop be saved? Please explain how.

Keep in mind that the same reduction in air pollutants (as could be provided by 4,000 industrial-scale wind turbines on 500 miles of ridge) can be achieved by adding just ~500 MegaWatts of capacity to each of Pennsylvania's existing 5 nuclear plants ( each of which have 2,000+ MegaWatts of capacity at present).

At worst, industrial windfarms, because they are so large and visible, give the impression that something meaningful is being done to curb greenhouse gas emissions. These same reductions can be achieved by modest expansions of the US's nuclear power capability. The US lags far behind other nations in nuclear capacity, which is able to provide electricity reliably, 24/7 365 days a year. France, Sweden, and Finland all get more than 70% of their electricity from nuclear plants, the US only 20%.

- Very good points SandStone...Thank You....So in your opinion, is it just fear that no one is touching the Nuclear Plants and upgrading them. Surely the money spent on other energy products would be a huge benefit to the Nuclear industry for upgrades.

Yes. An irrational fear of nuclear energy is pervasive in Amerca. As a community leader, I hope that you will not be distracted by the sideshow of wind energy. The electricity produced by windfarms is intermittent and cannot meet baseload demands. Pennsylvania's ridges are landmarks, and, here in the southcentral part of the state, the only large blocks of forest that we have left. While sites like Chestnut Flats in Logan Township that already have roads and that consist largely of reclaimed stripmines are appropriate for windfarms, areas certified as County Natural Heritage Areas and Landscape Conservation areas are not. Wind is not a great source of electricity, so there's no need to sacrifice our greatest remaining habitats to create windfarms.

Also keep in mind that industrial wind turbine technology is improving, so that turbines will be able to be placed in PA's agricultural areas, brownfield sites, etc, thus sparing the last great forested habitats left in our part of the state.

Thankfully, President Bush's recently-signed energy bill will boost the US's nuclear energy capability and put a real dent in coalplant emissions. BOTTOM LINE: to reduce emissions, nuclear is the way to go. No need to sacrifice ridgetop habitats, peaceful quiet woodlands, or kill large numbers of bats or golden eagles.

Nuclear Energy Institute
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:202-739-8065 For Release:December 20, 2007 Congress’ FY08 Appropriations Bill Paves Way For Continued Advancement of Nuclear Power

WASHINGTON—The U.S Congress yesterday passed an appropriations bill (H.R. 2764) that provides significant funding for various nuclear energy programs totaling more than $970 million. Following is a statement from the Nuclear Energy Institute’s president and chief executive officer, Frank L.(Skip) Bowman.

“The passage of the appropriations bill is good news for the nation. It provides significant U.S. Government-backed loan guarantees that will encourage the development of power plants that will provide large amounts of electricity to meet America’s energy needs and achieve environmental goals. We commend the bipartisan leadership of Congressmen Peter Visclosky and David Hobson and Senators Byron Dorgan and Pete Domenici that resulted in the passage of this legislation.
“The inclusion of the technology-neutral loan guarantees provision is a positive development. The loan guarantees do not represent an outlay of taxpayer dollars, yet should boost investor confidence and allow worthy projects to move ahead with debt financing on reasonable terms that will ultimately lower the overall cost of electricity.

Also, here are some views on nuclear energy from environmentalists:

“I think a lot of people are kind of stuck in the '70s. … I think people haven't caught up with the fact that climate change has changed the whole climate of the environmental debate on this planet. The one technology that is contributing most to reducing greenhouse gases in America today is nuclear energy, and we could do a tremendous amount to increase that.”

—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Nov. 9, 2007


“We have a choice to make: We can either continue the 30-year emotional debate about whether we should embrace nuclear energy, or we can accept its practical advantages. Love it or not, expanding nuclear energy makes both environmental and business sense.”

—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
BusinessWeek op-ed
Sept. 17, 2007


“The next time you flick the light switch, charge your cell phone or adjust the thermostat, stop and think about how the electricity you are using is produced. We're going to need more of it. By building more nuclear power plants, we can generate it in a clean, safe and efficient way.”

—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
San Francisco Chronicle op-ed
Sept. 12, 2007


“A more diverse mix of voices are taking a positive second look at nuclear energy—environmentalists, scientists, the media, prominent Republicans and Democrats and progressive think tanks. They are all coming to a similar conclusion: If we are to meet the growing electricity needs in this country and also address global climate change, nuclear energy has a crucial role to play.”

—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Kiplinger’s Business Resource Center
September 2007

“Nuclear is without question a great solution to powering Florida without creating greenhouse gas emissions.”

—Michael Sole
Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
As quoted by the Tallahassee Democrat
July 17, 2007


“I think it’s somewhat disingenuous that folks who agree that global warming is such a serious issue could sort of dismiss [nuclear energy] out of hand. It’s got to be at least considered.”

—Bill Chameides
Chief Scientist
Environmental Defense
As quoted by the Associated Press
July 2, 2007


“The use of nuclear power in the United States today prevents the emission of greenhouse gases equivalent to that of 136 million cars–which is the total of all passenger cars on the road today. In other words, without those nuclear plants, annual greenhouse gas emissions in the United States would increase in an amount equal to that given off by every single car on the road.”

—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
Co-Chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Air & Waste Management Association 100th Annual Conference
June 28, 2007


“When we look at how our nation plans to address the dual challenge of keeping the lights on and having clean air, we cannot afford to overlook nuclear energy.”

—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
Co-Chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Tampa Tribune op-ed
May 30, 2007


“It’s very clear to me that ... in today’s environment of concern for climate change and concern for clean air ... nuclear energy satisfies both those concerns. It is both clean from the point of view of air pollution and ... from a climate change point of view.”

—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
E&ETV, “OnPoint”
April 23, 2007


“There’s no question that [nuclear energy] is a clean way to generate huge amounts of electricity. There are no emissions, no pollution, and I think it is a very positive development.”

—Max Schulz
Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
CNBC’s “Power Lunch”
April 11, 2007


“If [Senator John] Edwards is serious about addressing climate change, then I would urge him to support the benefits a renewed focus on nuclear energy will bring to the United States and the world.”

—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
The Des Moines Register
“Nuclear Power Key Piece of Puzzle”
April 8, 2007


“You can't just write nuclear off. I think everybody feels you have to at least look again.”

—Judy Greenwald
Director, Innovative Solutions
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
USA Today
March 23, 2007


“Global warming is the environmental issue of our generation. Clearly, to solve this problem we need to have all technologies on the table. Therefore, nuclear energy ... needs to be considered.”

—Bill Chameides
Chief Scientist
Environmental Defense
USA Today
March 22, 2007


“There were legitimate reasons to worry about nuclear power, but now that we know about the threat of climate change, we have to put the risks in perspective. Sure, nuclear waste is a problem, but the great thing about it is you know where it is and you can guard it.”

—Stewart Brand
Noted environmentalist and founder, publisher, and editor of The Whole Earth Catalog
As quoted in The New York Times
Feb. 27, 2007


“My views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be an energy source that can help save our planet from another potential disaster: the serious negative impacts of climate change.”

—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
San Jose Mercury News op-ed
Feb. 25, 2007


“Air quality and climate change have long been critical issues for me. That being the case, any honest look at those issues tells you that nuclear has to be part of the future. People need to hear that nuclear plants emit no air pollutants or greenhouse gases.”

—Christine Todd Whitman
Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
Co-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Feb. 20, 2007


“The important and overriding consideration is time; we have nuclear power now, and new nuclear building should be started immediately. All of the alternatives, including fusion energy, require decades of development before they can be employed on a scale that would significantly reduce emissions. In the next few years, renewables will add an increment of emission-free energy, mainly from wind, but it is quite small when compared with the nuclear potential.”

—James Lovelock
Author
“The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity”
July 2006


“[N]uclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change. … Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce [CO2 ] emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely. … [O]n the question of a sustainable energy future … the only way to reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric, geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear. … Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can’t replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. … Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.”

—Patrick Moore
Co-founder, Greenpeace
“Going Nuclear: A Green Makes the Case”
The Washington Post
April 16, 2006


“Nuclear power’s ability to contribute significantly to a low-carbon future over the next 50 years depends on the ability of the nuclear industry to start expanding nuclear generating capacity in the next 10 to 15 years, as well as the resolution of cost, safety and waste storage issues.”

—Agenda for Climate Change
Pew Center on Climate Change
February 2006


“Now we come to the most profound environmental problem of all … global climate change. Its effect on natural systems and on civilization will be a universal permanent disaster. … So everything must be done to increase energy efficiency and decarbonize energy production. Kyoto accords, radical conservation in energy transmission and use, wind energy, solar energy, passive solar, hydroelectric energy, biomass, the whole gamut. But add them all up and it’s still only a fraction of enough. … The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power. … It also has advantages besides the overwhelming one of being atmospherically clean. The industry is mature, with a half-century of experience and ever improved engineering behind it. … Nuclear power plants are very high yield, with low-cost fuel. Finally, they offer the best avenue to a ‘hydrogen economy,’ combining high energy and high heat in one place for optimal hydrogen generation.”

—Stewart Brand
Noted environmentalist and founder, publisher, and editor of The Whole Earth Catalog
“Environmental Heresies”
Technology Review (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
May 2005


“I have been a committed environmentalist for many years. It is because of this commitment and the graveness of the consequences of global warming for the planet that I have now come to the conclusion that the solution is to make more use of nuclear energy.”

—Rev. Hugh Montefiore
Former Bishop of Birmingham (U.K.) and former chairman and trustee for Friends of the Earth
“Why the Planet Needs Nuclear Energy”
The Tablet (U.K.)
Oct. 23, 2004

[sandstone]

James Lovelock:
Nuclear power is
the only green
solution

We have no time to experiment
with visionary energy sources;
civilisation is in imminent danger.

Published in The Independent - 24 May 2004

Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, was far-sighted to say that global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism. He may even have underestimated, because, since he spoke, new evidence of climate change suggests it could be even more serious, and the greatest danger that civilisation has faced so far.

Most of us are aware of some degree of warming; winters are warmer and spring comes earlier. But in the Arctic, warming is more than twice as great as here in Europe and in summertime, torrents of melt water now plunge from Greenland's kilometre-high glaciers. The complete dissolution of Greenland's icy mountains will take time, but by then the sea will have risen seven metres, enough to make uninhabitable all of the low lying coastal cities of the world, including London, Venice, Calcutta, New York and Tokyo. Even a two metre rise is enough to put most of southern Florida under water.

The floating ice of the Arctic Ocean is even more vulnerable to warming; in 30 years, its white reflecting ice, the area of the US, may become dark sea that absorbs the warmth of summer sunlight, and further hastens the end of the Greenland ice. The North Pole, goal of so many explorers, will then be no more than a point on the ocean surface.

Not only the Arctic is changing; climatologists warn a four-degree rise in temperature is enough to eliminate the vast Amazon forests in a catastrophe for their people, their biodiversity, and for the world, which would lose one of its great natural air conditioners.

The scientists who form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001 that global temperature would rise between two and six degrees Celsius by 2100. Their grim forecast was made perceptible by last summer's excessive heat; and according to Swiss meteorologists, the Europe-wide hot spell that killed over 20,000 was wholly different from any previous heat wave. The odds against it being a mere deviation from the norm were 300,000 to one. It was a warning of worse to come.

What makes global warming so serious and so urgent is that the great Earth system, Gaia, is trapped in a vicious circle of positive feedback. Extra heat from any source, whether from greenhouse gases, the disappearance of Arctic ice or the Amazon forest, is amplified, and its effects are more than additive. It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm, and failed to notice, as we piled on fuel, that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited. When that happens, little time is left to put out the fire before it consumes the house. Global warming, like a fire, is accelerating and almost no time is left to act.

So what should we do? We can just continue to enjoy a warmer 21st century while it lasts, and make cosmetic attempts, such as the Kyoto Treaty, to hide the political embarrassment of global warming, and this is what I fear will happen in much of the world. When, in the 18th century, only one billion people lived on Earth, their impact was small enough for it not to matter what energy source they used.

But with six billion, and growing, few options remain; we can not continue drawing energy from fossil fuels and there is no chance that the renewables, wind, tide and water power can provide enough energy and in time. If we had 50 years or more we might make these our main sources. But we do not have 50 years; the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation.

Worse still, if we burn crops grown for fuel this could hasten our decline. Agriculture already uses too much of the land needed by the Earth to regulate its climate and chemistry. A car consumes 10 to 30 times as much carbon as its driver; imagine the extra farmland required to feed the appetite of cars.

By all means, let us use the small input from renewables sensibly, but only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy. True, burning natural gas instead of coal or oil releases only half as much carbon dioxide, but unburnt gas is 25 times as potent a greenhouse agent as is carbon dioxide. Even a small leakage would neutralise the advantage of gas.

The prospects are grim, and even if we act successfully in amelioration, there will still be hard times, as in war, that will stretch our grandchildren to the limit. We are tough and it would take more than the climate catastrophe to eliminate all breeding pairs of humans; what is at risk is civilisation. As individual animals we are not so special, and in some ways are like a planetary disease, but through civilisation we redeem ourselves and become a precious asset for the Earth; not least because through our eyes the Earth has seen herself in all her glory.

There is a chance we may be saved by an unexpected event such as a series of volcanic eruptions severe enough to block out sunlight and so cool the Earth. But only losers would bet their lives on such poor odds. Whatever doubts there are about future climates, there are no doubts that greenhouse gases and temperatures both are rising.

We have stayed in ignorance for many reasons; important among them is the denial of climate change in the US where governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed. The Green lobbies, which should have given priority to global warming, seem more concerned about threats to people than with threats to the Earth, not noticing that we are part of the Earth and wholly dependent upon its well being. It may take a disaster worse than last summer's European deaths to wake us up.

Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer.

I find it sad and ironic that the UK, which leads the world in the quality of its Earth and climate scientists, rejects their warnings and advice, and prefers to listen to the Greens. But I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy.

Even if they were right about its dangers, and they are not, its worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared with the dangers of intolerable and lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal city of the world. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear - the one safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.


James Lovelock is an independent scientist, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis which considers the Earth as a self-regulating organism, and a member of EFN - the association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy - http://www.ecolo.org

[sandstone]

http://www.nei.org

[My2Cents]

Oh my sandstone.... all I can say is WOW!!! I certainly hope and pray that the folks read all of the above. It certainly tells it all... I wish there were a way for the whole community ( or, should I say the world) to see that article..... absolutely outstanding !! Thank you.

[Luke]

Luke on Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:22 am

Bill,

I appreciate the willingness you have had to engage in this discussion. Obviously there is a lot of information out there on this on both sides. Have we heard from the electric companies as to the actual "not estimated" amount of electricity that is generated by the size of plant we are looking at installing? I am sure there is enough data out there regarding the plants that are up and running.

Another reservation would be not having a definitive answer regarding the possible contamination of downstreams from pollutants that become exposed to surface runoff during this process. Is there an independent verification within the lease proposal to address this concern? Does the DEP permit the work based on core samples? Those are the type of answers I would like to know.

I have walked the power lines that come over the mountain from Nealmont....they stretch through large corridor of our mountains. I was amazed at the amount of wildlife that I saw living on this "man-made edge". True it was not in its natural beauty but the times I have been up there I have seen plenty of wildlife.

Finally is compensation from this project tied to production or is there a set amount of compensation that will be awarded as part of the lease.? Have we received a independent audit of the financial statement from the Gamesa corporation? What is the basis of their financial structure? Are they a privately owned or publicly traded company? Are they a small cap, mid cap or large cap company?

These are just some of the questions I would ask if I were in discussion with this company. If they cost $3M to construct and something goes wrong are we stuck with a white elephant? Obviously we would have problems with de-construction as we are having difficulty in figuring out ways to remove buildings here in town that need to see the demolition ball.

Again, thanks for your willingness to listen and weigh this issue with sincerity. This forum has been engaging and I too agree we need to try our best to work from a rational point of view rather than emotional one. Perspective can be lost when we operate out of emotions.

[sandstone]

Luke on Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:22 am

Bill,

I appreciate the willingness you have had to engage in this discussion. Obviously there is a lot of information out there on this on both sides. Have we heard from the electric companies as to the actual "not estimated" amount of electricity that is generated by the size of plant we are looking at installing? I am sure there is enough data out there regarding the plants that are up and running.

Another reservation would be not having a definitive answer regarding the possible contamination of downstreams from pollutants that become exposed to surface runoff during this process. Is there an independent verification within the lease proposal to address this concern? Does the DEP permit the work based on core samples? Those are the type of answers I would like to know.

I have walked the power lines that come over the mountain from Nealmont....they stretch through large corridor of our mountains. I was amazed at the amount of wildlife that I saw living on this "man-made edge". True it was not in its natural beauty but the times I have been up there I have seen plenty of wildlife.

Finally is compensation from this project tied to production or is there a set amount of compensation that will be awarded as part of the lease.? Have we received a independent audit of the financial statement from the Gamesa corporation? What is the basis of their financial structure? Are they a privately owned or publicly traded company? Are they a small cap, mid cap or large cap company?

These are just some of the questions I would ask if I were in discussion with this company. If they cost $3M to construct and something goes wrong are we stuck with a white elephant? Obviously we would have problems with de-construction as we are having difficulty in figuring out ways to remove buildings here in town that need to see the demolition ball.

Again, thanks for your willingness to listen and weigh this issue with sincerity. This forum has been engaging and I too agree we need to try our best to work from a rational point of view rather than emotional one. Perspective can be lost when we operate out of emotions.

Luke;

Here are your questions and the answers:

Have we heard from the electric companies as to the actual "not estimated" amount of electricity that is generated by the size of plant we are looking at installing? The Sandy Ridge Wind Farm (aka Ice Mt Wind Farm) will consist of 30 turbines spread over 3 ridges stemming from the Allegheny Front. 2 of the ridges are in Snyder Twp and 1 in Taylor Twp. Each turbine is a 2 MegaWatt turbine. 30 x 2 MegaWatts = 60 MegaWatts. This is the nameplate or rated capacity of the windplant. In the eastern US, no windplant has ever exceeded 30% of its nameplate capacity on an annualized basis, thus, we can expect this windplant, at best to be about 20 MegaWatts actual capacity. By comparison, Pennsylvania has 5 nuclear plants, all of which are rated at 2,000+ Megawatts and operate at 95% of capacity.

Another reservation would be not having a definitive answer regarding the possible contamination of downstreams from pollutants that become exposed to surface runoff during this process. Is there an independent verification within the lease proposal to address this concern? Does the DEP permit the work based on core samples? The DEP requires an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit for all types of development, including industrial windfarms. I-99 received a DEP NPDES permit, but that didn't prevent problems, as you know.

I have walked the power lines that come over the mountain from Nealmont....they stretch through large corridor of our mountains. I was amazed at the amount of wildlife that I saw living on this "man-made edge". True it was not in its natural beauty but the times I have been up there I have seen plenty of wildlife. The wildlife that will be affected by this windplant is forest interior wildlife, distinct from animals living in ecotonal or edge areas. Edges always have more species because that's where interior and clearing species both can be found. However, there is plenty of edge habitat in our part of the state, while our ridges provide the only large interior forest habitats for animals like the black-throated blue warbler, the Canada warbler, the scarlet tanager, the red-eyed vireo, the wood thrush, the bobcat, and the fisher. As a matter of fact, in the Blair County Natural Heritage Inventory conducted ~2002 ecologists from the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy designated Ice Mountain as "unique" in Blair County because of its large tracts of forest unfragmented by any significant permanent infrastructure. The ecologists stated that, because of this lack of infrastructure, Ice Mountain has "exceptional conservation value" and therefore designated it as a County Natural Heritage Area and Landscape Conservation Area (the inventory is available at your local municipal office, the Blair County Conservation District office, and the Blair County Planning Commission office.)

Finally is compensation from this project tied to production or is there a set amount of compensation that will be awarded as part of the lease.? Both. The borough will get $6000 per turbine (10-15 turbines on borough property, the rest on private land) per annum or a percentage of revenue from electricity generated, whichever is greater.

Have we received a independent audit of the financial statement from the Gamesa corporation? Dunno, but it's unlikely that Gamesa is the company we'll be dealing with in the future, since Gamesa typically builds the windplant and then sells it, as they did at Allegheny Ridge, part of which has been sold to Babcock and Brown of Australia. An accelerated depreciation schedule on windplants encourages flipping these facilities every 5 years or so.

What is the basis of their financial structure? Dunno.

Are they a privately owned or publicly traded company? Publicly traded. A friend of mine used to own Gamesa stock but sold it because he was dissatisfied with the company's ethics.

Are they a small cap, mid cap or large cap company? I'd say mid or large, but don't know for sure. They're a Spanish firm.

[sandstone]

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Avoided

According to the U.S. Department of Energy and the Energy Information Administration report "Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 1997" (published June 1, 1999), the single most effective emission control strategy for utilities was to increase nuclear generation.

Increased nuclear capacity and improved efficiency at nuclear power plants since 1993 represents one-third of voluntary carbon dioxide reductions from U.S. industries. In 2006, nuclear energy accounted for about 71 percent of U.S. emission-free generation.

Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased from the 1990 baseline of 6,113 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to 7,147 million metric tons in 2005.

Nuclear generated electricity avoids almost 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year in the U.S. This figure is equivalent to the amount of reductions needed to achieve the 1990 levels agreed to in the United Nations Climate Change Treaty signed in Rio de Janiero in 1992.

Without the emission avoidances from nuclear generation, required reductions in the U.S. would increase by more than 50 percent to achieve targets under the Kyoto Protocol.

Worldwide nuclear energy avoids on average the emission of more than 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.

Nuclear generation avoids 1.0 million tons of nitrogen oxide and 3.1 million tons of sulfur dioxide annually in the United States.

As part of the U.S. EPA Acid Rain Program , 21 states from 1990-1995 showed a 16.4 percent increase of nuclear generation that avoided 480,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (37 percent of the required emissions reduction).

Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, no credit was allocated to nuclear plants. But, based on the average value of publicly traded sulfur dioxide credits, this contribution would have been worth about $50 million.

[sandstone]

Life-Cycle Costs (World Figures) http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nu ... ics/costs/
These are the total costs versus the output over the lifetime of the plant. Costs include construction, operations & maintenance, fuel and decommissioning.

[sandstone]

Check out this public opinion survey: http://www.nei.org/filefolder/popo-may.pdf

[sandstone]

A 30 turbine windplant on Ice Mt and surrounding lands will have no measurable effect on air quality. Gamesa said "baby steps", but these steps should be taken at sites that are not designated as "unique", "exceptional conservation value", or County Natural Heritage Areas.

Does anyone on this forum disagree with the above statement? If so, please explain why.

- I think, just my opinion, it will make an impact all be it maybe small. But if it slows down the production of a coal-fired plant at all then it has done something.

Please show us data substantiating your claim that a 30 turbine windplant on Ice Mountain will have a measurable impact on air quality.

You should know that winds in PA range from Class 1 - Class 5, with Class 5 being the most powerful. Ice Mountain is mostly Class 2 wind with a 1/2 square mile area of Class 3 wind and a 1/4 square mile area of Class 4 wind. Even worse, the ridge to be used in Taylor Township is all Class 2 wind.

No matter how it is measured, you will come back with something else that will make whatever I have to say invalid.

This admission on your part indicates the weakness of your argument.

I have heard everything from it taking 3000 Wind Turbines to produce only 2% of PA's energy needs to 8500 Wind Turbines to provide 10% of Pa's needs.... The mileage has been as fluctuating as the number of Wind Turbines needed. This last one we just heard was 4000 Wind Turbines to provide 10% of our needs over 500 miles of ridge lines. Now is there 500 miles of unwanted ridgelines that can support 4000 Wind Turbines? If there is not then it sounds like some sacrifices may have to be made. 8500 Wind Turbines sounded like a bit of an unrealistic goal, but 4000 does not. Let's see how many different answers we can get to this question. How many installed Wind Turbines are needed to take care of 10% of Pennsylvania's electricity needs? This is a loaded question.

The range you give of (3000 industrial turbines to provide 2% of PA's electricity) to (8500 industrial turbines to provide 10% of PA's electricity) equates to a range of 8500 - 15,000 industrial turbines to provide 10% of PA's electricity. According to John Hanger, CEO of PennFuture (a rabidly pro-wind lobbying group), about 2000 industrial turbines would be required to meet 5% of PA's electricity needs, thus 4000 for 10%.

Since industrial wind turbines cannot be spaced any closer than 8 per mile (due to interference with each other), 4000 industrial turbines would require 500 miles of ridgetop (at least).

You state that sacrifices will have to be made. If County Natural Heritage Areas that are unique and "of exceptional conservation value" are the first to be sacrificed, then can any ridgetop be saved? Please explain how.

- Thank you for the information. It has been said by JVA that they don't mind Wind Turbines if they are sited correctly...If Wind Turbines are our only source at this time to help, then all I am asking is, Is there enough strip mine areas and areas that are not unique and of exceptional value to support 4000 Wind Turbines?

The Ice Man is outta town visiting family in Williamsport, so I'll answer this for him (he can correct me if necessary):

Yes, there is enough degraded land in PA to support many more than 4000 wind turbines. In addition, experience in the mid-West has shown that farmland and windfarms are a good mix. Although PennFuture promotes ridgetop windplants as a way to help farmers, most of the ridgetop in Blair County is not owned by farmers. Farms are owned by farmers.
Many windfarms in Cambria and Somerset Counties are being developed on reclaimed strip mines.

The windplant developers should be required to develop these degraded lands first, rather than fragment the last large forested areas left in southcentral PA, our ridges.

Lancaster County and York County have large areas of Class 2 winds (most of Ice Mt and the entire ridge in Taylor Twp is Class 2) and both counties are relatively treeless, making a good match for windfarms. The negative ecological impacts of windplants in agricultural areas is much smaller than that on forested ridges.

Juniata Valley Audubon's policy statement on windplants in Blair County (issued in November 2005) states that the organization will oppose any industrial windfarms on County Natural Heritage Areas. Thus far, the Ice Mountain windfarm is the only windfarm that has been proposed in a Blair County Natural Heritage Area, and one that is certified as "UNIQUE" AND "OF EXCEPTIONAL CONSERVATION VALUE."

By the way, you should know that Gamesa is developing a 30 turbine windfarm on Mahantango Mountain (Class 2 winds) on the Dauphin/Northumberland county line.

[no-it-all]

I have these 3 zits on my hind end, some say their configuration could be considered of "unique and of exceptional popping value" but some may say it's just gross.

[sandstone]

I have these 3 zits on my hind end, some say their configuration could be considered of "unique and of exceptional popping value" but some may say it's just gross.

Get the opinion of a professional. Go see your doctor.

[Luke]

I think perhaps he mistook his face when he looked in the mirror...lol