Windmills on Ice Mountain - Gamesa Wind Turbines

[sandstone]

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

It depends on the number of turbines. On average, industrial windplants create one (1) long-term job for every ten turbines. The windplant on Ice Mountain, aka Sandy Ridge Wind Farm, is projected to have 12-20 turbines, so 2 long-term jobs will be created.

[sandstone]

I am going on a tour of the Portage Area WindPlant and I hope to gain some first hand knowledge of what these things are like. They say that there are instances of birds and bats being killed by these things....Gamasa has lowered the footprint of one of these things dramatically, and the way they reclaim so much of the site and replant is, I think, very eco friendly.

Opinion - Wind Power Development on Public Lands – It Isn’t Worth It
By the Pennsylvania Biological Survey
The Pennsylvania Biological Survey is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to increase the knowledge of and foster the perpetuation of the natural biological diversity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Our membership includes scientists, representatives of state and federal agencies concerned with natural resource management, and representatives of non-profit conservation organizations.
PABS technical committees serve as official advisory committees to several natural resource agencies in the state, including the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Game Commission, and Fish and Boat Commission.
After reviewing evidence on the environmental costs and benefits of wind energy, PABS is opposed to wind energy development on Pennsylvania natural resource agency lands.
We are aware of the serious environmental costs of fossil fuel energy sources, including the threats of global climate change to Pennsylvania’s natural biological diversity. We therefore support the responsible development of alternative energy sources, including properly sited wind energy development.
However, because wind energy development has associated environmental costs, wind energy development should only be instituted on state lands if the environmental benefits can be demonstrated to exceed the environmental costs.
Based on the available evidence, it is our conclusion that wind energy development is not suitable on state-owned lands where natural resource conservation is a major goal (i.e., primarily lands owned and managed by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Pennsylvania Game Commission).
The reason for our opposition is outlined below but can be summarized as follows:
The environmental benefits of wind energy development, in the mid-Atlantic area in general and on Pennsylvania state lands in particular, are small relative to the negative consequences, which include habitat fragmentation and mortality to birds and bats.
The primary environmental benefit of wind energy production is that it offsets the use of fossil fuels, thereby reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas.
The Department of Energy projects that by 2020, wind power will meet 1.2 to 4.5 percent of the country’s electricity generation, and will thus offset emissions of carbon dioxide from electricity generation by 1.2 to 4.5 percent. Since electricity generation accounts for 39 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, wind power will offset between 0.5 and 1.8 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions (National Research Council 2007).
The National Research Council (2007) concludes “Wind energy will contribute proportionately less to electricity generation in the mid-Atlantic region than in the United States as a whole, because a smaller portion of the region has high-quality wind resources than the portion of high-quality wind resources in the United States as a whole.”
Thus, it is apparent that wind energy development in the mid-Atlantic will offset a very minor portion of future carbon dioxide emissions.
Because Commonwealth Natural Resource Agency Lands make up only a fraction of land in Pennsylvania, the contribution of wind energy development on these lands to future energy needs, as well as any offset of carbon dioxide emissions, will be negligible.
Energy conservation, on the other hand, could considerably reduce the demand for energy and thus reduce carbon dioxide emissions. For example, residential home energy consumption in 2020 could be feasibly educed by over 1/3 using existing technologies (Bressand et al. 2007).
The environmental impacts of wind energy are considerable. Mortality to birds and bats has been of particular concern. Bat mortality from wind turbines has been particularly high, especially along forested ridge tops in the eastern United States.
Because bats generally have low reproductive rates, cumulative negative impacts of wind energy development on bat populations are likely (Kunz et al. 2007). Based on projections of installed wind capacity, it is estimated that by 2020 annual mortality in the mid-Atlantic highlands could be as high as 45,000 birds (National Research Council 2007) and 111,000 bats (Kunz et al. 2007).
With wind energy development expanding on private lands in Pennsylvania, the forested ridge tops of state-owned lands will become even more critical for birds, bats, and other species that utilize these habitats.
Another important, and often overlooked, impact of wind development is habitat fragmentation and its associated effects. These effects include reduced habitat area, habitat isolation and loss of species from an area, disruption of dispersal, increased edge effects and loss of core habitat, and facilitation of invasive species (Groom et al. 2006).
Due to their linearity, roads and transmission lines, both of which accompany wind energy development, have particularly pronounced fragmentation effects (Groom et al. 2006, Willyard et al. 2004).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) recommends that wind energy development “avoid fragmenting large, contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat” and advises that wind turbines be placed “on lands already altered or cultivated, and away from areas of intact and healthy native habitats.”
Because natural resource agency lands are among the last remaining large blocks of unfragmented land in Pennsylvania, these lands are particularly in need of protection. A publication produced by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (Moyer 2003) emphasizes the importance of preserving these last remaining large blocks of unfragmented habitat in the state.
In conclusion, the environmental benefits wind energy development on natural resource agency lands in Pennsylvania are negligible compared with the environmental consequences. These lands should remain closed to wind energy development.
For more information on the position of the Pennsylvania Biological Survey, contact Dr. Tim Maret, Department of Biology, Shippensburg University, by calling 717-477-1170 or sending email to: tjmare@ship.edu .

[sandstone]

Thank You Bucktail !!! Bill, in an earlier post you mentioned not hearing many "pro" comments on this subject... doesn't that tell you something right there ??? Most people do not fully understand these wind turbins and they are being quickly put up in different areas before the public becomes fully aware of their negative impact.
I do hope you read Senator Eichelbergers thought's on these turbins that Buckeye submitted above. I'm sure the folks from Gamasa are "giving nice presentations." I'm sure when you went to that site yesterday that everything was nicely laid out... That was all a sales pitch, Bill. I think this is going to be another one of those situations where Big Brother is going to take over and we the public will have no say so.... HUGE areas of our mountainside will be cleared of trees....plus, the fact that roads have to be built in order to haul these things to the site where they are to be placed. Solar Power is the thing of the future and it will benefit everybody in a most positive way. Ask the people in California. These wind mills will never serve their purpose and they will become obsolete in no time.... what a terrible shame.
One last thing... you mentioned, " wind turbins do not move the air....the wind moves them." I think that would depend on..... which side you are on.... I mean, which side of the wind turbin you are on.... I mean, which way the wind's blowin'.

More investigation needed

August 25, 2007 by Walter A. Drzal, Paint Borough Councilman, Windber Area Authority Board Member in Daily American

I have read Gamesa's Mr. Michael Peck's and Mr. Tim Vought's articles in the Daily American. I would like to comment on a few of Mr. Peck and Mr. Vought's observations. Mr. Peck stated, "Any claim made that Gamesa did not provide accurate information to the Windber Area Authority to review is false."
The real truth of the matter is the Windber Area Authority did not receive any useful information concerning this project that anyone could make a qualified decision on given the massive scale of this project until our March 14 meeting, when we got the plans from a private citizen who obtained them from the Somerset Conservation District.
If anyone says anything differently then they are speaking with a forked tongue. After seeing the full scope of the project we then voted 5-1 against the sitting of wind turbines in the Piney Run/Clear Shade Creeks watershed and recharge areas. After the roll call vote was taken our board chairman said that there would be no wind turbines in the WAA watershed and recharge area. The letter of Jan. 18, was based on only six pages of sketchy information. In giving his oral report to the WAA the geologist said a number of things such as he would not want to see any major road excavations such as Route 56 size roads etc.
In giving his presentation the Geologist had no idea what the real scope of the project entailed. It is my own personal opinion now that the scant information that the WAA received beforehand from Gamesa on which the infamous letter of Jan. 18, is based was just a ploy to gain our conditional approval without seeing the full plans.
I should know because I am the one that made the motion (against my gut feeling) to send the letter to Gamesa in the first place to try and get more information. I think we need an investigation into this to see if that was the case. As a matter of fact I think this whole matter from page one with all the studies that were claimed to have been done by Gamesa deserves a look-see since the Game Commission also stated that they have never received any site-specific plans as of June 11.
Somerset Conservation District rejected Gamesa's permit application for a lack of information. It appears that Gamesa feeds out a little information all the while pushing full speed politically to get everything approved while hoping that the permits are issued before they have to give out any more information. This would have been the case with Shaffer Mountain if the Pa. Fish Commission hadn't stopped the cutting of the timber for the roads, which Gamesa was doing without a permit.
Mr. Peck implies that our local governing bodies that appointed the board members to the WAA are irrelevant in any decision-making. That is untrue. We are elected to our local governing bodies by the people of whom most are customers of the WAA. Our fiduciary duty is to the people, local government, WAA in that order. We are appointed to the WAA to be the watchdogs of the people. I would not call 10,000 people irrevelant if something happened to the water supply because they would have to pay for it.
The current board of directors of the WAA has perhaps a greater responsibility than that of any previous board or any future board with the construction of a new sewage treatment plant and to protect the water supply.
I have heard the remark numerous times that we must keep Berwind happy. Why? At whose expense? At the expense of the people? We need to get over that 1900s mentality and move in the 21st century. When Berwind owned the water company it was past practice that no industrial development took place aside from some timber cutting in the watershed. I believe past practice is a point of law.
I think the whole Shaffer Mountain issue needs investigated. I put my trust in the Somerset Conservation District and organizations like the Mountain Laurel Chapter of Trout Unlimited who has worked with DEP for decades to improve the quality of water in our streams. They are experts in their fields and know the areas water courses. In the case of Shaffer Mountain they are trying to prevent environmental destruction that they know can happen, but are being ignored by Gamesa and yes, even by DEP.
I received a personal invitation from Ms. Ellen Lutz of Gamesa to attend the Gamesa sponsored meeting at UPJ on June 20. One of the men from MLTU was asking some hard questions and the Gamesa engineer he was speaking to said that he had documents to back up Gamesa's claims and to see him after the meeting and he would show him the documents. After the meeting the man from MLTU went up to the guy and he blew him off saying he didn't have the time. During the meeting Ms. Lutz said that Gamesa never used blasting on its projects. Later when it came out that they had, Mr. Vought said that it was used only three times at the Portage site. Knowing the rock strata on Shaffer Mountain it is hard to believe that some of the roads will be cut into the side of the mountain without blasting. I came away from the meeting with more questions than answers.
Mr. Vought and Gamesa call all who voice an opinion an opponent and anti-wind which is not the case. It is the poor placement of the turbines in an EV watershed that is the problem.
Many years ago in the west end of Johnstown there was a trout stream called Grey Run which like Piney Run originated from springs high up in the Mountains. Local sportsman's clubs and individuals tried to stop strip mining in the mountain above.
Studies were done and words like "if reasonable precaution were taken" were thrown around. Permits were issued by DEP and in the end Grey Run was destroyed. I met the hydro geologist who worked on that project at a WAA meeting and I blurted out, you're the guy that killed Grey Run and he said that sometimes that happens. My point is that we can't have a sometimes that happens when dealing with the water supply of the WAA.
Web link: http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2 ... tter04.txt

[sandstone]

The idea behind noise is an interesting one....I personally can’t wait to forge my own thoughts on the noise....That of course is a huge debate...Some say they are outrageously noisy and others say that is very quiet. I want to hear them for myself.

We will see what the future holds for these things in Tyrone.

Township to buy noise meters for Juniata wind turbines
By Kay Stephens, kstephens@altoonamirror.com
POSTED: October 2, 2007
HOLLIDAYSBURG — Juniata Township supervisors are ready to buy a pair of noise meters at the request of three residents disturbed by wind turbines near their properties.

The township’s ordinance specifies that the noise created by the turbines cannot exceed 45 decibles, a level that has been compared to the hum of a refrigerator.

The noise has been a lot louder, residents Todd and Jill Stull told supervisors. Neighbor Clair Chappell agreed.

“It bothered us all summer,” Jill Stull said. “You can hear it inside my house, even with my windows and doors closed.”

The Stulls, who asked supervisors in March for help, said they documented dates and times when the turbines were noisy and offered that information to representatives of the company managing the wind farm.

With no action, they returned Monday night and appealed to supervisors for help.

Supervisors David Kane and David Rimbeck said they have been on the Stull property and on neighboring properties and have yet to hear any disturbing noise.

“This has to be a special case in your hollow,” Kane said.

“No, it’s happening in [Clair Chappell’s] hollow, too,” Todd Stull said.

Gerald Young, 85, who lives next to Chappell, told supervisors he has heard wind turbines.

“I have a 74 percent hearing loss in one ear and a 75 percent hearing loss in the other ear,” Young said. “If I can hear them, somebody else has got to be hearing them.”

Kane suggested asking Babcock & Brown, the company managing the wind turbine farm stretching over the Blair and Cambria borders, to set up a noise meter.

Solicitor Michael Routch advised against that and suggested the township acquire its own.

“It’s not a belief issue,” Routch said, “It’s a proof issue.”

His suggestion led into a debate over who should buy the noise meters, with supervisors voting to spend up to $1,200 for a pair of meters.

Todd Stull told supervisors the purchase is their responsibility so they can enforce the ordinance adopted last year.

Rimbeck said he could agree with the purchase, considering that the township receives $75,000 annually in wind turbine revenue.

“We’re going to buy the meters and see what it says,” Kane said.

Mirror Staff Writer Kay Stephens is at 946-7456.

Chairman Giffin and Task Force Members: 09/26/2007
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak.
My name is Wendy Todd. I am a resident of Mars Hill and a lifelong citizen of the state
of Maine. I live approximately 2600 feet from multiple turbines located at the Mars Hill
Wind Facility. To date, I have attended two of the task force meetings and have tried to
keep up with most of the reading material. Today I am here representing a number of
families who are my neighbors and friends. They are experiencing the same things that
my family and I are experiencing, with respect to the wind turbines.
My husband Perrin and my three children moved back to Aroostook County after living
is Southern Maine for approx 14 years. We moved back because we wanted to raise our
children in a known, safe, nurturing environment. You see, Mars Hill is my hometown.
It is a small town, with a reasonably good sense of community. It has a great school
system – but most of all it is where my family lives. My parents own a farm on the
Canadian border that lies on the Northeast side of Mars Hill Mountain. My grandfather
purchased the farm in 1914 and farmed potatoes for 46 years before my parents continued
the tradition of farming in 1960. In my opinion it is some of the prettiest acreage in
Aroostook and I was very happy to come home to it, in fact…it was my dream.
The turbines however, have changed most of that as the land that was once known for its
remote nature, wildlife and solitude is now home to an industrial power plant. For
anyone to say that a wind turbine facility has a low impact on the local environment… is
irresponsible. Yet the industry and the media surrounding it seem insistent on making
light of the problems that exist. The problems are real and they are hurting families
emotionally, physically and economically.
1.) Many are worried about how the turbines have affected their property value and what
they planned to leave to their children. Some families have given up their dreams of
building homes because the turbines have changed the very nature of the land and how
they planned to use it. The construction phase drove much of the wildlife from the area
and it has been very slow to recover. We wonder if the wildlife population and
characteristics will ever be the same.
2.) Noise and shadow flicker create anger and frustration as they invade our homes and
land. The noise keeps many residents from a proper night sleep, resulting in more
frustration, anger and stress. It has lead to time missed at work for some and sleep aids
for others. Most of these families have resorted to sleeping with the house shut up tight,
curtains drawn with fans running or other white noise sources at their bedsides. Sleep
deprivation and stress has led to a number of other issues that are of concern. One
resident has started on anti-depressants, three residents are experiencing increased
migraines and another family has separated. These families attribute the blame of these
issues on the surrounding turbines. Recent studies correlate the noise and vibrations
associated with living too close to turbines to a number of health issues that range from
ringing in the ears to vibro-acoustic disease. Other determined health issues include
2
an increased risk of seizures for those who are prone to seizures, an increased frequency
and intensity of migraines, stress headaches and inner ear problems.
Unfortunately for us, the very mountain that has provided the wind facility with a class 3-
wind resource often acts like a fence protecting us from the upper level winds that push
the turbines. There are many times when winds are high on the ridgeline but are near
calm at our homes. The noise and vibrations from the turbines penetrate our homes. At
times there is no escape from it. It doesn’t matter which room you go to, there is no
escape from the noise. The noise ranges from the sound of a high range jet to a fleet of
planes that are approaching but never arrive. When it’s really bad it takes on a repetitive,
pulsating, thumping noise that can go on for hours or even days. It has been described as
a freight train that never arrives, sneakers in a dryer, a washing machine agitating, a giant
heartbeat, a submariner describes it as a large ship passing overhead.
If the wind turbines are spinning we hear them. Yes, there are days when the turbines are
rotating and very little noise is emitted. There are days when we can’t hear them at all
inside our homes. Those are generally days when the turbines are spinning less than 15
rotations per minute (rpm’s). A visiting engineer from GE said that the turbines do not
start generating power until the turbines reach 17 to 18 RPM. The turbines need
consistent wind speeds of 4 ½ meters per second - so… on most days when they are not
making noise they are not making power either.
People think that we are crazy. They drive out around the mountain stop and listen and
wonder why anyone would complain about noise emissions. But, believe me when we
are having noise problems you can most assuredly hear the justification of our complaint.
We have had people come into our yard get out of their vehicles and have watched their
mouth drop. We have had company stop in mid conversation inside our home to ask,
“What is that noise?” or say “I can’t believe you can hear those like that inside your
house.”
Visiting a wind facility, or sitting at the end of someone’s driveway once or twice for 2, 3
or even 10 minutes to listen does not make that person an expert on turbine noise. To be
an informed witness could take days or weeks for one to know and experience what we
are living. Not until an individual has been in a home and has heard turbine noise
emissions of 45 decibels or higher does that individual have any right to judge how
turbine noise truly affects the lives of people. Even noise experts should be talking to
residents who are living next to turbines to ensure they are collecting data that is relevant
to the burdensome noise emissions heard by those who live closest to them. Let us tell
the sound experts when we are having a noise issue.
3
Nick Archer, our Regional Director with the DEP thought we were all crazy, too. But he
finally made it to our homes and heard what we were talking about. I don’t believe he
has ever heard a 50+decibel day but he has heard close to that on more than one occasion
and has made statements like these. “This is a problem.” “ We need to figure out what is
going on with these things before we go putting anymore of them up.” “I thought you
were crazy at first but you are not crazy.” “The quality of life behind the mountain is
changed.” Did he say these things just to appease us? I don’t believe so.
Because of the complaints from residents around the mountain the DEP started an
investigation into the noise levels being emitted from the Mars Hill wind facility. The
wind company agreed to do a sound study and is working with the DEP to determine
compliance. Maine state law allows projects to emit 45 dBa of noise at protected
locations like ours, (quiet areas) up to 500 feet from sleeping quarters. For some reason,
the Maine DEP granted the UPC/Evergreen project a 5-decibel variance, thus allowing
the turbines a noise ceiling of 50 dBa at protected locations. Resource Systems
Engineering (RSE) conducted the first round of sound tests in May of 2007. The May
study revealed two locations on the North end of the mountain with readings over 50
decibels.
Presently, the DEP is reviewing that May study along with a series of questions posed by
the Mountain Landowners Association of Mars Hill. The study has been in their
possession since the end of June and again the residents whose lives are being affected by
the noise are being asked to be patient. I want everyone here to understand, it has
become extremely disheartening to be asked to live with noise that UPC/Evergreen stated
would never exist. It is frustrating to know that the turbines are being allowed to
continue operations with no restrictions even though the study shows that they are over
the limit that the permit allows.
Nick Archer our Regional Director of the DEP stated at a meeting with our group that
“anything over the permit level would be out of compliance, whether its out by 1dBa or
more, out of compliance is out of compliance”. The study shows that the turbines are
over the DEP’s limit yet it seems that things are no longer that clear cut. The World
Health Organization says, “Where noise is continuous, the equivalent sound pressure
level should not exceed 30 dBA indoors, if negative effects on sleep are to be avoided.”
http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Commnoise4.htm
I understand the Governor’s desire for wanting wind to work in Maine, but surely it is not
to the detriment of people who live and pay taxes here. Many were for the Mars Hill
wind turbine project but we were misled as a community and as a state we are still being
misled.
4
The wind company that came to Mars Hill misrepresented facts and spoke in half-truths.
The town manager and town council of Mars Hill believed them and based their decisions
on this information and the project moved forward. Most people truly believed that the
benefits to the town, county, state, country and world were well worth any negative
impact from the visual aspect of the turbines. Visual impact was the biggest negative
impact that was ever talked about.
Maine Site Law & Regulations – Section 484 states that “the developer is responsible for
fitting a development harmoniously into the existing natural environment and to
demonstrate that the development will not unreasonably affect existing land uses.”
Now, of course, it is to late for the truth. The turbines are there and most likely will
remain. But this task force can help other communities protect themselves. Information
is power and the people of Maine and the nation have a right to all the facts.
What am I talking about…?
Statement:
The wind company said it would create hundreds of local jobs that would be filled by
local businesses whenever possible.
Reality:
Most of the construction jobs went to contractors outside of Aroostook County.
Statement:
When asked how much electricity would be created and where it would go the answer
was “At full capacity the plant will generate 50 megawatts, enough to power
approximately 50,000 average Maine homes and at 40% capacity it would supply
electricity for 24,000 – 25,000 homes. All the electricity from the Mars Hill “wind farm”
will be used in the region, most likely by Aroostook County homes and businesses.
Reality:
Now we know that any given wind facility has an efficiency rating somewhere between
25% and 35%. The electricity generated from the Mars Hill facility goes to Canada.
Statement:
They said that the facility would likely help to stabilize electric prices. “Electricity cost
from wind power is very competitive and sometimes lower than most other sources of
fuel-based power. The more wind power that can be generated in Aroostook County and
Maine the more you can count on the possibility of more stable or even lower electric
bills in the future.”
Reality:
The truth is that our electric bills went up approximately 40% this year and are due to go
up again.
5

[150thBucktailCo.I]

WOW!

:thumb:

[SANTEEO]

Any chance you want to run for Mayor?

[My2Cents]

WOW!

:thumb:

I agree !!! Thank You, Thank You, Thank You, Sandstone !!! What was that old saying by Walter Winchell way back when ?? It went something like, "Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen and All The Ships At Sea... Let's Go To Press !!"
It can't get any better then that folks !!! What more convincing do we need ??? Down with these windmills !!! Off with their blades !!! We do not need these built anywhere near or around this area.

[watcher]

Okay, I don't usually take this role, but I confess in this case, I'm feeling like the devil's advocate. Why in the world are you people so up in arms about windmills of all things? I read the posts, although I got bogged down in the LONG ones posted by Sandstone, but really I'm wondering what is the alternative? It seems that the idea behind windmills is to provide a source of ecological friendly power. The other alternatives are solar and water, both which should be considered. Personally, I believe that anything that could help the environment should be discussed, and used. When I think about how long they've been talking about an alternative for gasoline, and are only now moving on it, and very SLOWLY I might add, it's rather sickening. There are not enough people who are behind nature friendly power. Recently I read an article about an older windmill used at a farm that was refurbished to supply power again. Isn't this what we should strive for? Do we really want to use up every possible source other than water, sun, and wind, which are all the most efficient? Maybe some changes need to be recommended in order to protect wildlife and decrease the noise, but I still think we should pursue it. Enough people cause feet dragging with these things...I think it should be attempted and used unless there's a very good reason not to....sorry, for the rant but this is getting a bit ridiculous! I have rarely heard anyone speak against windmills...maybe I'm sticking up for Don Quixote here....

[George M.]

In response to a point raised by Bill Latchford in a posting on Monday -

But I am also concerned about the 30,000+ persons who die every year from the output emmissions of our fosil feul plants.

, unfortunately his concern will not be remedied or significantly lessened by building thousands of wind turbines in PA. That is because of the EPA's "cap and trade program" allows powerplants to sell or trade any unused "air pollution allowances" if wind energy results in their burning less fossil-fuel than they otherwise would have without wind turbines. Or, powerplant owners could decide to burn cheaper but "dirtier" forms of fossil-fuels in order to take advantage of any air pollution "savings" that may be due to the electricity produced by wind turbines (e.g., coal containing higher amounts of sulphur or "bunker" crude oil). Read the op-ed explaining this issue which was recently published by The Patriot-News - http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews/sto ... xml&coll=1 . Consequently, wind energy development of our region will not result in any appreciable reduction in the emissions of sulphur dioxide or nitrous oxides from powerplants - these are the main air pollutants which threaten human health (e.g., cause the formation of ozone).

[My2Cents]

. Consequently, wind energy development of our region will not result in any appreciable reduction in the emissions of sulphur dioxide or nitrous oxides from powerplants - these are the main air pollutants which threaten human health (e.g., cause the formation of ozone).

Exactly Thank You George M.... The one thing these windmills will be good for is... if, and/or, when the wind is blowin', and these turbins are twistin', they will help in spreading around all those air pollutents, and fossil fuels... not to mention the other contaminates that are out there. Think about it.... what if the wind just happened to be blowing the right way and we had a chemical spill, or heaven forbid, some major disaster ??!!

[watcher]

Well, if all Bill M. says is true, then it is pretty discouraging, so to slightly turn the topic, what are the suggestions of people on the board. If windmills do NOT appear the best answer, then in what direction should we go? I heard a suggestion that we decrease our energy input, which sounds good, i.e. hanging up clothes on line when possible, riding bicycles, but can we go further? How can a group rally around something as favorable as providing good sources of energy without all the deadlock and red tape? I personally think something like bicycle powered cars would be good, although my kids have laughed off that suggestion as Flinstone based. However, does anyone have a good idea rather than ongoing bashing of windmills? I'd like to hear it...

[George M.]

Watcher, rather than "sticking up for Don Quixote" it appears instead that you are supporting the interests of overseas multi-national corporations such as Iberdrola - Gamesa's parent company. If you need "good reasons" to oppose industrial wind energy development, which is being aggressively pursued along ridgetops throughout the Appalachian Mountain chain, you should read my post to this forum on May 14. Wind energy is NOT the "silver bullet" or even a good alternative for electricity generation - although the wind industry and its boosters would have us believe it is.

At most, only about 10% of the electricity produced in our grid region could be feasibly supplied by wind turbines without major and costly steps to increase transmission line capacity and provide additional back-up ("reserve") generating capacity for times when the wind is not blowing. Since the demand for electricity in our region is growing at nearly 2% annually - meaning that 2% more kilowatt-hours will be needed compared to the previous year - you can see that wind energy development will never keep pace with growth in demand, let alone result in any real "reductions" in the power supplied by conventional generaton.

The American Wind Energy Association recognizes that the realistic maximum generation from wind turbines installed in PA could be as much as 45-million Megawatt-hours - see: http://www.awea.org/projects/pennsylvania.html. [Note that 1 MW-hr = 1,000 kilowatt-hours.] FYI, you would need to build nearly 9,000 2-MW wind turbines in order to generate annually a total of 45-million MW-hrs, and they would cover about 1,300 miles of ridgetop because they are spaced about 7 per mile in order to maximize their wind-gathering efficiency. Yet that total represents only about 20% of the number of MW-hrs which were generated in PA during 2005 - see Table 5 in: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricit ... lvania.pdf . However, if electricity generation from powerplants in PA continues to expand at the rate which the Public Utilities Commission believes is likely (annual growth rate of 1.6%), by the year 2030 the maximum percentage that could be supplied by building 9,000 huge wind turbines along nearly 1,300 miles of ridgetops would be less than 14% of all powerplant generation (i.e., 45-million MW-hrs would be less than 14% of 324-million MW-hrs - the total net generation expected to be produced within PA in 2030 assuming a 1.6% annual growth rate of the electric industry).

So, even after building 9,000 huge wind turbines along 1,300 miles of PA's ridgetops, by 2030 we will need to use the same generating sources and fuel amounts that we now use. PLUS, we will need to find either new alternative energy sources or additional conventional powerplants to supply about 60-million MW-hrs that will be demanded due to growth (over and above the 45-million MW-hrs provided by 9,000 wind turbines). Assuming federal tax subsidy programs and rules are maintained for renewable energy, the federal treasury likely would lose about $18-billion if 9,000 huge wind turbines were constructed within the Commonwealth, which represents the amount of federal income tax payments that otherwise would be owed but could be avoided due to the tax credits and tax shelters available to "wind farm" owners and investors.

The wildlife impact of installing nearly 9,000 goliath wind turbines within PA may result in the killing of nearly 500,000 bats PER YEAR! [using the current estimate of 28.7 bats killed per MW] Plus, the direct forest loss due to wind energy development along forested ridgelines would likely exceed 20,000 acres assuming 70% of these turbines are sited within forest and assuming 3 to 5 acres per turbine are cleared for siting of the turbine AND for the infrastructure needed to facilitate the "wind farm" (e.g., roads and powerlines). However, the indirect forest impact would be much greater, resulting from the fragmentation of the forest ecosystem by the clearings for turbines, roads and powerlines of "wind farm". Current patterns of forest fragmentation reveal that from 15 to 20 acres of ecologically important "forest-interior" habitat is lost per turbine if sited within large blocks of forest - as has been the case for most turbines so far built in PA.

And what do we get for building 9,000 2-MW wind turbines??? They will have NO IMPACT on our region's - or the nation's - dependence on oil, since very little petroleum is used to make electricity. They will not appreciably reduce air pollution. They will not be a significant source of local tax revenue since the PA legislature exempted wind energy projects from paying property taxes (their annual property taxes are a pittance - only taxed on the amount they pay landowners for lease fees). Their construction will short the federal treasury of billions of dollars, essentially requiring the rest of us to pay more than our fair share of federal income taxes to make up for tax avoidence by wealthy investors and corporations who are investors in "wind farms". And they will not make much of a contribution in terms of reducing the impacts of climate change associated with CO2 emissions - especially since less than 40% of our region's and our nation's GreenHouse Gas emissions result from electricity generation.

[watcher]

Dear George,


If you knew me even slightly, the idea of me supporting a huge corporation is laughable...also, you are just restating your position, and if you read my last post, you will note, I already conceded the point. I said, IF windmills are NOT the answer, what is the next suggestion for energy efficient soloutions? I am opening this up to others for their input, and not to continue a discussion which perhaps, is becoming one-sided. Okay, so I'll say it again, YEAH!!! You've apparently proved windmills are NOT the answer. What is the next best suggestion?

[sandstone]

The following letter to the editor appeared in the Herald a few weeks ago. I think that it makes some good points:

Tyrone area sportsmen should be made aware that State Game Lands 60 in Blair and Centre County, Sink Run, Decker Run, and Vanscoyoc Run are threatened by Gamesa's plans to construct the Ice Mountain/Sandy Ridge Wind Farm in Snyder Township, Blair County and Taylor Township, Centre County. This project will consist of 20 industrial-scale turbines in Snyder Township to the south of SGL 60 and 10 turbines in Taylor Township to the east of SGL 60. We believe that Gamesa will ask the Pennsylvania Game Commission to permit the construction of a permanent access road across SGL 60 for the construction and maintenance of these turbines. This would require the carving out of a mile-long section of permanent heavy-duty roadway through SGL 60 in the headwaters of Vanscoyoc Run, a Cold Water Fishery, as well as crossing Sink Run and impacting the headwaters of Decker Run.

Because of the problems of severe habitat fragmentation, direct mortality to birds and bats, and the inducement of avoidance behavior, industrial windfarms and the infrastructure associated with them are incompatible with the stewardship and conservation goals of State Game Lands. Each turbine requires the clearing and bulldozing of several acres of forest around it for construction, maintenance, and operational efficiency. In addition, a mile of permanent heavy-duty road is constructed for every 5-8 industrial turbines. Further carving of the forest takes place to accommodate transmission lines, substations, and other infrastructure.

Juniata Valley Audubon cannot approve of the destruction of unique areas of exceptional conservation value for the construction of industrial wind facilities. The proposed Ice Mountain/Sandy Ridge Wind Farm site has very strong scientific certification from the Blair County Natural Heritage Inventory and the Pennsylvania Biological Survey as being a unique area of exceptional conservation value.

Juniata Valley Audubon asks that landowners considering leasing their property to Gamesa respect the scientific certification of the Sandy Ridge/Ice Mountain site as a Landscape Conservation Area and a County Natural Heritage Area as well as an Important Bird Area and a Greenway and reject any proposal by the industrial windplant developer to construct industrial wind turbines or carve access roads for the construction and maintenance of turbines for the Sandy Ridge Wind Farm. At this site, the huge ecological costs of an industrial wind farm will far exceed the tiny environmental benefit that such a facility could provide.

Sincerely,

Stan Kotala, M.D., President, Juniata Valley Audubon

[150thBucktailCo.I]

Juniata Valley Audubon asks that landowners considering leasing their property to Gamesa respect the scientific certification of the Sandy Ridge/Ice Mountain site as a Landscape Conservation Area and a County Natural Heritage Area as well as an Important Bird Area and a Greenway and reject any proposal by the industrial windplant developer to construct industrial wind turbines or carve access roads for the construction and maintenance of turbines for the Sandy Ridge Wind Farm. At this site, the huge ecological costs of an industrial wind farm will far exceed the tiny environmental benefit that such a facility could provide.

This is the point where we see who and what really cares and/or understands the issues involved in this topic, and who and what can be bought off when big money is flashed and favors are offered.