RUMOR: Possible windmill farm in Wardensville
40 posts
15 users
15k+ views
bawalker
March 31, 2008
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
I'm posting this PURELY as a rumor until confirmed.

I heard this from a reliable source who works with historic societies/groups to prevent demolition of historic and sacred sites. I was told that an unknown company has sought out applications for permits to build a windmill farm that would stretch along North Mountain all the way from Mathias, WV to Wardensville WV. The windmills will be the 3 blade vertical type that would reach a peak height of 425'. All construction would be on the George Washington National forrest and would require permission from the Department of Interior.

Has anyone else heard this or can confirm or deny??
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
March 31, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
I have so ambivalent feelings about these... Yes it is sometimes ugly and sometimes could even be considered visual pollution, but on the other hand, any help to getting us fossil-fuel independent is a good step. And indeed, in Holland, the windmills are an intergral part of the pastoral scenery.
David
March 31, 2008
Member since 06/28/2004 🔗
2,444 posts
 Originally Posted By: lbotta
I have so ambivalent feelings about these... Yes it is sometimes ugly and sometimes could even be considered visual pollution, but on the other hand, any help to getting us fossil-fuel independent is a good step.


I know exactly what you mean. On the one hand you free yourself up from the expenses of burning fossil fuels and also reduce the HUGE amounts of pollution that come with burning FF's. Then on the other hand, nobody loves the mountains here in WV more than me. I hate to see them stick these windmills up on the ridge of every mountain, ruining the untouched environment, not to mention killing off wildlife such as birds and bats.

I was involved in a class discussion/arguement last week about wind power and it seemed that a good bit of my classmates were all for wind power. After I did some further questioning I came to find out that pretty much everyone that was all for dotting WV with windmills had never been to places such as Canaan Valley, Blackwater Falls, Spruce Knob, Cranberry Glades, etc. Everyone that was unsure of windmills had. I guranteed those who supported them that if they took a trip to some of these places they would probably change their mind, or atleast think a lot harder about the best way to go about wind power in WV.

I can't say that I favor either option right now..........
The Colonel - DCSki Supporter
March 31, 2008
Member since 03/5/2004 🔗
3,107 posts
This is a tough one! "NIMBY" seems to always be the norm. I know I would take windmills over the mountain destruction caused by mining coal from outside the mountain. If the Democrtats win the Presidency and continue control of the House and Senate, it will be interesting to see how the more liberal crowd attacks the issue of US energy independence, or less dependence. For example, libs do not want drilling in northern Alaska, off the coast of Virginia, windmills off Mass., etc., yet they want to minimize our use of foreign oil.
Yes, this is a tough one! I "NIMBY", you "NIMBY", we all "NIMBY"!
The Colonel \:\)
DCSki Sponsor: Canaan Valley Resort
bawalker
April 1, 2008
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
I know this may touch on the non-revered G.W. topic (no not the president), but I saw an article this week that a NASA satellite confirmed via factual gathered evidence that the correlation of the rising amount of carbon being produced does not match the now plateauing temperatures. NASA scientists who saw this were astounded after triple checking the results.

No one seems to know WHY that is at the moment. A couple of thoughts were that the climate is much more robust than we thought able to take the extra carbon and adequately handle it without any adverse affects. Another thought was that it was more of a coincidence that as carbon output rises, so does temperature following the theory that the earth cycles through heating and cooling periods. We'll not know that for sure for at least another 100 years.

Regardless, the point I'm hitting at is that if traditional electric methods work and if more evidence keeps coming in that they aren't as environmentally as bad as many in the media have portrayed, going 'green' for the sake of 'saving mother earth' may be a mal-aligned way to go about this. I agree not being bound to the Saudi's and other Arab nations for oil/energy sources is a must for us. But doing so when many vast energy supplies exist on our own soil yet to be pumped/discovered would be irresponsible of us.

Also, the one thing I've witnessed first hand up at Canaan/Mt. Storm with those windmills... is that they devastate hundreds of acres of forests. In Holland and those other dutch countries, they have wind farms by the ocean in open pastures where the only thing affected is the actual footprint of the tower and the fields are reclaimed and farmed once more. Mt. Storm is a different story. I was told that a few hundred of acres of timber HAS been cut to make roads up the sides of small knolls and ridges to allow upto 90' long trailer sections carrying tower bases and blades and also at most towers the land has been graded to allow for multiple cranes to offload sections. This is due to the constantly sloping land in the valley area.

So in this case, towers at Mt. Storm have proven to be VERY expensive to the environment, scenery, and locals how have to live with that in their back yards in some cases. Also I was told by a representative at the Mt. Storm location that energy produced from these towers will most likely benefit consumers in the MD/NoVA/DC area and little if any will be going straight to WV customers. That floored me there because once again, WV is carpetbagged her rights to the benefit of another state over her own.
SeaRide
April 1, 2008
Member since 03/11/2004 🔗
237 posts

Just a thought .. why can't the windmills be placed on the coal mines areas? It doesn't matter to me whether the coal mining is still in operation or not. The windmills can be installed since the roads are already in place and I am sure they can find a spot out of the way for those coal trucks/railcars. For example .. some of the trails (some old logging roads) under Hatfield and McCoys trail system are situated around the former coal mines in southwest part of WV. I was wondering why can't they put windmills there without doing any further destruction to the mountains. I have seen strip mining areas where the mountains used to be and now there's nothing on it so why not put windmills on it.

Does the mountains have to be at certain height for the windmills to be installed?
bawalker
April 1, 2008
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
I never thought of that before. It makes perfect sense plus with trees gone on those mountain tops, there is nothing there to break the wind so that could possibly work.
Roger Z
April 1, 2008
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
 Originally Posted By: bawalker
I saw an article this week that a NASA satellite confirmed via factual gathered evidence that the correlation of the rising amount of carbon being produced does not match the now plateauing temperatures. NASA scientists who saw this were astounded after triple checking the results.


We had a similar situation in the early 1990s when the temperature data from the satellites began to reported, Brad. Turns out the satellites were mis-calibrated, so the cooling they were reporting was incorrect.

I've expressed skepticism over some of the climate concerns we have about warming, but my skepticism on climate forecasting goes both ways. I'd suggest taking these findings with a very large, very cautious grain of salt. Global warming skeptics are always yammering about the veracity of surface temperature measuring stations, but I see on these same skeptics' web pages no concern at all over the validity of data that supports their own positions (such as these latest satellite readings, or even the argo beacons trolling the ocean surfaces right now and reporting a slight cooling as well). They may be onto something, or they may not, or it may really be a short term blip in temperature trends over the last five years. A couple of new pieces of data and a only-slightly-warmer-than-normal winter is not enough for us to say "aha! no global warming!"

And frankly, I think the most that can come of this- even if the data is right- is that we need to recalibrate our modeling. Let's put this hypothetical out there. There are some scientists who say that sunspot activity is a bigger driver of temperature change than CO2. Let's suppose this is true, and that we are in a sunspot lull right now. Well, certainly when sunspots pick up again in 10, 20, 50 years time the earth's temperatures would swing back up again. So should we keep increasing CO2 as fast or faster as we have been during this lull? What compounding effects- if any- might CO2 have to natural forcings from sunspots? If such a hypothesis were true, it wouldn't make climate concerns go away, but it might- it just might- give us a longer window of opportunity to study and resolve issues related to our impact on the environment before it comes back to bite us on the a**. And even if we have a longer window than we thought, we'll still be arguing over the same range of policy choices (cap and trade, technology, etc etc).

So, basically, apart from a need to refine our modelling, I'm not sure how this new info- if it's accurate- changes the debates we've had over the last 10-20 years all that much.
kwillg6
April 1, 2008
Member since 01/18/2005 🔗
2,034 posts
Gee... If one is looking for places with winds we need to look at our coastlines. Even better yet are the barrier island areas off the North and South Carolina coasts. All this being tonge n'cheek, but it's as the colonel says NIMBY!!!! Let's stick it to those poor mountain schulks. Give them a few dollars and they'll be happy. Then they can buy a new washing machine for the front porch of their trailers. That's they way big business operates. And that's definetly the way our government at all levels works. If only you knew what I wish I didn't know 'bout these things. \:\(
JohnL
April 1, 2008
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,518 posts
Kansas would be a great location for wind farms. Wouldn't have to cut down any trees and there really isn't that much out there ... You'd be blocking the views of what?
Tucker
April 1, 2008
Member since 03/14/2005 🔗
893 posts
YEah K your not joking there. THere is no wonder why alot of generational natives of rural areas like WV dislike outsiders so much. I'm not defending that attitude at all(it's pretty ugly really) but you can understand it when this kind of stuff is still going on. The power line thing that was just approved last year after unanimous local dissapproval at almost every level is a great example of it still going on. I predict Windmills are doing the same thing.

Where do you think the majority of that power from those windmills is going. I bet it ain't WV. It just the same thing as that recent power line approval through northern WV. I guarantee these things wouldn't be so easily approved if they were going up where the majority of this power is consumed.

The most Ironic thing I think about the hole WindMill thing is...I think it's more about tax cuts and incentives for the power companies putting them up then it is about true benefits for environment and energy crisis. Unfortunately It's usually about money and politics and the honest folk get screwed.

edit;- and as far as jobs go , most all the folks I've met working on those Windmills come from out of town. They stay somwhere and support the economy while they are in town, but I don't think to many people that live around the Windmills are the folks constructing them.
Roger Z
April 1, 2008
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
 Quote:
You'd be blocking the views of what?


More windfarms! Well, either that, or feedlots. Can cow farts power windmills?

Seriously, the farmers and ranchers are all over this. There are two very large windfarms- one on 56 coming back across the southwest end of the state, and one on I-70 just west of Salina. It stretches for two or three miles, and looks like something out of War of the Worlds when you drive by it at night.

There's a series of "shelves" as you head west in the state- the Smoky Hills west of Salina and then some bluff range west of Hays- that are ideal for windfarm siting. The local regional planning commission here in KC even recommends putting up individual windmills for green building. I'm not sure that'd meet suburban codes, but certainly where there's no or little zoning- that is, 95% of Kansas- it's doable.

Folks out in west Kansas are PIMBYs- Put It in My BackYard. The dying communities will take anything they can get their hands on, and the thriving communities (there are several) want diversification, and wind power is one of the opportunities to diversify (as are, I've found out, dairy farms).
tgd
April 1, 2008
Member since 07/15/2004 🔗
585 posts
 Originally Posted By: Tucker

Where do you think the majority of that power from those windmills is going. I bet it ain't WV. It just the same thing as that recent power line approval through northern WV. I guarantee these things wouldn't be so easily approved if they were going up where the majority of this power is consumed.


Tucker: part of that line is coming through Northern Virginia, and believe me there has been a hell of a fight over it here too. Still, there is a strong constituency of users here in NVA so the debate has a good number of combatants on both sides of the argument.

Dominion Power is a HUGE power broker in Virginia. They are not afraid to throw their weight around, bully folks - big and small, plus use some divide and conquer tactics ( Multistate Power Line Purchase Silences Critic) plus scare tactics ( Dominion Warns of Rolling Blackouts ).

The difficulty Dominion has here is that they are going up against an opposition that is probably a bit better connected and well-healed than the folks in Tucker County. The Piedmont Environmental Council is leading much of the opposition. It has support of some pretty wealthy and powerful folks here including actor Robert Duvall and developer John T. "Til" Hazel - the developer who turned just about everything else in NVA into all those sub divisions and shopping malls that now need all this power in the first place).

It's hard not to be a NIMBY, but when Dominion Resources threatens you with rolling blackouts - like we saw in California back during Enron's heyday - it gets your attention. Whether the need is real or not, I would not put it above Dominion to turn a threat of blackouts into reality to get what they want.

Tom
Murphy
April 1, 2008
Member since 09/13/2004 🔗
618 posts
 Originally Posted By: JohnL
Kansas would be a great location for wind farms. Wouldn't have to cut down any trees and there really isn't that much out there ... You'd be blocking the views of what?


Seriously. And can the relatively small number of windmills that can fit on a ridgeline even be a drop in the bucket compared to what they can fit on 100s or 1000s of acres that they have available in the plains states. Plus, from what I've been told the very strong gusty winds on our ridges are not ideal for power generation.

I'm all about alternative power sources but not just for the sake of being alternative.
Tucker
April 1, 2008
Member since 03/14/2005 🔗
893 posts
No it's more for the sake of the companies putting the windmills up and the taxcuts and incentives they get!
JohnL
April 1, 2008
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,518 posts
A windmill somewhere on Capitol Hill could power the entire Mid-Atlantic ....
Tucker
April 1, 2008
Member since 03/14/2005 🔗
893 posts
"The winds must come from somewhere when they blow,
There must be reasons why the leaves decay;
Time will say nothing but I told you so."
tgd
April 1, 2008
Member since 07/15/2004 🔗
585 posts
 Originally Posted By: JohnL
A windmill somewhere on Capitol Hill could power the entire Mid-Atlantic ....
LOL - John that is comedy!
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
April 1, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
SeaRide, I hope that the power companies are thinking about setting up wind power plants on reclaimed, now flat mountaintops in coal country, as much of that land and surrounding watershed is unsuitable for human habitation due to acidic soils and heavy metals. As well, in the Plains where the wind now blows on empty farmland since it is easier to buy wheat from overseas.

I still remain ambivalent as yes, the extremely picturesque scenery in Holland has windmills as an aesthetically pleasing part of the charm.

As much as I would be aghast at the sight of a wind farm in the Cheat Mountains, these mountains have very little first growth. From Richmond to Philadelphia, much of the older housing stock in the East was built with first-growth lumber from that area. But as in all aspects of our existence, certain places appeal to each generation as untouchable. With enough support, much of the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests could be spared the wind farms.

But here's another one: What if I am a private landowner or have 20+ acres and want to build my own wind mill to power my own house? The price of these is coming down in a hurry, so I wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing them more often. What then?
David
April 1, 2008
Member since 06/28/2004 🔗
2,444 posts
 Originally Posted By: lbotta


But here's another one: What if I am a private landowner or have 20+ acres and want to build my own wind mill to power my own house? The price of these is coming down in a hurry, so I wouldn't be surprised if you start seeing them more often. What then?


I would encourage this approach to windmills. I don't see them causing mass disruption to a lot of land, such as commercial wind farming would probably do. It could even return a profit, as you can potentially sell your "extra" electric to the electric company.

This one looks to be pretty nice:

http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_6970_200334247_200334247
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
April 1, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
I think it's the law the electric company has to buy it from you.
skier219
April 1, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
 Originally Posted By: Murphy
 Originally Posted By: JohnL
Kansas would be a great location for wind farms. Wouldn't have to cut down any trees and there really isn't that much out there ... You'd be blocking the views of what?


Seriously. And can the relatively small number of windmills that can fit on a ridgeline even be a drop in the bucket compared to what they can fit on 100s or 1000s of acres that they have available in the plains states. Plus, from what I've been told the very strong gusty winds on our ridges are not ideal for power generation.

I'm all about alternative power sources but not just for the sake of being alternative.



The problem with putting wind turbines out in the plains states is that it would not be feasible to get the power out to the coasts and major cities. The turbines need to be reasonably close to the target market, in order to minimize transmission losses. They would certainly be a good alternative power source for the major cities in the plains states though. The thing is, they need to be backed up by another power generation source that is capable of continuous or on-demand power generation, ie, not just when the wind blows. I have heard that wind will never make up more than a few % of our total power generation because of this limitation.

Interestingly, there are plans for solar power plants that would convert solar energy into heat to run steam turbines and generate electricity. These could operate even overnight, by using heat stored up during the day. I think that holds a lot of promise.
oldensign - DCSki Columnist
April 2, 2008
Member since 02/27/2007 🔗
437 posts
Windmills are the way. I have never got the idea that they are unsightly. I have seen the windmills in WY and they look really cool. Cows graze right under them.

As a country we need to get off oil and electric cars are the way. I have spent enough time in the sand wearing camo to see the foolishness of our ways.

The only way we will be able to maintain the life styles we enjoy (IE skiing!) is to find a way off oil.

If wind farms are a intermediate step so be it. At least it is a step.

Put them in my back yard!!!
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
April 2, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
I agree with you and also with 219. Electric is the way. Especialy if done with renewable or non-fossil. Mass transit is the way. No reason why I shouldn't take an "Appalachian Scenic Express" the same way I can take the Glacier Express from Bern to Zermatt. If skiing is to survive, we need to find better ways to move crowds to these areas. $6.00 a gallon will not benefit the skiing industry and no one wants to see the death of the sport.

Besides, it may force a new look at ski centers. For example, I can ski five or six villages in Austria, from Katschberg on, and then return by train. Why couldn't we put Canaan and TL together? Or complete the Stowe/Smuggs trails?

Having said that, there has got to be some order as to windmill placement. There are areas where we as a body politic decide that will remain pristine. I'd be for that too
Murphy
April 2, 2008
Member since 09/13/2004 🔗
618 posts
 Originally Posted By: skier219
Interestingly, there are plans for solar power plants that would convert solar energy into heat to run steam turbines and generate electricity. These could operate even overnight, by using heat stored up during the day. I think that holds a lot of promise.


There are other ways to handle the load balancing. Smith Mountain Lake is actually a power consuming hydro electric plant. They let water flow over the damn through turbines into a lower lake to produce electricity during the day and then pump it back into the upper lake during the night. Since neither the pumps or turbines are 100% efficient, it takes more energy to pump it back. It's purpose isn't to produce electricity but to aid in load balancing of the primary power source. Apparently, there is a net reduction in fuel requirement by allowing the primary power plant to operate at near peak efficiency 24 hrs a day. Thought that was pretty cool.

There's a similar lake in Bath county with almost 1,300 vertical feet between the two lakes. The smaller of the two lake fluctuates by over 100' every day as water is transfered to the other lake.
Roger Z
April 2, 2008
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
Those are known as "pump storage facilities," and is currently the only way you can really "store" energy at a reasonable price. I've heard of them running pipes up to mountaintop lakes before, but hadn't heard of them transferring between lakes like that. Interesting.
bawalker
April 3, 2008
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
There was finally confirmation today on the windmill far in the Wardensville area. The local paper, the Moorefield Examiner, came out with a frontpage article yesterday with maps and information related to the windmills. It looks like it's much larger than the rumor I heard. Windmills would begin approximately in the Lost River area on Great North Mountain with 131 windmills going south into Rockingham, Co near Broadway, Va. While all of these would be on the same mountain, 90 windmills would have bases in VA while 41 would have bases in WV. There would be a second round of windmills installed in Shenandoah in what appear to be close to Woodstock, Mt. Jackson and Bryce ski resort.

Here are links to view on this:

- http://www.VAwind.org/#GWNF_Project

- http://www.vawind.org/Assets/Pictures/West-Project.pdf (affected area)

- http://www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/Articles/NV-032508.pdf (news-Virginian paper)

- http://www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/Articles/NV-Daily-032608.pdf (Northern Virginia Daily)

- http://www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/Articles/DNR-032608.pdf (Daily news Record)


********** Article from the Moorefield Examiner **********
By Joan Ashley

FreedomWorks, LLC of harpers Ferry, is in the pre-application process to construct wind turbines in the George Washington national Forest. There are two wind turbine projects in the pipeline.

A total of 131 turbines would be located in hardy County and Rockingham and Shenandoah counties in Virginia, according to Friends of Beautiful Pendleton Count vice president Larry Thomas who discovered the project while searching the Federal Aviation Agency website.

According to the FreedomWorks Website, the company is a renewable energy development company whose mission is to create and maintain sustainable renewable energy farms for the benefit of U.S. energy independence.

The first proposed project would be constructed on Shenandoah Mountain in Pendleton and hardy counties crossing into a portion of Rockingham County, VA. The second project would be built on Great North Mountain along the West Virginia and Virginia border in Hardy and Shenandoah, Va counties.

"If the projects were allowed to be constructed in the GW national Forest, there would be industrial wind turbines on the mountain top from approximately Route 55 to the north and Route 33 to the south," Thomas said.

The turbines each 440 feet tall would cover 18 miles of ridgecrest, according to private consultant D. Daniel Boone, a conservation biologist and policy analyst.

Ninety turbines would be located in Virginia with the other 41 in hardy County, Boone said.

Boone prepared a map, stipulating each turbine, based upon the coordinates provided in the 7460-4applications filed with the Federal Aviation Agency by FreedomWorks.

Boone also examined Oct. 2006 aerial photos covering the entire ridge length where this proposed project would occur.

"Other than a powerline and one small road (Rt 55) which crosses between hardy and Shenandoah counties, the project area is completely undistrubed forest with no sign of logging roads or cleacuts," Boone stated.

In Boone's estimation, this project "would destroy over 500 acres of forest, and additionally, will cause extensive forest fragmentation likely wiping out over 2500 acres of forest-interior habitat - about four square miles."

Chrise rose, George Washington Jefferson national Forest spokesman, said the project is still in the pre-application stage.

"Before the Forest Service can accept the application, the company must check with relevant government agencies such as the FAA and the Department of Defense," rose said.

Rose said the next step is for the company to submit an application for wind testing.

After getting that clearance, then the company would make formal application to the forest Service for one or two sites, not the entire wind farm, Rose explained.

At that point the forrest Service will begin a resource analysis and solicit pulic input. "Our normal procedure is that we would send out letters to adjacent property owners and put ads in the paper informing the public about the meetings," Rose said.

Again there is no specific time frame on the extent of test, Rose said.

Various tests would be conducted on those sites for such things as "whether the wind turbines would impede birds and bats or whether there is enough wind to sustain the wind turbines," Rose said.

If the testing is approved, the company can make a formal application for the Special Use Permit. That entails another round of public meetings and resource analysis, Rose said.

Final approval would come from the Forrest Service Supervisor in consultation with the District Ranger and other employees, such as engineers and biologists.

"This is not going to happen next week or next month. This is not yet researched - it will take a while for the initial process," Rose said.

Frank Maisano, a principle with the law firm of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, represents a coalition of wind developers in the mid-Atlantic region. Maisano told the Moorefield Examiner there are four main reasons to build wind turbines in Hardy County.
- The mid-Atlantic mountain ridges have some of the best winds on the eastern seaboard.
- There is reasonable access to transmission lines. Allegheny Power has two established lines and has proposed building two more.
- National forests are public land and have historically provided mixed uses. They may be an appropriate place for wind turbines.
- The mountain ranges are close to the population centers on the east coast that would use the power.

Maisano said the amount of electricity produced by the proposed wind turbines would be enough to power 250,000 homes. "It is our priority to do this with environmental sensitivity," he said. "We want to do this right."
skier219
April 3, 2008
Member since 01/8/2005 🔗
1,318 posts
I can't believe the government would even entertain the possibility of allowing this on National Forest land. Maybe it's no different than when ski areas are allowed to use National Forest land for trails...
Roger Z
April 3, 2008
Member since 01/16/2004 🔗
2,181 posts
I had to look through four articles, but finally found out how much energy this is going to generate:

 Quote:
The wind farm proposed by FreedomWorks could produce a third of the 215 megawatts for which the turbines are rated, said Managing Director Tim Williamson.


source: http://www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/Articles/DNR-032608-2.pdf

18 miles of ridgeline for 70 mw of power. I'm pretty sure we once set up a small combined cycle natural gas turbine plant back out in the Pacific Northwest that produced about the same amount of power and occupied an area roughly the size of a CVS parking lot (and was located in a dirt field next to a coal plant).

And what's their reasoning? They want to stop a 585 mw coal plant from being built. Somehow it seems to me that 70 mw of intermittent wind energy is not a one-for-one substitute for a near-600 mw baseload coal plant.
comprex
April 3, 2008
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts

Not a one-for-one substitute, no.

Much better than coal plant or NG plant because they can market the carbon offset.
Tucker
April 3, 2008
Member since 03/14/2005 🔗
893 posts
The real numbers are in the tax cuts and incentives...it ain't about the environment or energy...
David
April 3, 2008
Member since 06/28/2004 🔗
2,444 posts
 Originally Posted By: Tucker
The real numbers are in the tax cuts and incentives...it ain't about the environment or energy...



Sad, but true...
kwillg6
April 4, 2008
Member since 01/18/2005 🔗
2,034 posts
Wow. I wonder what impact this will have on the Shenandoah National Part Vista to the west. In some places a lot, others minimal due to Massanutten Mountain to the west of the park. "It ain't over till it's over." Of course, proponents will brag that the wind farm will help reduce the atmospheric haze issues of summertime.
bawalker
April 4, 2008
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
The thing that people forget with windmills, on mountains/hills is that the amounts of forest that will be razed to make room for cranes, trucks, and trailers is phenomenal. It makes me wonder how much carbon dioxide trees will be removed and how much harm that will have in order to gain a little bit of 'green power'.

The trucks carrying the sections of tower to Mt Storm are over 80' long and sometimes hitting 100' long with rear turning wheels to get the blades and tower sections over Scherr Mountain. The towers usually come in 4 sections with each section on a truck, along with the turbine at the top being a separate delivery and finally 3 blades in a carriage all on one truck. The swaths of land being cut into around Mt. Storm is unreal to allow the trucks and cranes in. Just looking off of 42 you see on both the right and left hand sides of the road that it's a moonscape after 50-60' wide sections of forest was made into a dirt road. Also don't forget the trenching for cables to come down off of North Mountain before the transmission lines can be connected too.

This isn't green power, it's political power at it's worst.
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
April 4, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
Sort of sad that the reason for building the wind generators is to prevent the coal plant in Wise VA. Wise is in the middle of coal country and where a 600MW plant would provide at least a partial solution to the chronic unemployment problems in an already ecologically devastated area. Someone needs to tell Congressman Boucher that his district is about to miss an economic boon. Meanwhile, a national forest gets pillaged to ensure corporate welfare to the already coffer-bloated power companies. Go figure.
GRK
April 4, 2008
Member since 12/19/2007 🔗
404 posts
Tearing up a National Forest for 70MW of energy is ridiculous. 70MW is nothing...whoever said earlier that you can get that in a CVS parking lot with a Gas Turbine is spot-on. Also, on the carbon offset credit these guys will get to they have to account for the number of trees they will be removing? Somehow I doubt it.

The concern I have is that this is only the beginning. Once someone breaks that barrier of building in a protected area the floodgates will open.

I also feel obligated to mention, on behalf of my wife who is a great lover of birds, that windmills are referred to as "bird guillotines" among those of her ilk. What better place to chop-up birds than in a National Forest. But don't worry, birds are smart. After awhile they will just vacate the area leaving the area to the Windmills and to the pests they would have eaten.
bawalker
April 5, 2008
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
What's sad, is so many people are lead like sheep into the slaughter with much of the GW hype and many other factors from political candidates to former politicians over emphasizing that by putting in one little windmill farm, it won't solve our needs, but it's a happy go lucky step in the right direction. It's as if many people have been brainwashed from the media that somehow, someway, with a few churning windmills it'll make the sky bluer, grass greener, and make life just a little bit better. They know that it's not a comparable and equal solution to a coal fired plant, but you know, we can't have any of those out there because they are the pits of hell, dungeon like inferno's spewing out nerve gas like contents that will bring a desolate moonscape in 10 years.

I'm not against having alternative energy sources, but when you end up destroying prime/pristine forest for windmills that will change the landscape, raze down numerous acres of land/forest, all for 70MW of electricity, it's absurd. On top of that, the locals who will have their lives disturbed and land in some cases permanently altered for electricity that won't benefit them?

What concerns me is that things like this are being recklessly implemented on a hyped up fever pitch of 'going green' on the political level without fully understanding what all devastation will occur with these. It's sort of like (In homer simpson voice) "Oh look at me I'm the politician who is forging ahead to put up alternative energy sources so we can get off of Iranian oil and away from the big black meanie and greedy oil companies".

It makes me reach the point of building and installing my own energy sources so then I am forced to sell energy back to the grid and get paid for it. I might as well make some money off of this movement. ;\)
lbotta - DCSki Supporter
April 6, 2008
Member since 10/18/1999 🔗
1,527 posts
Corporate America has discovered the welfare state and they.... really like it. Otherwise very conservative people horrified about stem cell research are now lining up to fleece the taxpayers even if this means destroying a forest.

I don't think that the weight-challenged lady has sung yet. They must have hearing about these, and I hope that everyone from the Audubon Society to Earth First! gets to join the choir...
JohnL
April 6, 2008
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,518 posts
 Quote:
Corporate America has discovered the welfare state and they.... really like it.


Yep, I'll agree with you there. But this is not a recent phenomenon.
bawalker
April 7, 2008
Member since 12/1/2003 🔗
1,547 posts
It's actually one thing that has pushed me over the edge to run for a political position in two years when I plan on announcing a candidacy. I won't be speaking in "Political Correctness". I can't wait to get up and in a speech say "Youalls, we gots ourselves major problems..."

lol
DCSki Sponsor: Canaan Valley Resort

Ski and Tell

Snowcat got your tongue?

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.14 seconds