But 'how can a wind turbine blow over when the wind's not blowing'?
Watch.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Sunday, October 07, 2007
New Fish/Game Commission Guidelines
Commission to set rules for windmills in wetlands
By DAN DiPAOLO, Daily American, Friday, October 5, 2007 4:25 AM
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission will develop guidelines for wind turbine development in wetland and watershed areas following the quarterly board meeting in Harrisburg.
The commissioners agreed during the Oct. 1 meeting not only to develop guidelines but also send a letter to Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty concerning the matter, said Len Lichvar, the District 4 commissioner.
“We need to develop a full-blown policy, especially in exceptional value watersheds and wetland areas. We’re charged by legislature to protect the resources of the state,” he said.
The guidelines will include recommendations on studies to complete prior to permitting turbine sites, he said.
John Armway, the commission’s division chief of environmental services, said that guidelines will look to assess project impacts on not only watersheds and wetlands, but on reptiles and amphibians that could see migration routes or habitat impaired by the sites.
Of particular concern are endangered species that include some salamanders and the eastern timber rattlesnake, he said.... The goal is to provide a draft policy to the board during the next quarterly meeting in January, he said.
The commission will push for studies to be completed in full before the permit is issued, which varies from a recent agreement between wind developers and the game commission calling for ongoing studies pre- and post- construction.
Full story here.
By DAN DiPAOLO, Daily American, Friday, October 5, 2007 4:25 AM
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission will develop guidelines for wind turbine development in wetland and watershed areas following the quarterly board meeting in Harrisburg.
The commissioners agreed during the Oct. 1 meeting not only to develop guidelines but also send a letter to Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty concerning the matter, said Len Lichvar, the District 4 commissioner.
“We need to develop a full-blown policy, especially in exceptional value watersheds and wetland areas. We’re charged by legislature to protect the resources of the state,” he said.
The guidelines will include recommendations on studies to complete prior to permitting turbine sites, he said.
John Armway, the commission’s division chief of environmental services, said that guidelines will look to assess project impacts on not only watersheds and wetlands, but on reptiles and amphibians that could see migration routes or habitat impaired by the sites.
Of particular concern are endangered species that include some salamanders and the eastern timber rattlesnake, he said.... The goal is to provide a draft policy to the board during the next quarterly meeting in January, he said.
The commission will push for studies to be completed in full before the permit is issued, which varies from a recent agreement between wind developers and the game commission calling for ongoing studies pre- and post- construction.
Full story here.
Friday, October 05, 2007
New Neighbors: Airtricity Sold to E.ON
We have new neighbors coming. Airtricity has been sold to the world's largest utility, a German industrial company called E.ON:
E.ON To Acquire North American Operations Of Airtricity For $1.4 Bln
Thursday, October 04, 2007; Posted: 12:54 PM, Trading Markets
UPDATE 1-E.ON takes first step into U.S. renewables marketThu Oct 4, 2007 5:31pm BST, Reuters
E.ON To Acquire North American Operations Of Airtricity For $1.4 Bln
Thursday, October 04, 2007; Posted: 12:54 PM, Trading Markets
UPDATE 1-E.ON takes first step into U.S. renewables marketThu Oct 4, 2007 5:31pm BST, Reuters
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
SOAR Press Conference in Capitol Rotunda
Wind-farm opponents rally at Capitol
BY KECIA BAL, The Tribune-Democrat, September 18, 2007
A group fighting the Shaffer Mountain Wind Farm in Somerset and Bedford counties rallied Monday in the state Capitol for more-aggressive regulation of wind-energy companies.
Laura Jackson, chairwoman of Save Our Allegheny Ridges, joined concerned citizens from nine counties, including Somerset, in Harrisburg to urge legislators to pass siting regulations for turbines. No state or federal guidelines are in place regarding where turbines can be located.
The group of about 15 SOAR members met with legislators including Rep. John Eichelberger, R-Blair County, who Jackson said was sympathetic to their cause and offered his advice...
Full story: The Tribune-Democrat
HT: National Wind Watch
.
BY KECIA BAL, The Tribune-Democrat, September 18, 2007
A group fighting the Shaffer Mountain Wind Farm in Somerset and Bedford counties rallied Monday in the state Capitol for more-aggressive regulation of wind-energy companies.
Laura Jackson, chairwoman of Save Our Allegheny Ridges, joined concerned citizens from nine counties, including Somerset, in Harrisburg to urge legislators to pass siting regulations for turbines. No state or federal guidelines are in place regarding where turbines can be located.
The group of about 15 SOAR members met with legislators including Rep. John Eichelberger, R-Blair County, who Jackson said was sympathetic to their cause and offered his advice...
Full story: The Tribune-Democrat
HT: National Wind Watch
.
Turbine Malfunction Sparks 68-acre Wildfire
Whitewater Canyon blaze blamed on windmill
Firefighters have fully contained a 68-acre wildfire in the Whitewater Canyon area about 1.5 miles north of Interstate 10, according to CAL FIRE.
Fire officials expect to have the blaze under control by 8 a.m.
Saturday. Whitewater Canyon Road has reopened to traffic.
The Alta Mesa fire, reported at 6:19 a.m., is not threatening homes, spokeswoman Jodi Miller said."It's in a pretty remote area," Miller said.
It was caused by an undetermined problem with a wind turbine, according to CAL FIRE.
Source: TheDesertSun.com, September 14, 2007
Firefighters have fully contained a 68-acre wildfire in the Whitewater Canyon area about 1.5 miles north of Interstate 10, according to CAL FIRE.
Fire officials expect to have the blaze under control by 8 a.m.
Saturday. Whitewater Canyon Road has reopened to traffic.
The Alta Mesa fire, reported at 6:19 a.m., is not threatening homes, spokeswoman Jodi Miller said."It's in a pretty remote area," Miller said.
It was caused by an undetermined problem with a wind turbine, according to CAL FIRE.
Source: TheDesertSun.com, September 14, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Shocker: PA Biological Survey
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… [complete article published in the PA Environment Digest here]
.
By the Pennsylvania Biological Survey
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...
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… [complete article published in the PA Environment Digest here]
.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Press Conference in Capitol Rotunda
Groups Across Pennsylvania Speak Out Against Industrial Wind
Projects on Forested Ridges.
Folmont owners are welcome, and transportation can be provided.
A Press Conference has been scheduled for 12 noon on Monday September 17, 2007 in the rotunda of the Capitol in Harrisburg to protest the statewide push by the Rendell Administration to turn hundreds of miles of Pennsylvania's forested ridge tops into industrial wind facilities. Groups from across the state will be addressing the various concerns that wind power facilities pose to Pennsylvania's wild areas, wildlife, tourism, historical resources, and viewscapes.
Concerned citizens from a number of Pennsylvania counties (Bedford, Blair, Somerset, Fayette, Lycoming, Tioga, Dauphin, Northumberland, Potter) have formed a Wind Truth Coalition to push for more stringent siting requirements. While these groups recognize that wind power is renewable energy, they maintain that it is not a clean or green energy when the turbines and associated infrastructure pose grave harm to wildlife, or historic and natural areas. Coalition members want fellow Pennsylvanians to understand that both state and federal regulations are necessary to protect our natural environment from industrial wind turbine projects.
The Press Conference will follow Gov. Rendell's address to the joint session of the Senate and House at 11:00 a.m. The special session will consider "funding for renewable energy." Past funding measures have supported several wind projects in the Pennsylvania. PPM Energy received a state grant of $150,000 to help develop a wind project in Somerset County which was partly located on reclaimed strip mine areas – habitat that is much better suited for wind development than forested ridges. A more controversial use of taxpayer's money was the PEDA grant of $360,295 for Harrisburg's mayor to conduct a wind feasibility study on the ridges of St. Anthony's Wilderness, the largest roadless area in southeastern Pennsylvania.
The threat of global warming should make preservation of our natural areas even more critical. Our forested mountains are key to species' preservation and form an integral part of greenways that are being recognized by conservation groups as critical resources for humans and wildlife.
SAVE OUR ALLEGHENY RIDGES
www.saveouralleghenyridges.com
P.O. BOX 178 EVERETT, PA 15537
SOAR
Contact:
Laura Jackson
Chairperson
Save Our Allegheny Ridges
814-652-9268
mljackson@hughes.net
Projects on Forested Ridges.
Folmont owners are welcome, and transportation can be provided.
A Press Conference has been scheduled for 12 noon on Monday September 17, 2007 in the rotunda of the Capitol in Harrisburg to protest the statewide push by the Rendell Administration to turn hundreds of miles of Pennsylvania's forested ridge tops into industrial wind facilities. Groups from across the state will be addressing the various concerns that wind power facilities pose to Pennsylvania's wild areas, wildlife, tourism, historical resources, and viewscapes.
Concerned citizens from a number of Pennsylvania counties (Bedford, Blair, Somerset, Fayette, Lycoming, Tioga, Dauphin, Northumberland, Potter) have formed a Wind Truth Coalition to push for more stringent siting requirements. While these groups recognize that wind power is renewable energy, they maintain that it is not a clean or green energy when the turbines and associated infrastructure pose grave harm to wildlife, or historic and natural areas. Coalition members want fellow Pennsylvanians to understand that both state and federal regulations are necessary to protect our natural environment from industrial wind turbine projects.
The Press Conference will follow Gov. Rendell's address to the joint session of the Senate and House at 11:00 a.m. The special session will consider "funding for renewable energy." Past funding measures have supported several wind projects in the Pennsylvania. PPM Energy received a state grant of $150,000 to help develop a wind project in Somerset County which was partly located on reclaimed strip mine areas – habitat that is much better suited for wind development than forested ridges. A more controversial use of taxpayer's money was the PEDA grant of $360,295 for Harrisburg's mayor to conduct a wind feasibility study on the ridges of St. Anthony's Wilderness, the largest roadless area in southeastern Pennsylvania.
The threat of global warming should make preservation of our natural areas even more critical. Our forested mountains are key to species' preservation and form an integral part of greenways that are being recognized by conservation groups as critical resources for humans and wildlife.
SAVE OUR ALLEGHENY RIDGES
www.saveouralleghenyridges.com
P.O. BOX 178 EVERETT, PA 15537
SOAR
Contact:
Laura Jackson
Chairperson
Save Our Allegheny Ridges
814-652-9268
mljackson@hughes.net
Saturday, August 25, 2007
DEP public hearing on Gamesa's Shaffer Mountain Wind Project
There will be a DEP public hearing on Gamesa's Shaffer Mountain Wind Project on August 28th at 6:00 pm in the Shade High School gymnasium. Gamesa plans to make a presentation from 5:30 – 6:00. From 6:00 – 7:00 DEP will host a public meeting – an informal session between the public and DEP -- which will include questions and answers about the project.
Gamesa's relations with local authorities and the community surrounding this project have been criticized for a deficit of transparency, so the hearing should be lively. (Most recently, for example, "More Investigation Needed," in the Somerset Daily American, August 25, 2007.
Word has it that Gamesa is requiring their employees to attend the public hearing using them as pawns.
Even if you aren’t directly effected by the proposed wind project on Shaffer Mountain, please try to attend. If DEP permits this wind application, then there is an excellent chance that any wind project will be approved, no matter how great the environmental damage.
We have been told by reliable experts that public pressure may stop this project – so we need a thousand people at the Hearing on August 28. You don’t have to speak, but your presence is greatly needed!
Directions: Take 30 W to Reel’s Corner. Turn right at the flashing yellow light onto 160 N. Travel for 4 miles, and just past the gas station on the left, turn left onto School Road. Travel about 1 mile and take a right – you’ll see Shade High School in front of you after you go down a short hill. Park in the big parking lot in front of the high school and enter the gym doors. The hearing is in the gymnasium.
The Department requests that individuals wishing to testify at the hearing submit a written notice of intent to Helen Humphreys, by email at Hhumphreys@state.pa.us or by post at Department of Environmental Protection, 400 Waterfront Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4745, (412) 442-4183. The Department will accept notices up to August 27. The Department requests that individuals limit their testimony to 5 minutes so that all individuals have the opportunity to testify. The Department can only review comments made with regard to the NPDES Permit Application No. PAI055607001 documentation and plans. Written copies of oral testimony are requested. Relinquishing time to others will not be allowed. Individuals attending the hearing will have the opportunity to testify if they so desire; however, individuals who pre-register to testify will be given priority on the agenda.
Stay tuned at http://www.shaffermountain.com/
Gamesa's relations with local authorities and the community surrounding this project have been criticized for a deficit of transparency, so the hearing should be lively. (Most recently, for example, "More Investigation Needed," in the Somerset Daily American, August 25, 2007.
Word has it that Gamesa is requiring their employees to attend the public hearing using them as pawns.
Even if you aren’t directly effected by the proposed wind project on Shaffer Mountain, please try to attend. If DEP permits this wind application, then there is an excellent chance that any wind project will be approved, no matter how great the environmental damage.
We have been told by reliable experts that public pressure may stop this project – so we need a thousand people at the Hearing on August 28. You don’t have to speak, but your presence is greatly needed!
Directions: Take 30 W to Reel’s Corner. Turn right at the flashing yellow light onto 160 N. Travel for 4 miles, and just past the gas station on the left, turn left onto School Road. Travel about 1 mile and take a right – you’ll see Shade High School in front of you after you go down a short hill. Park in the big parking lot in front of the high school and enter the gym doors. The hearing is in the gymnasium.
The Department requests that individuals wishing to testify at the hearing submit a written notice of intent to Helen Humphreys, by email at Hhumphreys@state.pa.us or by post at Department of Environmental Protection, 400 Waterfront Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4745, (412) 442-4183. The Department will accept notices up to August 27. The Department requests that individuals limit their testimony to 5 minutes so that all individuals have the opportunity to testify. The Department can only review comments made with regard to the NPDES Permit Application No. PAI055607001 documentation and plans. Written copies of oral testimony are requested. Relinquishing time to others will not be allowed. Individuals attending the hearing will have the opportunity to testify if they so desire; however, individuals who pre-register to testify will be given priority on the agenda.
Stay tuned at http://www.shaffermountain.com/
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Airtricity Update
Airtricity, in recent meetings with Folmont representatives, agreed to modify its site plan for the adjacent wind plant so as to remove the two turbines that were planned to be sited closest to Folmont property.
The earlier plan called for ten turbines on the New Baltimore Sportsman’s Club ridge, south of Hawk’s Nest Road and Blueberry Way. The closest turbines were sited about 1200-1300 feet from the nearest home, and slightly more to other nearby homes. The revised plan reduces the number of turbines on that ridge from ten to eight, and increases the setback of the nearest turbines to about 2000-2200 feet.
Originally, Airtricity planned to install turbines on Layman’s ridge, east of Old Farm and New Baltimore Roads, but subsequently removed that property from its site plan.
The current plan calls for 39 turbines, with eight on the New Baltimore Sportsman’s Club ridge, three on the Swallow farm, and twenty-eight on the Mountain Ridge ATV Tracks. The construction target is December 2007. The construction access road will start at Route 30 and run just west of the Folmont western border.
.
The earlier plan called for ten turbines on the New Baltimore Sportsman’s Club ridge, south of Hawk’s Nest Road and Blueberry Way. The closest turbines were sited about 1200-1300 feet from the nearest home, and slightly more to other nearby homes. The revised plan reduces the number of turbines on that ridge from ten to eight, and increases the setback of the nearest turbines to about 2000-2200 feet.
Originally, Airtricity planned to install turbines on Layman’s ridge, east of Old Farm and New Baltimore Roads, but subsequently removed that property from its site plan.
The current plan calls for 39 turbines, with eight on the New Baltimore Sportsman’s Club ridge, three on the Swallow farm, and twenty-eight on the Mountain Ridge ATV Tracks. The construction target is December 2007. The construction access road will start at Route 30 and run just west of the Folmont western border.
.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Guidelines for Community Noise
Author: World Health Organization
“… for clear speech perception the background noise level should not exceed 35 dB(A). …
“Measurable effects of noise on sleep begin at LAeq levels of about 30 dB. … When noise is continuous, the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dB(A) indoors, if negative effects on sleep are to be avoided. For noise with a large proportion of low-frequency sound a still lower guideline value is recommended. …
“During daytime, few people are highly annoyed at LAeq levels below 55 dB(A), and few are moderately annoyed at LAeq levels below 50 dB(A). Sound levels during the evening and night should be 5–10 dB lower than during the day. Noise with low-frequency components require lower guideline values. For intermittent noise, it is emphasized that it is necessary to take into account both the maximum sound pressure level and the number of noise events. Guidelines or noise abatement measures should also take into account residential outdoor activities. …
“Indoor guideline values for bedrooms are 30 dB LAeq for continuous noise and 45 dB LAmax for single sound events. Lower noise levels may be disturbing depending on the nature of the noise source. At night-time, outside sound levels about 1 metre from facades of living spaces should not exceed 45 dB LAeq, so that people may sleep with bedroom windows open. This value was obtained by assuming that the noise reduction from outside to inside with the window open is 15 dB. To enable casual conversation indoors during daytime, the sound level of interfering noise should not exceed 35 dB LAeq. …
“To be able to hear and understand spoken messages in class rooms, the background sound level should not exceed 35 dB LAeq during teaching sessions.”
Download “WHO Guidelines for Community Noise”
Source: National Wind Watch Resource Library Home
.
Author: World Health Organization
“… for clear speech perception the background noise level should not exceed 35 dB(A). …
“Measurable effects of noise on sleep begin at LAeq levels of about 30 dB. … When noise is continuous, the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dB(A) indoors, if negative effects on sleep are to be avoided. For noise with a large proportion of low-frequency sound a still lower guideline value is recommended. …
“During daytime, few people are highly annoyed at LAeq levels below 55 dB(A), and few are moderately annoyed at LAeq levels below 50 dB(A). Sound levels during the evening and night should be 5–10 dB lower than during the day. Noise with low-frequency components require lower guideline values. For intermittent noise, it is emphasized that it is necessary to take into account both the maximum sound pressure level and the number of noise events. Guidelines or noise abatement measures should also take into account residential outdoor activities. …
“Indoor guideline values for bedrooms are 30 dB LAeq for continuous noise and 45 dB LAmax for single sound events. Lower noise levels may be disturbing depending on the nature of the noise source. At night-time, outside sound levels about 1 metre from facades of living spaces should not exceed 45 dB LAeq, so that people may sleep with bedroom windows open. This value was obtained by assuming that the noise reduction from outside to inside with the window open is 15 dB. To enable casual conversation indoors during daytime, the sound level of interfering noise should not exceed 35 dB LAeq. …
“To be able to hear and understand spoken messages in class rooms, the background sound level should not exceed 35 dB LAeq during teaching sessions.”
Download “WHO Guidelines for Community Noise”
Source: National Wind Watch Resource Library Home
.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Airtricity Announces Plans
Company announces wind farm plans
By Sarah L. Reiber, The Somerset Daily American, 7 July 2007
SHADE TOWNSHIP — Supervisors have announced the possibility of a new wind farm coming to the township.
Airtricity Inc., a company that develops and operates wind farms across Europe and North America, has submitted a preliminary plan to supervisors and plans to apply for a permit, said Chairman John Topka.
“This is strictly an announcement,” he said. “We’ll have to wait for the application.”
The project is proposed on the Swallow Farm property, with three turbines in Shade Township and the remainder in Stonycreek Township, he said.
Airtricity’s permit application will be subject to the guidelines outlined in the township’s ordinance on windmills, he said, which includes a limit on the number of turbines built in one area and decibel levels they emit.
While on the issue of wind farms, residents inquired as to whether the supervisors had considered taking a public stance on Gamesa’s proposed Shaffer Mountain wind farm project. Many surrounding municipalities have gone on record to oppose the project, which has been subject to controversy over the possible destruction of the natural watershed area in which it is to be located.
“I understand why people are against it. It is a natural, untouched area,” Topka said. “I think it’s something we could discuss and act on at the next meeting, in August. But it might be one of those situations where you lose no matter what you decide.”
He explained that the Shaffer Mountain project was proposed before the township’s ordinance went into effect. “Those fell under the Somerset County Planning Commission. We don’t have any say over them,” he said.
As far as the Airtricity project or any other future project is concerned, he said, the board will have to remain neutral. “As long as they’re going to follow the guidelines, we pretty much have to grant them the permit,” he said.
HT: National Wind Watch
By Sarah L. Reiber, The Somerset Daily American, 7 July 2007
SHADE TOWNSHIP — Supervisors have announced the possibility of a new wind farm coming to the township.
Airtricity Inc., a company that develops and operates wind farms across Europe and North America, has submitted a preliminary plan to supervisors and plans to apply for a permit, said Chairman John Topka.
“This is strictly an announcement,” he said. “We’ll have to wait for the application.”
The project is proposed on the Swallow Farm property, with three turbines in Shade Township and the remainder in Stonycreek Township, he said.
Airtricity’s permit application will be subject to the guidelines outlined in the township’s ordinance on windmills, he said, which includes a limit on the number of turbines built in one area and decibel levels they emit.
While on the issue of wind farms, residents inquired as to whether the supervisors had considered taking a public stance on Gamesa’s proposed Shaffer Mountain wind farm project. Many surrounding municipalities have gone on record to oppose the project, which has been subject to controversy over the possible destruction of the natural watershed area in which it is to be located.
“I understand why people are against it. It is a natural, untouched area,” Topka said. “I think it’s something we could discuss and act on at the next meeting, in August. But it might be one of those situations where you lose no matter what you decide.”
He explained that the Shaffer Mountain project was proposed before the township’s ordinance went into effect. “Those fell under the Somerset County Planning Commission. We don’t have any say over them,” he said.
As far as the Airtricity project or any other future project is concerned, he said, the board will have to remain neutral. “As long as they’re going to follow the guidelines, we pretty much have to grant them the permit,” he said.
HT: National Wind Watch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
