Help needed re Mifflin wind turbines

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:22:52 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:06:12 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:

http://www.mifflincompplan.com/2014m...aft2.21.14.pdf Not a word about bird impacts or safety concerns in here. Might be a good place to start engaging them.



Interesting read.

Note B5 with respect to slope in area of installation. This might well preclude installation at ridge top.

FWIW

UH

No, I think it says that the land can ONLY be on a ridge top (flat). Here is the text:
5. No (wind energy facility) shall be located on a lot of record containing slopes equal to or exceeding 15% on 50% or more of the lot of record. This standard shall apply to each lot where a Primary Wind Energy Facility extends across multiple lots of record.

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:54:39 PM UTC-4, Soartech wrote:
On Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:22:52 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:06:12 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote: http://www.mifflincompplan.com/2014m...aft2.21.14.pdf Not a word about bird impacts or safety concerns in here. Might be a good place to start engaging them. Interesting read. Note B5 with respect to slope in area of installation. This might well preclude installation at ridge top. FWIW UH No, I think it says that the land can ONLY be on a ridge top (flat). Here is the text: 5. No (wind energy facility) shall be located on a lot of record containing slopes equal to or exceeding 15% on 50% or more of the lot of record. This standard shall apply to each lot where a Primary Wind Energy Facility extends across multiple lots of record.

The Jacks mountain ridge tops are not flat.
UH

The birds are a nice idea but what makes things click is money. If the construction on the towers reduces the amount of cash brought into the valley and surrounding areas due to tourism (lodging, food, fuel, etc.) there is a good chance the local citizenry will want to stop the projects. If the turbines become the dominant use of the ridge and exclude the inflow of cash from out of state there is a big incentive to enjoin the construction.

What is the economic impact of soaring on the area? Not just contests but pilots coming to the area to fly all throughout the year? How pivotal is soaring from Mifflin to the local economy?

The towers might reduce energy costs, lower property taxes and look good on paper but if the inflow of cash is reduced enough, the aforementioned benefits are just lost leaders and ultimately increase living in the valley.

Sean, The oil industry kills many more birds, should we do away with fossil fuels too?

I voted against the turbines.

I agree with Juan and JS, lets leave the politics out of this forum.

Jim Dingess

Jim,

WIth due respect, where did you get these data on the oil industry killing more birds than green energy wind turbines? Please share this data with us so we can study it.

I dont understand this kind of argument to be honest. Johny does it too? Seriously? This somehow makes the fact that thousands and thousands of birds are being brutally killed every day by wind turbines, OK?

Regardless, I can't imagine that hundreds of thousands of wind turbines (and growing) spinning almost continuously exactly at the altitude 99% of birds fly kills LESS birds than the oil industry. Are you talking about the oil spills? But I look forward to seeing these data, albeit completely meaningless in the context of the discussion here about green energy wind turbines, liberal hypocritism and their clear willingness to kill numerous birds when their political goals are counter to them.

Sean

Furthermore why does that matter? We are talking about wind turbines killing birdsOn Friday, March 28, 2014 6:29:20 PM UTC-4, Jim wrote:
Sean, The oil industry kills many more birds, should we do away with fossil fuels too?



I voted against the turbines.



I agree with Juan and JS, lets leave the politics out of this forum.



Jim Dingess

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:14:05 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
Jim,



WIth due respect, where did you get these data on the oil industry killing more birds than green energy wind turbines? Please share this data with us so we can study it.



I dont understand this kind of argument to be honest. Johny does it too? Seriously? This somehow makes the fact that thousands and thousands of birds are being brutally killed every day by wind turbines, OK?



Regardless, I can't imagine that hundreds of thousands of wind turbines (and growing) spinning almost continuously exactly at the altitude 99% of birds fly kills LESS birds than the oil industry. Are you talking about the oil spills? But I look forward to seeing these data, albeit completely meaningless in the context of the discussion here about green energy wind turbines, liberal hypocritism and their clear willingness to kill numerous birds when their political goals are counter to them.



Sean

Sean,
let me ask where you got your info and wisdom about the fact that wind turbines are killing birds? The internet? Remember - you can't believe anything you read on the internet! That is exactly how WW-I got started....

Please share this data with us so we can study it.
Who is WE? You have a group of expert helping you or are you talking about yourself in first person plural now?

Wind turbines must be built on ridge lines nowadays since the ones built in the flat-lands are becoming less and less effective. The bird-carcasses are piling up around them so high by now that the blade tips are touching the top of these piles thus slowing them down. Building them on ridge lines allows the greedy and bird hating operators to bulldoze the dead birds into the valleys to keep their evil machines going.

Again Sean, where did you gain your in-depth knowledge about the ill-effects of wind energy? You work in the industry, have visited countless wind parks, climbed turbines, inspected blades by rappelling down on them, etc.? I asked you that question once before a while back and only got a 'you are the man' as a reply - very deep, indeed. I bet you have never even been near a turbine or wind park, have you? Should I be wrong here, my sincere apologies but please cite the name of the park.
You will notice that I do not post any link(s) in support of wind energy. No matter which link one picks, it is always sponsored by someone either pro or con wind/renewable energies. But then again, I don't need to - I work in the industry and have done/am doing all the things mentioned above except the rappelling thing (need special training for that but I am very close to someone who does just that for a living) and I know that the arguments you are calling facts are nothing but mindless re-posts of the most extreme arguments one can find on the internet rather than based on first hand knowledge and expertise.
Let me convey a bit of wisdom my dad gave me on my way in the form of a little prayer: 'Dear God, please help me to keep my mouth shut for at least as long as it takes to know what it is that I am talking about' It might help you as well.

Uli

P.S.: let me know if you have trouble picking out the paragraph(s) written in total sarcasm ....

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 08:14:05 -0700, Sean Fidler wrote:

WIth due respect, where did you get these data on the oil industry
killing more birds than green energy wind turbines? Please share this
data with us so we can study it.

Oddly, enough data on ONE large spill appeared in this week's New
Scientist.

Spill: Exxon Valdez, a 40 million litre crude oil spill. That is
approximately 10 million gallons.

Damage: 2100 km of coastline contaminated. Estimated that 250,000
seabirds, 2000 sea otters, 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles were
killed. Fisheries were closed during the cleanup, so a big impact on
fishermen.

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...on-valdez-oil-
still-a-threat-25-years-on.html

Other: Infoplease http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html
lists 28 other major spills between 1967 and 2010. These are all on land
or within 10 miles of a coast, so probably have a similar effect on
wildlife, fisheries, etc to the Exxon Valdez.

The total spill is 1112 million gallons during 43 years.

OK, wildlife death toll. Lets assume the damage from these spills is half
that of Exxon Valdez per 1000 gals spilt because the Exxon Valdez spill
was at least half in an inlet while the others were mostly on more
exposed coasts. This gives a guestimated total kill that is 55.5 times
that of Exxon Valdez, so we get:

14,000,000 seabirds killed
16,500 seals killed (seals lived on most of those coasts)

There's too little data on coastline contamination to work from and most
other places don't have bald eagles or sea otters, so I've ignored these
factors.

Right: your turn, Sean. Lets see some actual numbers for wind turbine
bird kills and don't forget to quote your sources.

Please note:
============
I'm not just sticking an oar in and stirring for the sake of stirring.

I've also heard comments about birds being killed by wind turbines but,
with the exception of the video posted earlier on this thread, I've not
seen any hard, evidence with attributed data sources to back up the
assertions about bird kill. I'd like to see some, especially because the
UK might have more turbines per head of population than you guys have. I
can't go flying from GRL without seeing at least two wind farms.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

I think oil spills are terrible things. But liberal sponsored wind turbines methodically kill birds each and every day, week by week, year by year. I thought liberals wanted to protect our wildlife?

Oil spills are rare.

Let's stay focused on liberal windmills killing innocent birds. This is the key to keeping turbines off Karl's ridge. ;-)

Sean

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:46:07 -0700, Sean Fidler wrote:

I think oil spills are terrible things. But liberal sponsored wind
turbines methodically kill birds each and every day, week by week, year
by year. I thought liberals wanted to protect our wildlife?

Oil spills are rare.

Let's stay focused on liberal windmills killing innocent birds. This is
the key to keeping turbines off Karl's ridge. ;-)

Forget liberals. You need hard numbers and the ability to say where they
come from if you're going to play the dead bird card, but so far there
are apparently no numbers and no reputable source for them.

Besides, if you look at that video really carefully, the blade doesn't
appear to hit the bird: it looks more like a very compact area of strong
turbulence broke its wing, which is odd because the bird seems to be
upwind of the turbine disk. Unless, of course, somebody shot it.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

You'll have to cut and pate as my ability to drop in a link seems to be lacking today...

Smithsonian article: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?n...ill-180948154/

Biological Conservation report: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06320713003522

This article has links to 2 studies, one lists the results of the 2009 US Fish and Wildlife report, the other is a by someone else, but more recent : http://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/blo...rms-last-year/

Here is the link to the Abstract by K. Shawn Smallwood, MAR 2013, full article requires membership: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...b.260/abstract

Why is everyone so lazy that they need to be spoon fed this? Is your Google-Fu that weak?

I'm not posting for one side or the other, just to show if one wants data, it is out there. I guess whomever reads any of this will need to determine if they are "reliable" sources or not.