Officials approve 335-foot turbines
By Kay Stephens, kstephens@altoonamirror.comLogan Township supervisors will allow a wind farm developer to build the nation's next-to-tallest wind turbines in Chestnut Flats.
Supervisors voted 4-to-1 Thursday night to allow Gamesa Energy to build 19 turbines north of Altoona, making them visible from 17th Street, Mill Run Road, Old Mill Run Road and along Route 36. Because of the vote, the turbines can placed on 335-foot towers, rather than 270 feet as allowed by ordinance.
The taller tower height will make them slightly shorter than the 345-foot tower turbines built in Scurry County, Texas, regarded as the tallest turbines in the U.S.
The 335-foot towers will yield 15 percent more electricity, Gamesa Energy representative Jon Baker told supervisors Thursday night.
They were considered, Baker said, after supervisors declined to allow turbines to be built inside and outside the wind zone, north and south of Route 36. All 19 turbines will be inside the wind zone.
Supervisors Chairman Frank Meloy said he was satisfied with information Gamesa provided to answer questions about potential problems, including noise.
Engineer Rob Kolsmanberger of Navarro & Wright, New Cumberland, who reviewed the project on the township's behalf, said the wind turbines will generate noise, but not a distinguishable amount if 335-foot towers are used instead of 270-foot towers.
"You will hear some results ... kind of a swooshing effect ... but either option will fall below the noise level stipulated by the township," Kolsmanberger said.
Supervisor Joe Metzgar asked about the closest residents. Three property owners have signed agreements endorsing the project. The closest property owner who did not sign an agreement is more than a half mile away.
Metzgar also asked about the build-up of ice on the turbine blades. Baker said ice should be shed before the blade starts moving.
"I still have concerns about flicker, icing and sound," Metzgar said after the meeting. "I'm just not sure those issues were properly addressed ... and if you're not 100 percent satisfied, you shouldn't vote for something."
Supervisor Jim Patterson said he felt a lot of his questions were answered but admitted that this is a new endeavor in the township.
"We're not engineers," Meloy said, "and really, there's no certainty with anything."
Before construction begins, supervisors will need to review and approve a series of engineering comments that will make up a land development plan. The township planning commission reviewed the comments Tuesday night and approved all requests but one.
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces
|
cjn8091
|
|
|---|---|
|
07-13-09 10:10 AM
|
Get off your high horse, AJ - I can spit on TMI as well, and I choose to continue to live here. The storage issue with spent rods is a political challenge, not technological. If you feel your family is at risk living within sight of those towers, why in the world are you still there? From one hack to another... ;-)
|
|
AJ17057
|
|
|
07-11-09 8:41 AM
|
Of course none of PA's nuclear plants are anywhere near altoona PA. I love the conservative hacks who are all for a nuclear plant. Want it in your back yard? I have one in mine (TMI), HATE IT. You have no idea how much spent fuel is sitting in the middle of the Susquehanna right now, no where to store it. I'll take a few wind turbines any day over this crap. Hey, maybe Altoona can open up a long term spent fuel storage area????? Here is another benefit, among many... *******articles.lancasteronline****/local/4/239699
|
|
Altoid83
|
|
|
07-10-09 4:29 PM
|
I've been to a few turbine meetings over the years. Does anyone know how much Logan Twp. is making off of this contract? I was under the impression that the municipality received a couple thousand dollars per turbine per month for a certain period of time (which I thought was like 5 years). As far as pollution and land erosion up on Chestnut Flats...has anyone been up there recently? Aren't the old, rusted out strip mining machines, motorcycle and atv gas and oil and dumped garbage causing any environmental hazards and eyesores? Most of this is hidden from afar, but if you walk up that way, watch your step, there is all kinds of refuse scattered about.
|
|
gandulf
|
|
|
07-10-09 3:55 PM
|
Voice--You are absolutely correct about the cost benefits analysis. Therfore, let's petition our various representatives (we still have these don't we??) in Congress and tell them we the people want to disband programs that don't work so money can be saved. Let's start with the Community Rebuilding Act; The New Deal; and, it is high time we plan an exit strategy in the War on Poverty. In addition, government needs to decide where it will relocate those held prisoner as a result of this very costly war. Here is a novel idea: the workforce of American businesses.
|
|
Voice0fReason
|
|
|
07-10-09 3:55 PM
|
97neon: I'll take the nuclear plant, they are an excellent source of high capacity power. Like anything else they have their problems but properly manages nuclear plants are great for power production and creating jobs. Given the options of nuclear, wind and coal I'll take them in that order. Nuclear plants, like wind turbines, have similar "not in my back yard" arguments.
|
|
gandulf
|
|
|
07-10-09 3:48 PM
|
Is it not amazing that the naysayers to nuclear energy in this country are so eager to provide the technology to radical states for the latter to use for peaceful purposes? I may be just spit-balling here, but can't one classify energy production as peaceful? I am stymied by the numbers of people who actually reject nuclear alternatives. Would anyone like to take a stab at where the price of oil would go if the United States actually began developing nuclear power? CJN8091--Right back at you my friend.
|
|
sickntired
|
|
|
07-10-09 2:19 PM
|
VoiceOfReason said "Found the slides, made it through the first 50, tell me this before I invest more time, I don't see any cited scientific research. There are many pretty pictures, some quotes and few charts (which were based on actual data)." Yes, there are many references cited on individual slides and also at the end. It is well worth your time to continue. Because my computer has limited "virtual memory" I get cut off at page 92, but to remedy this I then started at the last page and worked back. I saw this presentation in person and it was very good.
|
|
97neon
|
|
|
07-10-09 2:11 PM
|
6,000 industrial-scale wind turbines are needed to produce as much electricity as ONE nuclear plant. PA has 5 nuclear plants that provide us with 40% of our electricity. PA has 35 coal plants. Much of the electricity produced in PA is exported to other states. You cannot convince me that 6,000 industrial-scale wind turbines covering 1,000 miles of PA ridgetop are less ecologically damaging than ONE nuclear plant. The only technology we have that can replace coalplants is nuclear.
|
|
KlausVR
|
|
|
07-10-09 1:45 PM
|
Early on, itsme noted that these wind turbines will result in digging up the mountains and causing erosion so we should mine more coal and drill for more oil. Wow ... what logic! OK, how much energy does a coal fired generator store?
|
|
cjn8091
|
|
|
07-10-09 1:28 PM
|
But again, Voice, the problem with that 10MW of wind power is that you can't rely on its being there with any regularity or consistency. I'm not an expert by any stretch, but it seems to me that if a particular grid is counting on that 10MW on any given day, that grid could easily end up 10MW short - or over. I don't want the life-spport equipment at Altoona Regional, or the comm gear at Blair County Dispatch Center, or any of a number of critical systems dependent on whether or not the wind is blowing as forecast. It's a niche source with some limited usefulness, I think, but not on any sort of a large scale...
|
|
hockeyguy
|
|
|
07-10-09 1:15 PM
|
Is it me or just a coincidence that this wonderful project was approved the night before Eddie "I never met a wind turbine I didn't like" Rendell came to town? What a joke!!
|
|
Voice0fReason
|
|
|
07-10-09 12:53 PM
|
Found the slides, made it through the first 50, tell me this before I invest more time, I don't see any cited scientific research. There are many pretty pictures, some quotes and few charts (which were based on actual data). Here's the thing folks, you can take any developing technology and throw out because it doesn't stack up to what we've got now, unless it's truly new. Power generated by wind can't be stored. Well, can any power generated be stored? Do you know that the power introduced into the grid is exactly the same that is used (either by consumers or the losses inherent with transmission). So if I put 10MW of wind power into the grid, I need 10MW less coal power. I guess if you hand pick data to support your view you can feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and I'll admit it's a two way street. I'll take wind over coal heck I'll take nuclear over coal. Maybe this will all blow over..... had to, sorry.
|
|
sickntired
|
|
|
07-10-09 12:31 PM
|
Voice, obviously that didn't work out. You can google: John Droz jr slide presentation Then click on Electrical Energy a Matter of Life and Death. When the small slide screen comes up click in the bottom right corner to make it a full screen.
|
|
sickntired
|
|
|
07-10-09 12:22 PM
|
Sorry I spelled your name wrong, Ms. Stephens. VoiceOfReason, just copy and paste this link for the information you are requesting: ***********slideshare****/JohnDroz/energy-presentationkey-presentation
|
|
Voice0fReason
|
|
|
07-10-09 12:19 PM
|
Well weighing noise and "visual" pollution against the actual damaging pollution of other power sources I'll take the noise and "visual". You realize, I hope, it's not just energy companies that can noise and "visually" pollute the landscape. If you're serious about these examples have you taken action against anyone else? The problem with noise and "visual" pollution is they are subjective. What offends one person may not offend another.
|
|
sickntired
|
|
|
07-10-09 12:14 PM
|
To Joe Metzgar, you will never regret your decision to vote no. Thank you. To Kay Stevens, it is important to let the readers know the true height of the turbines to the tip of the blades, not just the tower height. Gamesa said at the May supervisors meeting that one of the turbines will be 404 feet tall and the other 18 will be between 460 and 470 feet tall.
|
|
brutis
|
|
|
07-10-09 12:05 PM
|
An energy company, can pollute the enviornment with noise and visual pullution. Bevause they greased the hitler youth of the Logantownship city CLOWNcil. But a few microcomisms of organic waste will displace some 500 people from their homes in Cross Keys park. Guess who will pay to house them? You bethcha. Now do the cost... Figure at least $350.00 per family. Add utilities, and food assistance. because most in the park will not get the cut rates they are paying when forced displacement occurs. Yes indeed. The American govenors strike again.
|
|
Voice0fReason
|
|
|
07-10-09 11:56 AM
|
sickntired, you have examples? facts? evidence to the contrary of what the wind industry is releasing? Please share, I personally would like to see it, I'm not so closed minded that I won't weigh criticism of things I support. I'm certain you feel the same.
|
|
cjn8091
|
|
|
07-10-09 11:56 AM
|
Voice - So we're just "tilting at windmills" here then? (Sorry - couldn't resist... I'm so ashamed)... ;-)
|
|
Voice0fReason
|
|
|
07-10-09 11:54 AM
|
cjn... you're right but please point to ANY government program that doesn't cost us money? Of the government programs that money is spent on some have lasting positive effects and that's the point we need to look at. Let's face facts as distasteful as some government spending is, the will to change it just isn't there in in numbers, in either the constituents or the politicians.
|
|
sickntired
|
|
|
07-10-09 11:52 AM
|
Very sad how few people care enough to investigate the BS that has been spewed from the wind industry and some politicians. Most just sit back and accept anything they say as the truth. That is why this scam has gotten to the point that local communities are willing to destroy their own resources for it. The wind industry is very corrupt. Where there is free tax money for the taking and miniscule regulations there will always be corruption.
|
|
cjn8091
|
|
|
07-10-09 11:18 AM
|
But Voice... Just because it exists and is "here now" does not mean it makes economic sense. Whatever marginal capacity wind can add to the grid (and considering that it can never be relied upon as a primary source of power) has to be considered in light of the investment (dollars and the intangibles). In that light, I fear our leadership is spending an awful lot of other folks' money on an alternative that just doesn't make cost/benefit sense...
|
|
Voice0fReason
|
|
|
07-10-09 11:10 AM
|
Actually I am a strong supported of nuclear power, as well as solar and hydro. I'm also realistic enough to understand coal and oil based power will be here for a very long time, but unlike many of the closed minded fools here I won't reject any alternative that does take demand off the coal/oil powered generators. If you look at the DOE wind maps of PA the 99 corridor has the largest wind energy potential in the state. You'll be seeing many more of these towers. Like it or not, believe in it or not, it's here now, and it'll continue to grow.
|
|
dannyglas
|
|
|
07-10-09 11:07 AM
|
LessGov: And in ten years you will hear from the people complaining about a total waste of money.
|
|
cjn8091
|
|
|
07-10-09 11:00 AM
|
And gandulf - Right on and hello from Middletown - wish we were still sharing a tenor section rehearsal seat... ;-)
|