Wind Farm NIGHTMARE!!

zappasguitar

zappasguitar

Well-known member
This just in!!

Why oh why didn't we listen when we had the chance??

"BREAKING: Large Air Spill at Wind Farm. No threats reported. Some claim to enjoy the breeze."

"Blow baby, blow!"

:cof1:
 
Last edited:
Unexpected Downside of Wind Power
Will Wade

Thousands of aging turbines stud the brown rolling hills of the Altamont Pass on I-580 east of San Francisco Bay, a testament to one of the nation's oldest and best-known experiments in green energy.

Next month, hundreds of those blades will spin to a stop, in what appears to be a wind-energy first: Facing legal threats from environmentalists, the operators of the Altamont wind farm have agreed to shut down half of their windmills for two months starting Nov. 1; in January, they will be restarted and the other half will be shut down for two months.

Though the Altamont Pass is known for its strong winds, it also lies on an

important bird-migration route, and its grass-covered hills provide food for

several types of raptors. "It's the worst possible place to put a wind farm,"

said Jeff Miller, a wildlife advocate at the nonprofit
href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org">Center for Biological Diversity. "It's responsible for an astronomical level of bird kills."

The dispute at Altamont Pass marks the highest-profile confrontation yet in an unlikely clash between wind-power proponents and environmental activists opposed to noncritical wind-farm development.

A 2004 report by the California Energy Commission found that 880 to 1,300

raptors are killed at Altamont every year, such as red-tailed hawks and the

federally protected golden eagle.

Altamont isn't the only scene of a showdown. Environmental groups have already blocked a proposed wind-power facility in the Mojave Desert, and opponents of another project, in Nantucket Sound, have cited wildlife concerns in their lobbying efforts. A recent government report found that sites in other regions could pose a threat to bats.

According to the American Wind Energy

Association, wind farms in 34 states were generating 6,740 megawatts as of January, enough juice to power 1.6 million homes. Another 2,500 megawatts of wind power is expected to come on line this year. Though nobody is saying that wildlife issues will curtail wind development, some environmentalists say that much more care should go into picking locations for wind farms.

Miller stressed that the Center for Biological Diversity is not opposed to wind farms, but said they must be built in areas where they will have minimal impact on wildlife. "We definitely support wind power, but it needs to be sited in appropriate areas."

One area that his group says is definitely not appropriate for wind power is

Altamont Pass. Miller said more than 5,000 turbines were installed there in the 1970s without any type of environmental impact study.

Steve Stengel, a spokesman for FPL Energy, one of several power companies that collectively operate the Altamont windmills, said the goal is to reduce avian collisions by 35 percent in three years, and to determine which turbines are the most dangerous. "If they aren't running, birds won't fly into them," he said.

Stengel also said the Altamont site is an anomaly. Besides its poor location,

he said many of the turbines there, some decades old, use older designs, with

faster-spinning blades that reach closer to the ground than recent models --

where birds are more likely to be flying as they hunt for prey.

FPL and its partners are also replacing some turbines with newer ones that the company says are safer for birds, and are relocating or removing about 100 of the most dangerous windmills from locations such as ridge tops.



Read More http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177#ixzz0n5iLZORe
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Unexpected Downside of Wind Power
Will Wade

Thousands of aging turbines stud the brown rolling hills of the Altamont Pass on I-580 east of San Francisco Bay, a testament to one of the nation's oldest and best-known experiments in green energy.

Next month, hundreds of those blades will spin to a stop, in what appears to be a wind-energy first: Facing legal threats from environmentalists, the operators of the Altamont wind farm have agreed to shut down half of their windmills for two months starting Nov. 1; in January, they will be restarted and the other half will be shut down for two months.

Though the Altamont Pass is known for its strong winds, it also lies on an

important bird-migration route, and its grass-covered hills provide food for

several types of raptors. "It's the worst possible place to put a wind farm,"

said Jeff Miller, a wildlife advocate at the nonprofit
href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org">Center for Biological Diversity. "It's responsible for an astronomical level of bird kills."

The dispute at Altamont Pass marks the highest-profile confrontation yet in an unlikely clash between wind-power proponents and environmental activists opposed to noncritical wind-farm development.

A 2004 report by the California Energy Commission found that 880 to 1,300

raptors are killed at Altamont every year, such as red-tailed hawks and the

federally protected golden eagle.

Altamont isn't the only scene of a showdown. Environmental groups have already blocked a proposed wind-power facility in the Mojave Desert, and opponents of another project, in Nantucket Sound, have cited wildlife concerns in their lobbying efforts. A recent government report found that sites in other regions could pose a threat to bats.

According to the American Wind Energy

Association, wind farms in 34 states were generating 6,740 megawatts as of January, enough juice to power 1.6 million homes. Another 2,500 megawatts of wind power is expected to come on line this year. Though nobody is saying that wildlife issues will curtail wind development, some environmentalists say that much more care should go into picking locations for wind farms.

Miller stressed that the Center for Biological Diversity is not opposed to wind farms, but said they must be built in areas where they will have minimal impact on wildlife. "We definitely support wind power, but it needs to be sited in appropriate areas."

One area that his group says is definitely not appropriate for wind power is

Altamont Pass. Miller said more than 5,000 turbines were installed there in the 1970s without any type of environmental impact study.

Steve Stengel, a spokesman for FPL Energy, one of several power companies that collectively operate the Altamont windmills, said the goal is to reduce avian collisions by 35 percent in three years, and to determine which turbines are the most dangerous. "If they aren't running, birds won't fly into them," he said.

Stengel also said the Altamont site is an anomaly. Besides its poor location,

he said many of the turbines there, some decades old, use older designs, with

faster-spinning blades that reach closer to the ground than recent models --

where birds are more likely to be flying as they hunt for prey.

FPL and its partners are also replacing some turbines with newer ones that the company says are safer for birds, and are relocating or removing about 100 of the most dangerous windmills from locations such as ridge tops.



Read More http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177#ixzz0n5iLZORe
Click to expand...

I've read about this Altamont Pass issue before and it kind of makes me laugh when I drive by it. But seriously, is there any type of energy that will legitimately sustain our economy that will not do some type of harm or have a good share of detractors?

Alternative energy is great but if I read the numbers right it's still only going to comprise a small percentage of our energy use.
 
well im so glad they are going to rip up the shoals of Nantucket decimating the fishing in that area for years and potentially interfering with the migratory path of the highly endangered right whales so that they can get less then 2% of the power required by Massachusetts.
 
Chapdog said:
well im so glad they are going to rip up the shoals of Nantucket decimating the fishing in that area for years and potentially interfering with the migratory path of the highly endangered right whales so that they can get less then 2% of the power required by Massachusetts.
Click to expand...
Why don't you propose a new nuke for the area instead. Call it Pilgrim III?
 
Tritium leak

In May 2009, the vice-president of operations at Vermont Yankee told the Vermont Public Service Board that he did not believe there was any underground piping at Vermont Yankee which contained radioactivity, but that he would check and respond to the panel.[24] In October 2009, Arnie Gundersen, a member of a special oversight panel convened by the Vermont General Assembly, confirmed the presence of contaminated underground pipes. An Entergy spokesperson told Vermont Public Radio that the earlier testimony was a "miscommunication."

On January 7, 2010, groundwater wells at the Vermont Yankee site were reported[who?] contaminated with tritium, in a probable leak. Levels of the isotope were below the maximum amount deemed acceptable for drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency.[25] By mid-January, however, levels of tritium had continued to rise up to 20,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/l), the federal limit for drinking water. The head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Vermont’s congressional delegation that the agency will devote more resources to addressing concerns about Vermont Yankee, and expects to find the source of the tritium leak there within the next several weeks.

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee reported that groundwater samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were measured at about 775,000 pCi/l (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010 samples from an underground vault tested positive for 2.7 million pCi/l.

Samples taken from the river by the Vermont Department of Health have shown no detectable levels of tritium.[28] The New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services made a similar statement after several tests of the river.

During the course of searching for the source of the tritium leak, other radionuclides were found in the soil at the site. Levels of cesium-137, were elevated to three to ten times higher than background levels. Silt in a pipe tunnel had higher levels yet, but the contamination outside the pipe tunnel was limited to a small volume, about 150 cubic feet (4.2 m3), of soil. According to the Vermont State Department of Health, there was no health risk from the cesium, as the quantities were small and it had not migrated. As a fission fragment, cesium-137 is an indicator of a fuel leak, but in this case, the consensus is that the cesium-137 probably leaked from defective fuel assemblies during or prior to 2001, when the last such type of leak was reported by Vermont Yankee. Such problems with fuel rods were not uncommon in the 1970s and 1980s.

The levels of cesium-137 detected in the silt on site were 2,600 picocuries/kg. For comparison sake, a kilogram of bananas contains almost 50% more radioactivity than that, or 3,500 pCi/kg.
 
Tritium leak

In May 2009, the vice-president of operations at Vermont Yankee told the Vermont Public Service Board that he did not believe there was any underground piping at Vermont Yankee which contained radioactivity, but that he would check and respond to the panel.[24] In October 2009, Arnie Gundersen, a member of a special oversight panel convened by the Vermont General Assembly, confirmed the presence of contaminated underground pipes. An Entergy spokesperson told Vermont Public Radio that the earlier testimony was a "miscommunication."

On January 7, 2010, groundwater wells at the Vermont Yankee site were reported[who?] contaminated with tritium, in a probable leak. Levels of the isotope were below the maximum amount deemed acceptable for drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency.[25] By mid-January, however, levels of tritium had continued to rise up to 20,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/l), the federal limit for drinking water. The head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Vermont’s congressional delegation that the agency will devote more resources to addressing concerns about Vermont Yankee, and expects to find the source of the tritium leak there within the next several weeks.

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee reported that groundwater samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were measured at about 775,000 pCi/l (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010 samples from an underground vault tested positive for 2.7 million pCi/l.

Samples taken from the river by the Vermont Department of Health have shown no detectable levels of tritium.[28] The New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services made a similar statement after several tests of the river.

During the course of searching for the source of the tritium leak, other radionuclides were found in the soil at the site. Levels of cesium-137, were elevated to three to ten times higher than background levels. Silt in a pipe tunnel had higher levels yet, but the contamination outside the pipe tunnel was limited to a small volume, about 150 cubic feet (4.2 m3), of soil. According to the Vermont State Department of Health, there was no health risk from the cesium, as the quantities were small and it had not migrated. As a fission fragment, cesium-137 is an indicator of a fuel leak, but in this case, the consensus is that the cesium-137 probably leaked from defective fuel assemblies during or prior to 2001, when the last such type of leak was reported by Vermont Yankee. Such problems with fuel rods were not uncommon in the 1970s and 1980s.

The levels of cesium-137 detected in the silt on site were 2,600 picocuries/kg. For comparison sake, a kilogram of bananas contains almost 50% more radioactivity than that, or 3,500 pCi/kg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top