Yes or No: The Barton Group Wind Turbines 166 comments
Nancy A. Bernstein, 2008
The Barton Group has proposed building 10 wind turbines on 1700 acres of land formerly used as a garnet mine and already zoned for industrial use. The turbines will be located near North Creek, New York, in the south-central Adirondacks. The turbines could generate enough electricity to power more than half of all households in Warren County. The turbines may also provide a positive message about generating power from a renewable, non-polluting resource, important in a region that has been so adversely affected by acid rain—generated largely by coal-fired electric plants in the mid-west.
Opponents argue that the turbines could prove fatal to birds and bats, and pose a particular threat to the endangered Bicknell’s Thrush. Aesthetics are another concern. 280 feet tall and 400 feet wide when the blades are fully extended, the wind turbines will be visible along an exposed ridge, compromising the wild forest character of the Adirondacks. They also argue that allowing this project will set a precedent, opening the door for similar projects in the future.
What do you think? Should the Barton wind farm be built?
I’m in the adirondack park as much as possible, and feel the wind farm is an excellant use of free renewable energy - look to Denmark and see what they are doing - 50% of their electric use is from wind turnbines - about time we catch up here in America.
Constructing additional wind power could be beneficial in New York to diversify fuel mix and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. However, the Barton Mines and the Adirondack Park in general are the wrong places! Modern wind turbines are enormous industrial facilities that can be as tall as the Statue of Liberty. These intrusive structures are simply incompatible with the wild forest character of the Park. Instead, future wind power development should be carefully sited outside the Park – preferably in large wind farms located near existing electric transmission corridors.
There are numerous articles about the problems Denmark is having with wind power. See this example <>.
Feel free to contact me for more facts “aaprjohn@northnet.org”
Denmark and the rest of Europe are not as enthralled with industrial wind as we have been led to believe. (BTW, their electricity from wind is less than 20%, and what they can actually use is far less than that.)
Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries said “In green terms windmills are a mistake and economically they make no sense. Many of us thought wind was the 100 percent solution for the future but we were wrong. In fact, taking all energy needs into account, it’s only a three percent solution.” Aase Madsen, who chairs energy policy in the Danish parliament, said, “For our industry it has been a terribly expensive disaster.”
With all the pro-wind information in the news these days, it’s not surprising so many people see industrial wind as a solution to our energy problems. The real-world data from existing wind projects shows a different story - a small amount of poor quality electricity produced and no reduction in fossil fuel plant emissions. Conventional plants need to keep running to back up variable wind output - so wind is duplicating, not replacing, electricity generation. The process of manufacturing, transporting and on-site construction of the turbines adds to the environmental problems. The clearing of thousands of acres of trees for access roads and siting destroys a natural method of taking CO2 from the air.
The huge impact of constructing and operating industrial wind turbines, causing multiple problems related to health, safety and destruction of wildlife and habitat, does not justify their tiny contribution to clean energy. Their real purpose is to create tax write-offs and Renewable Energy Credits for the financial gain of wind companies at taxpayer and ratepayer expense. Without these huge subsidies which ultimately come out of our pockets, the industry itself admits it would stop building wind projects.
Please, please, please educate yourselves before allowing wind turbines in the beautiful Adirondacks. A good place to start is http://www.wind-watch.org. We can do more to help the earth by reducing our electricity usage, and at far less cost, than by building useless industrial wind developments. The treasure of New York’s natural beauty, once destroyed, is not renewable.
I love the beauty of the mountains but understand the needs of energy. I enjoy electricity as much as mountain views. The wind farms can and should be part of our future landscapes. When I gaze out my window or stand in awe from the peak of a mountain in the future I will understand why the wind farms are now included in the vista.
I’m all for alternative energy. We just have to be very careful we don’t harm the habitat if we decide this is a viable energy source for our State. I’m opposed to the ones around Lake Ontario & Cape Vincent. There is a heavy bird migration (42,000 raptor birds counted this spring at Derby Hill) at Southeast end of Lake Ontario and Onondaga Audubon Society is worried about bird mortality in that area. The Adirondacks have always had the challenge between development and keeping the Park pristine. I think it should be left to a vote in the individual communities — whether or not it will help the economy and its overall health.
Absolutely, the wind turbines should be built. Global warming is too much of a threat to be concerned about a few bats.
Global warming is not going to be stopped by turbines. Turbines do not save on oil consumption and it takes electricity to keep them running. I disagree with you. It is more than a few bats that will be affected. Please read http://www.windaction.org and you will get a different take on the wind turbine issue.
Valary Sahlre
Yes, I am in favor of wind turbines.
I don’t think the wind turbines should be built. The Adirondacks has nature that shouldn’t be messed with.
We should set a precedent by converting a mine into green-friendly energy.
No, I don’t think the Barton wind farm should be built. It would help with all the eletricity; but I think the animals should be more of a concern. Once an species of animal is lost, it won’t return. I also think it would just look plain ugly.
Let’s put up the turbines. It’s a safer alternative to wildlife - & humans - than more coal plants or nuclear plants or any other energy source we now have. Aesthetically, they are preferable to ski lifts, cells towers, shopping centers, highways, etc.
I think it is a great idea although there are some risks I think this is one oppertunity that should not be abandoned.
I do approve the use of wind turbines, but perhaps some bird warning system could be developed to make sure the fewest birds possible fly into the wind turbines. Also the turbines should be spread out so that if flocks of birds fly into them, most birds will miss the turbines.
Would you rather have a coal or oil fired generator?
Studies have proven that cars kill more birds than windmills!
Build them
Wind power is an important source of energy, but should be installed outside of the Adirondacks.
What an oppertunity to prvidue non-polluting energy for the Adirondacks. The wind Turbines should be allowed to be built.
Continuing to generate electric power from other sources like coal and nuclear energy pose such wide spread and long term environmental hazards that the minor problems of wind generation are trivial by comparison. Wind generators use a renewable resource and are non polluting. Environmental impact is minimal. They should be one of the next important and visible steps in the evolution of eco-friendly energy. As a biologist and naturalist I recommend building more wind farms wherever practical.
Because wind is intermittent, variable and unpredictable, regular power plants equal to wind power capacity must operate on standby, ready to balance the variations from wind. They burn fuel and produce emissions in this mode, but the electricity that would otherwise be produced is wasted. Wind turbines run in addition to, not instead of, fossil fuel and nuclear plants.
In spite of this basic fact, industrial wind is a multi-billion dollar business. Why? Follow the money. Tax credits, subsidies, and high rates make a profit for developers. Wind companies use this money, which comes from taxpayers and consumers, to influence our politicians. Then they sell carbon offsets to polluters. How does this help the environment?
Industrial wind is a gross misuse of our money and diverts resources from better technologies.
Tax Credits for Energy Companies: Production Tax Credits (PTCs) for older, polluting energy production like oil and coal are permanent and have been in place since the 1920’s. Its how the energy infrastructure in this country was built.
Why should wind energy be any different? AWEA states that in 2006, the federal government subsidized fossil fuels by $6,250,000,000. Wind energy in 2006 was subsidized by a little over $500,000,000. This year, the Senate will try to pass a bill to redistribute some of the billions of tax payer subsidies we pay to the fossil fuel industry. I don’t see a problem with that, and hope it goes through.
Wind energy was subsidized in 2007 at $23.37 per MWh, compared with coal and natural gas at less than 50 cents per MWh. (Source: Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007.) Since wind doesn’t replace any conventional power plants, this is just an added expense that will continue to take money out of our pockets for no good reason whatsoever.
I’m not happy about my tax money going to any of these industries, but at least coal and gas deliver power as expected.
I am for the wind turbines. We have got to do something to protect our environment. Although the turbines might be visible, they will only be visible from certain locations and I think the visibility will only prove to others that Adirondackers are taking a proactive, responsible approach to protecting our beautiful area.
Yes I am for the wind turbines. We need to have a clean source of energy.
As a former ranking minority member of the NYS Assembly Energy Committee, I’ve been immersed in the pros and cons for 25 years now, but it seems to me that utilizing wind (along with water, biomass and other renewable forms of power production) is entirely compatible with, and instructive to, the Adirondack ethic. The policy struggle is one between aesthetics and conservation … and there are no easy answers … but on balance, wind power is an environmental positive, even when it is perceived as an aesthetic negative.
Yes. they would be beneficial tto save energy
Yes, of course, the wind turbines should be given every consideration. We simply cannot continue to ruin the earth.
But couldn’t some refinements be made to answer the worries about the potentially tacky profile they would create and the dangers to the birds and bats?
And what about noise?
Yes, the wind farm should be built. The Adirondacks are a region that has long held a belief of self sustainabilty. A wind farm would provide a positive message about the regions dedication to renewable power sources.
It seems odd that nobody minds the power grid lines cutting through the park.
We firmly believe it is time to pull out all stops and do whatever we can to both limit the CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere and to get off our dependence on fossil fuels. We therefore support the wind turbines at Barton Mines even though we know they will do little (except for Barton Mines) to diminish our local dependence on fossil fuels. But these will at least tell the world that we are willing to lose a little of our wilderness scenery in exchange for whatever little help we can get in our efforts to mitigate anthropogenic global warming and its projected detrimental effects on the Adirondack Park.
Let the opponents freeze in the dark. We must stop depending on oil and coal and use nuclear, wind, etc.
Two Words FOREVER WILD.. The park should remain untouched even if the our energy sources prices are rising. Wind energy is great but not at the ADK
Yes, such wind farms should be constructed. Our energy-intensive lifestyle makes possible tourism which supports the conservation of the Adirondacks. If such conservation is to consider into the future, alternative energy sources are essential, and we (folks who come to/live in places like the Adirondacks) need to share the cost (aestheric, property value, etc) of wind power.
Give us a chance to do a thorough study of impact on wildlife, first.
This is a great idea to help our world by thinking of good ideas of finding new ways of generating power. However, every effort should be made to blend into the natural environment. Also have a high pitch noise to keep animals away so they won’t be killed.
The sooner this system is put into operation the better. Instead of 10, it should be 1,000.
Future similar projects? Absolutely!
Much of the power used in the region now comes from environmentally destructive power production that is polluting the Adirondack air and soil. But this case should be decided on its own merits. Existing environmental rules need not be broken, nor negative precedents set. Each potential impact must be studied carefully. It may well be wiser to site these structures in lower-elevation, existing open terrain, rather than cut trees and despoil sensitive mountain ridges to create the enormous open areas the towers require.
This one should simple. The road and transmission infrastructure is already in place, Gore Mt lift towers already in the area, and this shows the coal plant States we are doing something positive.
We think it would be a great idea to use wind turbines for electricity for most of Warren County. You have our support.
Many of the comments here appear to be from good, well-intentioned people who have been duped by the industrial wind profiteers’ aggressive Madison Avenue campaign. No shame to that as these marketers are experts.
For instance, wind power is NOT a clean, free source of electrical energy, and it will not save us oil. And Denmark’s percentage of power from wind is 6%, not 50%. And although the developers’ strategy is to characterize it that way, this is NOT an issue about birds, bats, or aesthetics. Etc.
As an Adirondack resident, physicist, and energy expert, I realize that the decision about any renewable source should be made on the basis of whether it works equal to or better than other choices.
In this case, that means: 1) does wind power provide base load power and meaningfully reduce CO2? 2) is wind power a financially viable source of energy on its own? 3) Is wind power environmentally benign?
The answer to all three questions is NO.
We DO need to aggressively address our energy problems, especially pollution from sources like coal. But based on how the grid works, wind power is not the answer. For instance, worldwide there are some 50,000 turbines in operation today, and not a single coal facility has been shut down.
Due to a variety of technical factors, wind power’s contribution to helping with global warming is trivial, and what miniscule CO2 that is saved is extraordinarily expensive.
Wind power is a non-solution that is entirely being driven by enormous federal and state handouts (our money) to large multi national conglomerates. Think ethanol.
To desecrate the Adirondacks — or anyplace else in New York — just to put money in these people’s pockets, is a travesty.
If you want to support a meaningful renewable source, industrial geothermal is a much better way to go. Feel free to email me for detailed information about wind power: “aaprjohn@northnet.org.”
John Droz has stated the issues best on this forum.
Please people, do some research. Commercial Industrial wind turbines don’t deliver the goods.
Commercial wind interests give out misleading and incomplete information. They describe benefits using words like “could” instead of “will”, “may provide” instead of “will provide”, “rated capacities” instead of “actual output”, etc. Even though the overwhelming majority of these commercial wind interests are structured as private companies (LLC’s), I have yet to see one report anywhere of efficiencies higher than 30% and many come in under 20%.
There are tens of thousands of commercial wind turbines throughout the world with over twenty years of accumulated data. Someone please state one fossil-fueled power plant that has been decommissioned because of commercial wind turbines to reduce CO2 emissions. Someone please say how the United States will reduce its dependence on foreign oil with commercial wind turbines when only about 3% of our country’s electricity is generated from oil; most of this oil is low-level crude extracted from US soil. Why are so many focused on reducing our dependence on foreign oil but willing to let their electricity generation and distribution be controlled by foreign entities? Someone please tell how you can hookup your cars, trucks, SUV’s, boats, racecars, snowmobiles, jetskis, lawnmowers, snowblowers, farm machinery, commercial and private jets, on and on, to a commercial wind turbine.
If commercial wind turbine production is so great, actual results should be widely available. Where are the actual results?
Health and safety issues can not be ignored either.
Take away huge government subsidies and tax credits (your money as taxpayer and ratepayer) and the commercial wind companies would be “Gone with the Wind”.
Instead of being bamboozled into commercial wind, we should be focusing our resources on new ways that will actually work to solve and meet our energy needs like geothermal and solar power combined with advancing research in nano- technology. Commercial wind projects create new and expensive problems. They do not live up to their claims of solving current problems. They do pit neighbor against neighbor splitting communities apart. They create a huge mess with additional future costs after the wind interests have made their money, in only four to five years, and left at great public expense.
yes,we need other sources of energy
I think we MUST build the windmills if we want the rich from NYC, NJ and Conn. to be able to buy land and build their huge out of place mansions that have been devouring the park. That is what the Adirondacks are all about now. Without electricty, how are we going to continue to expand? It has nothing to do with birds, deer or bears, its all about greed now.
No! The research shows that the wind turbines are not productive and that the foreign companies are they only entity to benefit from them. They would ruin the Adirondacks.
Absolutely Not!!!!
People need to fully understand the ramifications of BIG Corporate Wind and all the subsidies that go with it.
Wind is NOT a reliable source of energy and it will never take fossil fuel plants off line. In fact, with nearly 300,000 commercial industrial wind turbine is oopertion in North America, not ONE power plant has been taken off-line.
Get educated, get the facts. It might seem like a good idea, but it is not a solution, not even a start. Wind Turbines are an antiquated answer to a complex problem. Ut is no answer at all, simply a knee-jerk reaction to fear. Don’t buy into it without doing the research. Go see a wind turbine and LISTEN to it. Also consider the huge environmental footpringtrequired.
In any even, a source of info is http://www.schoharievalleywatch.org
We are just one group, of hundreds, fighting this ill-conceived and government subsidized fallacy.
It’s big money, for big energy. Nothing more and nothing less.
Don
Co-Director, SVW
How sad to think of industrial wind turbines in The Adirondacks. There is much evidence that they are not cost effective, and only make money for the companies building them. I’m in favor of nuclear energy instead.
The turbines should be built to produce further damage to the rivers and their inhabitants which are in more grave danger.
Until you have had an Industrial Wind Facility proposed “in your backyard” and you have taken the tremendous amount of time necessary to study and truly understand the effects it will have to your health and well being to say nothing of the harm to wildlife and your property values, then you will continue to think they are OK and will save the world. So sorry people, “It ain’t gonna happen!!!”
As much as I believe renewable energy is necessary for the future to rid ourselves of our dependence on oil, primarily from foreign sources, wind energy should not be the method consulted in doing so. Indeed, many flying creatures are susceptible to death from turbines. Also, turbines are not nearly as efficient as other sources. I believe other sources should be investigated, including nuclear. Nuclear power is very efficient, if its use is properly maximized, as shown in France. Nuclear waste can also be chemically changed to make it less dangerous, while its use can be applied elsewhere, although this is somewhat expensive. Inevitably, high costs are an unavoidable consequence, but wind energy should not be the key to the future.
I can not imagine what the politicans and town fathers in this state are thinking. Why devastate the Adirondacks with wind turbines? Why devastate any land with turbines? Turbines are only up to 23% effecient. Wind Farms do not lessen the use of our oil consumption. Electric bills will increase do to the upgrades on the electric lines. Think twice and do some sound research before wasting your beautiful mountain sides. Take a trip to a wind farm and see what they have done to God’s Green Earth. You will see that you will never get back the land that you once had. If there weren’t huge subsidies there would not be a turbine any where. Your attraction is the peace and beauty of your park. Tourist won’t want to sleep under a wind park with the thumping sound that is given off, which carries for three miles. People under the newly started wind park in Bliss, NY are already complaining of the noise and the inability to sleep. The turbines have only been running for two months. If you talk to someone that lives by a wind farm please interview someone that is not making money off the project or you won’t get the true story of life under a turbine. The people with easements are sworn to secrecy on their signed contracts and can not tell you anything negative. Don’t ruin your State Park’s heritage. Don’t put turbines in Barton!
John Droz has stated the issues best on this forum.
Please people, do some research. Commercial Industrial wind turbines don’t deliver the goods.
Commercial wind interests give out misleading and incomplete information. They describe benefits using words like “could” instead of “will”, “may provide” instead of “will provide”, “rated capacities” instead of “actual output”, etc. Even though the overwhelming majority of these commercial wind interests are structured as private companies (LLC’s), I have yet to see one report anywhere of efficiencies higher than 30% and many come in under 20%.
There are tens of thousands of commercial wind turbines throughout the world with over twenty years of accumulated data. Someone please state one fossil-fueled power plant that has been decommissioned because of commercial wind turbines to reduce CO2 emissions. Someone please say how the United States will reduce its dependence on foreign oil with commercial wind turbines when only about 3% of our country’s electricity is generated from oil; most of this oil is low-level crude extracted from US soil. Why are so many focused on reducing our dependence on foreign oil but willing to let their electricity generation and distribution be controlled by foreign entities? Someone please tell how you can hookup your cars, trucks, SUV’s, boats, racecars, snowmobiles, jetskis, lawnmowers, snowblowers, farm machinery, commercial and private jets, on and on, to a commercial wind turbine.
If commercial wind turbine production is so great, actual results should be widely available. Where are the actual results? Someone, please find them!
Health and safety issues can not be ignored either, but that is subject for another time.
Take away huge government subsidies and tax credits (your money as taxpayer and ratepayer) and the commercial wind companies would be “Gone with the Wind”.
Instead of being bamboozled into commercial wind, we should be focusing our resources on new ways that will actually work to solve and meet our energy needs like geothermal and solar power combined with advancing research in nanotechnology. Commercial wind projects create new and expensive problems. They do not live up to their claims of solving current problems. They do pit neighbor against neighbor splitting communities apart. They create a huge mess with additional future costs after the wind interests have made their money, in only four to five years, and left at great public expense.
No. I enjoy using the Park in the area of Barton Mines. Where I live in western NY a 67-turbine wind farm is proposed that would require a 24 square mile project area. GE Energy, manufacturer of the 1.5 MW turbines for that project, recently reported to NYSERDA that such turbines can be expected to generate only 10% of their rated or installed capacity. The 100.5 MW rated capacity in the 67-turbine project would therefore generate about 10 MW. (Real power plants generate 500-1,000 MW.) The Barton Mines area wind farm would generate even less, not justifying the land area needed and the adverse impacts (including the concrete and roads) involved.
Please don’t fall for this. Industrial wind projects produce very little usable power at a great cost to the environment and to our pocketbooks. Due to the intermittent and unpredictable nature of the power produced, they can’t power ANY homes. There has to be an equal amount of backup power production facilities on standby. When the wind turbines DO turn, they produce electricity at the top rate, which costs us all money. Do the math to see how many of these monsters they would have to build to really make a difference in our power needs, and you will see that this is a bad deal! Let’s not squander our energy research and development resources on tax eating schemes like this.
No turbines. The reasons are very complex. in short, $16 billion dollars of taxpayer federal money to subsidize a technology that is economically based on the accounting principles of ENRON is something akin to taxation without representation. Let’s talk about CONSERVATION of all our resources, and not the production of more electricity.
From what I have read, seen and heard I do not think that wind turbines are the wonderful savior that many people think they are. On the average their efficiency is about 25%. Try running your house on power supplied 6 or 7 hours a day. The size (up to 425 feet high) can totally visually overwhelm and change most any area they are placed in. Without big financial help in the form of our tax dollars and tax breaks they would never even be built. Studies are finding that the varieties of sounds created by the operating turbines do have definite big time negative effects on humans. With the noises, size and shaddow flicker taken into account,I wouldn’t want to live within 2 miles of them. I believe that in the future it will be found that wind turbines were really not the best direction to take and there are much better alternatives. But what do I know, I’m just an old welder.
I find the eagerness of some folks to allow wind turbines in the Adirondack Park distressing. Thank goodness for our visionary forefathers who overcame the same short-sighted perspective of many of their contemporaries and passed the forever wild law. There needs to be more education of the public about the limited capabilities of wind power. It will not be the panacea implied by some of the commenters. I strongly urge everyone to invest time to understand the simple facts that wind energy WILL NOT replace coal or nuclear and WILL NOT reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Do not sacrifice the largest state park in the lower 48 to a technology that has as its sole “green” attribute the money going to the developers. Forever wild MEANS exactly what it says!
These wind turbines should not be built! Every turbine that is built represents alternative energy tax breaks to the corporations who own them, who also own energy plants which burn fossil fuels! These plants then can pollute for a lot less tax money.
Do not believe these turbine carpetbagggers - they are Trojan horses who are skilled in bait & switch techniques, who divide communities, pitting neighbor against neighbor. There is nothing clean about them or the turbines they are trying to push into communities, under the guise of saving the environment.
These monsters are not quiet, not environmentally safe, ridges must be blasted to install the huge concrete bases
that hold the turbines up. How much CO2 is emitted from thousands of tons of concrete?
Everything the opponents have said about wind turbines is true. Those who live near them wish they had not been fooled into thinking turbines were a good idea. Now it is too late for them, but not too late for you. Stop them at all costs!
France has a moratorium on turbines because they are so awful, and many European countries are sorry now.
We are fighting the same thing in CV. I suggest you take a road trip to Lowville Ny and go stand next to one of these monstronsities and see if you want one these huge things next to your house where you get to listen to the constant drone of these things . What do you do when the wind doesn’t blow , usually when the hottest weather is around , you have to have a normal power plant to be able to pick up the complete load and they are not something you can shut down . also when these things become obsolete in 10-20 years do think the wind developers will come back and pull these things out, hopefully you are not that naive. You get to look at those aging rusty hulks for the rest of your life….
Wind power is not a good alternative. Yes, it does not use oil, coal or natural gas. However, it leaves a huge fingerprint on the environment. The amount of land destroyed to erect wind turbines, transmitters for the turbines, power lines, access road, etc. is enormous. It forever changes the environment, the landscape, the view, the natural habitats, etc.
NO WAY! We humans put up man-made structures that ruin our land, electric lines, pavement, etc. We keep ruining our own land and this is worse because it is under the guise of “green energy.”
sWINDle
That basically sums up the aggressive push for inappropriate sitting of industrial wind turbines. Don’t let the wind developers fool you. They are in it for the money. The environment is of little concern to them. To construct these projects, they receive govt. tax incentives, get out of paying local taxes with PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) programs, and receive green credits (another scam). The town is offered a pittance PILOT compared to the millions the wind company will make. The towns do not get the appropriately compensated for the destruction these projects cause. You will not see any decrease in you electric bill, as a matter of fact there are some electric companies who want you to voluntarily pay $7.50 more a month on you bill for these projects.
The wind developers also want you to believe industrial wind turbines are sooo green. They are machines. They have moving gears and moving parts. They are hundreds of gallons of oil in the machines. These gear oils, mineral oils, hydrolic fluids etc. leak into the soil. Leaks from these turbines have recently contaminated home owners wells. They fail, spin out of control with huge blade flying through the air. Turbines have had electrical fires and have been hit by lightening. Think of what a forest fire that could start.
The wind companies don’t like to admit these things do happens and more often than you may think. They try to make light of the health hazards. Moresville Energy a subsidiary of Invenergy LLC, has an application for a wind project currently in the SEQRA stage in the mountains of Delaware County, N.Y. In the application an operators safety manual for the Vestas V90 turbine (the proposed turbine) was included. That safety manual includes specs on the hazardous materials in these machines.
They include these words, “Toxic to aquatic organisms: may cause long term adverse affects”, “prolonged or repeated exposure may cause dermatitis “ “Used oil may contain harmful impurities” It also warms their employees “Do not stay within a radius of 1300ft from the turbine unless it is necessary.”
Here is the kicker, when Invenergy’s representatives present at a public meeting were asked about these very items. They had no answer. The answer came a few days later when they just removed the sections off the webs site where the public can view the entire application. Their answer was it “proprietary info”. In English, oops you caught us. Wind power has its applications but these company’s are not concerned with saving the planet or peoples health so be very wary of this Trojan horse.
After educating myself with regard to the health issues and the energy effective of wind — I cannot see why we would deface our natural resources with Turbines. They are not a solution — but will end up being a problem to all and taking away peace and traquility that we all need to escape to at times in our lives.
Be Respectful of Nature and rely on alternative energy sources that are more effecient.
Turbines are not an efficient energy source. They pose a threat to both wildlife and humans. Dr. Nina Pierpoint has made a study about effects of turbines on humans. Her book will be released in August. Also, what happens when the wind doesn’t blow or blows more than 30 mph. Coal fired plants are used to power the turbines when the wind doesn’t blow. The turbines are shut down when the wind exceeds 30mph.
wind turbines are shut down when the wind exceeds 55 mph…not 30 as the author suggests. that is because wind generates power at the cube of velocity…at 55 and over…too much power. an increase of just 2 mph typically produces 30% more energy….and no fuel…so no pollution, no climate changing emissions and once built…the cost are stable for life of project because no fuel cost…which we all know is a major problem we face not only at the gas pump but many aspests of our energy dependent lives.
I will be anxious to read Dr. Nina Pierpoint’s forth coming book on “wind syndrome”, assuming there is one…since I do not think there is much evidence she has collected…the book could be more anti wind rant that facts. 18 months ago some folks were arguing that wind farms caused epilepsy…then the national association issued a statement that said no truth to it and the revolutions per minute would have to be 3-4x higher to be close…..so that was the end to wind farms cause epilepsy…but the birth of wind syndorme….sleepliness, agitation, loss of libido, and pretty long list of other effects with Dr. Nina a principle proponnent. Several times I read her material and then reviewed her sources…they are mostly her testimony at township public meetings but no evidence other than her interviews with sympathetic patients. there are no data and no investigations….it is not credible to the health care community….that does not mean that some folks do not have sleepless nights, loss of appetite and anxious moments over wind farms, even when they are only in consideration, but not reality. I have met some and heart goes out to them, but that is very different from wind actually causing heart palipatations and internal organs pulsating in sync with a wind farm.
at the end of the day, we are facing some very signficant energy challenges. wind is one of several solutions, but we need a different energy solution and wind is part of it. the challenges are so strong that I am willing to do wind in Adirondacks…carefully evaluated because it it the best of the generation althernatives….I always prefer conservation and efficiency…but tougher to do…wind is not perfect … but best of alternatives. if we wish to be in control of our energy future, we will need to make some scarfices, and wind seems to be pretty clear…maybe that is why is is 35% of all new energy generation in US and coal only 10%.
happy hiking & hopeful;
The people that live in the areas where Wind Mills are proposed to be located should have the say whether they should be erected there or not. The Government should first checkto see if they are harmful to Humans. Animals and the envireoment The people should have the say ,not the politicans.
I have heard that the turbines last only ten years, and that the company that puts them up, will not take them down - leaving them just standing there. I have also heard of quite a few people having illnesses from the turbines, and have also read of some turbines catching fire. Why go to all this trouble for only 10 years of energy?
Definitely not! Why would anybody want to ruin the pristine natural beauty anywhere near the museum? There needs to be much more honest and unbiased investigations done concerning the price we pay for aesthetics,bird and bat kill,health affects, noise pollution, the actual price we pay per killowatt for wind energy when all state and federal subsidies, tax credits, energy credits, accelerated depreciation,and dependability of power produced, just to name a few. Until we have these answers,this wind energy appears to be the biggest political scam to hit the world. The Adirondack Park should remain natural and untouched by corporate greed.
Until you have an Industrial Wind Facilility proposed “in your backyard” you will likely not take the time, energy and money necessary to research and learn of the negative impacts these monsters cause. If you we truly want to make a difference, we should be pushing for the technology to use trash for powering our vehicles. Our vehicles are the gas gluttens, not the making of electricity.
Fantastic project - compare oil based energy for human warmth and lighting needs versus this - an oil spill will kill wildlife same as the turbines might - and oil supplies are limited and pollute - look at the bigger global picture - possibly bird and bat researchers need to develop ways to keep birds away like a sonic wave system surrounding the wind park. As far as asthetics - the 1980 Winter Olympic ski jumps are a welcome sight every time I return to the Village of Lake Placid - that is the highest manmade structure between Albany NY and Montreal Canada - the view of the Marcy Range takes on a unique perspective with the ski jumps in the foreground in the view from town - if the Barton mine location is zoned Industrial then it is a viable location - I am sure that the year round “local’ citizens would welcome less expensive electrical rates when it gets to 20 below for a month on end each winter
Mike - Wind doesn’t replace oil, coal or gas power plants, so there is no environmental benefit to building turbines. Also, electrical rates don’t generally go down when turbines go up - the huge cost of building them, along with the transmission lines, substations and a government guaranteed high rate for what little electricity they produce sees to that.
The electricity goes on the general grid and does not give any extra electricity to the host community.
Good points - then we need the NY state legislature to review and change the tax subsidies and make sure “X” percent of electricty generated goes to the local communities at a regulated rate - local people who were born in the Park or others who live inside the Blue Line do not have the work opportunities available outside the Park, they would all like possibilities with wind power or maybe more hydro power generation
Mike:
I sympathize with your concerns, but the fact is that wind power will save essentially zero oil. That is the issue, not birds, etc.
No. New York already confiscated park land in the Bronx for a water filtration plant that has proven to be a boondoggle and gone beyond all expense estimates. And it is still not built. The contractor walked out. There are now legal actions underway.
When parkland is taken for public works projects under the guise of benefitting the community, the community suffers from loss of the parkland, and the projects do not necessarily benefit anyone. I am skeptical about wind turbines in forest land. The land will be lost and the native species will be in danger.
We have seen that construction of wind turbines produces massive environmental degradation, not just at the site but to bring in the massive components (120 ft. long blades require wide, heavy roads with large turning radii) and to install the power lines that must carry what electricity is generated. NY State law prohibits local use of WT generated electricity–it must be sold into the statewide grid, so Warren Co. households won’t benefit. WTs are a very poor source of power because the wind is unreliable. You’re being sold a bill of goods. Don’t buy it.
NO - I do not believe that the Barton project should be allowed to be built in the Adirondack State Park - a pristine, wilderness area that was designated a State Park so that it would be preserved as such for future generations to enjoy - not to be exploited by, & for, whoever has the most money & power!
Wind power is NOT a scientifically sound solution to global warming; wind power is NOT economically viable on its own; & wind power is NOT an environmentally responsible energy solution due to these projects’ massive footprints and impacts on miles & miles of terrain - all for a miniscule amount of UNRELIABLE energy.
The only reason industrial wind exists is because businessmen & huge multi-national investors are proposing industrial wind power as part of an energy “solution” to global warming because these businessmen and investors stand to make in excess of 25% on their investment in just a few years time. Where else can anyone get that kind of return on an investment?!?
The way science is supposed to work is this - when a new idea is “proposed” as a potential “solution”, it is up to the “solution” proponents to PROVE its efficacy. So, the ball is in their court. It is up to these investors & businessmen to provide independent, objective PROOF that substiantiates their financially-motivated claims. Where is the proof that windpower saves meaningful amounts of CO2? Where are the actual output numbers to substantiate all the wind industry’s grandiose claims? With some 50,000 turbines in the world today, this should be very easy to do. Yet, this has not yet happened anywhere in the world.
“Wind farm” owners receive HUGE tax breaks and subsidies that shift the tax burdens and costs from the “wind farm” owners to us - the ordinary tax payers and utility rate payers. Wind industry officials have admitted that appproximately 65% of the economic value of a “wind farm” is derived from just 2 federal tax breaks - production tax credits and accelerated depreciation. State incentives cover another 10% of the projects. The amount “wind farm” owners intend to buy the communities off with will be less than 1% of what they stand to reap from the project, while most of these foreign-owned wind companies’ profits will be monies that will leave this country.
Unfortunately, in this politically-correct driven craze to be “green”, poor public policy is motivating multi-national investors to seek to rape our countrysides for their gain at the taxpayers & utility rate payers expense. The costs to our environment, and our pocketbooks, will be irrevocable.
I don’t think there are any multi-national investors or foreign-owned wind companies involved here.
We’re all for the wind turbines!!!
Clean ,free energy given by God. How could we not put it to use?
I truly feel that the world needs to learn to use renewable energy sources and to wean off our dependance on fossil fuels. I am a year-round resident of the park, and while I value the beauty of the scenery, I acknowledge the need for balance within the Blue Line.
We cannot put asthetics above the common good of the people living within the park. The Adirondack Park Agency works with a system of checks and balances, but should also take into account the lives of the residents of said lands.
The Adirondack Park should be kept forever wild without the blight of windmills across its landscape. The natural beauty of Tug Hill has been marred by 195 (and counting) windmills. An early report of bird and bat fatalities for 120 turbines estimated an annual death count in the thousands. Access roads are needed to each tower, further degrading the natural conditions of the land.
Windmills are going up at an alarming rate with inadequate environmental regulations in place. This reckless behavior is not justified when resources could be better utilized to pursue tougher energy conservation policies, and more easily adaptable technology such as solar.
If wildlife and the wild places are lost to massive numbers of windmills, as in the Tug Hill, it seems we are simply trading one evil for another.
Yes I do believe the Barton Mines wind project should be built. Having been to the site, and after hundreds of flights all over the Adirondacks, There is plenty of room for the public & private uses. To me what is ugly throughout the park are the NYMBY crowd that refuses to look for sustainable solutions. Tell me that the cost of oil & propane going forward won’t bankrupt all who live in the north country.
We have to think differently NOW!
Wind Power is just one part of the many alternatives we need to look to for our future. What are we waiting for, build them.
While we sorely need wind as a generation source, these huge, ugly, machines should be sited off shore in the Atlantic Ocean and not in the middle of the beautiful Adirondacks.
Wind energy is one of the most effective ways to combat climate change, with a recent Department of Energy report indicating that obtaining 20% of our electricity from wind would be the equivalent of taking 140 million cars off the road. Every kWh produced from wind energy directly reduces a kWh that is produced by another power plant, usually a coal or natural gas power plant. Since these fuels must be imported from out of state, wind energy is an excellent way to promote energy independence and economic development in New York. As far as wildlife concerns, the environmental impact of fossil fuel use is at least several orders of magnitude greater than any impact that wind turbines would have. Climate change is expected to cause the extinction of up to 40% of species on earth by 2050, billions of animals are killed on a daily basis by the water intake systems of coal and nuclear power plants, and mountaintop removal coal mining continues to destroy large swaths of critical habitat in the U.S.
It is not true that wind power displaces energy produced by coal plants. Coal plants are used for baseload capacity, and wind power is not. Also, even though kWh from non-baseload plants may be displaced, the actual plants need to keep running, using fuel and producing emissions, to balance out variations of supply and demand in the electric grid. No conventional power plants have been shut down due to wind being on the grid.
That DOE report, by the way, is extremely questionable, citing many statistics without supporting data references.
Bird Deaths: According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA):
Modern turbines are far less harmful to birds than manmade objects. Bird deaths due to wind development will never be more than a very small fraction of those caused by other commonly-accepted human activities. Summaries of available wind studies can be found at http://www.currykerlinger.com and http://www.nationalwind.org. All avian studies at wind farm sites show that bird kills per turbine average two to five per year or less, with the exception of a single 3-turbine plant in Tennessee.
These include sites passed by millions of migrating birds each year. At a few sites, no kills have been found at all. A conservative estimate is that of every 10,000 human-related bird deaths in the U.S. today, wind plants cause less than one.
Leading human-related bird kills, in the U.S. alone, number in the billions.
Causes include:
• cats (1 BILLION per year)
• buildings (100 million to 1 BILLION per year)
• hunters (100 million per year)
• vehicles (60 million to 80 million per year)
• communications towers (10 million to 40 million per year)
• pesticides (67 million per year)
• power lines (10,000 to 174 million per year
I am in agreement with the Proposed Barton Wind Farm to be located in North Creek. The turbines are not only are a positive source of generating power - they are beautiful as well. The residents of North Creek should welcome this project….
I live in Johnsburg and I support the Barton Wind project. I’ll take a little visual pollution over air pollution any day; I’d rather look at it than breath it. And…even if the project produces 50% of the predicted power, it’s a step in the right direction at producing clean energy and, very importantly, educating the citizens of this country. As regards the latter - visible is good!
It is imperative that we recognize the crisis nature of our use of fuels. We need to conserve fossil fuels, but we also need to look to alternatives such as wind and the sun. The Barton mines site is a good site for a small wind farm, assuming that they have proven that there is enough wind, and that the towers can be sited to have minimal impact on birds and bats.
The Adirondacks deserve clean power production after all the coal power derived acid rain they have suffered. Wind turbines are a symbol of the spirit of the Adirondacks and Barton Mines is an invested stakeholder in the region. I support this project.
Google Earth…The No Longer Hidden Cost of Coal
While many residents and visitors both within and outside the Adirondack Park have voiced opposition to the siting of wind generation within the Park, I would urge them to visit Google Earth on their computer to see how their current power purchases are despoiling someone else’s mountain tops - those of Appalachia. Google Earth enables you to fly via your computer not only to your back yard, but also to the mountains of West Virginia. You will be able to see the ongoing permanent destruction of the scenic vistas all across Appalachia caused by Mountain Tops being blown away to provide “cheap” access to coal. Our current power purchases have had and are continuing to have dire consequences. Google Earth has enabled all to see the ongoing destruction of Appalachia that is Not In Our Backyard. To see and hear more visit: http://www.ilovemountains.org .
Edward Bennett
President
New York Interfaith Power and Light
32 Main Street
Ballston Lake, New York
There is alot of propaganda out there being created by anti wind groups. For an area allready zoned for industrial use in the Adirondack Moutains this sounds like a very environmentally friendly and vivable idea. It supports a philosphy of keeping the Adriondacks pollution free while using the natural resource provided by them in a responsible way. This makes them self sufficent and not relient on fossil fuel plants in another area of the country.
I think it is important to consider that wind energy is vivable and can support a large number of homes per turbine (500-1500). It is certainly not an anwser to becoming 100% green, but anyone with common sense isn’t looking for that at this point in time. It is important to start aggressively producing green energy and to chip away at buring fossil fuels. This is a good start and can set us out in the right direction.
The windmills are majestic as are the Adirondack Mountains and they will create a some short term and long term jobs in an area that could use some work other then tourism to support it’s locals.
I have visited the proposed site for the Barton project, presently a mine spoils dump area. It may be visible from a few locations, as are the many lift towers already on Gore Mountain. Its location lies in a notch between two peaks, limiting its visible impact.
Blades turning at 12 to 15 rpm have not been shown to be a problem for birds. If anyone has an obligation to support the benefits of wind energy it should be those of us who live in the Park and see the damage caused by coal-fired electric generation.
I strongly support the Barton project, both from an engineering standpoint and as a demonstration that there are viable sources of power that do not pollute.
I live within 15 miles of the proposed windmill project and I am in full support.The Adirondack Park is a gem which needs to be protected and I understand at first glance why there may be opposition,but I beleive the benefit of clean renewable energy on a mountain spotted with hundreds of towers already out weigh any negative impacts.
These turbines should not be permitted in the Adk park. There are enough other suitable areas outside the park for the turbines to be placed. The intrusion created by the turbines would violate the “forever wild” concept of the Adirondacks.
I disagree -there are not enough good locations for windmills if we are to do all that should be done to stop using fossil fuels. We need all good sites quickly.
And I disagree here too - forever wild applies to state owned land, not to the land and homes and businesses of the citizens who own private land in the park. But it makes no sense anyway to talk about protecting as ‘forever wild’ an old mine that hasn’t been a wild area for a hundred years and on the same mountain as a huge state owned ski area that has miles of ski trails. You could lay out all the windmills with room left over on just one of the several dozen ski trails.
we have them near atlantisc city. they seem to be a positve thing. not so bad esthetically and no pollution. not sure if wildlife is affected in any way
Those of us who live in the Adirondack Park know all too well the ravages of acid rain and mercury pollution that result from coal-fired electric power plants. We have to find local sources of electric generation and the proposed Adirondack Wind Energy Park is a step in the right direction. Just like global warming is an unfortunate sign of the times, properly sited wind farms are a positive sign of the times in response to global climate change.
In the case of the Barton Group project many important components are already in place. A long-standing community oriented company with private ownership of land which has an excellent wind resource, much of the required infrastructure exists (access roads, high voltage transmission power lines, etc.), which adds up to sustainable development for power generation, job creation, and increased propery tax revenue. Along with visiting Gore Mountain for skiing, an increase in tourism is likely to come from being the first wind energy farm in the Park.
By modern commerical wind farm standards, this project is small by comparison, but just the right size to generate considerable renewably derived electricity for the area and begin taking responsibility for meeting some of our power needs.
YIMBY - time to say “Yes In My Back Yard.”
Regarding assertions here that wind generated electricity has no economic or environmental value:
Reports by the US Department of Energy, including a recent report that Wind Energy could supply 20% of our countries needs by 2030, and reports by the power grid operating authorities and technical experts in the field in multiple states, including New York State, have concluded that Wind Energy is a cost effective means of producing energy that reduces pollution and GHG emissions while producing economic benefits to society.
In a recent news report on our regional North Country Public Radio, the spokesman for the NY grid operator, when asked about opinions to the contrary, such as have been expressed here, stated (politely) that those asserting such opinions “haven’t done their homework”.
The web sites recommended as containing ‘the truth’ about Wind Energy by opponents are all of a genre with similar ‘causes’ web sites. It appears that news of this discussion was posted on one or more of them.
I strongly support the proposed wind farm as a small step towards reducing our dependency on fossil fuels.
Conservation and improved energy efficiency is also very important but it is an additional component for reducing greenhouse gas production and fossil fuel dependence, not a replacement for additional sources like wind and solar.
Having seen large wind farms in NY and Europe, I don’t find the turbines visually or audibly offensive.
It is hard to understand why some of the anti-wind groups are so vehement, continuing to put forward objections that have largely been dismissed.
It seems we could figure out how to build or control the turbines or to find the way to detour and protect the ,migrating birds. Until then, my vote is no.
I’d like to know about the danger to wildlife. Is it possible that bats and birds will learn to avoid the structures?
I think wind power is a desirable energy source preferable to coal, but we should know more about the long term effects before constructing this project.
Has anything been learned from other wind farms in terms of long-term impact?
Renewable energy is a necessary movement to protect many other resources.
yes
Wind power is an appropriate response to our life threatening climate global crisis
I strongly object to the wind turbine project because of the size and mass of the turbines can be seen from my front door.
I object to the wind turbines. I do NOT believe it will benefit any of the locals in Johnsburg as they say it will. All of the tree huggers complain about ATV’s and camping and cell towers but they agree with something as large as the wind turbines, I just don’t get it.
Yes they should be built. We have the Maple Ridge site in our area and there are no problems.
Build it. They have had windmills in europe for a long long time. The early settlers hear had them. They don’t pollute. They don’t use a resource that we have to kill others to obtain.
Build the damn things.
I have seen a large wind farm near Watertown. The large structures are
somewhat otherworldly and alien looking
on the landscape.
The utilitarian virtues of these turbines
need to weighed carefully against their visual impact.
yes, wind power should be encoraged in the ADKs - why not end acid rain from power producing plants!
While we all love the views afforded by our landscape, someone’s views are spoiled by all fuel-powered electric generators…we can borrow from our forefathers and harness the winds!
In the US, “wind farms” are now being built primarily for tax avoidance purposes, not because of their environmental, energy or economic benefits. The tax breaks and subsidies have more value to “wind farm” owners than the revenue from the sale of electricity they produce.
These generous tax breaks and subsidies are at the expense of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers and are hidden in their tax bills and monthly electric bills.
if the town can destroy the ski bowl park , with littlt expected benefit to our town people and town businessews why can’t bartons build a wind farm that could possibly have a positive effect on our eindividual economics. i have seen wind farms and turbines gracing the hills and mountains in PA, I think they are actually beautiful to watch
Yes. I think that there will be a way to dissuade birds and bats from the turbines, and aesthetics should be secondary to clean energy.
Yes, windmills are an important piece in what will be the future energy puzzle.
yes, to reduce dependence on foreign oil
We think the wind turbines would be very helpful and benifit the land while conserving energy
Some people writing in from afar seem not to understand that this relatively small wind farm is proposed for privately owned, industrial zoned land. It is not proposing to use state owned park land. It is being proposed (for their own land) by a long time trusted local company – not an outside developer and not a foreign corporation.
Their location is very windy and already has roads and a power line and only distant neighbors.
Tax credits and subsidies may not be the best tools for promoting green energy, but they are what is available now. There are large costs of fossil fuel acquisition and use, like acid rain and mercury pollution and supporting military activities that are indirectly paid for in taxes making the price of fossil fuel energy appear artificially low. Maybe a carbon tax would be better but for now the tax credits and subsidies for wind just help recognize the benefits of avoiding the external costs (externalities) of fossil fuel use.
Countries all around the world are putting up wind turbines as fast as they can be made. That would not be the case if the motivation were a US tax code based sham.
We have witnessed the tangible benefits of wind turbine generators, and endorse their introduction at the Barton Mines site. The actual benefits, economic and ecological, hugely outweigh the perceived drawbacks, most of which are hypothetical.
Yes, definitely build the wind farm. I have seen these turbines in other areas and they are magnificent. We need to gather and use the power of the wind where ever possible to benefit the environment and our pocketbooks.
Windpower has great potential. It is too early to establish an industrial facility in the Adirondacks. Time and money would be better spent developing and encouraging the installation and use of smaller, privately owned equipment. Energy generation must be decentralized and “un-politicized” to become safe and efficient. Good stewardship of our nation’s resources, both economic and natural, will require the reinvention of our culture.
Yes, windpower can and will be used. No, the Adirondacks should not be sacrificed to prop up a culture and economy based on consumption. Industry has brought some great things to our country, but we cannot depend on industrial models for our entire economy. For what reason should we not each take personal responsibility? Isn’t this your Adirondack Park? Isn’t it your house that needs electricity? I will gladly put a small wind turbine in my backyard so that I can keep my Adirondack Park. Will you help me? Can we help each other?
as long as we feel the need for electric we should consider this option,whats worse no air to breathe or the windturbine?
Yes the wind tuirbines should be built. They save on much electricity and will be helpful in the near future. The adirondack park will have a better reputation too. Although these wind turbines might be considered ugly they are not that bad and can be hidden.
I believe that the project be allowed to be constructed
Yes, build them because if we in the park will not accept small sacrifices to reduce acid rain and green house gasses then we set a bad example and lose the moral high ground when we ask other regions to reduce their pollution for the sake of our park.
Yes, because we can’t wait for solar and hydrogen and just “conservation” alone is pathetically inadequate – we need to do all we can as quickly as possible and wind energy is available now.
Yes, build them now because if someone develops a better plan in the future and the wind mills aren’t needed then they will come down in 20 years or so and views will return as they were. ( But I like the look of wind mills anyway.)
Yes, because claims that wind energy doesn’t displace fossil generation is just tactical rhetoric by view NIMBYs. How come would citizens with no special expertise but opposed to seeing wind turbines suddenly “discover” that it’s not the view – they just don’t work, no matter that the Dpt. Of Energy or the Public Service Commission says they do. The motives are transparent.
Yes, definitely. Renewable technology is a must for our future. The visual impact will be a positive for the area in that we would be joining the movement across this nation to break our rediculous addiction to foreign oil and its devestation to our planet…to say nothing of our pathetic dependence on the whim of the arab states. Opening the door to similar projects in the future would be a good thing.. for our nation, our adirondack park, and our local communities. Get on with it, or future generations won’t have an adirondack park as the detrimental effects of global warming take over.
It is the Barton wind factory not farm. Farms produce food. Factories produce electricity. Building this eyesore inside the Blue Line is testament to the short-sightedness of engineers and the greed of developers. The problem is not supply, it is consumption.
I think that other places who are more to blame ought to be the ones in the hot seat - more pressured by government to build these turbines if the coal-fired electric plants are the problem, which they clearly are. The Adirondacks are big enough, though, for a few turbines, and they are filled with problem-solvers who may be able to figure out how to avoid bat and thrush loss. What seems more important than aesthetics is that we maintain the health of the region, or any number of species may find better homes elsewhere. Other, larger areas ought to take notice of wind, anyway.
Yes, yes, yes you my friends are on the right track. In the words of my favorite late great Tim R: “Go get em ,Jim”
I don`t read or hear much about the actual construction of the wind farm on Barton property.
The November 23, 2007 Plattsburgh Republican reported the pavement on Brainardsville Road was cracked from hundreds of truck trips made to wind-farm projects in western Clinton and eastern Franklin counties.
The damage was especially irritating in Franklin County because not only were the bridges replaced, but the entire length of Brainardsville Road from Malone to Ellenburg was widened and resurfaced as part of a $12 million state project in 2000 and 2001. Often the heaviest trucks on roads in the Adirondacks carry logs. Trucks carrying steel and concrete weigh many times more than log trucks. Has anyone figured out how to get thousands of cubic yards of concrete and hundreds of tons of steel to the construction site for the massive wind mills? Has anyone given any thought to what the increased traffic will do to the roads? Some may say bring the material in by helicopter as it was done in the past with ski lifts. The windmills are so big they make ski lifts look like toys. Will people stand for the noise of constant helicopter trips to the construction site? The closest concrete plant that has the capacity to make enough concrete for the industrial site is in Glens Falls. Where will the steel come from? Building the windmils requires trained workers with special skills. Where will all these workers live? Will they commute from different towns? Will mobil homes have to be brought in so they can live near the project?
Reports particularly in the foreign press tell that windmills are less reliable than their manufacturers claim. Blades sometimes fly off them and they have a habit of catching fire. Anyone can see burning windmills on the Internet. What plans have been made to control a fire in the gear box of a windmill? Have local fire companies and Forest Rangers been contacted about this? The gear box is so high that not even the most powerful fire hose can reach it. The image of a burning gearbox with flaming pieces dropping off it is not one I want to see on a mountain in the Adirondacks.
The move to alternative energy sources is long overdue.
Wind Farms serve a good ecological purpose by supplying renewable clean energy.
There are methods of keeping birds away from the turbines, making the turbines safe for birds and bats. And, if you have never seen a wind farm, you cannot know that it can be a thing of awe and beauty
Wind turbines are ugly, unreliable, and destroy views, plant and animal life. They also can’t provide a significant fraction of power needs. They would be the least attractive form of power generation. They are the opposite of environmentalism: how can so many be duped. Please support safe, clean, efficient NUCLEAR.
ski at gore mt 40 to 50 days a year in my opinion its time to look for cheaper and renewable sources of energy. lets be first to say its ok in my backyard!!!! I say go for it cool to look at!!!
I will be happy if the turbines are allowed. What a great addition to the environmental education to the park.
Yes. The same proposal is being made for Sullivan County PA which is 80% state forest. Better the wind turbines than oil and gas drilling. Better than another three mile island or Chernoble.
even though my husband and i don’t live in new york we feel that wind power should be introduced and encouraged here . we have seen windmills in canada . they are actually beautiful and turn so slowly they really are not a big threat to flying birds. we must begin to become independant from mideast oil and begin to rely on clean renewable energy.
i say yes for wind turbines think it would send a great message to people and diferent kind of electricity
Had them at my old home and I saved 2,000 Dollars
No, I think it would hinder the natural appearance of the Adirondacks. The Adirondacks should not be place that you come and see industrialization.
I am in favor of wind energy and believe it can be managed in a way that is less harmful to the environment than any other current technology.
Alternative energy development combined with energy conservation AND population control is the only long-term solution to the current energy supply/demand problem.
Build the turbines and muzzle the public and private-sector eco-morons.
I tend toward saying yes to this proposal. I actually find wind turbines cool to look at and of course if we can find ways to power our everyday needs using renewable sources instead of expensive barrels of oil that is cool too!
No, this environment should be untouched.
no this would be a bad idea. there is a problem with oil and gas, but this would be a huge problem for the birds and bats. also the aderondaks are a natural place and these huge metal objects could cange the view of that. and they would be a huge eye sore.
Yes, more than 10 would be better. Please send me any information you may have regarding this project to rfisher@lipower.org
Studies should be done to provide information about the safety of birds and bats.
• We have ample wind power resources- An application by Barton Mines for wind turbines on the back side of the state ski area at Gore Mountain on an existing industrial site should receive quick approval to supply wind power to the south central part of the park with a large portion of Warren County ‘s needs met. One is only to view the Maple Ridge Wind Farm just west of the park boundary in Lowville to see the potential. They are not noisy, one doesn’t find ten’s of dead birds there, instead, a forest of modern versions of ancient windmills quietly supplying 2% of upstate NY’s long term energy needs. Local landowners benefit greatly from the towers rental income.
I do agree only if there is a saftey feature protecting wild life.
I would agree to wind power here if we were to actually receive the electric power. However all the power is sent out of state or to Canada that will not help to lower my bills in the future. If another state or country wants wind power let them build it there. Send me some of this cheap power and you will have my vote if not take a hike Barton!
While there is no doubt that the turbines would benefit the region, a hard look should be taken at the possible impact to birds and bats before it is built.
I oppose wind turbines due to their detrimental impact on birds.
YES!!
Time to start doing and stop talking about alternative power sources.
As for visibility the area is very secluded and would not be highly vivsible except from a very close remote wilderness area.
And for opening the door to similar projects in the future…..if done properly and carefully what is wrong with additional sources of non-polluting clean energy that could potentially prove better for the Adirondack envronment?
We need more renewable sources of energy.
yes, they should be built. any type of alternative energy is great. although there should be stiff regulations as to where and how many can be built in other areas in the future. solar energy anyone?
With so many people trying to find alternative sources of energy, I cannot understand the objection to wind turbines. It seems their downfalls are so minimal to the other options we using at this time. If I had the acreage to build one, I would.
It would be good for this area, as a power source.The people in this area are being hit hard, because of rising oil and gas prices.We need to travel to get to work, to buy food, and get medical services.This is no public transportation. Cheaper power makes life a whole lot easier for the locals.
No, they ruin the beautiful vistas we enjoy in Upstate New York! Get nuclear energy up to max!
Absolutely yes we should be doing this immediately!
To all those who say nuclear power is safe and clean; they’re not looking at all the costs and dangers of mining, transporting, converting and then disposing of the uranium. To those who say nuclear power will reduce and help eliminate our dependence on oil; we’ll just be changing the fuel we’re dependent on since the US has only about 2% of the worlds uranium supply.
To those who appose this because they are “ugly”; that’s an opinion (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) and if you were to look you would see the power lines already running through the mountains, which are now carrying the power created by sources that are polluting the air and contributing to global warming. Finally to those who say we shouldn’t be using taxpayer’s money to fund or help fund these projects; we’re facing a national and global crisis that not only threatens our security but quite likely our survival. The government absolutely should be involved and leading the way.
We’ve wasted the better part of 30 years since the first gas crisis in the 70’s debating alternative fuels; lets get moving and get this done!
I Believe that the Barton Group Wind Turbines are a positive for the Adk park.
It helps to reduce the reliance on oil and other fuels. We have an abundance of wind and if properly sized and shaped the wind tunnels will be another attraction to the region in an area that will benefit from the tourism. What great views would there be from a wind trubine group’s land. A whole picnic are and complex could be opened up for all to enjoy. As for the birds. Check with the Lowville group. Death of birds is very minimal. The birds steer away once they see the area is habited by another source.
Please build the wind farm and experiment with all types of wind object to see what is the best for the area to reap the most electricity. The clean technology will only benefit all who live and visit the park. We need to harnass Mother Natures wind.
Yes the wind turbines shold be put in place. Any saving on foreign imports and any alternative to oil is a plus. The Lowville project seems sound and operating well. There is no reason to not uses the Barton Area for wind generation.
Perhaps the color and shapes can be experimented with to help all those who want to out there and see only trees. The park must help in energy conservation as well.
Bravo for proposing this project.
Yes by all means the wind turbines should be built.
The time has come for Americans to actively pursue energy sources that are not dependent on fossil fuels. While the turbines may not be the most aesthetically pleasing sight, we have to remember that the location already served an industrial purpose, and the property has been previously disturbed. This project gives New Yorkers and Adirondack residents an opportunity to set an example on how to create renewable energy from a resource that will never be depleted.
I live in view of Gore Mt and the Barton site. I support the project wholeheartedly. Most of the opposition is unscientific selfish personal bias. It is time to take energy development seriously. This is already an industrial site. A large old open mine that draws hundreds of tourists each year. It is adjacent to a major ski area that cuts trails. makes snow, grooms trails day and night with big machines and produces signifficant light pollution. The impact of Gore Mt is much greater and in environmentally unfriendly ways than the wind farm will ever be. Build it !
I agree, I support the project wholehartedly. Wind turbines are beautiful - they are the future. We cannot oppose the development of alternative energy sources which will decrease our dependence on foreign oil and decrease our contribution of greenhouse gases to the global environment. Windmills of old are so positively regarded, please give the new ones a chance.
I THINK THAT WE HVE TO LOOK TO OUR FUTURE. I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE WIND TURBINES THAT ARE CLEAN THAN HAVE ANOTHER NUCLEAR PLANT IN MY BACK YARD.(OSWEGO IS VISIBLE FROM THE TOP OF THE HILL WHERE I LIVE)IF ANYTHING LIKE CHERNOBLE WERE TO HAPPEN, I WOULD BE TOAST!
I think the building of wind turbines in the Adirondacks would be a good thing. It would help the economy in a depressed economic area and provide “green” energy to the area. I have seen wind fields in Europe and they really are spectacular and an interesting component to a landscape.