http://www.windaction.org/ facts, analysis, exposure of wind energy's real impacts en-us Windaction hourly 1 http://backend.userland.com/rss http://www.windaction.org/articles/9324 Thu, 03 May 2007 12:32:48 GMT Windmill turbines form a wind farm on Backbone Mountain near Thomas, West Virginia http://www.windaction.org/articles/9324 http://www.windaction.org/articles/6702 Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:48:44 GMT Dan Boone created this image using the digital USGS 7.5-minute topographic map mosaic for Grant County, WV (from NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway) and plotted the wind turbine locations for the 2 windplants –US WindForce (250 MW) and NedPower (300 MW) – which were approved for siting near Mount Storm, WV in 2002 and 2003, respectively. Turbine locations were based on the lat-long coordinates provided in FAA's 7460-1 database for these facilities in 2006 and for turbines planned in 2002 (NedPower only). US WindForce’s wind turbine locations as planned in 2002 were based on their application to the WV Public Service Commission. http://www.windaction.org/articles/6702 http://www.windaction.org/articles/6701 Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:43:11 GMT https://www.oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaaEXT/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=460650 (2006) and
https://www.oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaaEXT/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=242479 (2002) .
Note that the 82 wind turbines proposed to FAA in 2006 are slated to be 388 feet in overall height (from ground level to highest point of rotor). There were 155 wind turbines proposed to FAA in 2002. However, in 2003 the WV Public Service Commission did not approve the southern phase of NedPower’s proposed windplant due to concerns over visual impact to Dolly Sods Wilderness Area. Nonetheless, NedPower’s windplant was authorized by the WV PSC to construct up to 200 industrial wind turbines in the central and northern portions of the project area so long as the project’s total generating capacity did not exceed 300 MW. NedPower sold its development rights to this windplant in 2006 to Shell’s wind energy division. ]]> Dan Boone created this image using the digital USGS 7.5-minute topographic map mosaic for Grant County, WV (from NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway) and plotted the wind turbine locations based on the lat-long coordinates provided in FAA's 7460-1 database for this facility in 2006 and for turbines planned in 2002 - e.g., https://www.oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaaEXT/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=460650 (2006) and https://www.oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaaEXT/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=242479 (2002) . Note that the 82 wind turbines proposed to FAA in 2006 are slated to be 388 feet in overall height (from ground level to highest point of rotor). There were 155 wind turbines proposed to FAA in 2002. However, in 2003 the WV Public Service Commission did not approve the southern phase of NedPower’s proposed windplant due to concerns over visual impact to Dolly Sods Wilderness Area. Nonetheless, NedPower’s windplant was authorized by the WV PSC to construct up to 200 industrial wind turbines in the central and northern portions of the project area so long as the project’s total generating capacity did not exceed 300 MW. NedPower sold its development rights to this windplant in 2006 to Shell’s wind energy division. http://www.windaction.org/articles/6701 http://www.windaction.org/articles/9945 Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:40:38 GMT Windmill turbines sit on a wind farm near Thomas, West Virginia, August 28, 2006. http://www.windaction.org/articles/9945 http://www.windaction.org/articles/2231 Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:37:13 GMT Artist Paula Stahl, who lives within earshot of the Tucker County windmills, says they've scared off wildlife. http://www.windaction.org/articles/2231 http://www.windaction.org/articles/1477 Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:34:51 GMT http://www.windaction.org/articles/1477 http://www.windaction.org/articles/506 Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:50:56 GMT Jon Boone's Comments regarding Mountaineer (WV) Before , Mountaineer (WV) After (1), and Mountaineer (WV) After (2)(this image). The first two images (i.e. Before and After 1) show the extensive forest-interior habitat that existed before the windplant was constructed and the resulting impacts following construction in late 2002. The third image (i.e. After 2) shows the southern half of the windplant (about 22 turbines) and identifies the boundaries of the study area for the pre- vs. post-construction analysis. It also shows that the study area I chose was fairly representative of the existing habitat conditions at this windplant and gives a better view of the magnitude of the development’s impacts on forest and especially forest-interior habitat. [Forest interior is the type of habitat that exists at more than 100 meters from a clearing. Forest interior is required for the survival of certain species and is the type of habitat most easily destroyed by any form of development.] On the portion of the site that I analyzed, the construction of this wind factory cleared over 42 acres of forest for the string of eight turbines (out of 44) that I analyzed. The extensive fragmentation of habitat resulting from the 50-ft-wide service road and the 5+ acres (average) that were bulldozed to erect each turbine caused the loss of over 150 acres of forest-interior conditions within this once-contiguous forest tract. My estimate is that a complete analysis of the entire project area, including 5.5 miles of ridgetop and 44 turbines, would find a total of nearly 200 acres of forest were cleared and over 750 acres of forest-interior habitat was lost following construction of the Mountaineer wind energy facility. ]]> This is a wider view from the same photograph (Mountaineer (WV) After (1). The study area is shown by the rectanglular outline. Jon Boone's Comments regarding Mountaineer (WV) Before , Mountaineer (WV) After (1), and Mountaineer (WV) After (2)(this image). The first two images (i.e. Before and After 1) show the extensive forest-interior habitat that existed before the windplant was constructed and the resulting impacts following construction in late 2002. The third image (i.e. After 2) shows the southern half of the windplant (about 22 turbines) and identifies the boundaries of the study area for the pre- vs. post-construction analysis. It also shows that the study area I chose was fairly representative of the existing habitat conditions at this windplant and gives a better view of the magnitude of the development’s impacts on forest and especially forest-interior habitat. [Forest interior is the type of habitat that exists at more than 100 meters from a clearing. Forest interior is required for the survival of certain species and is the type of habitat most easily destroyed by any form of development.] On the portion of the site that I analyzed, the construction of this wind factory cleared over 42 acres of forest for the string of eight turbines (out of 44) that I analyzed. The extensive fragmentation of habitat resulting from the 50-ft-wide service road and the 5+ acres (average) that were bulldozed to erect each turbine caused the loss of over 150 acres of forest-interior conditions within this once-contiguous forest tract. My estimate is that a complete analysis of the entire project area, including 5.5 miles of ridgetop and 44 turbines, would find a total of nearly 200 acres of forest were cleared and over 750 acres of forest-interior habitat was lost following construction of the Mountaineer wind energy facility. http://www.windaction.org/articles/506 http://www.windaction.org/articles/505 Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:45:48 GMT Jon Boone's Comments regarding Mountaineer (WV) Before , Mountaineer (WV) After (1)(this image), and Mountaineer (WV) After (2). The first two images (i.e. Before and After 1) show the extensive forest-interior habitat that existed before the windplant was constructed and the resulting impacts following construction in late 2002. The third image (i.e. After 2) shows the southern half of the windplant (about 22 turbines) and identifies the boundaries of the study area for the pre- vs. post-construction analysis. It also shows that the study area I chose was fairly representative of the existing habitat conditions at this windplant and gives a better view of the magnitude of the development’s impacts on forest and especially forest-interior habitat. [Forest interior is the type of habitat that exists at more than 100 meters from a clearing. Forest interior is required for the survival of certain species and is the type of habitat most easily destroyed by any form of development.] On the portion of the site that I analyzed, the construction of this wind factory cleared over 42 acres of forest for the string of eight turbines (out of 44) that I analyzed. The extensive fragmentation of habitat resulting from the 50-ft-wide service road and the 5+ acres (average) that were bulldozed to erect each turbine caused the loss of over 150 acres of forest-interior conditions within this once-contiguous forest tract. My estimate is that a complete analysis of the entire project area, including 5.5 miles of ridgetop and 44 turbines, would find a total of nearly 200 acres of forest were cleared and over 750 acres of forest-interior habitat was lost following construction of the Mountaineer wind energy facility. ]]> This is a post-construction photo in natural color covering the same area shown in Mountaineer (WV) Before. The yellow circles are in the same locations as above to allow accurate comparisons. It is somewhat difficult to pick out the actual wind turbines but their prominent shadows are easily discernable. They are black lines pointing roughly NE except the two in the SW corner, which point WNW in this composite photo. The 44 turbines of the Mountaineer project were manufactured by NEG Micon and imported from Denmark. They are 345 feet tall and each turbine can generate up to 1.5 MW when the wind is blowing optimally. However, because the winds blowing over Appalachian ridges are intermittent and only occasionally ‘optimal’, a realistic estimate of the annual average generating potential for a 1.5-MW turbine in this region would be less than 0.5 MW, a 30% capacity factor. Jon Boone's Comments regarding Mountaineer (WV) Before , Mountaineer (WV) After (1)(this image), and Mountaineer (WV) After (2). The first two images (i.e. Before and After 1) show the extensive forest-interior habitat that existed before the windplant was constructed and the resulting impacts following construction in late 2002. The third image (i.e. After 2) shows the southern half of the windplant (about 22 turbines) and identifies the boundaries of the study area for the pre- vs. post-construction analysis. It also shows that the study area I chose was fairly representative of the existing habitat conditions at this windplant and gives a better view of the magnitude of the development’s impacts on forest and especially forest-interior habitat. [Forest interior is the type of habitat that exists at more than 100 meters from a clearing. Forest interior is required for the survival of certain species and is the type of habitat most easily destroyed by any form of development.] On the portion of the site that I analyzed, the construction of this wind factory cleared over 42 acres of forest for the string of eight turbines (out of 44) that I analyzed. The extensive fragmentation of habitat resulting from the 50-ft-wide service road and the 5+ acres (average) that were bulldozed to erect each turbine caused the loss of over 150 acres of forest-interior conditions within this once-contiguous forest tract. My estimate is that a complete analysis of the entire project area, including 5.5 miles of ridgetop and 44 turbines, would find a total of nearly 200 acres of forest were cleared and over 750 acres of forest-interior habitat was lost following construction of the Mountaineer wind energy facility. http://www.windaction.org/articles/505 http://www.windaction.org/articles/500 Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:16:34 GMT ]]> This photo illustrates the amount of land disturbance that is involved in constructing these machines. Photo taken from the cover of a report on the Mountaineer facility by Jessica Kerns and Paul Kerlinger http://www.windaction.org/articles/500 http://www.windaction.org/articles/381 Thu, 01 Jan 2004 05:00:00 GMT motorist drives past two of the 44 turbines (@1.5MW & approx. 340' tall) of the Mountaineer wind plant http://www.windaction.org/articles/381 http://www.windaction.org/articles/504 Wed, 01 Jan 1997 05:00:00 GMT Jon Boone's Comments regarding Mountaineer (WV) Before (this image), Mountaineer (WV) After (1), and Mountaineer (WV) After (2).

The first two images (i.e. Before and After 1) show the extensive forest-interior habitat that existed before the windplant was constructed and the resulting impacts following construction in late 2002. The third image (i.e. After 2) shows the southern half of the windplant (about 22 turbines) and identifies the boundaries of the study area for the pre- vs. post-construction analysis. It also shows that the study area I chose was fairly representative of the existing habitat conditions at this windplant and gives a better view of the magnitude of the development’s impacts on forest and especially forest-interior habitat. [Forest interior is the type of habitat that exists at more than 100 meters from a clearing. Forest interior is required for the survival of certain species and is the type of habitat most easily destroyed by any form of development.] On the portion of the site that I analyzed, the construction of this wind factory cleared over 42 acres of forest for the string of eight turbines (out of 44) that I analyzed. The extensive fragmentation of habitat resulting from the 50-ft-wide service road and the 5+ acres (average) that were bulldozed to erect each turbine caused the loss of over 150 acres of forest-interior conditions within this once-contiguous forest tract. My estimate is that a complete analysis of the entire project area, including 5.5 miles of ridgetop and 44 turbines, would find a total of nearly 200 acres of forest were cleared and over 750 acres of forest-interior habitat was lost following construction of the Mountaineer wind energy facility. ]]> Site of a portion of the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center in 1997, five years before the start of construction. This is a digital color infrared photograph, which explains the odd coloration. The red areas are the conifer tree species (spruce, pine and hemlock) which are highly reflective of infrared light. The photo was taken during the winter so the brown areas depict the bare deciduous forest, mostly northern hardwoods — maple, birch, cherry, and northern red oak. The green bar at lower left is a 100m [328 foot] scale. This study area was chosen to compare before and after conditions, illustrating the impact of this type of development. Jon Boone's Comments regarding Mountaineer (WV) Before (this image), Mountaineer (WV) After (1), and Mountaineer (WV) After (2). The first two images (i.e. Before and After 1) show the extensive forest-interior habitat that existed before the windplant was constructed and the resulting impacts following construction in late 2002. The third image (i.e. After 2) shows the southern half of the windplant (about 22 turbines) and identifies the boundaries of the study area for the pre- vs. post-construction analysis. It also shows that the study area I chose was fairly representative of the existing habitat conditions at this windplant and gives a better view of the magnitude of the development’s impacts on forest and especially forest-interior habitat. [Forest interior is the type of habitat that exists at more than 100 meters from a clearing. Forest interior is required for the survival of certain species and is the type of habitat most easily destroyed by any form of development.] On the portion of the site that I analyzed, the construction of this wind factory cleared over 42 acres of forest for the string of eight turbines (out of 44) that I analyzed. The extensive fragmentation of habitat resulting from the 50-ft-wide service road and the 5+ acres (average) that were bulldozed to erect each turbine caused the loss of over 150 acres of forest-interior conditions within this once-contiguous forest tract. My estimate is that a complete analysis of the entire project area, including 5.5 miles of ridgetop and 44 turbines, would find a total of nearly 200 acres of forest were cleared and over 750 acres of forest-interior habitat was lost following construction of the Mountaineer wind energy facility. http://www.windaction.org/articles/504 http://www.windaction.org/articles/503 GMT US Wind Force’s depiction of their Liberty Gap project planned for Jack Mountain in Pendleton County, WV. This view is looking south toward Highland County. Turbines will extend all the way to the state line and, if Highland gives approval, they could be extended further south. http://www.windaction.org/articles/503 http://www.windaction.org/articles/1523 GMT http://www.windaction.org/articles/1523 http://www.windaction.org/articles/23963 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:44:23 GMT As Virginia wrangles over the visual impact of 400-foot towers on nearby historic properties, a similar situation in West Virginia resulted in a $10,000 grant offer from a wind energy company building 23 wind turbines overlooking some 18 historic places in Mineral County. Not everyone agrees it's an appropriate solution, but Pinnacle Wind Force LLC offered to make that amount available for historic preservation efforts after the West Virginia Division of Culture and History (the State Historic Preservation Office) found its wind project would have an adverse impact on historic resources nearby. http://www.windaction.org/articles/23963 http://www.windaction.org/articles/23968 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:23:12 GMT West Virginia boundary commission members Charles Sypolt and Curt Keplinger visited Tamarack Ridge Saturday morning to inspect the site of a proposed industrial wind farm. ...Governor Manchin formed the boundary commission in September after the Pocahontas County Commission alerted him that the wind project might encroach into West Virginia territory. The county commission became concerned after the developer, Highland New Wind Development, LLC (HNWD), issued a site plan with the state line re-plotted on the base topographic map and two turbines very close to the re-plotted state line. http://www.windaction.org/articles/23968 http://www.windaction.org/articles/23822 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:35:23 GMT Opponents of a Mineral County wind farm project maintain it will have little impact on the power grid and the reduction of greenhouse gases. Testimony began Monday in a West Virginia Public Service Commission evidentiary hearing on the Pinnacle Wind Force project. Plans are to build 23 wind turbines on top of Green Mountain near Mount Storm. Attorney Bradley Stephens, representing the opponents, questioned US Wind Force Vice President David Friend during Monday's proceedings. http://www.windaction.org/articles/23822 http://www.windaction.org/articles/23806 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:57:32 GMT A controversial wind farm project in Mineral County goes before the state Public Service Commission starting Monday. The PSC will hear evidence from Pinnacle Wind Force, the group hoping to build 23 wind turbines on top of Green Mountain near Mt. Storm. http://www.windaction.org/articles/23806 http://www.windaction.org/articles/23787 Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:34:31 GMT Attorneys for the developers of a West Virginia wind farm questioned all but their last witness in a trial over whether the project will harm an endangered bat. The defense witnesses said Friday in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt that netting has not captured any Indiana bats and disputed audio recordings that witnesses for the plaintiffs say show the endangered bats are at the site. http://www.windaction.org/articles/23787 http://www.windaction.org/articles/23736 Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:16:09 GMT Workers atop mountain ridges are putting together 389-foot windmills with massive blades that will turn Appalachian breezes into energy. Retiree David Cowan is fighting to stop them. Because of the bats. ...It is the first court challenge to wind power under the Endangered Species Act, lawyers on both sides say. With President Obama's goal of doubling renewable energy production by 2012, wind and solar farms are rapidly expanding. As they do, battles are being waged to reach the right balance between the benefits of clean energy and the impact on birds, bats and even the water supply. http://www.windaction.org/articles/23736 http://www.windaction.org/articles/23748 Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:00:17 GMT A proposed West Virginia wind power project will harm a tiny, endangered bat and its developers should be should be required to obtain permits under the Endangered Species Act, attorneys for two environmental groups argued Wednesday in federal court. The developers admit bats will be killed by the turbines, but refuse to acknowledge the endangered Indiana bat will be among them, plaintiffs attorney Eric Glitzenstein argued in his opening statements. http://www.windaction.org/articles/23748