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/32539 Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:28:39 GMT This photo of the Laurel Mountain Wind Project located Northwest of Elkins, WV shows the view of the 61-turbines overlooking Randolph County. AES Corporation's project (total nameplate capacity of 125 megawatts) erected along 8-miles of the Laurel Mountain ridgeline between Barbour and Randolph counties was approved in 2008 by the WV PSC under substantial protest by residents in the county. http://www.windaction.org/articles/32539 http://www.windaction.org/articles/32538 Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:25:35 GMT This photo of the Laurel Mountain Wind Project located Northwest of Elkins, WV shows the view of the 61-turbines overlooking Barbour County. AES Corporation's project (total nameplate capacity of 125 megawatts) erected along 8-miles of the Laurel Mountain ridgeline between Barbour and Randolph counties was approved in 2008 by the WV PSC under substantial protest by residents in the county. http://www.windaction.org/articles/32538 http://www.windaction.org/articles/32536 Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:57:08 GMT This photo of the Laurel Mountain Wind Project located Northwest of Elkins, WV shows the impact of the giant substation needed to service AES Corporation's project. The wind project consists of 61 wind turbines (total nameplate capacity of 125 megawatts) erected along 8-miles of the Laurel Mountain ridgeline between Barbour and Randolph counties. It was approved in 2008 by the WV PSC under substantial protest by residents in the county. http://www.windaction.org/articles/32536 http://www.windaction.org/articles/32535 Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:53:15 GMT This photo of the Laurel Mountain Wind Project located Northwest of Elkins, WV shows a closer view of the construction site. AES Corporation's 61-turbine project (total nameplate capacity of 125 megawatts) was approved in 2008 by the WV PSC under substantial protest by residents in the county. http://www.windaction.org/articles/32535 http://www.windaction.org/articles/32534 Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:50:41 GMT This photo of the Laurel Mountain Wind Project located Northwest of Elkins, WV shows the view of the 61 turbine project looking south. The project is still under construction but the impact of clearing and road development is notable. AES Corporation's project (total nameplate capacity of 125 megawatts) was approved in 2008 by the WV PSC under substantial protest by residents in the county. http://www.windaction.org/articles/32534 http://www.windaction.org/articles/32533 Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:47:29 GMT This photo of the Laurel Mountain Wind Project located Northwest of Elkins, WV shows the view of the 61 turbine project looking north along 8-miles of the Laurel Mountain ridgeline between Barbour and Randolph counties. AES Corporation's project (total nameplate capacity of 125 megawatts) was approved in 2008 by the WV PSC under substantial protest by residents in the county. http://www.windaction.org/articles/32533 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/37564 Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:19:32 GMT Thursday's hearing was relatively brief, in part because no one from the public appeared in protest of the 33-turbine expansion and in part because Beech Ridge, the West Virginia Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO and the PSC staff had entered into a joint stipulation and agreement for settlement prior to the hearing. http://www.windaction.org/articles/37564