Need your Help - STOP Great Lakes Wind Turbine Development

[web-fisherman]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122195532

http://www.newhavenregister.com/articles/2010/07/25/business/ff3weiss0725072410.txt

http://www.worldwaterwars.com/

[Missdemeanor]

Very well said guys....I appluad the research you guys have Done. It's people like you and captain vince that make a difference. Thanks again....

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[LongLine]

WF - well said. Proponents often site singular aquatic studies but they obviously failed biology because there's a big difference between saltwater and freshwater aquatic life. Freshwater fish are much more dependent upon the nearshore environment. They also fail to consider the endangered species that we have such as the Great Lakes Sturgeon, American Eel and Atlantic Salmon, just to name a few.

They also ignore what the USA Corps of Engs is trying to do in the Sanitary Canal. I.E. use pulsed DC to alter the migration path of the Asian carp. I have asked proponents what is the difference between USACE pulsed DC and the 0.5 to 3 Hz at 33,000 volts of turbine transmission lines. The only way I can describe their looks is "oops, this guy knows something about electro-magnetic force fields, induction and corona effects."

Tom - You're too much of a gentleman. I would have used a heavy felt marker, signed my name followed by a not abbreviated "N.F.W." (Hopefully, they're not like drug dealers that use minors to sell their wares. But if they are, I would'a signed my name in chinese: Mr. No F.N. Wey.)

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[TOP SECRET]

LongLine,

As usual your ability to twist facts amazes me. The article says that the water is 95% of the fresh SURFACE water. It does NOT state it is 95% of the US water supply.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/summary95.html

This webpage from the USGS states that surface water accounts for approximately 75% of the US water supply. Hence, the great lakes supplies approximately 72% of the US water supply. Lake Ontario holds 7% of the great lakes water volume (http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/factsheet.html), which therefor means it contains approximately only 5% of the US water supply.

5%.

Your political abilities are quite impressive in manipulating people's opinions... I have neither the time nor the care to try and keep up... best wishes.

Nick

[LongLine]

The cited USGS site says we used 262,000mgal/day from surface water & 84mgal/day from ground water. It doesn’t illustrate how much surface water there is or how much ground water there is. Most of the world’s freshwater is inaccessible hence we have so many states challenging the Great Lake states for water rights. Nowhere on the webpage cited is the number 75% used.

1st paragraph from the cited EPA source says “21 % of the world’s supply and 84% of North America’s supply.†(North America is bigger than the US)

The quote you referred to, I made in the sticky on turbines is:

The Great Lakes represent approx 95% of the surface fresh water supply of North America

Somehow you read the above statement as:

such as the one that states that 95% of the nations fresh water comes from the great lakes... rubbish

I’d suggest you investigate remedial math, reading and geography classes before you accuse someone of “twisting facts.†It amazes me how turbine proponents read what they want, accuse others of twisting facts then beg out of the conversation when they’re shown their incorrect premises.

But what the hey….It’s green, so it must be good, right? Just like algae, mold, rotted teeth, and mucus when you sick.

Have a nice day.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[TOP SECRET]

The cited USGS site says we used 262,000mgal/day from surface water & 84mgal/day from ground water.

Yeah buddy I'm the one twisting facts... the webpage clearly states 262,000mgal/day for surface and 83,400mgal /day from ground. But hey you don't twist facts do you...

262000 / (262,000 + 83,400) = ~.75 = 75%. I suggest you learn to use your reading glasses and a calculator prior to commenting on another person's math skills.

You "sir" are nothing more than a politician.

[LongLine]

.

the webpage clearly states 262,000mgal/day for surface and 83,400mgal /day from ground.

Those figures you refer to are how much is used. They are not how much exists. If that was all the supply that existed then the nation would be out of water in one day.

There's a difference between the noun "supply" and the verb "supplies." An analogy is that my full 18 gal fuel tank supplies the 5 gals I use every Saturday. 5 gals per day is not my supply, my supply is 18 gal.

I apologize for the typo, I left out the k.

But you know: exactly how much freshwater there is really doesn't detract from the fact that turbine foundation & transmission line construction will dig up polluted sediments in well documented EPA Areas of Concern. There are a few states eyeing the lake water as their groundwater is inaccessible. BTW Shoremont “supplies†60 million gallons per day of drinking water out of that much greater “supply†of water to Monroe County.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[web-fisherman]

The cited USGS site says we used 262,000mgal/day from surface water & 84mgal/day from ground water.

Yeah buddy I'm the one twisting facts... the webpage clearly states 262,000mgal/day for surface and 83,400mgal /day from ground. But hey you don't twist facts do you...

262000 / (262,000 + 83,400) = ~.75 = 75%. I suggest you learn to use your reading glasses and a calculator prior to commenting on another person's math skills.

You "sir" are nothing more than a politician.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bobs_boy,

Stepping away from fishing…..

The fact is... "ONLY" 2.5% of the world's water supply is actually fresh water. 20% of that is found in the Great Lakes. It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to know that these Lakes need to be protected. The EPA even states on their site that toxins in Lake Ontario are buried safely in the sediment. We are going to compromise our fresh water resource for an old technology that doesn’t work?

[TOP SECRET]

I'm nowhere near qualified to tell you if this technology "works", but I can tell you growing up on the Hudson that they have begun their PCB dredging which for years people complained would "strir up the contaminants" and I haven't heard one negative report of the river suddenly becoming polluted. And the Hudson is the direct water source for many communities, including the Poughkeepsie area that I grew up in.

In the end... any new energy "source" will be driven by people trying to make money and blocked by people trying not to lose money (aka oil companies, property owners, etc). There will be side effects no matter where that source goes in. Do I believe the side effects stated in this thread are greatly exagerated .. yes. Do I believe the side effects of this "source" are less than putting a coal plant or nuke plant in NY... yes. Will it generate nearly as much power as the other "sources"... probably not.

All in all, there are groups lobbying both sides with fear mongering, misconceptions, rumors, and outright lies. For every analysis that shoes wind power will save the world, there will be another that shows it will destroy it. It doesn't take more than me turning on CNN and seeing the war or gulf spill to make me willing to try something different... because it's hard to believe it could be any worse.

Besides, if they raise the fishing license prices any further that alone may kill the fishing at the lake! They're talking over $100 for out of staters next year

Nick

[ray koziatek]

Im justa plummer type guy with a tad bit of COMMON sence,,,but probly the cost per wind farm project in relation to # of homes supplied ,could almost be more expensive than outfitting the same # of homes with solar energy,and a small prop to boot for the wind where it could be used..no transmission lines in water or on land,shure it ant gonna do 100% of current electrical needs but ,maybe , just maybe instead of just changing our supply sources, we should change our user habbits...lets see cars of yeasteryear 12 to 17 mpg now 30 plus mpg is becoming norm...............naa it would never work... maybe someone needs to turn the thinking cap around..

[web-fisherman]

The Hudson River is the thirty-third most polluted river in the United States. Per the EPA and DEC, It is completely forbidden to eat any fish from the river. This is what we want to avoid. Yes, they are dredging to remove these toxins because water tests indicate there a serious risk to humans, fish and wildlife that use this water source.

Fossil Fuel energy production only accounts for 8% in New York State. We do not need to take these drastic measures to produce <1% to the grid.

[ifishy]

as a hypothetical if there was no exclusion zone and you could fish as close as say 50 ft would that change anybodys view? i'd love to have some artifical structure to concentrate fish as for the rest i would have to do some real research to comment on it. in my experience (i'm a scientist by trade) most of the evidence put forth in arguments for this type of thing are greatly exaggerated to support one side or the other. and yes this would be better than a coal plant though i dont think that thats even on the table

[shadster]

The Hudson is so clean they need to take water from the Delaware to quench the thirst of NYC. Once again this stuff comes up a day late and a dollar short. Unfortunate, but that is how it has always been. In this economy we are already seeing the "show me the money" crowd in line for tickets. The right answers are out there. They come at a cost as well.

[LongLine]

That’s absolutely correct about the coal plant…No one has suggested putting a coal plant IN the lake. However proponents always argue that offshore farms are better than coal plants. A coal plant in the lake is just as bad as turbines in the lake. Vestas & Siemens recommend the exclusion zones, not NYPA. NYPA has stated that exclusion zones will be up to other gov’t agencies, which won’t commit to anything until after they are built.

Even without an exclusion zone wait & see what your boat insurance company does when they see another 150 or so navigation hazards out there.

It’s interesting how proponents always try to drum up support using “apple data†in a discussion about oranges.

Yes, part of the Upper Hudson River was dredged from May-Oct 2009. However, they used very special environmental dredges and put a lot of booms in place before they started. Fish consumption was an issue before dredging and will continue to be an issue for many years into the future. (Click on a few links on this site for details and pictures of it)

http://www.epa.gov/hudson/

No one complained about the Hudson becoming “suddenly polluted†because it already was very polluted. Lake Ontario has been becoming progressively cleaner due to the run-off water laws and loss of industry plus environmental regulations. Mussels have also contributed by consuming some pollutants and keeping them on the bottom. Why risk disturbing all that?

An NYPA rep was on Channel 8 the other night and said that “pollution is now something they may study.†They finally admit: All this time and money spent and they haven’t done their homework.

How does the Hudson compare to Lake Ontario? Well, this site says they maintain a shipping channel in the Upper river (where they dredged for PCB’s in 2009) of 12 feet deep. It also says it has an outflow of 13.6k Cu ft/sec, yet is tidal and flow can reverse itself up to 4 times per day. It also says the majority of the water is used for industrial purposes. (Industrial & potable are different things)

http://ny.water.usgs.gov/projects/hdsn/fctsht/su.html

For anyone curious, the Niagara River has a one direction outflow of approx 202k Cu ft/sec.

Yes – 2nd time you’ve used Apples in an Orange discussion. (and you call me a “politician†?)

You say it hard to imagine things could get worse. Because you can’t imagine it, doesn’t mean it can’t get worse. It just means you can’t imagine it. (Obama thinks they can get a lot worse if the Republicans get their way, but republicans don’t think that.)

As to the money issue mentioned: Yes, why should we jeopardize recreational boating/fishing as it has historically realizes a great financial return to the people of the area. Look at yourself being (pardon the expression) an “out-of-stater.†Will you continue to spend the same money here if anything happens to the fishery? I know you already tried to start a fishing tourney here, but would you do it again if anything happened to the fishery?

Also regarding money and windfarm operations, I’m sure you’re aware of the interesting financials concerning Locust Ridge II which is not very far from you:

http://republicanherald.com/news/wind-c ... s-1.222072

Iberdrola got over $50 million in cash 4 months after LRII was operational and are going to spend it other than in Pa. (They politically say “it’s re-imbursementâ€) That was in cash – not a tax credit.

How about their perfect safety record:

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/05/ ... stigation/

How about their claims to provide local jobs? Rather than hire Pa people, they went out of state.

http://republicanherald.com/news/iron-w ... Comment=60

Take it as you want. I for one am not buying their snake oil, their bridges, or their property on the moon. It’s an untested experiment in freshwater of tremendous scale with enormous risk that I am not willing to buy.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[web-fisherman]

I think what Tom and I are trying to get across to you is "Nothing belongs in the Lake". It is protected by the Public Trust Doctrine (Do a search). It's a protected natural resource. Look at the "facts" on the output of wind energy. It requires such a large land footprint to produce just a little bit of "expensive" electricity.

92% of New York State Power is "non"-fossil fuel. This means 8% is either coal or some form of petroleum. I agree we need to either replace these facilities or enhance these technologies to make it cleaner. Wind has it's place and should be utilized. However, It does not belong in the Great Lakes.

Go to the NYPA GLOW project website, Read their disclaimer.... This discounts everything they say on the site. It's all about the money!

While we make every effort to provide information from sources we consider reliable, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of information contained in this site. This information is subject to change without notice and the Power Authority disclaims any liability for any errors or omissions.

We provide links to other, outside web sites we think may be useful to our users. We have no control over these third-party sites and we do not assume responsibility for their content or endorse them.

[LongLine]

The NYSDEC publishes Wild life Monthly Highlights on their web-site. Here is what the Bureau of Habitat reported on Pg 3 & 4 for May 2010 concerning The Hudson River dredging project:

Following dredging, PCB levels in both groups of fish increased by about 2.5 times in the Thompson Island pool and by 1.5 times in the immediately downstream Northumberland-Ft Miller section. These increases were expected and are in line with experience immediately following PCB dredging at other sites.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/41433.html

The Rochester Embayment extends from shore out to 145 FOW. It's all mud/sand/silt. My depthfinder has shown me areas where it is over 40 ft thick. Per navigation maps, the area off Niagara has a very similar bottom. Turbines that stand stand 400 ft above the water line will require huge foundations for stability. Do a google on the Baltic Sea turbine foundations and transmission lines, then apply your math skills as to how much of the sediment will be disturbed. (hint: Just for transmission lines that interconnect turbines, Baltic trenches are usually 3ft wide, 5-6 ft deep. 150 turbines at 2100 ft apart would require a little over 60 miles of trench – not including substations or the runs to shore)

Tom B.

(LongLine