LongLine

Here's my letter: (feel free to copy/paste) I’m writing to inform you that I and many Lake Ontario fishermen, boaters, property owners & environmentally conscious citizens are totally against locating offshore windfarms along the shores in Lake Ontario for which the NY Power Authority is currently seeking proposals. From aesthetic, ecological, recreational, and economic viewpoints this is not a good area to install turbines. The Great Lakes were declared to be a national treasure (Presidential Exec. Order 13340 of May 18, 2004). They are a valuable freshwater resource that many governments, agencies, organizations and conservation groups have been trying to restore and protect, especially in this time of climate change that is seeing our freshwater ecology challenged and the world’s freshwater supply dwindle. 1. Aesthetically: Windmills will be a clearly visible eyesore from all points on the south shore and higher buildings inland. There will be no hills or trees to hide them. Offshore windmills are larger than their land based cousins and will fill the 50 to 150 Ft of water band along the south and eastern shores. NYPA is seeking proposal for the construction of up to 500 Megawatts of electrical production. This will require 1,250 turbines rated for 1.6 MW each which operate at a typical 25% efficiency, worldwide. Rochester has plans to develop the harbor area for recreational purposes; Oswego and the Salmon River area have already become well known for their recreational activities especially the world class fishing and hatcheries there. 2. Ecologically: The Rochester Embayment extends from Braddock’s Bay to Pultneyville from the shoreline out to over 200 ft of water. It has a thick sand and mud bottom due to thousands of years or erosion and is listed as a Class B Area of Concern by the U.S. EPA due to the sediments containing very high levels of heavy metals and phosphorous. Impairments listed by the USEPA include: restricted dredging; degradation of benthos; loss of fish and wildlife habitat; and beach closings, among others. Foundations for offshore turbines are much larger than land based units as they also have to withstand water currents and wave action. Excavation for installation and decommissioning, (after only a 20 years life expectancy) offshore turbine towers and transmission lines will disrupt heavily polluted sediments that have settled to the bottom and are beginning to be covered by cleaner sediments from the last few years. The underwater currents and the natural gyre that travels from West to East in Lake Ontario will carry liberated pollutants and impair areas all along the southern shore and into the Thousand Islands. Every aquatic life form in the Great Lakes is dependent upon the nearshore environment at some stage in their life, whether it’s zooplankton, prey or game fish. It is a very frail ecology, especially with the recent colonization of that zone by invasive species such as Zebra & Quagga mussels. Turbine foundations, interconnection and transmission lines will cause aquatic habitat fragmentation and disrupt nesting sites. Studies have shown that fish can sense and are affected by electromagnetic fields. The US Army Corps of Engineers is trying to stop another invasive species (Asian carp) from entering the Great Lakes at the Chicago Sanitary Canal with electricity. Avian fatalities are also a major concern. Especially for migratory birds and water fowl that have established routes through the area to resting places such as at Braddock’s Bay, Irondequoit Bay, wetlands in the area, and even the Montezuma Wildlife Preserve. 3. Recreationally: Boating collisions occur every year. The sought after proposal will add over 1000 more nautical obstacles for all types of watercraft. Government agencies will create exclusion zones around the turbines and transmission lines for reasons of safety and national security. This will greatly reduce and partition the area where boaters and fishermen frequent. 4. Economically: Effort by the Great Lakes states, US and Canadian governments and their agencies to restore fish populations and habitat has put money into the local economies. It has lead to the establishment of a documented $7 Billion/year Sportfishing industry on the Great Lakes. Windfarms will diminish this. The Lowville windfarm is currently entering a legal battle with NYS as it was recently classified as a “shirt-changer.†Flat Rock/Maple Ridge did not create the additional jobs that its proponents claimed it would. Lewis County is only going to receive 25% of what of was projected for its 2010 budget from that windfarm project. The view of the lake will be ruined and property taxes will be lost as values of the most valuable residential properties in the area will go down. People do not want to live with windmills in view, unless they are getting easement monies for turbines on their land. Individuals will not get easement money if the turbines are located offshore. Electricity generated by wind is more expensive than other means due to construction, maintenance and transmission: The Long Island PA (headed by Mr. Kessel) terminated the proposal for only 40 turbines in the Long Island Sound when they found out that re-bid construction costs would exceed initial estimates by $114M. Access issues for servicing turbines will contribute to increased expenses of electricity. The waves on Lake Ontario are much steeper than on the Baltic where they acknowledge access issues with wave heights above 1 meter. (We have that frequently.) Additionally, although Lake Ontario doesn’t generally freeze over, the Welland Canal and the St Lawrence Seaway are closed over the winter and ports such as the Genesee River and Oswego do freeze over. Site choices are based on average yearly wind speed and the day to day and even hourly winds are ignored. Lake Ontario sailors know how the winds suddenly changes in these areas. Brownouts & surges will become more frequent & severe as the area becomes more dependent on technology that is based upon our unpredictable weather. I.E. “Lake effectâ€. (Worldwide, without Lake effect, they only operate at 20-25% of name plate capacity.) I urge you to say “NO†to windfarms on Lake Ontario. Although proponents claim “green†w.r.t. air, they casually brush off issues with water. Lake Ontario is too valuable a freshwater resource to risk. Thank you, As I said, feel free to copy/paste, Tom B. (LongLine)

Here's an interesting site with a video of the construction of the 72 turbine Nysted offshore farm in Denmark. http://www.dongenergy.com/Nysted/EN/Abo ... ction.aspx Tom B. (LongLine) Can you say “pollution�

Snagging an anchor would definitely be an "electrifying" moment however so would snagging a cannonball or copper on a transmission line. Transmission lines will run from the mills to the substations on shore, so the exclusion zones just got a heck of a lot bigger. BTW: GPS, VHF, compasses etc probably won't work near those lines. Tom B. (LongLine)

With climate change taking place the world’s supply of freshwater is becoming a more and more valuable resource every day. (Copehagen climate meeting12/7/09) The Great Lakes represent approx 95% of the surface fresh water supply of North America and many states have, in the last few years, won lawsuits prohibiting other regions from the water (Wisc,, Mich, etc) trying to protect it. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. Matthew 7:26 The NYPA didn’t bother to look at the USGS nautical charts for the Rochester Embayment, http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/14804.shtml which is one of the areas where they are accepting proposals for a major wind farm. (Refer to previous post with map) The Rochester Embayment is all sand & mud from Bogus point (Braddock’s) to Pultneyville. Fishermen & boaters from all along this area can attest to this, as well as to the vast area that turns brown with sediment when the Genny area gets just a little rain. Off shore windmills in this area will need much more extensive bases & foundation super-structures than on land not only because they’re water installations but because they’ll be built on mud & sediment that has accumulated over 1000’s of years. Installers will have to do some serious construction and much more excavation than they’ve ever done with land based units just to get down to the solid structure that will be required to support these mills that are much larger than their land based cousins. They obviously don’t realize that the U.S. EPA has classified the Rochester Embayment area as an Area of Concern (AOC) due to the sediments containing very high amounts of heavy metal & Phosphorus from the last couple hundred years of pollution in the area. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/rochester.html (I find it interesting that only “runoff†dredging can be done in the area.) Heavy metal pollution does not come from organic decay. It historically comes from industry that did metal working operations and where spills or waste could flow into the tributaries, such as the Genny which is the largest sole US tributary on Lake Ontario. Many manufacturers are now gone but their legacy remains in the sediments of the lake. Interestingly, in the first 10-15 years of baitfish surveys, the DEC trawls off Rochester (33-500 FOW) often snagged WWII armaments. Rochester probably saved the free world with production of the proximity fuse and optics for the war effort. Unfortunately glass required arsenic and finished proximity fuses contained mercury switches. The DEC’s find was such a “curiosity†to the gov’t that the USGS did sonar scans of the area and concluded that although there was no evidence of a large cache, fuses were scattered over a large area and under layers of sediment and mussel infestations. http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5o8cx1L7 ... 99-237.pdf They speculated that the fuses were put out there “probably to prevent them from reaching enemy hands;†(1st para - Intro section) that there are no early production records or records of disposal practices; and that the area sampled was pretty small. This indicates there could be many many more out there. More recently we know of the high concentrations of bacteria & algae that grow in the area and frequently pollute our public beaches. In addition, the lake floor, from shore to well past the proposed windmill range is now covered with Zebra & Quagga mussels. (Which, by the way, came to us as a result of another project backed by the Power Authority.) Mussels are eaten by another bottom dweller known as Gobies. Gobies, in turn are eaten by birds that have experienced major die offs due type E Botulism from their diet of these invasives. There is a general eastward current (gyre) in Lake Ontario. Some sediment studied in the Hounsfield wind farm project for Galloo Island have been identified as originating from the Genny. (refer to EIS link in previous post) Fortunately direct pollution of tributaries has been dramatically reduced in the last decade. The waters of Lake Ontario are getting cleaner in many respects. Cleaner sediment from the last few years is beginning to cover and bury the heavily polluted sediment from years ago. Unfortunately, vast construction projects that these windmill bases will require, will dig into the polluted layers and pollution will be redistributed via the natural gyre of Lake Ontario to pollute all along the South shore and into the Thousand Island area. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. Matthew 7:26 Tom B. (LongLine)

As to Loweville: Loweville wind farms have been reclassified as a “shirt-changer†wrt Empire Zones as they didn’t provide the jobs they promised. Lewis county was promised $2.1M but “might†get $600K in 2010. http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/arti ... /309269997 In case you don’t know the history or what it looks like: http://www.savewesternny.org/gallery3.html oh yea, in case you were curious, they purchased the turbines from Vestas (Denmark) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-125152757.html Loweville was hyped up as 195 turbines 320 MW, power for 160,000 homes and emissions for 105,000 cars http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins ... ontent.183 Yet Iberdola site says power for 96,000 homes; emissions for only 45,000 cars; created 400 construction jobs; employs 35 people & that it brought in $55M to the community thru construction. (wonder what those unemployed construction workers are doing now and why the state is revoking the Empire Zone credit for failing to increase employment rolls?) http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geusURkxtLu ... tSheet.pdf Transmission lines are the problem. The grid won’t handle the additional power without substantial investment. Even Lowevile had to shut down a few times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/busin ... wanted=all (Remember a few years ago when the grid operators screwed up & the whole NE grid went down? Surges will happen as the wind picks up; brownouts will occur when it drops & backup isn’t switched properly.) Turbines safe??? July 4, 2007. Loweville. DEC investigation. What will this spill do to the open water. This spill contaminated someones water supply & the Dec had to provide bottled water to many residents. (scroll down the site for the article) http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/2007/ ... sburg.html What happens when the winds stop blowing over a 10 minute period? http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Wa ... -To-Manage (Look at the NOAA data for Lake Ontario- our winds shift & change all the time within 10 minute periods) Yes 50 of the Loweville turbines did not kill more than the average number of birds/bats for turbines: They only checked 50 turbines not the whole 195 and they didn’t count during the spring migrations. They found 125 birds and at 9.2 fatalities per MW, those same 50 killed 2,125 bats. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea ... ties-48900 From their own annual report, they say that fatalities per MW they’re lower but the actual number of bats killed was higher than other windfarms because they’re rated for more MW. (pg 54) http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geut0xtBtLz ... t_2006.pdf (Interesting that their mitigation for bat fatalities is to have better lighting on the towers – guess no one told them bats are blind?) Here’s the Environmental Impact statement for the Hounsfield windfarm supposed to begin construction on Galloo Island in 2010. (84 turbines) This will be on land but have a new single transmission line go underwater then 50 miles to Mexico NY. They say yes there will be aquatic life (fish) impact, especially during construction due to blasting. They’re going to minimize that by blasting only when there are no fish migrations. Guess they won’t be able to do construction during May-June (alewife spawn) nor mid Aug thru Oct for the Salmon spawn, or Oct thru Dec for the Lake Trout spawn. Only do it when the Ragboats & every other recreational boat is out there; and when the access ports are frozen over. http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu_KawxtLI ... dfteis.pdf There’s also discussion of re-depositing sediments impact which is kind of strange because it’s all rock up there. From Sandy to Webster, it’s all mud. Natural gyre of Big-O shouldn’t carry the sediments to far up the St. Lawrence. To answer the question as to how much power they really can produce: the answer is on pg 1-12 in the previous link. 34-35% of the nameplate rating over the course of their 20 year lifespan. Here’s one that just too good to not pass on: According to NYS Dept of Labor in June 09, electric bills in Lewis, Jefferson & St Lawrence counties were reduced 10-15% by NYPA, not due to renewable energy sources but because Alcoa shut down smelters & they resold unused electricity to someone else. Lower electric bills as a trade off for jobs-don’t try to sell that news as a positive to the unemployed. (Scroll down to June 2009) http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workforcei ... norec.shtm Tom B. (LongLine)

The NY Power Authority is looking for 7.5 m/s wind speed: http://www.nypa.gov/NYPAwindpower/GLOWr ... descr.html Here’s a wind map of NYS at the 70 meter height: Pinkish-Red is the perfect area Here are the proposed areas in NYS by the NYPA: Guess they didn’t look at the lower right hand corner of the windspeed map….. Guess they didn’t read the report from the NYS Energy Research &Development Authority that said the southern shore of Long Island is the prime spot for windmills: Pg4-236 thru 4-238 http://www.dps.state.ny.us/rps/Volume_4 ... 082803.pdf Guess the proponents of this energy didn’t want their southern shore to look like this which is off Copenhagen. (This is only 20. From the first post, NYPA is looking for 2,000 of them in Lake Ontario) They certainly didn’t look at the power generation formulas that show a 1 m/s wind produces 1/1000 of the power that a 10m/s wind does: http://www.ecolo.org/documents/document ... ormula.htm They look at yearly averages for wind speed and pay no attention to monthly, daily, hourly fluctuations. i.e brownouts. Windmills need steady wind speed to effectively produce power. (Need I post the StatKraft site on windmill deign?) They certainly didn’t look at the wind data from NOAA for the windiest spot on Lake Ontario: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=45012 In case you don’t want to look at all that data, here’s a histogram of 2009 between approx Memorial day & Columbus day. (season with highest electric demand - look at your electric bill) What’s the percentage below 7.5 m’s???? oops, almost forgot the wind is 10-20% stronger at that elevation so guess you can shift that graph just a little, if you’d like. Still many many periods below what they require to get them up to the 25% capacity range. They certainly haven’t been out on Lake Ontario and seen the wind shift in less than 5 minutes nor been in calm water and suddenly experience 4 ft whitecaps before you’ve had enough time to pull your gear. They certainly haven’t looked at the maps of Lake Ontario that show it lays on the westerly plane, not the SW (The international boundary is, but the lake isn’t) or that Rochester is in a cove that protects the area out to over 100 FOW from the prevailing SW winds. I don't think it necessary to post a map, is it? They don’t pay any attention to the turbulence created when wind blows over water then land then water again. They haven’t been out there to see the different effects that a 10 mph SW wind has off the Bar vs the Genny vs the Salmon River. They don’t realize the unpredictable weather that WNY has & can change only on a moment’s notice. (That’s why our weathermen have such exciting jobs & use a lot of hair coloring) They ignore upper wind disturbances that our local weathermen talk about nightly. Power Grid operators won’t have a week to prepare to throw switches. They’ll have much much less time. They don’t realize how calm the Bay of Mexico is during a nor’easter nor that often times the wind is blowing from the north at the Bar, South off the Genny yet it’s perfectly calm off the eastern Ponds all at the same time. (and they can change very quickly). They never mention anything about power fluctuations within the grid due to wind fluctuations although the lights in Germany & Denmark flicker considerably. (Guess you've never been to Europe) We don’t notice it now as only an extremely small percentage of the grid is generated this way but what happens in NY when we approach 15-20% power generation with this method? They don’t/can’t answer that. They ignore the fact that the southern shore and the ports where they’ll have to harbor their service vehicles/boats freeze up during the winter, (Do I need to post a picture of the frozen Genny?) or that access to the windmills is near impossible with waves over 1 meter in the Baltic. They ignore the fact that wave geometry on the great Lakes is much shorter & steeper than it is on the Baltic; hence access will be a greater and more expensive issue than they thought. They ignore the fact that the US gov’t, Canada & the Great Lake states have vowed to restore the Great Lakes to what they once were. They don’t care about the effort & research that has already gone into that. They don’t care about aquatic ecology and say that we have to do studies to show detrimental effects rather than they show any study whatsoever. If a private individual wants to put in a dock or ramp at his lake front property, he has to jump through hoops and a permit process to show it presents no disturbance to nature & his neighbors. Yet they say, “try it you’ll like it;†besides “it’s green, therefore automatically good for the environment.†Windmills themselves have no carbon footprint, except the 400+ gal of oil in each turbine, yet their transmission lines have different effects. They don’t care that lesser life forms like aquatic life are even more affected by electric fields and vibration than mammals. They ignore what the US ARMY Corps of Engineers has done on the Illinois River with electric fields. (Refer to other thread on Asian carp for references) They don’t care that OSHA says there’s a 27 ft minimum approach distance to a transmission line unless a worker (higher life form) is properly protected (1910.269) They don’t care about efforts that have gone into preserving and restoring lower life form fish species across the US. They don’t care that a fish survives by using its lateral line to pick up the subtle vibration of food. (which is the same seismic vibration as a windmill) They don’t care that Sportfishing on the Great Lakes has developed into a multi-billion dollar industry that continues to put dollars into communities as industry has moved out. Power companies won't be paying farmers or anyone for property easements so how do they put money into the economy? Hire a few locals for 3 years then lay them off? What about the people that are layed off from existing power companies? Where is the net long term gain in employment? They don’t care that Lake front property is the most valuable residential property in WNY and that localities will probably lose a portion of their property tax base. Guess the state will just add another surcharge on the cost of electricity which is already acknowledged by the proponents to cost 30-40% more when generated by the wind. (Refer to reference in 1st post) Tom B. (LongLine)

You say my reasons are personal, just like your wanting (not needing) more electricity isn’t personal with you? You say you don’t really want it yet you jump on that bandwagon in a facetiously humorous way. I say that’s not the bandwagon to jump on in this case. I believe in the pledge at the top of the home page, and well, I don’t know if you do or not. (I lean towards not) It’s not viable when it’s based on something so unpredictable. You’re asking us to stick our fingers in the doorway, slam the door and see if it hurts later. Common sense tells me that it’ll hurt without doing it. Your mode of thought said “Open the Seaway – It’s good for commerce.†It took some time to learn that lesson, but we’ve all learned what a mistake that was without safe-guard and how it really did change the Great Lakes. (Unfortunately not the way the proponents advertised) I ask questions and you humorously brush them aside or ignore them. Obviously those studies haven’t been done, much less even considered, in the race for the almighty dollar/tax credit and to see who can waste more, rather than conserve what we have. There are other forms of alternate energy. There’s a lot more than coal, petro or nuke. You’re probably not aware that the Norwegians just brought an osmotic plant on line in the last week and are saying a single plant on the river Rhine will replace 5 large coal fired plants. (Overall capacity potential of 200 Terawatts in Europe.) StatKraft has been researching it for over 10 yrs as an alternative to the shortcomings of wind turbines in their country. Sounds like a perfect fit for NYC if they need more power. Located near the Hudson River & the Sound, it won't interfere with shipping either. How about Wave Rollover? There’s another good fit for NYC that can be installed down there. Neither one makes any noise nor has any pollutants what so ever and both are based on predictable laws of nature and ever occurring natural events. You say it’s a shame we can’t be investors. I agree…we can’t invest because we don’t have any money. Too many scammers and fast talkers with wild schemes backed by studies that say “minimal disruption†(but refuse to define minimal) make so much noise and get people to blindly jump on their bandwagon in the name of going green, only because it’s politically correct rather than backing it with solid data or concerns for real “quality of life†have at last drained the treasury. I’ll let you get your last word of jibberish in. (See I’ll even make a guy like you happy…) Tom B. (LongLine) p.s. Catch any fish this summer? oops...forgot you don't care about that.

Makes perfect sense Ray. I find 4 items very interesting on this topic: -That the project backers never provide answers to people’s questions, rather they just brush them off with jibberish & say we need more energy without regard to anything else. They say there’s no proof of harmful effects. I for one don’t need proof that if I stick two fingers in an electrical socket that I’m going to get zapped, or if I slam my fingers in the door, it’ll hurt. -That a Spanish company owns a big chunk of the NE power distribution grid and that Spain is a leading exporter of wind turbines. (There’s only one US company into making them.) Why should a Spanish company spend 500M on fixing up Russell station when they can stick it to US taxpayers for a few billion? (Buy their buddy’s turbines & help their own economy) Maybe they’ll bring them in on the Seaway so their ships can dump more ballast? -That OSHA regulations (1910.269) declare a minimum approach distance to transmission lines at 27 Ft for all workers unless properly protected and that vehicles can’t be under them unless specially grounded. Yet project backers say no effect on lesser forms of wildlife? Oh well there goes 2,200 corridors from the windmills to shore that can’t be safely fished. (That’ll make for some interesting zig-zag trolling come spring time, not mention the fun the bass-guys are going to have fun drifting.) Where do the main transmission lines from units off Rochester go once on shore? Right through the city? Southeast through Irondequoit/Webster? -That people would rally around a technology that solely depends upon something as unpredictable as the weather. (Yes, they have to be turned off in too high of a wind also) Blade sizing is based on average wind speed in an area. So if you have 0 wind for two days and 30 mph the next, you size the blade for 10 mph. The fact that the windmill couldn’t produce electricity on those three days doesn’t matter to them. As to LEDs – really neat. I’ve used a windup LED to charge glos for a couple years now. Works great & no batteries. Also, just installed some LED tubes at work as a replacement to 4ft fluorescents. No mercury, no ballast, lots of bench light. Tom B. (LongLine)

High voltage transmission lines are aluminum with steel support wires. Connectors are still metal. Carp barrier is pulsing DC. Carp got thru when it was shut down. Unfortunately we'll have to turn the plants back on and run them through the cover of darkness just like so many other projects scammers like these have dreamt up. Won't have to kiss arab nation a$$ during the day - they're being replaced by the Dane's, Germans, Spanish & British. (makers of the turbines & now owners of the utility companies), but still have to kiss mid-east butts during the night. Yes, project backers certainly support the global economy. Algea on line is not the problem. The toxic blue-green stuff that closes beaches due to health concerns is. To back up the windmills, they're going to have to build proper power plants anyways. If they have all this money to spend then spend it in wisely now, rather than just grab the tax credit & run away from the project when the credit runs out. Billions for a windfarm yet Ginna sold for 1/2 billion? Could of heated a lot of buildings with the hot water it produced. Hey how about giving me some of that money? They've got so much to waste. Tom B. (LongLine)