Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
chinook35

Wind Turbines on Lake Ontario!

Recommended Posts

The satellite is google earth.

I zoomed in on my house as well and in the back yard there are 2 boats that I sold 3 years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess it's a dead satellite picture with just silloettes of current ships. oh well, thought we had something there.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is disgusting:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/art ... 00343/1003

I wonder if any legislators are eyeballing easement money hoping where the transmission lines come ashore, like those two up in the islands did.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

I doubt it.The legislators are refraining from taking a stand because with the upcoming elections they do not want to be branded as anti-anything.They want to seem pro-progress and nature conserving,yet at the same time they want the lobby money coming from Kessel and his friends.So they will not take a stand against anything that might be construed as anti-anything.

Remember the notice:"Politicians are like baby diapers,they need to be changed often and for the same reason"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But did you notice that Kessel won't release anything until AFTER the elections.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But did you notice that Kessel won't release anything until AFTER the elections.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

Right now he is letting lobby money doing the talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest D&C article yesterday quotes politicians saying essentially that we need to wait until the plan has been established before we start getting our hackles raised.

That makes me sick.

Let the politicians come up with their back room deals in peace? Then, once everything is in place, and only then, are we "allowed" a token voice of protest?

There are five bids on the table to develop these wind farms. Do they want us to wait until they've accepted a bid, and just let them sell our Lake in peace?

How about instead we tattoo "No way in my L. Ontario" on our boots and kick them in the kahoonies? Right now, before it's too late. If that's the way you feel, too, then sign the petition. Call your legislator. Rattle your cage a little.

gator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Monroe County Legislators that didn't sign:

Richard A. Beebe (D), 172 Dorsey Road, Rochester, NY 14616

319-4827 (Home) _ 753-1940 (Business)

[email protected]

6th Roch.

Travis R. Heider (D), 275 Viennawood Drive, Rochester, NY 14618

461-0817 (Home) _ 356-7562 (Cell)

[email protected]

Brighton, Henrietta

Vincent J. Esposito (D), 121 Valley Circle,

Rochester, NY 14622

370-1921 (Cell) _ 753-1940 (Business)

[email protected]

Irondequoit

Edward M. O’Brien (D), 120 Thurlow Avenue, Rochester, NY 14609

654-9379 (Home) _ 899-1400 (Business)

[email protected]

Irondequoit

Carrie M. Andrews (D), 50 Roseview Avenue, Rochester, NY 14609

442-5756 (Home) _ 288-5950 (Business)

[email protected]

21st Roch

Glenn J. Gamble (D), 75 Huntington Park, Rochester, NY 14621

473-6767 (Home) _ 325-4910 (Business)

[email protected]

22nd Roch

Paul E. Haney (D), 424 Broadway, Ste. B, Rochester, NY 14607

232-3858 (Home) _ 753-1940 (Business)

23rd Roch, Brighton

Harry B. Bronson (D), P.O. Box 18564, Rochester, NY 14618-0564

233-8789 (Cell) _ 753-1940 (Business)

[email protected]

24th Roch, Brighton, Henrietta

Calvin Lee, Jr. (D), 19 Shelter Street, Rochester, NY 14611

753-1940 (Business)

25th Roch

C. Stephen Eckel (D), 270 Seneca Parkway, Rochester, NY 14613

489-5170 (Home) _ 753-1940 (Business)

[email protected]

26th Roch, Gates, Greece, Irondequoit

Willie J. Lightfoot (D), 147 Trafalgar Street, Rochester, NY 14619

436-1045 (Home) _ 436-2520 (Business)

[email protected]

27 Roch

Cynthia Kaleh (D), 18 Fairview Heights, Rochester, NY 14613

647-3929 (Home) _ 232-4090 (Business)

[email protected]

28th Roch

Saul A. Maneiro (D), 30 Brambury Drive, Apt. C, Rochester, NY 14621

482-1865 (Home) _ 753-1940 (Business)

[email protected]

29th Roch

Robert J. Colby ®, 261 Colby Street, Spencerport, NY 14559

352-3537 (Home) _ 352-3830 (Business)

[email protected]

Chili, Henrietta, Odgen, Riga

Jeffrey R. Adair ®, 777 Quaker Road, Scottsville, NY 14546

889-1377 (Home) _ 753-1954 (Business)

[email protected]

Mendon, Pittsford, Rush, Wheatland

Anthony J. Daniele ®, 31 Monroe Avenue, Pittsford, NY 14534

218-4083 (Home) _ 753-1922 (Business)

[email protected]

E.R., Pittsford

Carmen F. Gumina ®, 1082 Everwild View, Webster, NY 14580

872-6381 (Home) _ 753-1922 (Business)

[email protected]com

Webster

:devil::@

Tom B.

(LongLine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that 8 or 9 of them signed.The rest decided to take a wait and see what's more expedient for me position

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TO: gamble g1

FM: T Bishop

SUBJ: Windfarms

Dear Sir,

I am very surprised and disappointed that my representative to the County Legislature (you) did not sign the Resolution opposing the NYPA and their proposal to build utility scale wind farms in Lake Ontario especially as you’re a member of the Recreation and Education committees.

Recreational use of the lake front brings a lot of revenue into Monroe County every year. (There are over 1,000 slips on the Genesee River and another 800 on Irondequoit Bay with boat owners paying over $1,000 each for seasonal dockage and more for winter boat storage. Club fees, boating supplies, and outing’s expenses total much more, not to mention what out-out-town†traffic brings in.) The festivals, regattas, beaches, dinner cruises and even air shows substantially contribute to local business revenues.

Regarding recreational fishing: the Monroe County Fishing website says Fishing is “one of the most exciting recreational activities in the Greater Rochester region.†http://www.fishingmonroecounty.com/. Although fish were initially stocked to control alewives, fishing has turned into an important industry with substantial returns to local economy.

Fishing, whether it is by recreational trailered boat or chartered fleet, does provide substantial income to Monroe County. As summer draws to a close, you’ll be able to see firsthand what fishermen refer to as “combat fishing†off the mouth of the Genesse River, as many boats try to catch fish in a couple square miles, that NY State stocks every year as part of Great Lakes Restoration programs. These boats, and more, are generally scattered offshore earlier in the season.

The 2009 NYSDEC angler survey said that 77,863 fishing boat trips were made on Lake Ontario in 2009 with 36,682 made in the central region of the lake (our region) and that 60.8% of them were made by NY residents with the largest contingent of NYr’s (20.0%) residing in Monroe County. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/lorpt09.pdf. (note this doesn’t include pleasure boaters or sailboats and applies only to Lake Ontario) Thus the fishing industry is very important to area residents. As a local fisherman who trailers to the Genesse launch every other weekend, I spend close to $2,000 per year on this recreation. (And I don’t include boat payments as mine is already paid for)

The NYPA has published what they are looking for in their 2009 GLOW proposal and are ignoring Freedom of Information requests for details on the proposals they have received. NYPA says they will not build where the people don’t want them and four counties have passed resolutions saying “NO.†The remaining three counties all have very similar lake bottoms for the territory outlined in the GLOW studies and all contain what the USEPA has classified as “Areas of Concern.â€

These AOC’s (Rochester Embayment, 18 Mile Creek and the Niagara River) are so classified due to polluted sediments in the Lake bottom and dredging activities are restricted. Although these sediments are becoming buried by layers of somewhat cleaner sediments over the last few years due to environmental run-off water laws; they still remain and are not far below the top layer. No funds have ever been allocated to clean up pollution already in the sediment.

Foundations for offshore turbines in the Baltic Sea are very large and any for Lake Ontario will be larger because of the very thick mud/silt/sand bottom and because turbine towers will take a greater beating due to the shorter wave frequency and strong underwater currents well known by fishermen on the Lake. Construction will dig up sediments and pollution will be redistributed via the natural eastward currents along the southern shore. Witness how just a little rainfall causes the muddy water from the Genesee to stain the waters, often past Webster.

Lake Ontario has fish consumption restrictions (and beach closings) due to polluted sediments. The NYSDEC released a study in May 2010 indicating that the short & shallow section of the Hudson River that was dredged last year increased the PCB level of sunfish and preyfish downstream as much as 1.5 to 2.5 times that of the average 5 year level prior to dredging. This occurred even though they used environmental dredging equipment and silt booms.

The effect of constructing 150 turbine foundations and close to 60 miles of interconnecting transmission lines offshore of any of the remaining 3 counties will have a devastating effect on the fishing and recreational industries. (150 turbines x 2100 ft spacing per GLOW divided by 5,280 ft/mile)

I am disheartened to hear that the Legislature, rather than encouraging and promoting existing industries with very good annual payback, wants to see a detailed financial windfarm proposal before deciding. My neighbor pointed out to me the other day that this is akin to saying: “How many pieces of silver will it take†to allow an ‘experiment’ with so much risk to proceed?

Sincerely,

Tom Bishop

And I toned it down considerably.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TO: gamble g1

FM: T Bishop

SUBJ: Windfarms

Dear Sir,

I am very surprised and disappointed that my representative to the County Legislature (you) did not sign the Resolution opposing the NYPA and their proposal to build utility scale wind farms in Lake Ontario especially as you’re a member of the Recreation and Education committees.

Recreational use of the lake front brings a lot of revenue into Monroe County every year. (There are over 1,000 slips on the Genesee River and another 800 on Irondequoit Bay with boat owners paying over $1,000 each for seasonal dockage and more for winter boat storage. Club fees, boating supplies, and outing’s expenses total much more, not to mention what out-out-town†traffic brings in.) The festivals, regattas, beaches, dinner cruises and even air shows substantially contribute to local business revenues.

Regarding recreational fishing: the Monroe County Fishing website says Fishing is “one of the most exciting recreational activities in the Greater Rochester region.†http://www.fishingmonroecounty.com/. Although fish were initially stocked to control alewives, fishing has turned into an important industry with substantial returns to local economy.

Fishing, whether it is by recreational trailered boat or chartered fleet, does provide substantial income to Monroe County. As summer draws to a close, you’ll be able to see firsthand what fishermen refer to as “combat fishing†off the mouth of the Genesse River, as many boats try to catch fish in a couple square miles, that NY State stocks every year as part of Great Lakes Restoration programs. These boats, and more, are generally scattered offshore earlier in the season.

The 2009 NYSDEC angler survey said that 77,863 fishing boat trips were made on Lake Ontario in 2009 with 36,682 made in the central region of the lake (our region) and that 60.8% of them were made by NY residents with the largest contingent of NYr’s (20.0%) residing in Monroe County. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/lorpt09.pdf. (note this doesn’t include pleasure boaters or sailboats and applies only to Lake Ontario) Thus the fishing industry is very important to area residents. As a local fisherman who trailers to the Genesse launch every other weekend, I spend close to $2,000 per year on this recreation. (And I don’t include boat payments as mine is already paid for)

The NYPA has published what they are looking for in their 2009 GLOW proposal and are ignoring Freedom of Information requests for details on the proposals they have received. NYPA says they will not build where the people don’t want them and four counties have passed resolutions saying “NO.†The remaining three counties all have very similar lake bottoms for the territory outlined in the GLOW studies and all contain what the USEPA has classified as “Areas of Concern.â€

These AOC’s (Rochester Embayment, 18 Mile Creek and the Niagara River) are so classified due to polluted sediments in the Lake bottom and dredging activities are restricted. Although these sediments are becoming buried by layers of somewhat cleaner sediments over the last few years due to environmental run-off water laws; they still remain and are not far below the top layer. No funds have ever been allocated to clean up pollution already in the sediment.

Foundations for offshore turbines in the Baltic Sea are very large and any for Lake Ontario will be larger because of the very thick mud/silt/sand bottom and because turbine towers will take a greater beating due to the shorter wave frequency and strong underwater currents well known by fishermen on the Lake. Construction will dig up sediments and pollution will be redistributed via the natural eastward currents along the southern shore. Witness how just a little rainfall causes the muddy water from the Genesee to stain the waters, often past Webster.

Lake Ontario has fish consumption restrictions (and beach closings) due to polluted sediments. The NYSDEC released a study in May 2010 indicating that the short & shallow section of the Hudson River that was dredged last year increased the PCB level of sunfish and preyfish downstream as much as 1.5 to 2.5 times that of the average 5 year level prior to dredging. This occurred even though they used environmental dredging equipment and silt booms.

The effect of constructing 150 turbine foundations and close to 60 miles of interconnecting transmission lines offshore of any of the remaining 3 counties will have a devastating effect on the fishing and recreational industries. (150 turbines x 2100 ft spacing per GLOW divided by 5,280 ft/mile)

I am disheartened to hear that the Legislature, rather than encouraging and promoting existing industries with very good annual payback, wants to see a detailed financial windfarm proposal before deciding. My neighbor pointed out to me the other day that this is akin to saying: “How many pieces of silver will it take†to allow an ‘experiment’ with so much risk to proceed?

Sincerely,

Tom Bishop

And I toned it down considerably.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

Well said, Tom, as always. :yes::clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those ships start at $300M. However according to the screening study that NYPA commissioned AWS Truewind to conduct:

This analysis found that the opportunity to use existing vessels is hindered by the navigational restrictions of the Great Lakes, as well as provisions included in the Jones Act, which impose limitations on the use of foreign vessels in the U.S. While these challenges are admittedly formidable, they by no means represent a fatal flaw; careful analysis will be required to fully understand their implications and develop alternative approaches. Of all the vessels involved in offshore wind farm development and operation, the turbine installation vessel (TIV) is expected to pose the greatest challenge. One potential option is to construct a TIV specifically for projects in the Great Lakes; this can be accomplished by either commissioning a new build or converting an existing vessel to meet the project’s requirements. There is also the possibility that legislative regulations could be logistically circumvented so that existing foreign vessels can be utilized.

It is important to emphasize that the present lack of suitable vessel options is an obstacle that encompasses all of the Great Lakes. Consequently, there exists an excellent opportunity for joint collaboration among the many stakeholders in this region to develop solutions that will facilitate offshore wind energy development in the Great Lakes.

http://www.nypa.gov/NYPAwindpower/GLOWs ... ection.pdf

Here’s a video of construction of the Dannish Nysted offshore Farm. (This farm is in shallow water as you can see the foundations at water level. The turbines are also smaller, at 110 meter, than the proposed 400 ft’rs for our lakes.) You can see the different ships & equipment they used.

http://www.dongenergy.com/Nysted/EN/Abo ... ction.aspx

Tom B.

(LongLine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just think. On a weekend like we're having, all of the turbines would have to be shut down. :lol::rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not wait to hear about the "jobs created" for this scheme. The problem is they will be in Chinese steel plants, coal mines and shipyards. When I was younger, we did this in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wholesale electrical cost in WNY in the past 12 months averaged just under 4.5c/kwh vs. the estimated Cape Wind cost of 19.4c/kwh over 4X more.

JR

National Grid’s proposed electric contract with Cape Wind will cost ratepayers about $200 million more than previously reported, thanks to a sweetheart deal for the giant utility and other power companies that buy energy from the wind-farm developer.

In a recent filing, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s expert witnesses acknowledge that the starting price per kilowatt hour of electricity from Cape Wind will actually be about 19.4 cents - not 18.7 cents, as touted earlier this month when a settlement agreement was reached between Coakley, Cape Wind Associates, National Grid and the Patrick administration.

The increase is due to a 4 percent “remuneration†fee that the Legislature and Gov. Deval Patrick approved when the Green Communities Act was passed two years ago.

The fee, which sources say was pushed by National Grid and other utilities, is meant to reduce the risks to power companies signing long-term contracts with renewable energy firms, even though Grid’s contract with Cape Wind guarantees a price and includes annual step increases.

The existence of the fee was previously known, but many assumed it was calculated into the base kilowatt prices negotiated between parties.

State filings by Coakley, who recently forced Cape Wind and National Grid to lower their proposed rates to customers by 10 percent, however, make clear the 4 percent fee is on top of the compromise 18.7-cent per kilowatt rate.

At one point in Coakley’s recent filing, an expert witness referred to the 19.4 cent rate as the “real†starting price for Cape Wind power. Estimates by the Herald put the potential cost of the fee over 15 years to ratepayers at $200 million.

A spokesman for Coakley said the attorney general’s office had no legal standing to strike the fee from the compromise settlement because it was written into law.

Critics blasted the additional cost as yet another example of the escalating estimates of the multibillion-dollar Cape Wind project.

“The more you dig into the (project), the more you realize it’s a financial boondoggle,†said Treasurer Tim Cahill, an independent candidate for governor.

“The lack of transparency surrounding Governor Patrick, National Grid and the sweetheart deal that is Cape Wind is incredibily troublesome,†said Charlie Baker, the Republican candidate for governor.

But the Patrick administration yesterday defended the provision as necessary for “pilot long-term contracts†for clean-energy projects.

A National Grid spokesman would only say the fee complies with state law.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/ge ... id=1277048

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to account for the lack of property taxes to the counties, towns and school districts that the customers do not have to pay at first. They will pay when they get their local tax bills, but then it will be too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...