Home > Ferndale > Ferndale City Council opposes wind turbine project

Ferndale City Council opposes wind turbine project

  1. Anonymous
    January 6, 2012 at 12:01 am

    They also opposed utilization of Arcata’s world-renowned waste water system and will have to revisit the issue soon, despite their massive investment in old technology.

    That’s the legacy of land rich born-here’s when science and planning interfere with ideology.

  2. walt
    January 6, 2012 at 5:20 am

    Buncha NIMBYs. What right do they have to defend themselves? They think they’re free or somethin? Don’t they know resistance is futile?

  3. Ponder z
    January 6, 2012 at 6:00 am

    the wind technology can’t pay for itself. The turbines are subsidised by the government green scam dollars. A natural ridge line will be forever polluted by these turbines. Bird migration will be hindered too. All for a few mags of power. It is not worth the effort. But some workers will have a job and the manufacturer will rep millions in transferred wealth.

  4. scooter
    January 6, 2012 at 6:26 am

    You can get there through Rio Dell also. . .

  5. Anonymous
    January 6, 2012 at 6:29 am

    Boycott Ferndale

  6. Decline to State
    January 6, 2012 at 6:59 am

    I used to think fondly of Ferndale and enjoyed my visits there for shopping, a bit of theater and great food. Then Curley’s Grill was driven out of town by a greedy landlord, then the bigots took over their Wildcat football games and now the City Council votes down the wind farm which would benefit the entire county. There is no joy left in my visiting the “Victorian Village” and I’m heartily sick of them and their rural, small-town attitudes.

    Who ultimately has the say on the wind farm? It certainly isn’t Ferndale’s decision alone to make. I assume the Coastal Commission gives final say but who gives the project the green light to proceed? County Supervisors? State of California? Shell Oil? Time to mount a campaign in favor of this obviously beneficial project.

  7. humboldturtle
    January 6, 2012 at 7:17 am

    DTS, the wind farm will benefit it’s landlords. That’s about it.

    The county has a brand-new gas fueled plant at King Salmon – and it’s own supply of gas.

    Build the mills closer to the grid. Sonoma, maybe.

  8. Anonymous
    January 6, 2012 at 7:31 am

    Uh oh, did someone tell them that Shell employs black people?

  9. Mitch
    January 6, 2012 at 7:42 am

    turtle,

    “and it’s own supply of gas.”

    Huh? Are you talking about wastewater treatment? Does that provide enough gas to make a dent? Or what are you talking about?

  10. Decline to State
    January 6, 2012 at 7:51 am

    humboldturtle, my understanding is that while the new power plant supplies much of of electrical needs the county has (almost) NO redundancy for our electricity and gas demands This “all our eggs in one basket” approach to energy use seems both foolish and shortsighted. We live in far too volatile and remote an area to get away with that strategy for long.

  11. derchoadus
    January 6, 2012 at 7:54 am

    Aren’t these the same people who shout ‘Drill Baby Drill’ when it comes to oil?

  12. January 6, 2012 at 7:59 am

    “….and its own supply of gas.”
    This got me too,
    very well I thought-
    Petrolia must be petrolating again.

  13. Carol
    January 6, 2012 at 9:09 am

    For me, personally, it will be right it my view of Bear River Ridge, and will be visible from all over the lower Eel River Valley. They will be large, visible, and with lights on them at night. This will ruin the night sky.
    This is home to many birds. How will they fair?
    How will they be transported to the site? Fernbridge? By air? Where will they be manufactured? In the United States? Why not place them in a less environmentally sensitive area?
    After it is all said and done, who will clean it up years from now?

    Perhaps, Humboldt turtle is referring to the existing gas wellshttp://co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/mg214683/as214686/as214688/ai217185/do217190/bosagendaitem.pdf:

  14. Carol
  15. Scott
    January 6, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Carol- do you have a less environmentally sensitive area in mind?

  16. Mitch
    January 6, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Sixty-one gas wells in the county! That’s a surprise to me. Anyone know how many are operating, how much gas gets produced, and where it goes?

  17. Carol
    January 6, 2012 at 9:55 am

    Not in Humboldt County, Scott.

  18. Carol
    January 6, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Many farms in the lower Eel River Delta have windmills. Why not place some on the river deltas?

  19. Mitch
    January 6, 2012 at 9:59 am

    The GPU says this, which I don’t think can be correct (but someone please let me know if I’m wrong). Is Humboldt really producing a trillion cubic feet of gas each year?

    Energy resources in Humboldt County are primarily natural gas deposits. Active gas wells
    in Humboldt County are concentrated in the Tompkin Hills Gas Field. Of the County’s 39
    gas wells, 31 are currently producing and 8 are considered shut in, meaning they cannot
    produce gas at their current depths and are sealed off in order to maintain the pressure on
    remaining deposits.
    3
    In 2000, net gas production was 1,337,796 million cubic feet (mcf);
    this represents a 31 percent decrease in gas production since 1992, when net production
    was 1,927,787 mcf. Also in 1992, 34 gas wells were in production and 5 were shut in.
    4
    Humboldt County contains three inactive oil wells and has not produced oil in at least the
    past ten years. There is no record of geothermal production in Humboldt County

  20. January 6, 2012 at 10:01 am

    That’s what I mean – natural gas.

    We can enrich a few landowners and screw up a town.

    Glad I don’t live in Ferndale.

  21. Dunlin
    January 6, 2012 at 10:09 am

    River deltas? The sandy deposits at the mouth of the river?

    What would be the foundation? Many birds use the Eel River delta and mud flats. What are the bird’s flight paths?

    I am all for developing and using alternative energy sources. But there are some serious concerns with wind turbines. Bird safety is a big concern of mine.

    I wonder about the noise level. The TS editorial said the noise was 50 decibels. Is that 50 dB from all the turbines combined, or 50 dB each?

  22. Dan
    January 6, 2012 at 10:36 am

    Carol says:
    January 6, 2012 at 9:57 am
    Many farms in the lower Eel River Delta have windmills. Why not place some on the river deltas?

    Ridge lines are where the air is compressed and develops velocity.
    I am guessing that the mills you see on the valley floors are for pumping-up groundwater.

    The deltas are impact zones. Very difficult engineering wise.
    That is why they are set off-shore.

  23. January 6, 2012 at 10:41 am

    Pretty funny watching the lefties go after wind power, too.

  24. Dan
    January 6, 2012 at 10:53 am

    Hey Fred, maybe you and yours could teach a
    proper goose-step.
    Lefties are notorious for not
    following
    herd mentality. Thank god.

  25. Anonymous
    January 6, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Everyone that knows anything about birds knows that wind turbines kill thousands of birds. It takes an especially heavy toll on raptors.

  26. Anonymous
    January 6, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Just like Walmart: if the people don’t want it, it shouldn’t be forced on them.

  27. Anonymous
    January 6, 2012 at 11:24 am

    Community-wind options should be looked at.

    Many studies done in European nations have shown that the people most concerned over the view obstruction are people who don’t even live close to wind turbines (the ones who aren’t bothered by the view are those living closest to them).

    These companies need to run a better PR campaign to convince citizens that wind turbines are beneficial to local communities.

  28. Plain Jane
    January 6, 2012 at 11:38 am

    I prefer wind turbines on a ridge to oil derricks offshore. The turbines of today don’t pose the same danger to birds as the older ones did and certainly not the level of threat posed by oil spills.

  29. Eric Kirk
    January 6, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    So where will the First District Supervisors fall on this issue? This could become a very interesting discussion.

  30. Eric Kirk
    January 6, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Supervisor candidates that is.

  31. Anonymous
    January 6, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    Check out the Hatchet Mountain Wind Farm over 299 by Burney. It went online in 2010. The finished project yields more information then conjecture about a proposed one.

  32. Anonymous
    January 6, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    The Council voted unanimously “Yes” in Opposition to Transportation of Any Shell Wind Energy construction traffic through Ferndale. Not just turbines, but also concrete, water, nacelles, tower components, etc. The council echoed the voice of the people to prohibit all large-truck transportaion related to SWE Bear River Ridge proposed project.

    Please be accurate in reporting. It makes a difference.

    The community has many valid reasons for wanting to keep industrial installations from transporting through the town and has also valid reasons for wanting to keep industrial installations off the ridge.

    Anyone who does some investigation into the results of industrial wind turbine installations in other rural areas would likely understand the community’s position.

    Folks from the “urbanized” areas of Humboldt and the US in general, should honor the wishes of rural areas to self-determination. Forced urbanization is part of why the global environment is in peril.

    Industrial Wind?
    N.O.P.E.
    Nowhere On Planet Earth

  33. Anonymous
    January 6, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    The mayor said it was the council’s job to listen to all input and said that people could send letters to the council, but he refused to accept and read a letter wanting to preserve the ridge.

  34. Dan
    January 6, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    Anon 1:22 Wow.
    Anon 1:11 Hatchet Ridge, really? What are the stats?

    Do the same considerations apply to
    off-shore wind generators? Say a mile off-shore?

    Thank you
    Dan

  35. pennysaver
    January 6, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    http://www.powerscorecard.org/reduce_energy.cfm

    Industrial Wind Installation supporters often say that the electricity generated from such projects would be 20-30%.

    oooooohhhhh…..sounds nice, eh?

    Well check out the website about. By doing some incredibly simple things around your home you can SAVE 20-30% on electricity use. And there are many sources of such nformation–seek it out.

    Woah! Really?! YES!

    We can all reduce our use by 20-30% with minimal impact to our daily lives, but have substantial positive impact for the planet. Industrial wind installations come with substantial negative impacts to our lives and for the planet.

    Come on people. There is profit in conservation. Profit for you!

    A penny saved is a penny earned.

    A kilowatt saved is a carbon credit earned!

  36. Plain Jane
    January 6, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    How would a wind farm impact a rural areas’ self-determination or force urbanization? What about the property rights of the landowners?

  37. Plain Jane
    January 6, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    If that is true, Penny, wouldn’t it be best to both save at home and reduce the amount of coal and oil used by replacing it with wind or solar energy? That would be 40-60% less fossil fuel energy used.

    Conservation is always the cheapest alternative but, as you may have noticed, not very successful.

  38. pennysaver
    January 6, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    Labeling Industrial Wind-Driven Electricity Generation Installations as farms is a bit misleading. Wind isn’t “farmed”. Corn is farmed. Wind is harnessed and electricity is generated. These instalallations are Power Plants with substations.

    Yep, land-owners have rights. And they and the community they reside in have to work out thier relationships and the consequences to that relationship depending on the actions of the land owners and the larger public.

    Also only 1-2% of electricity is created from foreign oil. (Search it). And to date coal plants remain online in order to support of wind-driven plants coming on line with fluxuating supply (search it).

    Thank you for your engagement on this topic.

  39. January 6, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    I agree with Eric, great discussion for 1st District Supervisor candidates. Lots of wind, but wo wants the “Sight Blight.”

  40. January 6, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    If we can put up with
    a pulp-mill on our
    sunset horizon, sheesh blades would seem quaint.

    Haven’t we been eyeing that solid-waste long enough?
    Don’t we have laws, hell it’s the coastal zone.

  41. Anonymous
    January 6, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Plain Jane- who told you the wind turbines don’t kill birds?

  42. dewdrop
    January 6, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    Apparently this is not in the coastal zone. Except that the coastal commission will be asked to sign off on some of the new instillation of electrical transmission lines that PG& E will be doing for the project. They really are not involved, much. The lead agency on this project is actually the California PUC but they have bowed to the research and information that will ultimately be given them by Humboldt County Planning Department; John Miller of the Planning Department is the Planner who is responsible for collecting the information from SWE to be able to process this permit.
    Another agency involved includes both Federal Fish and Game, They will be looking at the incidental take permit for the avian issues that must be issued for this project. Because protected species are involved there must be a take permit issued. They will be working WITH Shell WindEnergy to get everything they need to comply and ultimately get their permit to build this project. When all is said and done the Humboldt County Planning Commission will say yeah or neigh on the project and if appealed, the County Board of Supervisors will have the final say.

  43. dewdrop
    January 6, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    The Ferndale City Council Decision was MONUMENTAL. They actually listened to the people who elected them. The people who will be impacted by this project. Thousands and thousands of vehicle trips,( 10, 000 plus ) during the middle of the summer and tourist season that would traverse the streets of Ferndale. Streets that in many cases have clay infrastructure system pipes. And streets that certainly were not built to handle 340,000 lb Nacelles being transported upon 13 axle 72 tire articulated vehicles that require a 40′ clear span to transport certain parts of this project. There is absolutely no benefit to the town of Ferndale except for the bribes SWE offers under the name of a community investment program . But for the general population there there are lots of reasons why the citizens of Ferndale, overwhelmingly asked it’s council to say NO TRANSPORTATION thru Ferndale. AT ALL.

    The Wildcat would be scrapped, widened, and forever altered. Never to return to what it is today.

  44. Ponder z
    January 7, 2012 at 9:25 am

    Big money for the big corporations. The current administration is giving away our money to make wind farms work. No company would venture into this losing business because it is a LOSING business. Climate change hoaxsters have you believing this will save the environment. ITs all about the money, fools. It has nothing to do with the environment. You will pay more in tax to fund this swindle. But you will feal good for saving the enviorment.

    January 15, 2009: “House lawmakers are proposing to give solar and wind energy producers billions in government grants instead of tax credits to build renewable energy capacity, potentially transforming the way renewable energy projects have been financed for years. The new grant program, which will be administered by the Department of Energy, is part of House economic stimulus legislation announced Thursday, details of which are still emerging. The new funding, which temporarily replaces the tax credit that wind and solar projects have long relied on with direct government spending, underscores President-elect Barack Obama’s commitment to double renewable electricity production in three years.” The House stimulus bill would extend the production tax credit for wind by three years. (See the story >>here.)

    Glenn Schleede explains the Federal Production Tax Credit this way: a “generous federal subsidy available to ‘wind farm’ owners is the Production Tax Credit of $0.019 per kWh of electricity generated during the first 10 years of a wind project’s life. For example, at the current rate of $0.019 per kWh, owners of the proposed 150 MW Elk River ‘wind farm’ in Butler County would receive a tax credit (i.e., a direct deduction from its federal income tax bill) of $9,986,400 per year if the turbines produce at an average 40% capacity factor (i.e., 150,000 kW x 8760 hrs. × .40 × $0.019). The rate, originally set at $0.015 per kWh, has just been adjusted upward for inflation, reaching $0.019 per kWh, retroactive to January 1, 2005. Organizations owning ‘wind farms’ must have substantial taxable income from other sources to take advantage of the two federal tax shelters described above. That is one reason why small ‘wind farm’ development companies often sell off their projects to larger companies or find ways to ‘sell’ the tax benefits. ” (www.aweo.org, “Big money” discovers the huge tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy while taxpayers and electric customers pick up the tab, Glenn Schleede, April 14, 2005).

    We wonder how expensive this will get. As noted above, wind power today must be backed up with coal. In Scotland “a leading power company has claimed wind energy is so unreliable that even if 13,000 turbines are built to meet EU renewable energy targets, they could be relied on to provide only 7 per cent of the country’s peak winter electricity demand. [The power company] E.On has argued that, during the coldest days of winter, so little wind blows that 92 per cent of installed wind capacity would have to be backed up by traditional power stations. It argues this would require new coal-fired power stations to be built so they could be used in an emergency when little wind blows. This, E.On suggests, will mean that, to meet renewable targets of 20 per cent of energy being provided from renewables by 2020, the UK’s installed power base will need to rise from 76 gigawatts today to more than 100GW. The company estimates this could cost £100 billion. The John Muir Trust, which campaigns against wind farms in Scotland’s beauty spots, said E.On’s claims back its view that the country is depending too heavily on wind power. Helen McDade, the trust’s policy officer, thinks instead far more should be done to improve energy efficiency. ‘Energy conservation is by far the best use of money,’ she said. ‘The question is why we are not doing more of this.’” (See the story at news.scotsman.com >>here.)

  45. Wiegand
    January 7, 2012 at 9:34 am

    I was recently asked to put together a list of changes needed to put an end to the 28 year bird mortality cover-up from the currently unregulated activities of the wind industry. In a few weeks a report will come out further explaining the magnitude of this industry wide deception. Transparency is desperately needed because bird mortality is far worse than what has been reported at any wind project, even at Altamont Pass. Below is the list of the nationwide changes needed.

    1) First and foremost a new agency should be formed to oversee the wind industry and enforce regulations. This is needed because the Department of Interior, BLM, USFWS, State Wildlife Departments, and every State Energy Commission have demonstrated for 28 years an inability to govern or even acknowledge the true impacts caused by this industry. These agencies are so hopelessly dysfunctional that creation of a new governing body would be the quickest way to remedy the problem. This agency would acknowledge the true limitations of wind energy to fulfill the energy needs of America and also be given authority over State Renewable Energy Portfolios.

    2) Researchers should have total unencumbered access at every project. Access by wind personnel or any other party should be reported to and cleared by the research team before entering a study area. This will stop workers from sweeping through the turbines to pick up bodies ahead of researchers. It will also stop other activities such as farmers/lease holders from deliberately tilling or mowing the ground around turbines ahead of researchers.

    3) The wind industry with their clear history of fraud and profit bias should have no say or control over any mortality studies. They presently have total control as they have for decades.

    4) Hiding bodies from wind projects by wind personnel, lease holders, researchers or for that matter, by anyone, should be a felony. This has been an ongoing practice of the industry since the 1980′s and it must be stopped.

    5) Mortality studies with adequate search areas should be conducted on 24-48 hour cycles and include first year of project operation. The first year of operation is when the highest number of local species are killed off. Why the needed 24-48 hour cycle, I will explained in detail at a later time later. Undersized mortality search areas are one of the wind industry ploy to minimize keep birds and bat mortality numbers.

    6) There should be a moratorium all wind farm development until wind mortality impacts can be properly assessed. At this time the cumulative impacts to birds can never be understood because of the body of flawed mortality studies, flawed data analysis, and decades long wind industry mortality cover-up. Some cumulative impact analysis has been generated by the industry but this has been nothing more than rehashing previously generated bogus mortality data for a desired
    outcome.

    7) Wind farm mortality should not be assessed by MW but instead by rotor sweep area, and by kill/speed/ hours (KSH) which would represent the wind turbine hours in operation while rotating at kill speeds(60-250 mph tip speed). These figures should then be analyzed in conjunction with a habitat placement factor. Rotor sweep, tip speed and turbine placement are the primary wind turbine factors that slaughter our birds.

    8) It is time for the scientific community to take an honest look at Altamont Pass to identify the true impacts from the propeller style wind turbine. An accurate raptor survey is badly needed taking into account the numbers of, or lack of, permanent raptors living in the habitat in and around the wind turbines of Altamont Pass. Instead of just counting bodies under the turbines there needs to be a meaningful raptor nest inventory and study that looks at the actual ongoing impacts to the populations living in the Altamont Pass region. I guarantee that with an honest study, the 59 pairs on nesting golden eagles once claimed (a wind industry generated report) to be living within a 19 mile radius of this wind farm, will not be found. I also suspect that any study area of several hundred square miles would clearly show more raptors residing per square mile in similar habitat the further away one gets from Altamont Pass. No eagles have nested in the 86 square mile region of Altamont pass for over 20 years even though this is prime golden eagle habitat. How much further does this void extend? A 50% decline in the golden eagle population was reported this week. There is a major impact from these projects and this information is being kept from the public.

    9) Sensitive impact sensors should be placed in the hub of each turbine. They should be foolproof and encased in a black box so to speak so the can not be tampered with by wind industry personnel. If these were put in place the world would be astounded by the numbers accumulated.

    10) Despite objections from the industry, the use of trained dogs and video surveillance would not only save time but also greatly enhance researcher efforts. The use of dogs would also
    make it more difficult for wind personnel to hide or dispose of bodies.

    11) All gag or nondisclosure clauses written into wind industry contracts between lease holders, researchers and all wildlife groups should be eliminated.

    12) There is a worldwide environmental crisis developing from the propeller style wind turbine. There have been dire warnings issued to State and Federal energy commissions of the coming population crash of birds and bats across the world from the mortality caused by the installation propeller style wind turbines. Government agencies need to start telling the truth and put into place an aggressive alternative wind turbine design program because there is no way to ever make these turbines safe for birds and bats.

  46. Ponder z
    January 7, 2012 at 9:48 am

    OK, so Europe blew it by matching fiscal irresponsibility, in the form of feed-in tariffs and massive subsidies to the wind industry, with accepting junk science that promised efficiencies only hypothetically possible and only then in the controlled environment of a laboratory. How about the land of P.T. Barnum and corn-ethanol subsidies?

    To answer that question, let’s take a look at the two states to the left of me. I most recently lived in Hawaii and California before moving to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe. In Hawaii, which the tourist brochures claim are always blessed by gently-blowing trade winds (not!), at the southernmost point on the Big Island lies the rusting remnants of the Kamaoa Wind Farm. Kamaoa’s fate is important to us because, with European wind developers losing the EU’s huge wind subsidies, closing factories there, and laying off thousands of workers, they are looking for new governments to fund their claims of “free energy forever.”

    But there is no such thing as a free lunch, energy – see link

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/221744-wind-energy-freedom-from-fossil-fuels-or-tempest-in-a-teapot-part-ii

  47. Ponder z
    January 7, 2012 at 9:55 am

    and still more bad things to know about wind turbins:

    http://www.windbyte.co.uk/safety.html

  48. Ponder z
    January 7, 2012 at 10:00 am

    This will freak you out. Wind farms CHANGING THE WEATHER!!!!
    Am I now an ecofreak?

    http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/image/2011/wind-turbines-churn-the-air-over-the-north-sea

  49. Plain Jane
    January 7, 2012 at 10:12 am

    Wiegand seems to be implying there is only one model of wind turbine, that used at Altamont Pass (40,000 old style turbines on a bird migration path where more birds are killed than at all other wind farms combined) and that they are all equally dangerous to birds and bats, which is demonstrably false. New designs with slower moving propellers greatly reduce the risk as does more careful placement to avoid heavily used migration routes.

    Domestic cats alone are responsible for hundreds of millions of dead birds every year, followed by power lines,(100+ million ) buildings (100 million to 1 billion) pesticides (70 million) cars (60+ million) and communication towers (40-50 million).

    Wind turbines are responsible for about 1/10 of 1% of bird deaths. When one oil spill killed over 250,000 birds, it seems a bit odd to rant about less than 50,000 killed across the country by wind turbines, especially since the more dangerous to bird designs are no longer being put in place.

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

  50. Anonymous
    January 7, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Plain Jane just can’t ever admit to being wrong. Always trying to drag out excuses so she-he is never wrong.

  51. Anonymous
    January 7, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    Birds are being killed by the millions by cats. That is true. But that doesn’t make the killing of birds by wind turbines any better. Like Wiegand said the studies are false and manipulated by the industry.

  52. Plain Jane
    January 7, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    But I refuted your (?) claims with facts and supported them, 12:00. You aren’t admitting that the claims you made were about old design wind turbines which aren’t being put on-line today. When you attempt to deceive using outdated statistics, don’t expect anyone with the ability to google to give you any credence.

  53. Anonymous XXIV
    January 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    Compare and contrast…

    WalMart (American Company blamed for loss of Main Street jobs and poor employee policies) effect on Eureka described as end of world when they move into abandoned mall space already zoned for commercial. Their construction alone has pumped half million or more into the local economy because they used local contractors and material sources when possible. Forget all that, let’s fight this tooth and claw, turn neighbor on neighbor and never ever get caught shopping there.

    Shell Wind Energy (Houston, Texas subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell famous for world-wide human rights and environmental abuses) will be wonderful neighbors in Humboldt County, unlike other wind “farms” elsewhere, Shell windmills will miraculously not turn bats inside out, will not kill birds, and their 400 foot high – 40 story high towers will absolutely not impact our landscape at all. We accept their need to install 80 foot diameter concrete bases, construct a concrete batch plant on top of Bear Ridge, build 50 to 75 foot wind access roads to get to the project proposed on land currently in Williamson Act and zoned “Agricultural.” Let’s support this 100%, after all, they’re going to bring in 30 jobs from outside the area for one construction season, import all their materials from foreign countries and employ 6 to 12 people when it’s all built.

    Oh ya, let’s protest WalMart til the day we die, and roll over and give our county to yet another Houston-based multi-national corporation with dollar signs in its eyes and their own best interest at the bottom of their balance sheet.

  54. Plain Jane
    January 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    Claiming the studies are false is easier than proving it, 12:06. Wiegand was citing Altamont bird kills and extrapolating that to all wind farms and “forgetting” that Altamont is a huge, old wind farm on migratory routes is a lie of omission and deceitful cherry picking of statistics, but still a lie.

  55. Ponder z
    January 7, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    So, now PJ is for the big Oil getting a grant and tax brake form Obama, to run this climate change scam. Because its going to save co2 output from coal and NG? Because it will only kill a few thousand birds? Because it will fill the vista with man made (green) obstacles?

    Well I say occupie Plain Jane.

  56. Wiegand
    January 7, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    I know about every turbine style and size at Altamont Pass. I have also done several years of research in the area and have read every study done at Altamont, all the way back to1984 when the big lie started. I have to say it is very disheartening to see such ignorance on this blog. Cats do not kill eagles and most other rare bird species. Windows do not kill the young young eagles only a few months after leaving their nests. But Wind turbines do by the thousands. Start adding up the numbers. Cats also do not write fraudulent impact reports or hide rare birds killed by turbines from the public. I happen to know virtually every dirty trick that this unregulated industry pulls. That is why I was asked to make the LIST OF CHANGES NEEDED. I have exposed bogus wind industry studies from all over the world. One of the latest is a study that says TOURISM Is to blame for the rapid golden eagle decline in Finland. The words migration, turbine, or wind farm were not used once in the report. This was was an industry funded study and this is the type of garbage routinely given to planning departments. I have also exposed another wind industry myth/lie, the one about the new big turbines being safer. I have seen the studies. The only way the industry could call these turbines safer was with their rigged studies and methodology. I recommend that everyone reading this should start searching the internet. You will find plenty to despise about this industry.

  57. Wiegand
    January 7, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    I will make one last comment for all readers to consider. Unlike the wind industry experts paid to lie……… I am paid nothing for telling the truth.

  58. Plain Jane
    January 7, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Links to what you recommend as credible would be helpful, Wiegand. There’s lots of misinformation on the internets.

  59. Ponder z
    January 7, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    reasons to ban wind power programs

    government fraud of tax money
    big oil tax exemption to offset carbon footprint
    bird migration hindrance
    bat habitat disruption
    wind flow diversion
    scenic blight
    government subsidies
    wildland fire danger

  60. Ponder z
    January 7, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    PJ are you working for BIG OIL?

  61. SmokeMonster
    January 7, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    So I guess they go through Rio Dell instead?

  62. Eric Kirk
    January 7, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Hey, PJ, I already got criticized in another thread because I referenced a book instead of an online link. And then the person countered…. with Wikipedia!

  63. Chirp!
  64. Plain Jane
    January 8, 2012 at 6:53 am

    Eric, I think when debating on the internet (as opposed to in a classroom with reference books available) internet links are superior. It’s hard to maintain a discussion when the “facts” offered are in book form. Wikipedia is a great place to start research with their sources cited (and linked) but due to its “editing” policies, not trustworthy itself.

    Chirp, like Wiegand, you are focused on the problems at Altamont Pass. Like the article I posted above states, the Altamont wind turbines are poorly designed (as regards bird / bat safety) and poorly sited (migratory routes). As previously stated, Altamont is responsible for over half of the wind turbine bird kills for the entire country. But they aren’t proposing that type of turbine or size of wind farm for Bear River Ridge.

    No Ponderz, I don’t work for the oil industry. My preference is non-fossil energy and I don’t care who builds it. Wiegand’s list of what regulations should be required sounds reasonable and would even create more jobs, maybe even one for him as the new agencies’ head. I’m all for accountability and transparency.

    If you are really so concerned about birds, why aren’t you working to make people be responsible for their cats? I love cats as much as anyone, but don’t believe they should be running loose killing birds. We don’t let dogs run loose, but for some reason there are no restrictions on cats which are free to poop in other people’s vegetable gardens (a pet peeve) and kill birds and squirrels. There are millions of feral cats (a dangerously invasive species) in this country, breeding several times a year and living off our wildlife. Cats should be licensed and neutering encouraged by license price just like dogs. Feral cats should be trapped and, if not destroyed, at least neutered.

  65. January 8, 2012 at 7:57 am

    “Their construction alone has pumped half million or more into the local economy…”
    Personally I don’t think that in itself is a good enough reason to support them. If they were building concentration-camps they would still be putting money into the local economy. They are predators and they will damage real people with real businesses.

    I’m all for alternative energy. but has it escaped people’s attention that it was all “unworkable” and “Pie-in-the-sky thinking” until the major oil companies owned “all” the technology?

    I am still stuck on the question as to who gave these companies the right to take the resources that “Should” belong to all the people? We had to pay for every drilling site, every exploration, every war to secure the material; and after all that we have the privilege of being exploited by the companies we supported.

    Energy, like health-care; is way to critical and important to allow private individuals to control. Nationalize the energy companies. Nationalize health-care. Save the country from these traitors who are weakening, and hurting the country to make their outrageous profits.

    You know Plain Jane, I wish you worked for the oil companies.

  66. Plain Jane
    January 8, 2012 at 8:36 am

    I don’t think we (earthlings) can afford to wait for nationalized energy before we reduce our oil and coal consumption, Moviedad. It’s like postponing chemotherapy for cancer until nationalized health care is passed. I don’t trust them either, but we can always let them build it and THEN nationalize it. :D

  67. Wiegand
  68. Anonymous
    January 8, 2012 at 9:44 am

    I totally agree with you on the cat issue Plane Jane. They are probably the biggest problem for birds. A huge problem that is not addressed. They are a domestic animal and not native in our continent. If you can figure out how to deal with the cat loving zealots on this one let me know how and I will be there. It still stands that wind turbines kill huge numbers of birds. At this point in time bird populations are crashing and we should look at preserving what is left.

  69. Percy
    January 8, 2012 at 10:16 am

    I love seeing all the free market, all regulation is bad, corporate suck up right wingers in Ferndale coming out all NIMBY and using their “concern” for birds as a reason to stop this wind farm from ruining their view. I don’t recall a lot of sympathy for spotted owls when protection of this species slowed Hurwitz’s old growth clearcuts. So is the proper word disingenuous of just down right hypocrite.

  70. Ponder z
    January 8, 2012 at 10:31 am

    The Nazis won their support primarily from the lower middle class and the peasantry. These voters were strongly nationalistic in their political views and feared that the depression would deprive them of their standard of living. In religion, most of the Nazis’ supporters were Protestants. German Catholics remained firm in their support of the Catholic Center Party.

    This was the German Spring, when they got power they, the NAZIs, nationalize all industry. Kind of like the commies. And some want to do this here?

  71. Plain Jane
    January 8, 2012 at 10:39 am

    Global warming is killing birds too, 9:44. Pesticides and oil spills kill far more birds than Altamont’s wind turbines and without alternative energy we are stuck with oil spills, mountain top removal for coal, polluted rivers from mine run-off and dead wildlife, including birds, and an inevitable climate crisis. We can’t get to where we need to be with alternative energy without using every method available, improving it when possible, while demanding the highest standards to protect the environment and wildlife. I’d give up my view to reduce the risk of oil spills and move toward a sustainable, clean energy source.

  72. Anonymous
    January 8, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Bird killing wind turbines are not the solution to our energy woes.

  73. Plain Jane
    January 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    Who said anything about nationalizing all industry, PonderZ? There are some industries that are too important to be controlled by the whims of the market. Energy is one of them as are defense, education, health insurance, police, fire and justice,

  74. Anonymous
    January 8, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Thank you Mr. Wiegand for all the links with this important information. Ferndale and the rest of the world should read the truth about wind energy.

  75. High Finance
    January 8, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Why do you omit food, housing & clothing PJ ?

  76. January 8, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    I see, since the Nazi’s nationalized the oil companies; we shouldn’t.
    I agree that nationalizing anything isn’t a good idea under the present corrupt system. So many things have to happen for something like that to make sense. The first thing is taking away the power of the rich to influence and control our government. You may be too young to remember, but there used to be a thing called: “bribery” that looked a lot like present day “lobbying.” In fact almost everything the rich and the rich-owned corporations are doing today with regards to our government; used to be considered a crime just a few years ago.
    In a system where people are in fact represented by their government; protecting the people from exploitation should be a priority.
    Another thought is this:
    Why do bankers get rich? Of all the professions banking is the one activity that absolutely should not make its people rich. Think of it. Bankers are supposed to taking care of other people’s money. If you see a banker getting rich, then the logical assumption is that he is stealing from…..the bank. Any banker who becomes rich is a thief. Of course he is. It is the most obvious stealing there is.
    It’s the epitome of criminal enterprise for an investment banker to become rich, while his clients lose their money.
    This shows just how brainwashed and propagandized the country has become. People see the obscene profits of banks and insurance companies while people’s retirements and savings disappear, and they actually believe the convoluted, complicated excuses given them by the thieves themselves.

  77. High Finance
    January 9, 2012 at 7:54 am

    Nonsense, total b/s Moviedad.

    If an investment banker makes many millions of dollars for his clients by working harder & being smarter, then he is rewarded by his clients. Unless he is YOUR investment manager it is non of your business. Your wealth envy is showing.

    So PJ, why nationalize energy & health insurance and not food, housing & clothing industries ?

  78. Plain Jane
    January 9, 2012 at 9:21 am

    Food, housing and clothing industries aren’t amenable to nationalization because we don’t eat the same diet, live in barracks, or wear uniforms, HiFi. No matter how basic or luxurious your home, how plain or fancy your dress or rich your diet, energy and health care are one “flavor” fits all and are most efficiently delivered by the government regardless of how much of either you use.

  79. January 9, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Sure, except I’m talking about rich bankers whose depositors have been wiped out.

  80. Eric Kirk
    January 9, 2012 at 11:38 am

    Eric, I think when debating on the internet (as opposed to in a classroom with reference books available) internet links are superior. It’s hard to maintain a discussion when the “facts” offered are in book form. Wikipedia is a great place to start research with their sources cited (and linked) but due to its “editing” policies, not trustworthy itself.

    Perhaps that makes sense on a certain level, but there’s an old adage for most magazines that the articles should only be as long as it would take the average reader to complete while sitting on the toilet. Likewise, I wonder what happens to the depth of the discussion when it’s limited to links which do not detract too much from the time it takes to be posting.

    Information is not knowledge…

  81. Plain Jane
    January 9, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    Lack of information isn’t knowledge either. There’s nothing wrong with quoting from books or using them as a source for your points, but when people can’t verify your interpretation they can only trust or distrust your opinions based on other criteria.

  82. walt
    January 9, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    “If an investment banker makes many millions of dollars for his clients by working harder & being smarter, then he is rewarded by his clients.” Like Mr. Madoff? He’s getting free room and board these days.

  83. martha
    January 9, 2012 at 4:01 pm

    This is private property. If someone else wants to decide what is going to be done on it, then they can buy it.

    This is hardly a pristine site. The ridge already has beacons on top of the HUGE weather station!!

    However neither can be seen from Ferndale. What can be seen by Ferndale, which no one made a peep about, and definitely ruins the night sky, is the huge casino/ hotel/ market complex ( with wind turbines!!)on the other side of the valley, the view that Ferndale DOES have.

    WTF people?

  84. Eric Kirk
    January 9, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    Lack of information isn’t knowledge either. There’s nothing wrong with quoting from books or using them as a source for your points, but when people can’t verify your interpretation they can only trust or distrust your opinions based on other criteria.

    What ever did we do before the Internet????

  85. Anonymous
    January 9, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    “…. but there’s an old adage for most magazines that the articles should only be as long as it would take the average reader to complete while sitting on the toilet….”

    So it’s the damn Ney Yorker that’s responsible for my hemroids!

  86. Plain Jane
    January 9, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    “What ever did we do before the Internet????”

    We followed the mores of society and didn’t discuss politics or religion in social or business settings.

  87. High Finance
    January 9, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    Your “logic” doesn’t even begin to make sense PJ.

    Health care and energy should be nationalized because we all need the same ? And we eat different diets, wear different clothes and live in different houses so those vital industries should not ?

    That is a laughable argument and exposes your total lack of thinking on the subject of nationalizing anything.

  88. Plain Jane
    January 9, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    I answered your question in a civil and logical manner, HiFi, and you didn’t logically refute my reasoning at all. Why do you think so many countries have nationalized energy and health insurance industries, but not nationalized food, housing and clothing (or car) industries? You are so clueless on every issue that’s its a good thing your daddy left you rich because you wouldn’t survive without his money and the help of his friends.

  89. High Finance
    January 10, 2012 at 8:39 am

    PJ, your illogic has been exposed.

    When in a hole, you should stop digging.

  90. Plain Jane
    January 10, 2012 at 9:31 am

    You haven’t done anything but make a claim that my reasoning is illogical, HiFi. The fact is that there are no countries (with the possible exception of North Korea) who have nationalized housing, clothing or food industries, but many have nationalized energy and health care. You are making a fool of yourself (again).

  91. Anonymous
    January 10, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Plain Jane what did you think of all that info on wind turbines that Wiegand listed on Jan. 8 at 9:27? You did look at them I hope.

  92. Anonymous
    January 11, 2012 at 1:14 am

    Heya Martha… If you were at the meeting, you’d know this isn’t about the view… It’s about the environmental destruction in the name of “green energy.”

    I don’t understand why some commentators including you and the goat lady have such a personal issue with the Bear River Casino and try to put your prejudices on Ferndale residents. As one who lives in Ferndale, I don’t find the Casino particularly visible nor objectionable in any way.

    The Casino never ran, nor ever plans to run, thousands of overweight trucks through Ferndale, nor did they need to widen the Wildcat road from 24 feet to 75 feet wide. The Casino is not a Multinational Oil Company, but a local business run by local residents whose ancestors have all been here a lot longer than 5 generations. The Casino and the people who run it are good neighbors. I wish people would stop trying to cause trouble between the Casino and Ferndae where none exists and none needs be.

    In contrast, Shell Wind Energy is not a local company. The profits extracted by them from this project will not stay in the local economy. Schatz Research Institute said there would be 30 jobs on this size project; Shell claims 120. That wasn’t the only place the two presenters differed greatly. In places Dr. Lehmann’s jaw was dropped listening to the project manager from Shell. He couldn’t believe what he was hearing any more than the rest of us.

    If you’d have been at the meeting you’d know what the concerns are.

    It’s really unusual for an issue to bring out hundreds of voters time after time. It’s especially unusual for 99% to be against a single project. Usually opinions are more divided. However, of local people who spoke at these meetings (leaving out the professor from Schatz and the project manager from Shell), only the actual landowner of part of the project has spoken in favor of the project.

    The other over 100 public comments were all against. The meeting lasted nearly to midnite. Unfortunately, all the press except the Ferndale Enterprise left before the public comments.

  93. Plain Jane
    January 11, 2012 at 6:29 am

    Yes, 6:17, I checked them out, skimmed a few, didn’t watch the documentary. Most were opinions by Weigand repeating the same information over and over (mostly about Altamont) but not addressing the specific type of wind turbines or site of the proposed Bear River Ridge wind farm. Lots of suspicions and unsupported allegations but not a lot of evidence. I agree that we need to protect endangered species; but we need to weigh the actual danger to them (vs possible danger) and take into account the danger to them from continuing to drill and spill oil, destroying habitat with coal mining and climate change due to burning fossil fuels. I am always in favor of independent oversight to keep people honest.

    So what about the actual landowner’s property rights, 1:14?

  94. IranianChemist
    January 11, 2012 at 7:58 am

    What?!
    PJ is concerned with private property rights?! Ha.
    Left is right. Up is down. The sun’ll probably set in the east tonight. Maybe the Mayans are right. The end of days is upon us. Load up your canned goods, grab your guns and run to the hills!

  95. Plain Jane
    January 11, 2012 at 8:28 am

    English must be your second language Iranian. I didn’t say I was concerned about the property rights of the actual landowner, just wondering how the absolute property rights people square their pro-property rights stance with opposition to what this particular property owner wants to do with his land. A neutral question shouldn’t be construed as either pro or anti the issue being discussed.

  96. Anonymous
    January 11, 2012 at 10:45 am

    Shame on you Plain Jane for not watching the documentary. Did you watch bats and birds being killed? Did you see how ridges were blasted and leveled to make way for the these turbines? Are you Heraldo or a plant that is paid to argue. Are you so stupid that you fall for every scheme that has the word GREEN attached to it? Do you own the proposed site that will make tons of profit from the lease?

  97. Plain Jane
    January 11, 2012 at 11:19 am

    Why would I want to watch bats and birds being killed 10:45? Does it add anything that hasn’t already been discussed by Wiegand? Believe it or not, I do have to work and can’t sit and watch documentaries no matter how morbidly entertaining you find them.

  98. Plain Jane
    January 11, 2012 at 11:20 am

    The rest of your questions aren’t worthy of a civil response so I’ll just ignore them.

  99. Anonymous
    January 11, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    Once again Plain Jane evades the questions.

  100. diane
    January 14, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Actually, Ferndale city council decided to NOT take a stand on the project.

  101. diane
    January 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Hey anonymous you know why no one was there to support the project? Because the point is moot. Ferndale ahs no control over whether this goes through or not. The people in attendance were TOWN people; they have nothing to say about this project, they cannot decide anything. Any decision by the city or the city council holds no weigh nor power, which is why no one was there to support the project, why should they?

    The rest of Ferndale people ( not the town people the other half that call Ferndale home and who vote here. Yes 1/2 of Ferndale’s population does NOT live in town) DO support the landowners decisions.
    If you would talk to the landowners, not the town people, you would know this.

  102. diane
    January 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    From the Ferndale Enterprise:

    Council holds off on taking stance against entire wind project, majority stating that county project not under city’s jurisdiction.

  103. Anonymous
    February 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    “It’s about the environmental destruction in the name of “green energy.” ”

    Thank you to whomever said this above.

    The proposed project is industrial scaled. It is a electricity generating power plant with substation, miles of road, tons of concrete, etc, etc etc. The area is rural, agricultural and the gateway to the Lost Coast. The project and the site are mismatched.

    If people think a four-story hotel is a blight, then really stretch your imagination and picture 40 story red blinking lights.

    Low-frequency pollution from turbines causes harm to wildlife, livestock, pets and people.

    Blades kill bats and birds.

    Construction causes erosion and landslides. The routes to the site are geologically unstable.

    Nacells fail, blades are thrown, towers collapse. Resultant fires pose a threat to the area. Broken wind turbine towers are not recyclable or repairable. Current installations are quickly becoming pinwheel junkyards.

    I’m leaving my posts without sources, because you can all do a quick search and find the evidence to back these statements. Start at windwatch, windaction, or windworriers online. There are many reasons so many people around the world (protests in france, Germany, India, etc) are concerned about these projects. These installations are harmful!

  104. Anonymous
    February 7, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    jurisdiction?

    oh my goodness. let’s not turn a blind eye to slavery in georgia just because we live in pennsylvania.

    the planet is our backyard. we all have jurisdiction. we all have the first FIRST amendment right to speach–to raising our voice.

    so let’s raise it in support of protecting the planet from greedy people hiding behind corporations pretending to be “green environmentalist”s when they are really “green money lovers”

    save the planet! it’s the only one we have!

  105. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    Shell’s website compares tourism impact to the maddening wind turbine junkyard in the Palm Springs area. This is crazy. Palm Springs is a big urban center. Ferndale, Humboldt County and the Lost Coast are rural.

    And the desert and local populations in the Coachella Valley have had negative impacts from the turbines. It’s driven off the wildlife (yes there is wildlife in the desert) and there are people who live close enough to be impacted. A video on youtube shows the flicker in a guys house driving the family bonkers.

    The entire planet should be free from these monsters.

  106. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Shell says it is looking to minimize impact. How about no impact? That would be best!

  107. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Airlift componets? How is using airtransport environmentally friendly?

  108. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    Will Shell reimburse for damage to property? Sure if They determine it was Thier fault. What is the likelyhood of that?

  109. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    The sound of wind is louder than the sound of turbines? So what? Who wants to hear the equivelant of a fridge running all the time. And studies have shown that in hilly regions audible and low-frequency vibration sounds carry further. Check out information on installations in Appalachia. If you can hear the ocean in Ferndale, do you want to hear the ocean and turbines? Ruiral areas are sound-sensitive. Do you think the wildlife will tolerate the sound of 25+ industrial electrical generating towers?

  110. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    The FAA will determine how much lighting will be on the turbines?

    Well, right now there are no lights. I like no lights. I like the dark night sky weather cloud covered or clear. A dark night sky is healthy for wildlife and people. A dark night sky is part of the beauty of rural life.

    Save the night sky!!!

  111. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    Wind turbines attract tourists?

    Maybe, but not likely are people going to drive from the Bay area to come see industrial turbines on the Lost Coast. They come to see a rural Lost Coast. Duh.

  112. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    In order to expand the permitting process has to be renewed?

    Yeah and that is just what they will do. renew, renew, renew. Check out current installations globally. Once a turbine is in place more follow. If having to go through the process the first time doesn’t stop the turbines from going up do you think that having to renew the permitting process is a hinderance to a big corporation?

    Please. Don’t insult us with such rhetoric, Shell employees.

  113. Anonymous
    February 8, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    “Save the night sky!!!”

    As of now I can only second this, but if time allows I will dodeca that comment.

  114. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Shell Wind Energy employees have engaged community leaders as a gesture of being good neighbors?

    In private meetings? Yeah. How neighborly. *sarcasm*

    How about public meetings with public officials? And not just lame slide shows at council meetings. Why not? Oh, because the public is actually saavy enough to counter every proposal that corporate employees come up with.

    Humboldt County folk are educated supporters of rural lifestyles. Very scary if you are trying to push urban development.

  115. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    Shell sponsored a bike race?

    Oooh, how generous of It. Maybe next time Itcan kick back a few million more dollars that It has gotten in subsidies and profits. Since that money came from the community in the first place.

  116. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    Wind turbines don’t decrease property values? Really?

    How well are homes in Palm Springs selling? Or Wisconsin? Or anywhere else these installations are?

    And even if the immediate property values go up, what about the overall value to a place that was once the Lost Coast becoming the Found Coast?

  117. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    120 jobs created? Wow! Sounds nice.

    Oh, wait only 2-10 jobs are needed after construction?

    Um, we could create more jobs in habitat restoration projects in the county. Or homeless outreach and support. Or education. Or local small scale wind turbine creation.

    Hey, engineers and contractors! Here is a booming market for you. Make money making small turbines for local buisnesses and homeowners. Then those folks can get the tax credits.

    We are a smart county. Lets think of any number of ways to spend our own tax dollars to create jobs. We can create jobs that save the environment and protect our energy security. Lets invest in passive solar heating construction. Jeesh we can live without a few jobs being passed out to us by some rich corporate heads.

  118. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    Minimum impact to current ranching? Really?

    Reports from around the globe say industrial wind causes lilvestock (cows, goats and chickens) to become sick, breed less, produce less and die. How is that minimal impact?

  119. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    Wait, we will have to have transmission lines upgraded? You mean construction won’t be limited to the ridge, but to the whole county? Geesh. Do we need that? Are we having rolling blackouts or something, now?

  120. Ban Industrial Wind Turbines Support Small Scale Wind Power
    February 8, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    There’s a lot of wind on Bear River Ridge?

    No duh.

    There’s also a watershed nearby, a coastline under conservancy, and a rural community that happens to like being rural.

    It seems there’s also a lot of hot air blowing in from the Netherlands. (Shell Wind Energy is a Dutch corporation.)

    And guess what? Since it’s windy on the ridge, lots of birdies and bats utilize those ridge drafts.

    And people in Humboldt care about birdies and bats…and fish and owls and trees and grasses and weasels and bunnies and deer and people!

  121. humboldturtle
    February 8, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    Thanks, BIWTSSSWP!

  122. Let Them Know
    February 13, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    Please help protect the Lost Coast from industrial development.

    Individuals representing themselves as Shell Wind Energy propose to install industrial wind turbines on Bear River Ridge.

    Please contact the individuals & agencies listed on this page and let them know that there are serious environmental & economic concerns regarding the proposed project by Shell wind energy for Bear River Ridge. Some of the concerns include erosion; landslide; water, air, noise, vibrational & light pollutants; CO2 emissions from concrete production; diminished wildlife habitat, reduced livestock & wildlife breeding capacity; loss of life for wildlife & humans; wind-turbine-syndrome; transportation disruption; lowered recreational, tourist & real estate values; wildfire; hazardous materials spills; & overall diminished quality of rural lifestyles.

    Please urge these agencies & individuals to oppose this project & instead to support preservation & conservation. Thank you.

    NORTH COAST CITY COUNCILS
    Arcata
    Susan Ornelas, mayor;
    Michael Winkler,, vice mayor
    Alex Stillman, Shane Brinton, Mark Wheetley, councilmembers
    City Hall, 736 F St.
    Arcata, CA 95521
    Phone: 822-5953
    Fax: 822-8018

    Blue Lake
    Sherman Schapiro, mayor;
    Karen Barnes, mayor pro-tem;
    Lana Manzanita, Kevin Benjamin, Michelle McCallWallace, councilmembers
    City Hall, P.O. Box 458
    Blue Lake, CA 95525
    Phone: 668-5655
    Fax: 668-5916

    Crescent City
    Charles Slert, mayor;
    Kathryn Murray, mayor pro-tem
    Kelly Schellong, Donna Westfall, Rich Enea, councilmembers
    City Hall, 377 J St.
    Crescent City, CA 95531
    Phone: 464-7483
    Fax: 465-4405

    Ferndale
    Jeff Farley, mayor;
    Stuart Titus, vice mayor;
    Niels Lorenzen, Ken Mierzwa, Jon ‘Max’ Maxwell, councilmembers
    City Hall, P.O. Box 1095
    Ferndale, CA 95536
    Phone: 786-4224
    Fax: 786-9314

    Eureka
    • Mayor:Frank Jager
    Phone: 441-4172
    • 1st Ward: Marian Brady
    Phone: 441-4169
    • 2nd Ward: Linda Atkins
    Phone: 441-4168
    • 3rd Ward: Mike Newman
    Phone: 441-4170
    • 4th Ward: Melinda Ciarabellini Phone: 441-4167
    • 5th Ward: Lance Madsen
    Phone: 441-4171
    City Hall, 531 K St.
    Eureka, CA 95501-1165
    Phone: 441-4172
    Fax: 441-4138

    Fortuna
    Doug Strehl, Mayor;
    Ken Zanzi, mayor pro tem;
    Mike Losey, Sue Long, Dean Glasser, councilmembers
    City Hall, 621 11th St.
    Fortuna, CA 95540
    Phone: 725-7600
    Fax: 725-7610

    Trinidad
    Kathy Bhardwaj, mayor;
    Julie Fulkerson, Mayor Pro-Tem;
    Tom Davies, Dwight Miller, Mike Morgan, councilmembers
    City Hall, 409 Trinity
    Trinidad, CA 95570
    Phone: 677-0223
    Fax: 677-3759

    Rio Dell
    Judy Woodall, mayor;
    Richard ‘Bud’ Leonard, Marc Barsanti, Melissa Marks, Jack Thompson, councilmembers
    City Hall, 675 Wildwood Ave.
    Rio Dell, CA 95562
    Phone: 764-3532
    Fax: 764-5480

    PERMITTING AGENCIES FOR SHELL WIND ENERGY
    BEAR RIVER RIDGE PROJECT

    Michael Van Hatem, CEQA Review
    California Department of Fish and Game
    619 Second Street
    Eureka, CA 95501

    James Bond
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    1655 Heidon Road
    Arcata, CA 95521

    John Miller
    Humboldt County Planning Division
    3015 H Street
    Eureka, CA 95501
    707-268-3781 Phone
    707-268-3792 Fax
    jpmiller@co.humboldt.ca.us

    Billie Blanchard
    PURA V Project Manager
    Energy Division-Transmission Permitting and CEQA
    California Public Utilities Commission
    505 Van Ness Avenue
    San Francisco, CA 94102-3298

    Alison Dettmer
    Energy and Resources Unit
    California Coastal Commission
    45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
    San Francisco, CA 94105-2219

    Ferndale City Council
    City Hall
    PO Box 1095
    Ferndale, CA 95536
    707-786-4224 Phone
    707-786-9314 Fax

  123. Let Them Know
    February 13, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Other Lawmakers and Their Contact Information

    President
    Barack H. Obama
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
    Washington, D.C. 20500
    Phone: (202) 456-1414
    Fax: (202) 456-2461
    president@whitehouse.gov

    U.S. Senate
    Dianne Feinstein
    Hart Senate Office Building
    Room 331
    Washington, D.C. 20510
    Phone: (202) 224-3841
    Fax: (202) 228-3954
    San Francisco: (415) 393-0707
    http://feinstein.senate.gov/

    Barbara Boxer
    Hart Senate Office Building
    Room 112
    Washington, D.C. 20510
    Phone: (202) 224-3553
    San Francisco: (415) 403-0100
    Fax: (415) 956-6701
    http://boxer.senate.gov/

    U.S. Representative
    Mike Thompson
    Cannon House Office Building
    Room 415
    Washington D.C. 20515
    Phone: (202) 225-3311
    317 3rd St., Suite 1
    Eureka, CA 95501
    Eureka phone: 269-9595
    Fax: 269-9598
    http://mikethompson.house.gov/

    Governor
    Jerry Brown
    State Capitol Building
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: (916) 445-2841
    Fax: (916) 445-4633
    mailto:governor@governor.ca.gov

    State Senate (Del Norte)
    Doug Lamalfa
    State Capitol Building
    Room 3056
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: (916) 445-3353
    Fax: 445-7750
    senator.dlamalfa@sen.ca.gov

  124. Let Them Know
    February 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
    Humboldt County Courthouse
    825 Fifth St., Room 111
    Eureka, CA 95501
    • 1st District: Jimmy Smith Phone: 476-2391 jrsmith@co.humboldt.ca.us
    • 2nd District: Clif Clendenen Phone: 476-2392 rrodoni@co.humboldt.ca.us
    • 3rd District: Mark Lovelace Phone: 476-2393 jwoolley@co.humboldt.ca.us
    • 4th District: Virginia Bass Phone: 476-2394 vbass@co.humboldt.ca.us
    • 5th District: Ryan Sundberg Phone: 476-2395 rsundberg@co.humboldt.ca.us

    Del Norte County Board of Supervisors
    • 1st District: Leslie McNamer llmcnamer@co.del-norte.ca.us
    • 2nd District: Martha McClure mmcclure@co.del-norte.ca.us
    • 3rd District: Michael Sullivan
    msullivan@co.del-norte.ca.us
    • 4th District: Gerry Hemmingsen ghemmingsen@co.del-norte.ca.us
    • 5th District: Dave Finigan dfinigan@co.del-norte.ca.us
    Board of Supervisors
    981 H St., Suite 200
    Crescent City, CA 95531
    Phone: 464-7204

  125. Milfred
    February 21, 2012 at 4:35 pm
  126. gaiachild
    February 28, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Agents of Shell Energy are being sued in Nigeria for supporting torture of humans. Are these the people we want as our neighbors?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,161 other followers