“Wind Concerns Ontario supports responsible, environmentally sound solutions to our energy demands and environmental challenges.”
WCO is not against wind, because they support it, Nor do they wish to expose the drivers behind it as that would expose people like McMurtry. What environment challenges? MMGW…….climate change?
WCO was set-up as controlled opposition in order to control those who are fighting for their land.
What is their mantra?
Be respectful at meetings put on by wind companies.
Be respectful of council……that didn’t stand up to the GEA.
Vote for Hudak
Note – (You may get your health study once the thousands of wind turbines are erected. It is quite possible that once all the turbines are erected, the govt. will say that there is a danger to health .. Everyone must move off the affected lands into towns and cities, because the govt. cares deeply about your health. One of the core goals of Agenda 21 is to move people into “human settlements” and “re-wild” the rural areas. Sustainability!
So keep on asking for the health study – it will make a future govt. look good………..of course you won’t live in the country any longer. On the bight side – you got your health study and never had to expose the scam………good work!.)
I’m going to go through this article by Tyler Hamilton and critique it. I’ll include some of my experiences and thoughts as well. My critique will be added in italics. Having spent over two years studying wind farms, having read and studied thousands of pages of documents from around the world, attending many council meetings and an OMB hearing, I believe I’m qualified to discuss the subject in an objective manner.
Province wary of small but effective groups as it aims to beef up renewable energy plan.
Oct 30, 2008 04:30 AM
Tyler Hamilton Energy ReporterToronto Star( Shill for the wind industry – I say that because of his absolute lack of objectivity)
Opponents to wind farms in Ontario, at the best of times a local thorn in the side of wind-energy developers, have suddenly realized the benefit of getting organized.( see what I mean )Earlier this week a new anti-wind group called Wind Concerns Ontario, a coalition of 22 small rural groups each fighting their own community battles, announced its creation as a “strong, unified voice of opposition” to provincial plans that would see thousands of industrial wind turbines “tearing apart the very fabric of rural Ontario.”
They emphasize the “industrial” nature of wind turbines and their danger to birds and bats. They say the machines are noisy, make some people sick, kill local tourism and cause the real estate values of surrounding properties to fall. (All true statements, backed by facts)
When those complaints don’t stick, they attack the technology as being a fraud. “It does not in reality produce `green’ energy, does not reduce CO2 emissions significantly and is inefficient,” said Beth Harrington, spokesperson for the new coalition and head of the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, where several onshore and offshore wind projects are being planned.
(True – Wind energy has been promoted as being able to significantly reduce emissions, even though there is no evidence to support the claim.)
The increasingly vocal opposition, however small compared to those who more quietly support wind power in Ontario, isn’t lost on the Liberal government, which is counting on new renewable-energy projects as part of a plan to wean the province from coal-fired power generation by 2014.
(The so-called “quiet support” comes from people who got sucked in by the propaganda machine or never did any research on the subject)
In September, Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman directed the power authority to beef up an already ambitious renewable-energy plan, much of it dependent on massive new wind farms being erected across the province and on the Great Lakes.
(George Smitherman just recently took over the Ministry of Energy. So the question that needs to be asked is – What does Smitherman actually know about the energy needs of Ont. From his actions so far I feel safe in saying - not much. As Health Minister he thought it was prudent to have our seniors sit in dirty diaper until they were 70% full)
Smitherman, who will be in Shelburne today opening Canada’s largest wind farm, told the Star he’s committed to engaging the public in meaningful discussions as the plan moves forward. “But we also recognize that work needs to be done to ensure that momentum on the goal of a cleaner and green energy future isn’t diminished.”
(Meaningful discussions should be read as – drink the Kool-Aid or we’ll call you names ie: Nimby’s. That does not constitute meaningful discussions. He also forgot to mention the people already forced to move as a result of the first phase of the project)
This will require a streamlining of rules and regulations so they better balance community concerns with the need to move projects forward, industry observers say. A practical start, some suggest, is to establish environmental pre-screening of projects to weed out the good from the bad.
(This should read – The govt. and wind industry will decide where wind farms go and local councils will be bypassed.)
Behind the scenes the government is working on such improvements, sources say, including the creation of a Green Energy Act that would give priority to renewable energy and conservation as the province updates and expands its electricity system.
(Read – end of local democratic rights)
Some have grown impatient. EPCOR Utilities Inc. earlier this month canceled a $300-million wind farm in Goderich. After years of delay, the company said it couldn’t wait any longer for provincial and municipal approvals, which in some cases had been slowed by a handful of protesters.
( I attended many council meetings concerning the Epcor-Kingsbridge ll wind farm near Goderich and I never saw a protester. I did meet people who were lied to in order to construct Kingsbridge l . People who suffered from health, noise and stray voltage problems. I saw Epcor walk out of council meetings twice and say they were done. Why? Because people wanted answers to questions that the wind company couldn’t or refused to answer.
They should have left, but the govt. kept saying they would fix things. I saw junk engineering reports – anything to try and ram the project through. I believe there has been a formal complaint lodged because of those engineering reports.
We, a small group of dedicated citizens, farmers and landowners, including one dedicated councilor held up Kingsbridge ll for over a year. In that time I witnessed what can only be described as total and complete disrespect for people, their rights, their health, their property and the truth.
In the end a 450 meter setback was adopted – the same setback that was put forward over a year earlier, even though the people suffering ill effects from Kingsbridge l were all outside the 450 meter setback. The councilor who stood up for his constituents said “I was told by lawyers that any setback over 450 meters would prompt an OMB hearing at a cost to the township of $100.000 and that we would lose.”
Epcor recently released a statement stating they were withdrawing from the Kinsbridge ll wind farm because they would be unable to have the project up and operational by Oct.31st. of this year. They had to know that at least a year ago – so what gives?
This is speculation on my part, but I believe the Epcor withdrawal will be used as the excuse the govt. has been looking for to bypass local councils.
So much for democracy!)
Closer to home, Toronto Hydro got a taste of things to come this week as it considers construction of an offshore wind farm off the Scarborough Bluffs. It was forced on Monday evening to cancel its first community information meeting because more than 400 people showed up – twice as many as the church hall could hold.
Nearly 200 people lined up outside were greeted by someone from a group called SOS Windfarms Toronto (the SOS stands for Stop Offshore) who was handing out business cards that promote a website.
Along with some valid concerns, the site also contains misleading or wrong information, such as claims that the wind farm is being promoted as the only green solution for Toronto and that 80 years of aviation data show the site is inappropriate for wind generation.
(If you want misleading or wrong information go to the CanWEA site or the Govt. of Ont. site,or read the writing of Tyler Hamilton. They are masters of the art.)
“I think a lot of people are making judgments based on information that I would say is incorrect,” said Keith Stewart, an energy expert with WWF-Canada. “Rational argument can win over the majority, but it can’t win over everyone.”
(There goes Tyler Hamilton again – describing Keith Stewart of the WWF as an energy expert. Keith Stewart has a PhD in political science from York University, where he studied environmental politics. I see nothing that would suggest he is an energy expert.
I thought the focus of the WWF was trying to save the ‘not endangered polar bear’. Maybe Mr. Stewart would be of more use in the high arctic.
I want to hear from the engineers – the people who understand and build electrical systems, not politicians and lobby groups)
Stewart said some ecologically sensitive locations are clearly not appropriate for wind farms, and that’s part of the reason why government has to create guidelines.
(It was CanWEA that requested the govt. not impose setbacks and the govt. agreed to the request.)
First, the relatively small size of private land parcels in Ontario will present a challenge for developers due to the number of stakeholders that may perceive impacts. Windpark development may become uneconomical if municipal setbacks created to address these “perceived” concerns reduce the usable land area, thus eliminating the economics of scale necessary to develop a project.*
*14c) The Industry does not recommend that a set of standard bylaws be adopted with respect to setbacks or other municipal zoning issues.*
(*”The above can be understood to mean, that if “safe setbacks” are mandated, it will make it uneconomical to site wind farms in Southern Ontario”)
(If Tyler Hamilton, the Govt. or CanWEA think they can subdue the rising state of awareness concerning the reality of wind farms, they are mistaken in their misguided belief, just as they are being dishonest when telling the public that wind farms will significantly cut CO2 emissions or are capable replacing a fossil fuel plant.
During a conversation I had with the senior policy adviser for the Ministry of Energy, I mentioned that my research suggested the best plan for Ontario’ s electrical needs was to put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build a nuke.He agreed with my assessment. Cost -10 billion for a system that is both environmentally sound and cost effective. McGuinty has continually refused to put the scrubbers on the coal plants, putting the health of thousands at risk)
McGuinty’s plan – 60+ billion for an unstable, overly expensive and is no healthier than the one proposed by myself and accepted as sound by the policy adviser.
When I asked why this was happening, he answered “politics” – try heating your home with politics.)
Editor This showed up via an email from a concerned citizen. Might shed some light on how the wind industry really thinks about you and your family. They don’t come across here as the environmentalists they like to portray themselves as. God help the bats, birds and the people who suffer from the abuse dished out by the wind industry with the backing of corrupt govt. Tax avoidance and carbon credits is the name of the game. They don’t give a damn about the environment.
click photo to enlarge
Notes from Wind Power Finance and Investment Summit, II
Wind Power Finance and Investment Summit, Feb. 7, 2008, San Diego, Calif. *Session: Strategic Wind Developers’ Perspective on Wind Development*
*Moderator:*
Tim Callahan, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP
*Panelists:*
Eric Blank, Executive Vice President, Development Division, Iberdrola USA
Sam Enfield, Wind Energy Development, PPM Energy
Declan Flanagan, CEO, Airtricity North America
Peter Duprey, CEO, Acciona Energy North America
*Where in the United States is the growth [of the wind sector] expected to continue?* The Midwest looks good, although nimbyism and lack of transmission are restraints there. Lack of transmission on the Great Plains is a drawback. The Northwest has issues with transmission as well, although deals are in the works to make it happen. There are premier sites in this region.
*What regions of the United States are more difficult to develop and why?* *Landowners are understanding more about the industry.* Upstate New York is “not a reality”. 70% of construction in 2007 was on sites 100 MW or bigger. This trend will continue. A 30 MW project costs as much as a 100 MW project because of the mobilization costs, making these smaller projects less feasible.
*Are there regions in the United States that are over-built?* West Texas is reaching saturation but will continue to grow as new transmission is built.
*What are the major constraints and challenges to expansion in the industry?
* Turbine manufacturers are sold out though 2009. Developers have to settle for second and third choices for equipment. The scarcity of turbines is hurting the smaller players and it will continue to get tighter for them. It is also putting more stress on marginal projects.
In 2001 there was one manufacturer in the U.S. Now there are seven. These new entrants are hampered by a lack of subcontractors and suppliers as well as a competent workforce. The industry is still competing with traditional generation, which is also slowing things down.
*Is a Federal RPS necessary for the industry to continue growing?*Absolutely. “If this doesn’t happen in the next administration we can all start looking for other jobs.”
*Is the extension of the PTC necessary for the sector to continue growing?*If it doesn’t happen in 2008, and be retroactive to 1/1/08, it will set the industry back two years. “If we don’t get at least a one year extension of the PTC in 2008, projects will shut down for lack of financing.” “Tax credits are always taken from somewhere else that is getting them. We are getting a stronger ‘pushback’ from those who stand to lose them [oil and gas interests].” “We have bipartisan support but the extension has always been attached to legislation that fails for some other reason.” “It is hard to spend money when there is doubt about the future of the industry.”
*Are all the best sites (Class II) developed or being developed? Are less desirable sites economically feasible?* “The low hanging fruit from a siting perspective has already been picked.”
*Is off-shore a realistic possibility in the United States?* These projects are quite expensive, especially the further from shore and deeper they are.
*Is transmission becoming a significant constraint to development, and if so, how can this constraint be overcome?* “Transmission is the biggest restraint to development. We need to go to larger projects to justify new transmission costs.” This will be a problem for a while. The question of who will pay for new transmission is a tough political issue.
*Are NIMBY issues becoming more prevalent? How does a developer overcome these challenges?* “*Nimbys are cropping up everywhere, especially in the East. It is a cottage industry. Friends of this and friends of that are very effective at networking and putting out pseudo-science. They are still fighting on a project by project basis, however.” “A new AWEA guidebook will be out soon that deals with how to fight nimbys.” “**National Wind
* is very sophisticated and is helping local groups get organized.”
Baby boomers seeking second homes and realtors are a huge threat to development, especially in New England. They have the resources to mount campaigns against projects. It’s better in the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain regions where communities are dependent on local projects.
Expansion is easier also.*
*Is the industry still grappling with environmental considerations, or have these become more manageable?* *Bat problems are turning out to be a serious issue. Fifty or sixty kills per turbine are significant numbers and are causing concern. “Fortunately, bats are not charismatic creatures so this doesn’t carry any weight.”*
It appears from all the research that has been done on wind turbines and wind farms that not only is the wind industry not telling you the truth, neither is your govt. When I say your govt., I am talking about all govt. bodies that are involved in the promotion and licensing of wind farms. The evidence is in. The question at this point in time is really very simple. Are you going to stand up and be counted or are you going to do nothing?
Thousands of lives have already been ruined by poorly sited wind farms, you may be next. Both the wind industry and your government knew and continue to know that these wind farms are sited too close to people. It is about economy of scale. Never forget “By the people for the people”
I don’t remember it being changed to “By the government for the corporations.”
The wind companies are in the process of sucking billions of dollars from taxpayers pockets and your govt. is helping them.
Is Democracy still alive in the so-called free world?
Leave a comment
The document below says it all
Frey_&_Hadden,_Wind_turbines_and_health
Wind turbines are large industrial structures that create obtrusive environmental noise pollution when built too close to dwellings. This annotated review of evidence and research by experts considers the impact of industrial-scale wind turbines suffered by those living nearby. First, the paper includes the comments by some of the families affected by wind turbines, as well as coverage in news media internationally. The experiences described put a human face to the science of acoustics.
Second, the paper reviews research articles within the field of acoustics concerning the acoustic properties of wind turbines and noise. The acoustic characteristics of wind turbines are complex and in combination produce acoustic radiation. Next, the paper reviews the health effects that may result from the acoustic radiation caused by wind turbines, as well as the health effects from noise, because the symptoms parallel one another. Primarily, the consequent health response includes sleep deprivation and the problems that ensue as a result. In addition, this paper reviews articles that report research about the body’s response not only to the audible noise, but also to the inaudible components of noise that can adversely affect the body’s physiology. Research points to a causal link between unwanted sound and sleep deprivation and stress, i.e., whole body physiologic responses.
These injuries are considered in the context of Human Rights, where it is contended that the environmental noise pollution destroys a person’s effective enjoyment of right to respect for home and private life, a violation of Article 8 of the European Court of Human fights Act. Furthermore, the paper considers the consequent devaluation of a dwelling as a measure of part of the damage that arises when wind turbines are sited too close to a dwelling, causing acoustic radiation and consequent adverse health responses.
The review concludes that a safe buffer zone of at least 2km should exist between family dwellings and industrial wind turbines of up to 2MW installed capacity, with greater separation for a wind turbine greater than 2MW installed capacity
Video of wind turbines from Pennsylvania.
This video shows what wind turbines have done to the landscape, the people and property values in their area.
This paper was written in 2004.
It looks at all options for replacement of coal. This 31 page document shows how wrong the Liberal govt. is when it comes to electrical generation in Ontario. If you really want high prices and an unstable grid then embrace the wind. If you want a cost effective reliable grid then get active. I thank Mr. Rogers for his work and allowing me to share it with you.
J.T.ROGERS, PhD
Professor-Emeritus
Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario
The low intensity of wind power results in a requirement for many large wind turbines to generate any significant power. Furthermore, these turbines have to be well-spaced to ensure
that wake effects on adjacent turbines do not reduce blade efficiency, and thus power generation, significantly. Based on data from different sources, the power-to-area intensity for
wind farms varies from about 2.8 MW/km2 to about 5.0 MW/km2 [32, 33, 34]. Therefore, to replace the capacity of the OPG coal plants by wind power plants, assuming an optimistic
power intensity of 4 MW/km2, would require a total area of about 1,900 sq.km., about three times the size of metropolitan Toronto. The cost and difficulty of assembling adequate wind
sites over such an area in southern Ontario would be prohibitive, even though some of the required area would also still be usable for agricultural purposes. In addition, the total electricity produced annually by this capacity would be considerably less than that produced by the coal-fired plants because of the low annual capacity factors of the wind plants. From the above data on the current installed capacity and energy production of wind power plants in Ontario, the annual capacity factor of these plants is 18.7%, compared to about 60% to 65% for
the coal-fired plants. An ACF of 18.7% is on the low side of the range of ACFs for existing
wind farms, 20% to 30% [35]. Assuming an average ACF of 25%, replacing the coal-fired plants by the same capacity of wind-fired plants would result in the generation of only about
40% of the electricity produced in a year by the coal-fired plants. Furthermore, unlike power from the coal-fired plants, power from the wind plants would not be available on demand to
meet varying loads, but would depend on the variability of the wind. Since there is no practical means of storing electricity directly on a large scale, building additional wind plants to
overcome this intermittency would not be helpful12.
In effect, wind plants cannot really replace the coal-fired plants, since they cannot meet the requirements of intermediate-load service, that is, being available on demand to meet varying
loads over a day or other period. Similarly, wind plants cannot be used for base-load to provide continuous power or for peaking plants to provide peak power on demand. Wind generation is
only useful for now as displacement energy, being accepted by the grid, when it is available, in preference to energy from conventional plants whose operating costs at that time are greater
than those of the wind energy plants .
It is concluded that wind energy is not a realistic option to replace the coal-fired plants and will continue to play only a very minor role in electricity generation in Ontario.
[This letter was written by Mr. Monfils, Lincoln Town Board Chairman, about living near wind turbines in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin. He wrote it hoping that it will help other communities facing wind power plant proposals.]
One lesson learned from our experience with the process of the request for locating wind turbines in the Town of Lincoln in Kewaunee County, was never to assume that what the Utilities or their private supporters tell you about the project is accurate. They put out information, which was beneficial to them and the project and downright wrong.
When dealing with the utilities or private companies, try to deal with one or two persons in charge. This avoids having to repeat your concerns and helps to avoid problems about who said what and who promised this or that about your concerns about the project. Get their promises in writing with guarantees about what they are promising. If their promises are not met, written penalties of appropriate, but substantial size must be provided and enforced. Written conditions and penalties are mandatory if you plan to accept the wind farm project.
Problems that are of strong concern, and problems that we had warned the utilities about but were assured that they would not occur are as follows: interference with T V reception, Microwave reception interference, depreciating property values, flashing red lights (FAA) interfering with nearby homes, wind turbine NOISE which interferes with neighbors sleep and their mental health, increased traffic, road damage, cattle being scared from rotating shadows cascading from the blades in a setting sun, rotating shadows in nearby homes, concerns about stray voltage, concerns about increased lightening strikes, environmental damage to birds, etc. etc. etc. But the proponents for wind energy will dismiss all of these concerns and tell you that they will not occur. THEY ARE WRONG. Ask the neighbors who are not property owners reimbursed by the utilities through lease agreements on their property or people who want to lease in the future. They will verify these problems.
click on link for the rest of the letter
Problems associated with wind turbines
Although the paper focuses on the lack of environmental and energy benefits, there is a similar lack of financial benefits. Jobs are few and temporary (most installation is done by specialized technicians from elsewhere). Payoffs to towns are short-term promises at best and not binding, and tax benefits are likely to be severely diminished once other losses (in property values and tourism/recreation income) and the state’s share are factored in.
Only the individual landowners leasing their land can be said to benefit. Yet for negatively altering our common landscape and degrading wildlife habitat and water ecology (with clearing, foundations, and roads), for adding noise and light pollution day and night, the landowner (who more often than not, it seems, does not live in the area) signs a lease drawn up by the wind company and effectively becomes a caretaker of their interests in perpetuity.
In balance, there is no benefit to the country, to the state or region, and certainly not to the hosting localities from industrial wind turbine installations.
I sure wish Mr. Duncan would try telling the truth about wind energy to the people of Ontario.
He continues to use plate capacity numbers as if they are a real number.
Germany allows 8% of capacity rating for wind turbines. So when Dwight tells you 1000mw
have been installed he really should be saying 80mw. How often have you heard him say
they plan on using high priced gas for backup. He is counting on the population to remain ignorant of the truth. He is spending your tax dollars like a drunken sailor. You will get higher costs for hydro and an unstable grid. The wind companies and promoters get the money. Your money. You should be mad as hell at Mr Duncan. I voted Liberal.
'The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls.' - Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
