Archive for the ‘bruce county agriculture’ Category

Ted Cowan, Ontario Federation of Agriculture – Warns Farmers to be Careful When Dealing with the Wind Industry

August 19, 2008

Ted Cowan, a researcher with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture Farm Policy Research Group.

Ted Cowan cautioned farmers and landowners on lease agreements, providing an updated list of 30 recommendations from the OFA.

“I’ve seen over 30 leases, and there are problems with every one,” said Cowan, who outlined key considerations necessary to protect the rights of the farmers contemplating a wind power lease agreement.

“Don’t sign a lease until you have considered the choices and determined what is best for your farm operation for the next 20 years,” he said.

Cowan said some wind power companies are not giving a fair share of their profits, typically around 2 per cent, noting that the OFA recommendations call for a rent of 3 per cent for the first eight years, then going up to 8 or 10 per cent. The OFA also suggests that farmers contact their power distribution company to acquire their own right to connect.

Farmers were also cautioned on assessment and tax implications.

“It’s your farm – it’s your taxes,” said Cowan, noting that the landowner was ultimately responsible for taxes on their property. In addition, Cowan said there was no guarantee that the provincially imposed caps on assessments and taxes would remain in the future.

“I don’t know, taxes could be 50 times of what they are right now,” he said.

Outside of lease and legal considerations, there was detailed mention of more serious problems encountered by farmers with nearby wind power installations at the first meeting.

Cowan said a farmer had lost some cattle due to problems from stray voltage encountered right after a wind power development was commissioned, an incident that came to the attention of the OFA at the end of last year. Cowan declined to state the location of the incident, except to say it was in Ontario.

“If you put your hand on his barn wall you will have 83 volts going through your body,” said Cowan, who noted that voltage has a greater effect on cattle because of their large body size, causing changes in the animals watering and feeding habits.

“Yes, it could be a problem here,” said Cowan, speaking of Essex County’s numerous municipal drains and notorious wet soils, which can act as conductors of stray voltage.

To make the matter worse, Cowan said the farmer had not been getting help from the power companies or his municipality.

“Typically, it was who can run away from the responsibility the fastest,” he said.

The Essex Free Press

Advertisements

Biofuels emissions may be 'worse than petrol

February 7, 2008

 Biofuels emissions may be ‘worse than petrol’

Biofuels, once seen as a useful way of combating climate change, could actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, say two major new studies.

And it may take tens or hundreds of years to pay back the “carbon debt” accrued by growing biofuels in the first place, say researchers. The calculations join a growing list of studies questioning whether switching to biofuels really will help combat climate change.

Biofuel production has accelerated over the last 5 years, spurred in part by a US drive to produce corn-derived ethanol as an alternative to petrol.

The idea makes intuitive environmental sense – plants take up carbon dioxide as they grow, so biofuels should help reduce greenhouse gas emissions – but the full environmental cost of biofuels is only now becoming clear.

Extra emissions are created from the production of fertiliser needed to grow corn, for example, leading some researchers to predict that the energy released by burning ethanol is only 25% greater than that used to grow and process the fuel.

Carbon debt

The new studies examine a different part of biofuel equation, and both suggest that the emissions associated with the crops may be even worse than that.

One analysis looks at land that is switched to biofuel crop production. Carbon will be released when forests are felled or bush cleared, and longer-term emissions created by dead roots decaying.

This creates what Joseph Fargione of The Nature Conservancy and colleagues call a “carbon debt”. Emissions savings generated by the biofuels will help pay back this debt, but in some cases this can take centuries, suggests their analysis.

If 10,000 square metres of Brazilian rainforest is cleared to make way for soya beans – which are used to make biodiesel – over 700,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide is released.

The saving generated by the resulting biodiesel will not cancel that out for around 300 years, says Fargione. In the case of peat land rainforest in Indonesia, which is being cleared to grow palm oil, the debt will take over 400 years to repay, he says.

Missing corn

The carbon debts associated with US corn are measured in tens rather than hundreds of years. But the second study suggests that producing corn for fuel rather than food could have dramatic knock-on effects elsewhere.

Corn is used to feed cattle and demand for meat is high, so switching land to biofuel production is likely to prompt farmers in Brazil and elsewhere to clear forests and other lands to create new cropland to grow the missing corn.

When the carbon released by those clearances is taken into account, corn ethanol produces nearly twice as much carbon as petrol.

60 Hours of Wind Power in Ontario

July 25, 2007

I tracked the wind farm production from 1am on the 23rd of July 2007 until noon July 25th 2007.

At 9am today the four wind farms in Ont. with a total capacity of  396 MWs were producing zero MWs of electricity.

Over the 60 hrs. they produced a total of 1140 MWs. or 19 MWs per hr. which is about 4.8% of the plated capacity.

Many of those hours no electricity was produced and many more were in the 1 to 8 MW range.

The best production was on July 23 between the hrs. of 1am and 6am., the very time when power consumption is at its lowest.

Even though we may not require the power between 1am and 6am we must still buy it at a premium price.

Wind power started as an experiment and has since turned into, thanks to Enron, an investment scheme that has cost taxpayers billions and ruined the lives of the people living near the wind farms.

Government Reaction to the TRUTH

April 10, 2007

If you are working to save your community from poorly sited wind farms you probably met people like the ones below

heads-sand-web1.jpg

 

From worst to first in wind generation

February 6, 2007

From worst to first in wind generation

Greenhouse gases up 90% from coal stations


Feb. 1.Climate change is real. It’s a serious concern to Canadians and it’s great to see these issues becoming more prominent in recent media coverage. The study by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance points to mismanagement and poor planning by the former Conservative government between 1995 and 2002.That government did not invest in clean, green power. Instead, it belched out more power from dirty coal plants. Under their watch, emissions rose by more than 125 per cent.The McGuinty government brings a different approach. In three years, we have reduced Ontario’s reliance on coal plants by more than 32 per cent. We’ve gone from worst to first when it comes to wind generation.And we’ve invested in new province-wide energy conservation programs that are producing results – and that means cleaner air for all of us.While so many other jurisdictions are expanding their reliance on coal, we’re reducing ours. Ontario stands as the only jurisdiction in the world not building more coal-fire generation, but phasing it out.
Duncan and McGuinty still don’t get it. Even the UK is backing off on-shore wind.

“Power cut for clean energy
A scheme designed to encourage the use of renewable electricity sources is set to be ditched amid claims it is expensive and inefficient. So how can Britain’s fight against climate change be resuscitated?
By Tim Webb
Published: 28 January 2007
And now, the Renewables Obligation scheme, enshrined on April Fools’ Day 2002, looks set to be abandoned.Ofgem wants the scheme, which is being reviewed by the Government in its current Energy Review (to be published in April), scrapped.”

No country has ever proved any significant emission reduction with wind. Why are countries like Germany going back to coal?
They need reliable power. Wind can’t do the job. Wind farms, on the other hand, have caused many problems for people living near them, and have also cost jobs because of high electrical costs. Duncan and McGuinty have no excuse, other than stupidity. Instead of doing what the lobby groups wanted, and that includes David Suzuki, they should have investigated wind energy and it’s problems in other countries. We all want clean energy, but it has to work and be cost effective.

David Suzuki was always a kind of hero of mine. He is however, way off base promoting wind farms. Wind was and still is workable to power a house or cottage off grid. Wind was never designed to power the grid.

We’ll eliminate coal as quickly as we can, and replace it with gas, which is extremely price sensitive, balanced with the need to ensure a continued, reliable supply of electricity. Not

Dwight give it up. Your energy plan is a failure. Face the facts


Dwight Duncan, Ontario Minister of Energy, Queen’s Park

Kincardine-Coldest day of the year

January 25, 2007

7pm temp in Kincardine Ontario is -15, windchill is -22 and we have 413 mw of wind capacity.

The wind farms, which are causing many problems for families living near them, are producing at 7pm, a grand total of 43 mw or 10.5% of their rated capacity.

Let us bow our heads and pray we never have to depend on the wind to keep us warm.

Wind Turbine Setbacks-UPDATE Sept.11 2007-

January 25, 2007

From the editor

Manitoba gets the first realistic setback in Canada. The people in Manitoba fought back and instead of a 500 meter setback they now have a more realistic 2000 meter from their property lines. In Ontario the setbacks are from the residence, not the property line, which makes the 450 meter setback in the Municipality of Kincardine and most other places even more ludicrous and unacceptable. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage everyone everywhere to fight for their and their neighbors rights.

You don’t have to put up with this crap.

Rural Municipality of Cartier Manitoba
Some residents voiced their displeasure with the project at the public hearing. Rasmussen said most residents were concerned about the distance turbines would be located from property lines according to the zoning bylaw.

The bylaw passed first reading by a 5-1 council vote in June. Since then, set back guidelines for erecting the turbines changed from 500 metres from neighbouring property lines to 2,000 metres.

Read the rest of the story and get inspired

Riverside County-CALIFORNIA-Restrict the placement of wind turbines within 2 miles of residential development unless the applicant supplies documentation that the machine(s) will not produce low frequency impulsive noise.

Turbines too close to homes-Ms. Lucas, speaking for the Guardians, told the hearing commissioners that the 70 wind turbines proposed for the hills southwest of Makara, each 125 meters tall, were too large to put within two kilometers of any residence. International research showed it was “general protocol” to allow a 2km buffer, even with smaller turbines.

In NZ there were no consented wind energy developments with more than a handful of houses closer than 2km. (Source-Walkato Times)

Australia-To avoid adverse noise impacts on the amenity of the surrounding community, wind farm developments should include sufficient buffers or setbacks to noise sensitive premises. As a guide, the distance between the nearest turbine and a noise sensitive building not associated with the wind farm is to be 1km. These guidelines provide that wind farm developments should be constructed and designed to ensure that noise generated will not exceed 5dB(A) above the background sound level or 35dB(A) using a 10-minute LA eq, whichever is greater, at surrounding noise-sensitive premises. (Source-Guidelines for Wind Farm Development, Planning Bulletin, Western Australia)

Australia-Wind Farm Under Scrutiny. The Myponga/Sellicks Hill wind farm will be scrutinized after claims that developer TrustPower plans to move seven of the turbines within one kilometer of dwellings. (Source-The Times)

(1600 metres in Germany, 1800 metres in Holland).

It was Alves-Pereira’s initial research, published in numerous scientific journals, which prompted the French National Academy of Medicine, earlier this month (March 2006), to call on the French government to stop all wind turbine construction within 1.5 km of people’s homes. You should understand that VAD is well established in the clinical literature; it is not conjectured. It has been amply documented and is readily detected by a variety of diagnostic tests.

What’s wrong with Ontario Canada!

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”

Setbacks in Ashfield township 400 meters

Setbacks in Municipality of Kincardine 350 meters

“Ontario’s strict sound guidelines ensure that turbines are located far enough away from residences .” What Ontario guidelines? Every municipality is left to figure it out for themselves. Chatham Kent: 300 m, Amherstburg 600 m.

Meanwhile worldwide, in countries that have learned from their mistakes, these distances are increasing due to health, quality of life and safety issues (1600 metres in Germany, 1800 metres in Holland).

You should make people aware, Mr. Hornung that CanWEA is lobbying to remove setbacks altogether in southwestern Ontario due to the small land parcels.

 

Is the Ont. govt. ignoring health issues and the right of property enjoyment for economies of scale. That’s what it sounds like to me. The wind industry is always using the term “perceived” concerns. The concerns that people have are real not “perceived”.

Dalton and Duncan need a reality check. The rights of the people of Ont. are far more important than a bunch of useless windmills.

Germany has more windmills than anyone else. They are building 8 new coal plants because wind isn’t working for them. The Danes don’t want them either, their govt. is forcing them on their people. Why? They have 30.000 people working in the industry.

“We simply cannot continue to lead the world in the field of wind-power technology if we don’t even make room for wind parks in our own country,” Connie Hedegaard, the environment minister for Denmark said“.

Dalton and Dwight or Dumb and Dumber you be the judge

 

Wind farm videos from the UK and Australia

January 22, 2007

If you don’t want your countryside littered with wind turbines I suggest you get active and start writing and calling your respective Representatives.

Don’t call Carol Mitchell MPP for Huron Bruce.
She thinks wind turbines are majestic.

Enjoy the videos

WindTurbinesareComing-UK.wmv

LivingNextDoortoaWindFarm,Australia.wmv

Reliability of wind power

January 22, 2007

Today is one of the coldest days of the year.

Ontario has 413mw of installed wind energy.

At 1pm today the four working wind farms in Ontario are producing a grand total of 14mw.

That is a whooping 3.39% of their rated capacity.

Now, if we needed that 413mw we would be screwed.

413mw of base power gives you 413mw that can be called upon when needed. That is real power

Wind gives you 0 to a possible 413mw but not when you want or need it.

That is a major flaw.

You still have to build and pay for the base power.

Can wind even be considered power?

If it can’t be relied upon when needed what good is it?

I think it’s just bad politics.

What do you think?

Dion touts clean coal for power

January 19, 2007

Dion touts clean coal for power TheStar.com – News – Dion touts clean coal for power

Provincial Liberals favour nuclear power, but federal leader fears waste disposal a problem

January 17, 2007


Queen’s Park Bureau
Nuclear power is an iffy proposition for Canada because the issue of how to handle waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years has not been properly dealt with, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said yesterday.

“As long as I’m not able to look Canadians in the eyes and to say, `I’m comfortable with the waste,’ I will not recommend it,” Dion, elected leader last month on an environmental platform, said after a breakfast speech to a Bay Street crowd.

It’s also time to look at clean coal as a solution to meeting electricity needs while reducing harmful emissions blamed for global warming, Dion told a business audience in what was billed as his first major speech as head of the federal party.

“I think there are cleaner coal possibilities, we need to go there to invest in it and to be a champion in the world,” said Dion, noting university researchers in Saskatchewan and Alberta are looking into the potential.

The remarks appeared to put him at odds with his Liberal cousins in the Ontario government, who are preparing to build more nuclear power plants and hoping to phase out coal-fired power plants to meet the twin challenges of fast-growing electricity needs and increasing smog.

Continue reading story