Archive for the ‘Canadian wind industry’ Category

No Compromise on Health

April 27, 2009

No Compromise on Health News release

Toronto, April 27, 2009Wind Concerns Ontario is encouraged that the Premier of Ontario has committed to an examination of the health issues involved with industrial wind turbines.

“We’ll take advantage of the very best information that’s out there to make sure that we’re doing something that’s intelligent.

~Premier Dalton McGuinty The Canadian Press April 24, 2009

The Premier will need to go well beyond speaking only to the manufacturers of these turbines and the Canadian Wind Energy Association lobby in order to rely on the “best information” available. There are and have been better sources of information for several years. Other jurisdictions with far greater experience have implemented stronger regulations that Ontario has so far chosen to ignore. To date the “best” Ontario Health Effects information is the Wind Concerns Ontario survey presented by Dr. Robert McMurtry to the Standing Committee on the Green Energy Act on April 22.

Wind Concerns Ontario repeats its demand that Premier McGuinty apply the precautionary principle and conduct a full epidemiological study into health effects of wind turbines before any more industrial wind projects are installed in Ontario closer than 2km to any residence. This is the only way to avoid causing serious harm to those who live beside industrial wind turbines. Medical authorities elsewhere have already recommended precautionary setbacks.

The Government of Ontario must consider these various national standards:

  • Scotland requires setbacks of at least 2 km from cities, towns and villages.
  • The United Kingdom’s Noise Association recommends a one-mile (1.6 km) setback.
  • France will soon add the International Standards Organization’s absolute level of 25 dBA, as measured inside homes in response to the National Academy of Medicine’s earlier recommendation of 1.5 km. setbacks,
  • Germany specifies maximum noise levels for three different environments or “regions”:
    1. quiet 35dBA (Setbacks in quiet or country locations are typically 1000-1500 meters)
    2. middle, 40 dBA
    3. standard, 45 dBA
  • Denmark, Holland, and Sweden have a maximum noise level of 40 dBA.
  • South Australia’s standard is 35dBA or background +5dB
  • New Zealand is now reviewing its secondary noise limit of 35dBA for evening and nighttime in low background

The Canadian Wind Energy Association recommends noise levels of 40-53 dBA. They state that setbacks are normally 300-600 meters but in some cases “separation distances of less than 250 meters may achieve acceptable sound levels” (CanWea paper, “Addressing Concerns with Sound from Wind Turbines,” January 2009).

Ontario’s Ministry of Environment presently does not specify setback distances. It has established only ‘regulatory guidelines’ that allow wind turbines, depending on the wind speed, to produce from 40 to as high as 51 dBA of noise, measured not at property lines but outside homes.

The present standards for Ontario are not nearly the best but rather nearly the worst.

If the Government of Ontario aspires to be a world leader in wind energy, it should also lead the world in protecting its citizens from harmful side effects of this industry. In addition to setting world-class standards for low noise levels on the dBA scale, Ontario must determine appropriate levels on the dBC scale for low frequency sound, reported increasingly as a health concern.

Press Release – Wind Farm Demonstration in Paris

October 6, 2008

Editor

If you are fighting wind farms in North America, you are not alone. You have probably been told how well wind is working in Europe (it’s not) and that we should do the same. Well we should do the same.

Stop the wind scourge now!

.

Saturday Oct 4th, in Paris, 2000 to 3000 people coming from France and
various European countries demonstrated peacefully against windfarms.
Antoine Waechter was among them. Green candidate in the 1988 French
presidential election, Mr Waechter subsequently split from the Greens to
found the Independent Ecological Movement. He is shown on the picture
reading my placard. To the right of the picture, the mayor of a village in
France whose inhabitants ALL decided to sell their houses when a windfarm
project was announced in the vicinity. If you wish to know more about the
Village for Sale, please advise.

We received  messages of support coming from all over the
world, including Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Puerto Rico,
Ecuador, South Africa, Japan and Slovenia. See :
http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/

The demonstration and conference was backed by 176 associations and
federations : http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/

An international platform against windfarms was founded the same day, as
follows :

*Press release
*Paris, Saturday Oct. 4th 2008

*Founding of the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW). *
*
*In Paris today, on the occasion of the international demonstration against
wind farms, German, Belgian, Spanish and French federations and associations
have founded the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW).

This project has received the support of colleagues from 16 countries
representing several hundred federations and associations.

The founding members of this platform have agreed to make the following
declaration :
*1) Ecological deception and financial scandal*.

It has now been proved that industrial windpower does not reduce CO2
emissions and therefore does not contribute
to the fight against global warming. This is principally due to the
intermittent and uncontrollable nature of wind, which makes it necessary to
rely on the back-up of polluting fossil-fuels power stations, 24 hours a
day.

Industrial windpower is subsidized by the taxpayer-consumer.
In France for example, if the national plan is realized ( 12,500 wind
turbines ! ) this burden will amount to 2.5 billion euros annually. In
Germany, it is already costing 4 billion euros a year.
At a time when Europe is facing a deep economic crisis, it is not acceptable
that the standard of living of Europeans be further reduced in favour of
businessmen whose objective seems to be maximizing profits whatever the
consequences.
Industrial windfarms are a threat to the environment.
Landscapes, the natural and cultural heritage, wildlife, quality of life,
the security and health of Europeans are in danger !

*2) The demands made by EPAW : an immediate moratorium and more
transparency.*
The platform demands an immediate moratorium with the suspension of all
windfarm projects, approved or not.

The platform demands that be assessed, under the control of an independent
body, the objective and undisputable effects of wind farms from an
energetical, ecological and social point of view – respectively.
The platform finally demands that the guaranteed pricing of wind-produced
electricity be made the object of both a public and a parliamentary debate,
at national and european levels.

Signed by :
European Associations and Federations participating in the reunion of
October 4th 2008
Spain : Iberica 2000
Belgica : Vent Contraire, Vent de Raison
France : FED : Fédération Environnement Durable (Fédération nationale),
France : FNASSEM – Fédération Nationale des Associations de Sauvegarde ses
Sites et Monuments
Germany : BLS (Bundesverband Landschaftsschutz – landscape protection,
federation of 800 local committees),
Germany : NAEB (Nationale Anti EEG Bewegung – against windfarms)

Contacts :
Kléber ROSSILLON (FNASSEM) : 06 07 21 88 64 kleber.rossilllon@wanadoo.fr
Emmanuel du BOULLAY (FED) : 06 13 54 49 07 emmanuel.du-boullay@laposte.net

Mark Duchamp + 34 679 12 99 97
INCONVENIENT VIDEOS : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729

The dark side of windfarms : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
Pictures of windfarm victims ( eagles etc. ), of turbines on fire, of
collapsed turbines, of soil & water contamination etc. :
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

ESPAÑOL :
Videos inconvenientes : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729
La cara oscura de los parques eólicos:
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1255
Fotos de víctimas de parques eólicos ( águilas etc. ), incendios de
aerogeneradores, contaminación de las aguas por sus lubricantes etc. :
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp



Man decries 'intimidation tactic' Critic of Wolfe Island wind plant issued cease-and-desist order

September 12, 2008

What can I say – Industry and govt. working together = citizens take a back seat.

Posted By JENNIFER PRITCHETT WHIG-STANDARD STAFF WRITER

   

The Calgary-based company building a $410-million wind plant on Wolfe Island has issued a cease-and-desist letter to a citizen it claims is spreading “false and defamatory statements.”

Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. sent the letter in connection with a statement made by Wolfe Island resident Chris Brown, an outspoken

critic of some aspects of the project.

Brown, a local musician, is one of a handful of citizens who sit on a community liaison committee Canadian Hydro set up last year to answer local concerns about the project.

Brown regards the letter as an attempt to gag critics of the project.

“It’s an intimidation tactic,” he said.

Brown said he isn’t against wind power or the Canadian Hydro project on Wolfe Island. He does want to see the 86 turbines that are being erected there placed in areas where they won’t impact wildlife or people.

The cease-and-desist letter goes back to an e-mail Brown sent to former St. Lawrence College president Volker Thomsen and others, following an international wind energy conference at the college in June.

Brown said he hoped “the examples brought to light by the conference can prevent Wolfe Island from becoming an autopsy of grid monopoly and community exclusion.”

Canadian Hydro took exception to his comments, saying they suggest the firm “has no respect for the environmental and regulatory process and fails to consult with the community.

“Canadian Hydro has conducted itself in a responsible manner throughout the approval process,” stated the cease-and-desist letter.

The letter, written by Canadian Hydro’s Toronto-based lawyer Paul B. Schabas, warns Brown of the possibility of future legal action.

“Should you persist in this course of conduct, please be advised that our client will proceed against you and pursue all legal and equitable remedies available to it without further notice being provided to you. Kindly govern yourself accordingly,” Schabas wrote.

When theWhig-Standardrequested an interview with Canadian Hydro about the letter, the firm issued a short statement from Geoff Carnegie, its development manager for the Wolfe Island project.

In it, Carnegie wrote that Brown’s “claim of community exclusion overlooks three and a half years of community consultation by Canadian Hydro, as documented in the Environmental Review Report.

“The purpose of our letter to Mr. Brown was to insist that he act responsibly and utilize the relevant facts in his arguments.” Brown said he refuses to be quieted. “I will continue to exercise my right

to free speech and advocate for a full and transparent public review of this project, just as I will continue to participate in the community liaison group to ensure proper communication between proponent and citizenry,” he wrote in a response to Canadian Hydro.

The Kingston Wig Standard

Wind energy unreliable, says E.On

September 1, 2008

Editor

E.ON, based in Duesseldorf, Germany, is one of the world’s leading energy companies
They should know – they build wind farms. Germany is in the process of building over 20 new coal plants.

Source: Energy Digital

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 seven percent of the country’s peak winter electricity demand, according to a leading power company E.On.

E.On has argued that so little wind blows during the coldest days of winter that 92 percent of installed wind capacity would have to be backed up by traditional power stations.

Full story at Source: Energy Digital

The Problems With On-Grid Wind Power

August 26, 2008

From Maxedoutmama

Here is a paper for dullards like me who didn’t understand the implications of trying to hook highly variable wind power into a power grid. The bottom line is that effective usage is low and that actual replacement effect is even lower:

A power station takes days to start producing electricity from a cold start. Time is needed to boil the water, to superheat the steam, to warm all the components of the power station, and to spin the turbogenerators up to operating speed.

Each power station is designed to provide an output of electricity. It can only provide very little more or very little less than this output (i.e., a power station has a “low turndown ratio”).

The problem of matching electricity supply to varying demand is overcome by operating power stations in three modes called “base load,” “generation,” and “spinning standby.”

Some power stations operate all the time providing electricity to the grid, and they are said to provide “base load.”

Other power stations also operate all the time but do not provide electricity all the time. They burn (or fission) their fuel to boil water and superheat the resulting steam which is fed to the steam turbines that are thus kept hot and spinning all the time. Of course, they emit all the emissions from use of their fuel all the time. But some of this time they dump heat from their cooling towers instead of generating electricity, and they are then said to be operating “spinning standby.”

One or more power stations can be instantly switched from spinning standby to provide electricity to match an increase to demand for electricity. It is said to be operating “generation” when it is providing electricity. Power stations are switched between spinning standby and generation as demand for electricity changes.

Thus the grid operator manages the system to match supply with demand for electricity by switching power stations between “generation” and “spinning standby.”

So if you are installing a bunch of new coal power plants to handle load, you will really be running them all the time with very little savings of fossil fuels. You can control some of the grid surge by diverting the power production away from the grid when your wind kicks in, but that of course doesn’t change fuel consumption very much.

Read the full report here. Maxedoutmama

Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?

August 23, 2008

Let’s start with what one manufacturer considers to be safe for its workers. The safety regulations for the Vestas V90, with a 300-ft rotor span and a total height of 410 feet, tell operators and technicians to stay 1,300 feet from an operating turbine — over 3 times its total height — unless absolutely necessary.

That already is a much greater distance than many regulations currently require as a minimum distance between wind turbines and homes, and it is concerned only with safety, not with noise or visual intrusion.

In February 2008, a 10-year-old Vestas turbine with a total height of less than 200 feet broke apart in a storm. Large pieces of the blades flew as far as 500 meters (1,640 feet).

The Fuhrländer turbine planned for Barrington, R.I., is 328 feet tall with a rotor diameter of 77 meters, or just over 250 feet (sweeping more than an acre of vertical air space). According to one news report, the manufacturer recommends a setback of 1,500 feet, over 4.5 times the total height. In Wisconsin, where towns can regulate utility zoning for health and safety concerns, ordinances generally specify a setback of one-half mile (2,640 ft) to residences and workplaces.

But that may just be enough to protect the turbines from each other, not to adequately protect the peace and health of neighbors.

When part of an array, turbines should be at least 10 rotor diameters apart to avoid turbulence from each other. In the case of the proposed 77-meter rotor span in Barrington, that would be 770 meters, or 2,525 feet. For the Gamesa G87, that’s 2,850 feet; for the Vestas V90, 2,950 feet — well over half a mile.

Jane and Julian Davis, whose home is 930 m (3,050 ft) from the Deeping St. Nicholas wind energy facility in England, have been forced by the noise to rent another place in which to sleep. In July 2008 they were granted a 14% council tax reduction in recognition of their loss. It appears in this case that the combination of several turbines creates a manifold greater disturbance.

Since the human ear (not to mention the sensory systems of other animals or the internal organs of bats, which, it is now emerging, are crushed by the air pressure) is more sensitive than a giant industrial machine, doubling that would be a reasonable precaution (at least for the human neighbors — it still doesn’t help wildlife).

Sound experts Rick James and George Kamperman recommend a 1 km (3,280 ft) distance in rural areas.

Both the French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile (or 1.5 km) between giant wind turbines and homes. Trempealeau County in Wisconsin implemented such a setback. National Wind Watch likewise advocates a minimum one-mile setback.

More at Kirby Mountain

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

TheTruth About the Wind Industry – Al Gore- David Suzuki- and Boone Pickens are full of hot air

July 20, 2008

An estimated 1,200 bats, most of them probably just passing through Montana, were killed after striking wind turbines at the Judith Gap Wind Farm between July 2006 and May 2007, according to a post-construction bird and bat survey.


Judith Gap Wind Farm taking toll on bats, birds
Alberta, Montana

National security set to win wind battle
England, U.K.

Windfarm bid knocked back
England

Meeting gives wind turbines a guilty verdict
Ontario

Cuomo investigating alleged ‘dirty tricks’ in in local windmill projects; Two WNY companies under investigation
New York

N.D. regulators: wind projects may endanger cranes
North Dakota

Residents rejoice as council reject plans for new wind farm
Wales

Umholtz shows his opposition to wind farm; State’s attorney threatens legal action against Tazewell County
Illinois

Fines are sought over turbines
Illinois

Residents wary of wind farm idea
New York

Visit National Wind Watch for world wide wind news

Wind turbine marketers are full of hot air

July 11, 2008

Editor:
As happy as I am to see this article show up in a “Mainstream Canadian Newspaper”, I still have to ask-why has it taken so long to expose the scam that is the wind industry?
Hell, Enron started this scam years ago. Google- Enron, Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton. Like the media never noticed what was going on.

I’ve noticed the Globe and Mail reading my blog lately ‘site tracker’ and that’s good. But, why does it take so long to get a story out. People have been sending the mainstream papers this same information for years. Why have they remained silent for so long?

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted, landscapes ruined and peoples lives destroyed, while the media sat on the information.
I called the head office of CanWea two years ago this coming Nov. I told them the wind scam would be shut down within two years. I still believe it is possible.
It’s time for journalists to shake the cobwebs from their brains, remember the journalistic oath and get back to doing what they are supposed to do- inform the public of the truth.

Leave the lies and bullshit to the politicians and industry.
As J. Lennon said “Just give me the truth”

Anyway, I thank Mr. Reynolds for this story. Good work-even if it’s years late.

NEIL REYNOLDS

Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Republican presidential candidate
Senator John McCain travelled to Oregon in mid-May to deliver the
definitive climate change speech of his campaign. He spoke in Portland,
at the U.S. headquarters of Vestas Wind Systems AS, a Danish company
that markets wind turbines around the world. He started on a
self-deprecating note. “Today is a kind of test run for this company,”
he said. “They’ve got wind technicians here, wind studies and all these
wind turbines. But there’s no wind. So now I know why they asked me to
come and give a speech.”

It was perhaps his most perceptive statement of the day. Five
sentences later, Mr. McCain made perhaps his least perceptive. “Wind,”
he said, “is a predictable source of energy.”

Really? Define predictable. Wind turbines operate occasionally with
remarkable efficiency at 100 per cent capacity. More often, they
operate with 20 per cent capacity. Once in a while, they operate with
subzero capacity – taking electricity from the grid to keep themselves
running until they get hit again by a restless wind.

British energy consultant Hugh Sharman, based in Denmark, documented
wind power’s capacity for subzero performance in a report published by
Civil Engineering magazine in 2005. With more wind power per capita
than any other country, Denmark (population 5.4 million) is the world’s
showroom nation for this highly fashionable form of renewable energy.

Why, then, does Denmark export almost all of its wind power – at a
revenue loss? Why, then, does Denmark still operate all of its
conventional coal-fired power plants? In a phrase, Mr. Sharman says,
the reason is Denmark’s “wildly fluctuating wind power.”

It turns out that Denmark’s vast array of turbines often produce
minimal electricity when demand is high, maximum electricity when
demand is low. Basing his analysis on data from a single year (2002),
Mr. Sharman reported that wind power produced less than 1 per cent of
the country’s electricity supply on 54 different days. On one of these
54 days, the wind turbines took more power from the grid than they
produced. (Wind turbines consume considerable electricity whether winds
are blowing or not blowing.)

British author and energy analyst Tony Lodge makes the same point in
a report by the Centre for Policy Studies, a London think tank. “Not a
single conventional power plant has been closed in the period that
Danish wind farms have been developed,” he says. “Because of the
intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants
have had to be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand
for electricity and to provide backup.”

Mr. Lodge says it is not practical to turn coal-fired plants off and
on as winds rise and fall – because ramping them up consumes more fuel
(and emits more carbon dioxide) than running them at a constant rate.
Thus Denmark relies almost exclusively on coal-fired plants for its own
consumption and exports its wind power at whatever off-peak price it
can get.

Only 3.3 per cent of Denmark’s wind power gets “accepted” on the
grid for domestic consumption. In 2003, Denmark exported 84 per cent of
its wind-generated electricity at money-losing rates. And CO{-2}? In
2006, Denmark produced 36 per cent more carbon emissions than the year
before.

Messrs. McCain, Dion and Pickens notwithstanding, winds do not blow
predictably. Without an energy storage battery the size of Mount
Everest, most wind-powered electricity will be wasted and will almost
certainly increase a country’s carbon emissions – albeit inadvertently.
When your power plant operates at only 20 per cent capacity (or less),
you have to build four or five times as many plants as you need. For
reliable backup, you still need either coal, gas or nuclear power – all
of which are cheaper than wind.

The conclusion seems self-evident. Apparently it isn’t. Fortunately,
you can test wind power for yourself. Go outside on a hot and humid
day. Feel the breeze. Or don’t

The Globe and Mail

Wind power was useless in blackout

June 1, 2008

Editor:
Another example of the importance of wind energy.

The Ont. govt. is a regular visitor to this site and should have learned something by now. I’ve come to the conclusion they suffer from one of the following.

1) They can’t comprehend what they read.

2) They are stupid and suffer from very low IQs.

3) They are evil traitors and are following the UN – New World Order Agenda.

Which one do you think it is?

With these fools at the helm, it is easy to understand why our Health Care, Education, Agriculture and Manufacturing sectors are in such disarray.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Read Agenda 21
Now!

.

Wind power was useless in blackout

The British Wind Energy Association claims that there are more than 2,000 turbines in the UK with an installed capacity of 2,500 megawatts. Where was all this megawattage when it was needed on Tuesday, when 500,000 homes were blacked out as Sizewell B and eight other power stations shut down?

The answer is simple: the 2,000 turbines were impotent and would have made the situation worse had the grid operators tried to feed in their spurious outputs.

Coincidentally, Government figures describing the CO2 savings achieved in 2007 show no contribution from wind. The wind industry received nearly £320 million during 2007 in subsidies — from us, the consumers.

A letter by Bob Graham, Inchberry, Morayshire to the Telegraph

1 June 2008