Archive for the ‘Dalton McGinty wind energy’ Category

Wind turbines in Union Township would need to be at least one-half mile from homes

February 1, 2008

 Watch the video

— Regulations being considered for wind turbines in Union Township would make a proposed wind energy project in the township impossible, the wind developer said this morning.

Wind turbines in Union Township would need to be at least one-half mile from homes and 1,000 feet from property lines, according to a proposed wind ordinance presented to the Town of Union Plan Commission on Thursday night.

The town’s Wind Turbine Study Committee was charged with investigating wind turbines and writing a proposed ordinance to regulate them.

Curt Bjurlin, Wisconsin project developer for EcoEnergy, said he is disappointed with the draft ordinance because he said it is “far more restrictive” than the state’s model draft ordinance.

“I think the town leadership realizes the people in the town and surrounding area greatly desire the need to have renewable energy,” he said.

The proposed setbacks leave “very, very little land” available, he said, “and certainly not enough for a renewable energy project.”

Bjurlin said EcoEnergy staff will work with town officials and residents to answer questions.

“We’re dedicated to building this project and moving forward,” he said.

The recommended setbacks are the absolute minimum, committee chairman Tom Alisankus stressed, because the committee’s research suggested distances of up to 12 miles.

The town board appointed the seven-member committee in September, and it has met nearly every Saturday since. The town board imposed a stay on construction of large wind energy systems until August.

EcoEnergy is proposing to put three 397-foot tall wind turbines in the township. Wisconsin Public Power would buy the energy to be used by Evansville Water and Light customers.

A town attorney will review the committee’s recommendations, and the plan commission will discuss the ordinance at its Thursday, Feb. 28, meeting and likely hold a public hearing at its March 27 meeting.

Committee members worked hundreds of hours, and committee member Jim Bembinster visited wind farms as far away as Wasco, Ore., Alisankus said. The committee’s results are summarized in a 318-page report, along with a 25-page draft ordinance.

Members looked through thousands of pages of documents and only considered information that was peer-reviewed or cited by reputable sources, Alisankus said. Doing so eliminated any influence from members’ personal feelings, he said.

Committee members started with the state’s model draft ordinance, which Alisankus said left a sour taste in their mouths. They sent an open records request seeking the scientific and medical documentation used to develop the state’s model ordinance, which has an “aura” of state approval, he said.

“The committee was shocked to receive a response to this open records request that in fact there was no scientific or medical documentation used to create the model draft ordinance,” he said.

Instead, the state sent them 11 pages, most of which were notes from meetings used to write the ordinance. It appeared the ordinance was written predominantly by a Florida power company, Alisankus said.

In Ontario it appears rules governing wind farms were written predominantly by CanWEA (added by blog editor)

The committee also invited stakeholders to participate and sent lists of questions to the companies involved.

“We were not particularly pleased with the responses we got,” Alisankus said. “In one case, even though there were scores of questions, we only received five answers back.”

Setbacks and sound were key to the committee’s work, he said.

“If you control … the setbacks and the sound levels appropriately, there should be no issue with ultimate construction of these turbines, at least with respect to the health and safety boundaries that we had to live by,” he said.

The state’s model ordinance makes the “assumption” that a 1,000-foot setback is OK, Alisankus said.

EcoEnergy plans its projects to have at least a 1,150-foot setback, Bjurlin said.

But the majority of the scientific and medical documentation the committee found recommended a minimum of one-half mile from homes, Alisankus said.

Their research came from the World Health Organization, audiologists, physicists, acoustical engineers, doctors and residents, he said.

“The whole problem area that a lot of people have been focusing a lot of time on can be solved by proper siting and proper testing ahead of time,” he said. “If the community does that and if the wind industry goes along with that, there shouldn’t be too many issues left over beyond that.”

WIND COMMITTEE

Members of the Town of Union Wind Study Committee are Tom Alisankus, chairman; Renee Exum, secretary; Scott McElroy, Jim and Cathy Bembinster, Mike Leeder and Sue Pestor.

ORDINANCE HIGHLIGHTS

Under the Town of Union Wind Study Committee’s recommended draft ordinance:

— Wind turbines must be sited at least one-half mile from the nearest home, business, school, daycare facility, church, hospital and other inhabited structures.

— Turbines must be sited at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line and at least five times the rotor diameter from the property lines of all adjoining property owners who have not granted an easement for a lesser setback.

— Turbines must be sited at least 1,000 feet or three times its total height from any road, railroad, power line right-of-way and above-ground public electric power line or telephone line.

— Applications for a wind energy system must include—in part—a pre-construction noise survey within a 1-mile radius of each proposed turbine location, a sound study, an environmental study, ice and blade throw calculations plans, a shadow flicker and blade glint map, a stray voltage and ambient voltage test/plan and a fire prevention, emergency response and rescue plan.

— Limits would be placed on the sound produced by turbines as measured from the outside of the nearest residence and other inhabited structures.

REGULATION LIMITS

Wind turbine ordinances can only regulate turbines in regard to public health and safety, said Tom Alisankus, chairman of the Town of Union Wind Study Committee.

Alisankus said the committee could not address:

— Necessity of a meteorological tower to gather data in a proposed site

— Impact on farmland

— Divisiveness in communities

— Impact on property values

— Decommissioning of turbines

— Other alternative energy sources

Watch the video

Gazette Xtra

Advertisements

Ontario Boasts 472 MW of Wind Energy

January 27, 2008

We now have 472 MW of  clean renewable wind energy, making us less dependent on those dirty fossil fuels, or are we?

At 300 homes per MW, the wind farms in Ont. should according to  the Govt., wind industry and the media, the 472 MW should be powering 141,600 homes.

At 3pm I checked to see how wind energy was helping meet the needs of the people of Ont.

The wind farms at 3pm today were producing 10 MW, enough to power 3000 homes.

Wonder what the other 138,600 homes are being powered by.

They are being powered by dependable energies like, Hydro, Nuclear and yes folks, fossil fuels.

How does Dalton McGuinty feel about wind energy?

Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“I think the member opposite knows that when it comes to natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming. Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable, because sometimes obviously the wind does not blow. When it comes to solar, those tend to be expensive as well.”

Dalton says “Wind Farms” are expensive and unreliable. He intends to back up the wind farms with Natural Gas, expensive and a significant contributor to global warming.

We should all be P_R_O_U_D to have Dalton McGuinty running the affairs of Ont.

I don’t want to upset anyone, but guess who’s looking after your health care and educational systems.

Dalton McGuinty – the leader of  Ontario’s Puppet Govt.

Green energy plan could wither in court: native bands

January 18, 2008

Two native bands are threatening to tie up the Ontario government’s long-range power plans using lengthy court delays.

In a submission to the Ontario Energy Board, people from the Saugeen Ojibway Nation Territories argued the province has not lived up to its legal requirement to consult with them on the plan’s impact.

The lawyer for the two communities, near Wiarton on the Bruce Peninsula, spoke earlier this week at board hearings into the Ontario Power Authority’s proposal for new energy sources.

Arthur Pape reminded board members of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that Queen’s Park has a legal duty to consult with First Nations on the impact the power plan will have on their lives.

“There’s no way the Saugeen Ojibway could participate meaningfully with government to ensure that this part of the plan could be implemented in a way that protects their rights,” Pape told the board.

Pape says there’s still time to negotiate compensation that may be owed to First Nations for the impact of new wind farms, hydro dams and transmission lines on their hunting and fishing rights and way of life.

But he warned that if the government fails to negotiate, it could mean lengthy delays in getting the plan approved.

“If the government won’t work with them to find a way to accommodate those things, they may find themselves applying to the courts, and asking for the courts to not let this plan be implemented,” he told CBC News.

Neither the government, nor the Ontario Power Authority, which drew up the plan, would comment on Pape’s submissions.

The OPA’s new plan, which calls for the provincial government to spend $26.5 billion on nuclear power plants, still requires regulatory approval.

The plan also proposes doubling the amount of renewable energy on the grid by 2025 and phasing out coal-fired generation by the end of 2014.

Several energy providers are considering building more wind farms on the Bruce Peninsula to bring power to the south of the province.

Much of that energy will require new transmission lines to be built.

Ontario Great Lakes wind power

January 15, 2008
Editor:
Letter I sent to Tyler Hamilton who wrote the article below
Tyler
I just read your piece in the Star.
Helimax is a member of CanWEA, they both have a vested interest in wind farm development. It would be reasonable to expect a qualifier in the story.
When people read “could generate up to 47,000 megawatts of clean electricity” they are unfortunately under the impression 47,000 MW will be produced, even though it is very improbable they will ever produce this amount. There is no mention of the natural gas plants that will have to be constructed in order to provide power when the wind is not blowing at capacity, which is most of the time.
The entire renewable energy program set out by the Ont. govt. is based almost entirely on assumptions and possibilities, not on sound engineering practices. It is also a product of Maurice Strong and the e8. In fact the entire Ont generation system is being orchestrated by the guidelines set out by the e8. Marie LeGrow, who is the head project coordinator for wind farms, at the Ministry of the Environment, wrote the manual for the e7 before it became the e8
This story should have been a press release from the govt and the wind industry. When you attach your name you legitimize the fraud that is being perpetrated on the people of Ont. That is unfortunate.
Please read what McGuinty has to say about wind,solar and natural gas.
premier-dalton-mcguinty-talks-about-renewable-energy

Thank you for your time
Ron Stephens
Editor
Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Wind Farms
Ontario to approve Great Lakes wind power

 

DAVID COOPER/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO
Melancthon wind farm west of village of Shelburne, Ont.

Email Story document.write(‘Email story’); Email story

Email the author Email the author

Several offshore projects are waiting in the wings

Jan 15, 2008 04:30 AM


Energy Reporter
Ontario is preparing to lift a controversial moratorium on the development of offshore wind projects in the Great Lakes that has been in place for nearly 14 months, the Toronto Star has learned.

A Ministry of Natural Resources official says the department is “getting ready” to make an announcement and that new minister Donna Cansfield is “anxious to demonstrate leadership in the area.”

Jamie Rilett, a spokesperson in Cansfield’s office, confirmed that the ministry is currently revisiting the moratorium. He said a decision would be made “shortly.”

Industry sources also confirmed the moratorium’s end is imminent.

Offshore wind energy, while typically associated with ocean projects, offers significant opportunities in the Great Lakes. According to one study by Helimax Energy Inc., the strong and consistent winds typically over the lakes could generate up to 47,000 megawatts of clean electricity – nearly double Ontario’s existing power capacity.

The ministry put a halt to all offshore development in November 2006 to give the government more time to study the potential environmental impact of such projects on bats, butterflies, aquatic species and bird migration routes.

But the moratorium caught some wind developers off guard, particularly those trying to raise money for their proposed projects.

The wisdom of halting development was also called into question when it was discovered that some U.S. states, such as Ohio, were actively moving forward with offshore projects in Lake Erie despite the Ontario policy.

The moratorium followed a protest against an offshore wind project near Leamington, Ont., in September 2006. Nearly 300 residents showed up to a council meeting to protest a 119-turbine project planned by developer Southpoint Wind Power. Council unanimously rejected Southpoint’s proposal and urged the ministry to come up with guidelines that would help small communities evaluate offshore projects.

“There were a number of serious concerns,” said deputy mayor Robert Schmidt, explaining that many residents saw negative impacts on lake navigation, bird and butterfly migration, recreational boating and fishing.

“The biggest issue to most residents was how it affected their view of the lake, which is really only the last natural view we have in our area.”

Schmidt said a number of offshore proposals still wait in the wings.

“The majority of people aren’t against the idea, as long as it’s located in an area where it doesn’t cause problems.”

Energy consultant Paul Bradley, manager of PJB Energy Solutions and former vice-president of generation at the Ontario Power Authority, said offshore projects hold great potential but are also a huge technical challenge.

“They’re all-or-nothing projects,” he said. “You’ve got to collect all that power from each turbine, aggregate it, and then bring it in efficiently through an underwater cable.”

The best wind resources tend to be far from where power is consumed.

One of the biggest challenges is to bring wind-generated energy to communities in southern Ontario without breaking the bank on building high voltage transmission lines, which cost about $3 million a kilometre to construct.

Toronto Hydro Corp. has considered an offshore wind project in Lake Ontario near the Scarborough Bluffs. That wind farm would have a capacity of up to 200 megawatts.

“In the general context of developing wind power in the province, (lifting the moratorium) would be a great step forward,” said Joyce McLean, chair of the Canadian Wind Energy Association and Toronto Hydro’s manager of green energy services.

A more ambitious project by Trillium Power Energy Corp. would involve 140 turbines erected along a shallow stretch of Lake Ontario, about 15 kilometres offshore from Prince Edward County. The wind farm would have a capacity of 710 megawatts, the largest in Ontario.

Wind energy is a major part of the McGuinty government’s plan to double by 2025 the amount of electricity that comes from renewable resources.

The Ministry of Energy announced last August it had directed the Ontario Power Authority to procure another 2,000 megawatts of renewable power, a large portion of which is expected to be generated from wind.

Toronto Star

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

January 14, 2008

Editor:
I would like to thank Lynne, for sending me the Hansard below. Just what is Premier, Dalton McGuinty up to.

pinn_mcguintyhr370.jpgAccording to our Premier, Dalton McGuinty
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“I think the member opposite knows that when it comes to natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming. Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable, because sometimes obviously the wind does not blow. When it comes to solar, those tend to be expensive as well.”

So Mr. Premiere, instead of building a cost effective reliable electrical system for Ont., you have decided to do the exact opposite. Why?

You say, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”.

Building thousands of megawatts of gas plants, will result in a significant, unnecessary cost, with little or no benefit to the environment. Installing the scrubbers on the coal plants would have brought down the emissions very close to that of the, to be built gas plants, at a fraction of the cost. In fact, by not installing the scrubbers on the coal plants you have put the health of the people of Ont. at risk.

You go on to say
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“But we’re not just sitting on our hands as we weigh these important issues before us. Let me tell you about some of the exciting news that we have by way of creating new wind farms in Ontario. We’ve announced three new wind farms in the last month alone. At Erie Shores, there’s a new wind farm with 66 turbines producing 99 megawatts of power for 25,000 homes. The first phase of a new wind farm outside Goderich is now up. That’s 22 turbines producing enough power for 12,000 homes. And the first phase of a new wind farm is now up outside Shelburne, Ontario: 45 turbines producing 67.5 megawatts. That’s enough to power 18,000 homes”.

Your statement above sounds good, but it’s not exactly honest. According to the Independent Electricity System Operator — “For capacity planning purposes, wind generation has a dependable capacity contribution of 10% of the listed figures.”
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday 10 April 2006

According to you, the wind farms listed above, produce enough energy to power 55,000 homes, but the IESO says they have a real capacity to power only 5,500 homes.

How long would a auto company get away with advertising “our car gets 60 mpg”, when in reality it only gets 6 mpg. Not long. So why is the govt. allowed to misrepresent in such an overt manner?
You call wind energy, “expensive and not reliable”. Why are you building them?

A new report predicts that energy costs could rise as much as 70 per cent if natural gas generation replaces the four coal plants. But McGuinty said that’s the cost of cleaner air.

“The single greatest contributor to greenhouse gases in the province of Ontario is coal-fired generation so we’re going to do something about that,” he said.

You also said, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”

I had the opportunity to talk with one of your energy advisors about a year ago. He says that the gas plants are more dangerous to health than coal plants with scrubbers installed. Apparently the particulate from the gas plants is much finer and harder for the body to deal with. I was also told gas plants are great emitters of ground level ozone, which is very hard on people with asthma or other breathing problems.

Our manufacturers in Ont. are losing jobs because of the high dollar, while at the same time, Mr. McGuinty, you are doing everything in your power to drive up the cost of electricity. Any significant rise in the cost of power will drive industry out of Ont., and they won’t likely return.

Mr. McGuinty, you recently went to Ottawa looking for Federal Govt. aid to help the manufacturing sector in Ont., while at the same time you are building an electrical system that is sure to drive industry out of the Province or into bankruptcy.

Who are you working for anyway? The people of Ont. or the Maurice Strong agenda. So far, it looks like Strong has your attention. You are obviously not listening to your own energy advisors.

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

Further reading material

T h e E 8 r e c o mm e n d a t i o n s

green-agrenda-quotes

Mr. McGuinty, you already know the devastating affect your “Green” polices are having on people and their property values, and you seem convinced, by your own words, that your energy polices are badly flawed, “expensive and unreliable”.

Yet, you continue down this path of destruction for the Ont. economy. Why?

Kyoto snow job by Lorrie Goldstein

January 7, 2008

Editor:
I would like to thank Mr. Goldstein for bringing this to the attention of his readers. Write or call him and encourage him to continue to enlighten his readership with news that matters.
Health care,Education,Energy and Agriculture, all vital to our economy and well being,  and all badly under reported.

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

more quotes
Lorrie Goldstein

Sun, January 6, 2008
 
Skip the Kyoto snow job

Canadians will back a realistic green plan — we just haven’t seen it yet

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Let’s examine what the Kyoto treaty on man-made or “anthropogenic” global warming (AGW) is and isn’t.

First, it’s an example of globalization, despite the fact many of its advocates claim to oppose globalization.

But it is not, primarily, an environmental treaty.

If it was, it would require the developing world to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as it does for a relative handful of industrialized nations, including Canada.

The lack of targets for the developing world reveals Kyoto as primarily a mechanism for redistributing wealth from the First World to the Third, unsurprising given its origins in the United Nations.

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

Then there’s Kyoto’s accounting tricks.

Russia is in compliance with Kyoto and has billions of dollars of “hot air” credits to sell to countries like Canada — not because of its environmental policies, but because the base year for Kyoto was deliberately set at 1990, just as the economy of the former Soviet Union was imploding, causing the shutdown of many GHG-producing industries. Similarly, Germany and the European Union benefit from the collapse of the East German economy.

Kyoto envisions the First World paying billions of dollars to the Third in the faint hope the latter will use that money to reduce its rapidly-growing GHG emissions.

Kyoto’s successor will be even more controversial.

To be environmentally credible, it must compel developing nations like China (the world’s largest or second largest GHG emitter in tandem with the U.S., depending on whose calculations you believe) to cut its emissions.

But forcing the Third World to do so will be an example of the First World imposing its priorities on the Third, the very thing critics argue is immoral about globalization.

Besides, does anyone seriously believe totalitarian countries like China, given their low public health, environmental and manufacturing standards, will comply with GHG cuts, even if they agree to them?

That said, we must ignore simplistic environmental rhetoric that portrays nations which meet (or try to meet) their Kyoto targets as “good” while those that don’t as “bad.” In reality, all countries act in their own perceived best interests.

China rejects GHG cuts (as has the U.S. through both the Clinton and Bush administrations) not because it favours global climate catastrophe several decades from now if Al Gore’s apocalyptic rhetoric is correct, which is unlikely.

It does so because it has more pressing problems, such as feeding its 1.3 billion people today.

It’s pointless to condemn China for acting in its own interests, just as it’s silly to portray Canada as an energy glutton, a favourite guilt-inducing tactic of environmentalists.

In fact, Canadians have shown a serious commitment to environmentalism, when they are provided with realistic ways to do so.

But we are also a big, cold, sparsely-populated, northern country, which has logically used our fossil fuel resources to improve our quality of life, exactly what China and the developing world aspire to today.

If we’re telling them, post-Kyoto, they cannot even attempt what we did through industrialization powered by fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas, we had best offer them better reasons than Gore’s doomsday hysteria.

Why do you think the Liberals, for all their pro-Kyoto rhetoric, let Canada’s GHG emissions skyrocket during their 12-year reign, despite promising in their 1993 Red Book to cut them well beyond what later became the Kyoto standard?

They (like the present Conservative government) knew accomplishing this would demand enormous sacrifices Canadians might well reject, if the choices were put to them clearly and honestly.

INCREASE POVERTY

For us to comply with Kyoto now would see huge spikes in the price of everything sensitive to the cost of fossil fuels, meaning gasoline, electricity, heat and water as well as transportation, most manufactured goods and food, all of which are directly or indirectly sensitive to the price of fossil fuels.

This would dramatically lower our standard of living and just as dramatically increase poverty.

Despite what Kyoto propagandists and opportunistic politicians pretend, this isn’t about making an easy choice between “good” and “bad.”

It’s about making intelligent choices from the options we have, all of which have positive and negative consequences.


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

Gaia is Pagan – Global Warming is a Scam

January 5, 2008

Editor:
Is Dion a pagan? Does he know global warming is phony? I’m thinking, build a big prison on an iceberg and all these lunatics can spend the rest of their lives measuring the depth of the ice. Time to clean up govt. Your Country depends on it.

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

Letter
By Christine Stewart

Dear Editor I am writing with reference to an article that appeared on the Gazette’s website entitled ‘Devil worship fears as goat is found in ditch’. The first line of the narrative on the website suggested that this was a ‘pagan-style’ ritual. As a Pagan myself, I was appalled that this dreadful attack might be associated with members of the Pagan community. There are many misconceptions as to what pagans are about and I would like through the medium of your newspaper to enlighten your readers and allay any fears they may have about what paganism is about.

In the simplest terms, Paganism is a religion of place, or a native religion, for example the Native American’s religion is Pagan, Hinduism is a form of Paganism. All Pagan religions are characterised by a connection and reverence for nature, and are usually polytheistic i.e. have many gods and/or goddesses. Paganism in the west takes a number of forms including Wicca, Druidism, and Shamanism.

Pagans revere nature. Often you will find Pagans at the forefront of environmental concerns, such is our love of Mother Earth. Paganism is not just a nature religion but a natural religion, which is as old as mankind and its traditions are still being rediscovered. Pagans see the divine as immanent in the whole of life and the universe in every tree, plant, animal and object, man and woman and in the dark side of life as much as in the light. Pagans live their lives attuned to the cycles of nature, the seasons, life and death. Pagans regard the divine as female as well as male and therefore there is a Goddess as well as a God. The Goddess represents all that is female and the God represents all that is male. But because nature is seen as female, the Goddess has a wider meaning. Often called Mother Earth, or Gaia, she is seen as the ‘Creatrix’ and sustainer of life, the mother of us all, which makes all the creatures on the planet our siblings. The taking of a creature and its subsequent torture and killing is therefore totally abhorrent to us.

advertisement

Historically, many pagan cultures did kill animals as offerings to their gods, as many cultures still do, but the meat from the animal would be used in a celebratory meal rather than left to rot and wasted. Modern pagans are likely to seek out organic meat for their own celebratory meals, or will often be vegetarian. They are extremely unlikely to be involved in a hack and slash killing of an animal.

Western Pagans have no fixed temples in which to worship (apart from Hindus), but instead we (usually) make a circle around themselves (or form ourselves into a circle) in a room, or in a clearing, or on a beach, or find a naturally occurring circle, such as a grove, or use one of the ancient stone circles. Pagans have no hierarchy like the established religions, so Pagans are free to follow whatever spiritual path they choose. We have our own values and ethics and believe we are responsible for our own actions. There is no absolution as such, what we do to others will come back on us and we are therefore ever mindful of the effect our actions have on others, including animals The Pagan view of the universe is one of complementary opposites – light/dark, yin/yang, earth/sky, male/female; the concept of Lucifer, the fallen angel, (The Devil), was adopted by the church in 447. Consequently it is impossible for Pagans to adopt the concept of the Devil, which is a Judeo-Christian concept. Hence the reason so called ‘Devil Worship’ could never be a part of our beliefs.

Pagans come from all walks of life. We count among our number manual workers, teachers, nurses, civil servants, journalists, solicitors, secretaries, web designers, mothers, fathers and grandparents too. In short, we are just people just like you.

Christine Stewart

Wind Generator and Wind Generating Facility Ordinance for Trempealeau County

December 18, 2007

Editor:
Reading the letter below showed me the real life problems associated with wind farms being sited too close to homes. That was just over a year ago. Anyone trying to convince any level of govt knows the frustration they have endured in their fight for reason. Mr. Monfils warned us and it seems fitting that the first realistic, not perfect, setbacks in North America should be passed in Mr. Monfils State of Wisconsin

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. problems-associated-with-wind-turbines

Please make sure everyone gets a copy of this new ordinance

Wind Generator and Wind Generating Facility Ordinance for Trempealeau County

Setbacks: The following setbacks and separation requirements shall apply to Commercial Wind Turbines.
(a) Public Roads: Each Wind Turbine shall be set back from the nearest public road and its right of way a distance no less than two (2) times its Total Height.
(b) Railroads: Each Wind Turbine shall be set back from all railroads and their right of way a distance of no less than two (2) times its Total Height.
(c) Wind Turbine spacing: Each Wind Turbine shall have a separation distance from other Wind Turbines equal to one and two-tenths (1.2) times the total height of the tallest Wind Turbine.
(d) Communication and electrical lines: Each Wind Turbine shall be set back from the nearest above-ground public electric power line or telephone line a distance no less than two (2) times its Total Height.
(e) Inhabited structures: Each Wind Turbine shall be set back from the nearest structure used as a residence, school, hospital, church, place of employment or public library, a distance no less than one (1) mile, unless mitigation has taken place and agreed by owner/operator and affected property owners involved and recorded in the Trempealeau County Register of Deeds office which describes the benefited and burdened properties and which advises all subsequent owners of the burdened property.
(f) Property lines: Each Wind Turbine shall be set back from the nearest property line a distance no less than one-half (½) mile, unless mitigation has taken place and agreed by owner/operator and affected property owners involved, and recorded in the
Trempealeau County Register of Deeds office which describes the benefited and burdened properties and which advises all subsequent owners of the burdened property.
Click link to read complete document.

wind_ordinance doc

Reeve outraged by MPP’s comments

December 12, 2007

Editor
It’s about time the Reeve gets outraged at Carol Mitchell and the McGuinty Govt. Carol Mitchell and the Liberal govt. lied to the people of ACW from the outset and continue to do so. After all the problems with Kingsbridge l, does the Reeve finally have the backbone to tell Mitchell and her lying co-conspirators to piss off once and for all.
carol2.jpg Carol Mitchell thinks that everything David Suzuki says is true. Isn’t that right Carol. Carol, you are just another Suzuki Sheep. Suzuki is a fraud,
Suzuki Says “Sorry, intelligence was never my strong suit.”
and so are you and your Liberal bandits. Lose the smile and hang your head in shame for what you are doing to this province.

Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Township Reeve Ben Van Diepenbeek is outraged at comments by
Huron-Bruce MPP Carol Mitchell

By Sara Bender
Signal-Star Publishing
Wednesday December 12, 2007

Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Township Reeve Ben Van Diepenbeek is outraged at comments by Huron-Bruce MPP Carol Mitchell regarding the township’s wind turbine setbacks.
Mitchell made comments last week on FM 101.7 radio stating that the township is “dragging their feet” by not passing their wind turbine bylaw. She said “the township should move so the Kingsbridge II wind project can begin.”
Firstly, Van Diepenbeek said the township is not passing a wind turbine bylaw but rather a consolidated bylaw for the three wards. He said the township’s consolidated bylaw is not ready to proceed yet and will still have to go through a public process before it can be passed.
“We are not going to pass one part of the bylaw now; we want all of the consolidated bylaw complete,” he said. Van Diepenbeek said Mitchell should know that it is not the township “dragging their feet” but the Ministry of Environment. He said Mitchell was with council when they met the minister several months ago and they have been waiting for information since then so they could move forward.

Globalization : Policy Regime Changes
Complete Restructuring of Energy Sector
PEmerging global energy (and infrastructure)
transnationals that can work within and between
global regions (Hydro Quebec,Enron, others)
P Postwar utility: vertically integrated monopoly
(VIM) : energy production, transmission and
distribution in one firm P Neoliberal idea: divide VIM into different functionally specialized firms
P New functionally specialized firms form an energy sector that is integrated by a market
P All firms/markets within energy sector would need arms length regulation
P New organization provides opportunity structures for transnational investmentGlobalization Electrical Energy

Goderich Signal Star
ACW Council waits for wind word from ministry-Update

Posted on September 6, 2007.

EPCOR is not responding to the public’s concerns.

Posted on January 27, 2007.

Wind Turbine Setbacks-UPDATE Sept.11 2007-

Posted on January 25, 2007.

Best slogan gets a Free Coffee

Posted on January 7, 2007.

Kirby Mountain: U.K. Noise Association: 1 mile setback needed for wind turbines

Posted on December 2, 2006.

 

 

 

 

Kangaroo Farts Save Planet Earth

December 6, 2007

From the Editor
I have already booked my flight to Australia to get some kangaroo bacteria put into my stomach. It’s a win win situation for me and the world in general. I will be able to travel anywhere in the world by whatever mode of transportation I choose, knowing I will be offsetting my carbon emissions every time I fart. If you really want to do your part to save the world from GLOBAL WARMING contact me and I will sell you some kangaroo bacteria. Every time you fart you can smile knowing you are helping to save Planet Earth.

I just farted and yes I’m smiling

But  I refuse to  smile about the devastation caused  by the wind industry and truly stunned govt. officials.

Kangaroo farts used in global warming battle

Australian scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroos’ flatulence contains no methane and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas.

Scientific literature shows that in addition to creating greenhouse gases, cow farts are linked to at least three deaths due to smokers lighting up in sheds and barns where flatulating cattle were being housed.

While the debate over coal fired power stations rages, research has also shown that cows and sheep can contribute between 14-5% of a country’s methane emissions, which are just as large a contributor to global warming as CO2.

Kangaroo farts used in global warming battle