Archive for the ‘Dwight Duncan wind farm wind energy Kincardine’ Category

Boycott Silk Soy Milk

April 24, 2007

big_soy_silk_milk.jpg

Silk soy milk is probably a very good product. (more…)

Frey & Hadden, Wind turbines and health

March 4, 2007

From the editor

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

Frey_&_Hadden,_Wind_turbines_and_health_2-07.pdf

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

Stretching the truth to the absolute extreme

January 28, 2007

It is -9, with the windchill it feels like -16. Ontario has 413mw of wind capacity. At 1pm the four wind-farms in Ontario are generating at 4.6%  of their rated capacity. Not too impressive.

When the Ontario govt. or the wind industry tell you that a wind farm has the capacity to power x number of homes they are stretching the truth to the absolute extreme. A wind farm has the capacity to power x number of homes only when it is running at maximum output. I have yet to see this happen.

As you can see 4.6% output is a very long way from 100% output.

The govt. plans to back up wind by building natural gas plants.

What is the most price sensitive fuel right now and into the future?

Natural gas.

This McGinty, Duncan policy is not only going to drive up electricity prices it will also cost thousands of manufacturing jobs.

It is time for every voter in Ontario to start asking some hard questions and demanding answers to the McGinty, Duncan energy policy.

This is without a doubt, the most flawed energy policy ever presented to the Ontario consumer.

Who will pay for this disaster.

YOU and your CHILDREN.

Wind-power project goes quiet for now

January 26, 2007

From the editor – one pissed off liberal

Is the tide finally turning. The truth is starting to come out about the wind industry. It’s all about the money.

Enbridge has been found guilty of “criminal misconduct” by the Supreme Court for charging its Canadian customers late-payment penalties that exceeded permissible legal interest rate levels.

The Kincardine wind farm will be built and run by Enbridge.

Convicted criminals will control the wind farm, the pipelines bringing the gas and the back-up gas plants. No chance for abuse there.

The McGinty govt. is convinced you, the taxpayers of this province, are stupid.

Prove them wrong this October. Stand up and be counted.

Carol Mitchell MPP and Paul Steckle MP of Huron Bruce will pay for this at the next election. They have failed their constituents miserably and continue to do so by pushing, the soon to fail, Dwight Duncan energy policy.

Epcor should be forced to shut down the Kingsbridge I wind project immediately. Since it’s start-up in March of last year it has caused a multitude of problems for the people living near it. To date Epcor has not addressed any of those concerns.

None
not
One

To all those who are fighting so hard to bring reason and truth into this debate, don’t get discouraged.

In the end the truth will prevail.


Below is the story from the Star

Epcor Utilities Inc. has put on hold its planned Kingsbridge II wind-power project near Goderich and is taking a $20 million charge because of uncertainties in local and provincial approvals.

The energy company, owned by the City of Edmonton, said it is rethinking the 160-megawatt project planned for the south shore of Lake Huron and is ending arrangements with some suppliers.

The company plans to take up to $20 million in charges before tax on its books from its moves.

Epcor said it will continue to operate its Kingsbridge I wind project, which was commissioned last year.

thestar.com

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

 

Testimony before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee

January 11, 2007


Testimony before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee

March 7, 2006

Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

MD, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1991
PhD, Population Biology, Princeton University, 1985
BA, Biology, Yale University, 1977
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics

http://www.ninapierpont.com

I am here to talk to you today as a physician-scientist about a clinical phenomenon called Wind Turbine Syndrome. This is relevant to today’s hearing because it critically affects implementation of the RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) in terms of the siting of industrial wind turbines. Current siting practices (which are solely industry-driven) disregard public health. The supervision of the legislature—of this committee—is needed to create siting standards to protect the citizenry, all the citizenry, including citizens who are rural, old, ill, impaired, and very young.

Federal agencies are trying to put the brakes on willy-nilly wind turbine construction, citing, for instance, wildlife issues. The GAO (Government Accountability Office) last fall told US Fish and Wildlife to get involved. The National Academy of Sciences in April 2005 initiated a 20-month study on environmental impacts whose final report is due in December this year. There also needs to be a focus on human health, and the state needs to step up to the plate in terms of regulation.

Story continues
http://www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.html

Darmstadt Manifesto

January 8, 2007

(Paper on Wind energy)
Initiative Group
Darmstadt Manifesto
Press Release
Dated 1 September 1998
At the press conference which took place today at the Bruningstrasse Press Club in Bonn
the Initiative Group presented the Darmstadt Manifesto on the Exploitation of Wind
energy in Germany.
The manifesto, which has to date been signed by more than 60 college/university
lecturers and writers*, demands the withdrawal of all direct and indirect subsidies in order
to put a stop to the exploitation of wind energy.
(It claims that) the exploitation of wind energy promotes the type of technology which is
of no significance whatever for the purpose of supplying energy, saving resources and
protecting the climate. The money could be put to far more effective use in increasing the
efficiency of power stations, in ensuring effective energy consumption and in funding
scientific research into fundamental principles in the field of energy.

This paper was written in 1998 and here we are in Ontario 2007 fighting against wind farms and the theft of our tax dollars. Make your voice heard. Let Dwight Duncan know your outrage.

Full paper click on link

http://www.savewesternny.org/pdf/darmstadt.pdf

Go to bottom of page to view the signatures

Germany to Build 8 new coal plants

January 4, 2007

Dwight Duncan keeps using Germany as his model for wind power. Wind is the fastest growing energy sector in the world he says.

It might be the fastest growing but the question remains. Does it work?

Germany has very high energy costs. They built 43GW of wind power but only count on it for 2 GW. They have never been able to shut down any base capacity.

Germany is going to build eight new coal fired plants.


Duncan has said the government will agree to build new nuclear reactors should the OPA recommend it. But he says those lobbying the authority to recommend so-called cleaner coal technology and keeping the plants open are a century behind the times.

 

“I say to the Neanderthals . . . we’re moving forward responsibly to ensure that we clean up our air,” Duncan said. “We’re in the 21st century. They’re in the 19th century.”

Mr. Duncan, will you now refer to the Germans as Neanderthals?

 

Europe’s Image Clashes With Reliance on CoalNew York Times

But the new plant, which will be just a demonstration model, pales next to the eight coal-fired power stations Germany plans to build for commercial use

.

North Texas Wind Resistance Alliance

December 21, 2006

 

North Texas Wind Resistance
Alliance

Promoting the Truth about Wind Energy

 

HomeDoes it work?Who’s behind it? • What does it harm? • What can we do?ResearchNews

 

 

What does it harm?

   

It squanders our capital on a false promise

 

Let’s start with the squandering of our precious investment capital on a feel-good, phony solution to our energy and environmental problems. We are presently building more than 2,000 1.5 MW turbines per year, at a capital cost of more than $4 billion annually. Add more than $1 billion per year in subsidies and you’re talking massive mal-investment, all ultimately taken from taxpayers and utility ratepayers. For what? To make some mega-corporations richer and our citizens poorer?

It produces very little electricity, at times when we don’t need it, and adds virtually nothing to our generating capacity. ERCOT reported to the Texas Legislature in 2005 that due to wind’s intermittency, and the historical performance of wind turbines in Texas, only 2% of nameplate generator capacity should be considered as “available resource”. That’s right, only 2% !! See the bottom of page 7 and the top of page 8 in the ERCOT Report . (more…)