Archive for the ‘electricity’ Category

Ontario Goes Green – Green Homes

June 8, 2009

The McGuinty govt. of Ontario has gone all the way in an attempt to save the planet by introducing the “Green Homes Plan”

In order to be truly Green, no manufactured building materials will be allowed in new homes.

Here are just a couple of the new models that will be available soon.

This home will be of interest  to the first time home buyer or those looking to downsize after retirement.

Below is a new complex and will be of special interest to those with a busy lifestyle. Besides all the other benefits of living in a MUD HUT you can see the community clothes drying facilities in the center courtyard.

Thank you Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Smitherman for your help in making Ontario a “Green Province” we can be all proud of.

Sorry if we questioned your vision.  Some thought you were an idiot.

Well, you proved us wrong!

In only a couple of weeks our new Green Homes will be powered  intermittently by Majestic wind turbines and we will have light and electricity………………sometimes.

Advertisements

Is the govt. being honest about wind energy

December 10, 2008

poll results

wind turbines towering over farm

Is the govt. being honest about wind energy

Yes (198)
No (840)
Don’t Know (83)

Total votes: 1121

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Before You Sign a Wind Turbine Contract

More growers turn to coal – Use of Coal is Expanding in the Province of Ontario

November 12, 2008

Editor: Can it get any more ridiculous?

Ontario is hell bent to close our coal plants and replace them with intermittent wind farms and solar parks – backed up by expensive gas plants.

If you asked someone to design the worst electrical system they could, it would likely be the one described above. The very things you would want to avoid if possible. Expensive and unreliable.

How do you promote an expensive, unreliable electrical system?

Are you stupid? Own a business?

Ontario is the place for you!

Shouldn’t the growers be using renewables like wind and solar? Not if you want your tomatoes.(wind and solar create carbon credits. We need reliable cost effective energy)

Dump the green lobbyists today – Call in the engineers and lets get a system that is cost effective and reliable. I have said this too many times but I will say it once more.

I had a long talk with the senior policy adviser for the Ministry of Energy and he agreed that the best system for Ontario was to put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build a nuke. 10 billion. Cost effective and as clean as we will get.

The green lobbyists plan-60+ billion (that’s a lot of your taxes wasted) for a system that is more expensive, unreliable and in the end not likely any cleaner than the one the policy adviser would build.

“This is about politics” I was told by the adviser. Well folks – heat your home or greenhouse with politics.

Read the story and if you are not outraged by this govt. – you probably work for them or one of the lobbyists.

.

More growers turn to coal

TORONTO STAR PHOTO ILLUSTRATION

TORONTO STAR PHOTO ILLUSTRATION

Tyler Hamilton

Energy Reporter

“Coal is expanding in the province, despite a policy to phase out coal,” says Roger Samson, executive director of REAP-Canada, an independent group that encourages sustainable farming practices. “The Ontario government has no plan on how to mitigate this.”

How much coal, potentially, are we talking about? The energy demands of a typical greenhouse are enormous. Shalin Khosla, a greenhouse specialist with the agriculture ministry, says anywhere between 35 per cent to 50 per cent of the costs of operating a modern vegetable greenhouse goes toward energy consumption. The figure is closer to 20 per cent for flower growers.

It’s estimated that greenhouses in Ontario cover 2,823 acres, and that the average greenhouse requires 9,500 gigajoules of energy per acre every year. This works out to 26.8 million gigajoules annually.

Convert that energy into electricity potential and it works out to 7.44 terawatt-hours a year – more than three times the 2004 electricity output of the Lakeview coal-fired generating station in Mississauga (which has since been closed down and demolished).

That’s equivalent to more than one million tonnes of coal being burned annually.

It’s a mathematical exercise that raises a serious public policy question: What’s preventing the entire greenhouse industry from moving to coal, and in doing so, undermining the spirit of the McGuinty government’s coal phase-out strategy?

Not much, it appears. Unlike power plants and other major industrial facilities, greenhouses can burn whatever fuel they want without much scrutiny.

Keith Stewart, an energy expert with WWF-Canada and author of a book on Ontario’s electricity system, calls the situation “perverse” and a reflection of inconsistent government policy.

“Outdated energy policy is giving us coal-fired tomatoes,” he says.

full story at the Toronto Star

Tyler Hamilton can’t seem to write a story without including Keith Stewart in it. Tyler, go find some engineers. Stewart has a Phd in political science and environment. He is not a energy expert nor is the WWF.

I haven’t read his book but I have read enough “green” policy papers to pretty much know what it says. Green politics does not make an energy expert.

Stewart is a lobbyist for the green movement. Gerald Butts the ex-principal Secretary for McGuinty is now with the WWF. Robert Hornung of CanWEA and the Pembina Institute along with his friend David Suzuki are all involved in pressuring the govt. to adopt their policies and in the process are doing great harm to this Province and Canada.

None of these people are employed by the govt. nor are they elected and I don’t believe any of them are engineers.

They are promoters of a massive fraud that goes by the name of “Man Made Global Warming”.

So butt the fuck out of our electrical system.

If you don’t like Canada – go join your mentor Maurice Strong in China. They use lots of coal there. Go bother the Chinese

If any of you mentioned above would like to enter into an open debate, or have a comment-I’m available.

Germany Plans Boom in Coal-Fired Power Plants

Premier, Dalton McGuinty powers a press conference with wind energy



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



Wind turbines cause health problems, residents say – CTV News

October 6, 2008

Editor:

“Wind turbines are popping up in rural communities around the world, including Canada, in the hope that they will reduce reliance on coal and other sources for power.”

Hope is not what you build an electrical system on. The politicians can “hope” till the cows come home, but the facts speak for themselves.

Nowhere on the planet has the use of industrial wind turbines caused a reduction in the use of coal or any other source of energy.

I would like to thank CTV and those responsible for bringing this story forward and into the mainstream media.

To all those fighting poorly sited wind farms – keep up the great work.

Without your hard work and insistence for the truth, this story would not likely have seen the light of day.

Ontario Wind Farms – Dalton McGuinty
(using wind to power press release – short video)

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Wind energy unreliable, says E.On

Green, not dumb – The Reality of Wind Energy
By Jan Carr – former CEO of Ontario Power Authority

Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet

Wind turbines cause health problems, residents say

View larger image A wind turbine looms over Helen and Bill Fraser's house in Melancthon, Ont.

A wind turbine looms over Helen and Bill Fraser’s house in Melancthon, Ont.

Ernie Marshall and his wife look at the windmills near their former home near Goderich, Ont. The Marshalls moved from several kilometres away after they began developing health problems.Ernie Marshall and his wife look at the windmills near their former home near Goderich, Ont. The Marshalls moved from several kilometres away after they began developing health problems.

Wind turbines cause health problems, residents say

Updated Sun. Oct. 5 2008 10:23 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Windmills may be an environmentally friendly alternative energy source but they also cause debilitating health problems, say people who live near them.

Wind turbines are popping up in rural communities around the world, including Canada, in the hope that they will reduce reliance on coal and other sources for power. Currently, there are about 1,500 turbines across Canada and there are plans to build another 1,000 to 1,500 in the next year.

But some residents who live near wind farms complain the turbines cause a number of adverse health effects, such as crippling headaches, nose bleeds and a constant ringing in the ears.

Helen and Bill Fraser initially supported the nearby wind farm in Melancthon, Ont. One turbine sat close to the Fraser’s kitchen window.

“We thought, more green energy, this is great,” Helen told CTV News.

However, Helen says she developed headaches, body aches and she had trouble sleeping. The dog began wetting the floor at night.

“There were nights I was lying in bed and my heart would beat to the pulse of the turbine. It was an uneasy feeling,” Helen said.

Ernie Marshall at first supported the wind farm that was placed near his home near Goderich, Ont. However, he also says that once the turbines got rolling, his health began to suffer.

“I had problems with my heart, with my eyes, my digestive system,” Marshall told CTV News. “It traumatizes your whole body.”

Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in upstate New York, has interviewed dozens of people who live near windmills in Canada, the United States and Europe.

Her soon-to-be released book, Wind Turbine Syndrome, documents the litany of health problems experienced by some people who have wind farms near their homes.

Pierpont believes that with the growth of wind farms near residential areas, Wind Turbine Syndrome “likely will become an industrial plague,” she states on her website.

Scientists have only begun studying the phenomenon in the last few years.

Some early findings suggest that wind turbines create a high intensity, low frequency sound that may have an effect on the body. Not only can the sound potentially cause debilitating illness. Some researchers believe that the vibrations the sound causes in the inner ear may lead to vibro-acoustic disease, which can cause dizziness, nausea and sleep disturbances.

From CTV NEWS

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

Poor Advice Has Led To Noisy Wind Farms Sited Too Close To Houses

August 28, 2008

I’m not so sure it was poor advise – more like a collaboration between govt. and business interests that have allowed this to happen.

I say this because any and all attempts to inform the govt. of Ont. about the realities of the siting of wind turbines has been dismissed as Nimby-ism.

Many families have been negatively affected by the standards in Ont.

Every wind farm in Southern Ont. has caused problems for  people forced to live near the turbines.

If the govt. wasn’t in bed with industry you would expect some action by the govt. of behalf of those affected.

To date we have been met with wholesale denial of any problems, even though people suffer from health problems that did not exist before the arrival of the turbines. People don’t move out of their homes without reason.

How pervasive is the denial process?

I called Mr. Chris Munn, director of Grey-Bruce health services, in Owen Sound Ont. I told Mr. Munn  there was a cluster of families living in a wind farm, in his area, that were suffering medical problems.

I asked Mr. Munn to send a medical team to visit and document the health issues of these people. At the very least I asked that he send someone with a note pad and tape recorder to document the situation.

Mr. Munn then launched into what sounded like a commercial for the wind industry.

He told me that the problems the people said they were having were all in their minds. ( something you want to hear from the director of medical services)

When I questioned him about what he just said, he told be that he had been talking to Glen Estill, owner of Sky Power, and Glen told him that the turbines cause no problems – some people don’t like wind turbines.

Well Mr. Munn, I told you I would print what you said and I hope you read this. Maybe when you read what you said, it will make you pause to take a good look in the mirror.

I respectfully ask you, once again, to send someone down to the wind farm to assess the problems these people are suffering.

Barring that, you may want to consider resigning your post and consider taking a job with the wind industry.

Ripley Ont. Wind Farm

Ripley Ont. Wind Farm

Poor advice has led to noisy wind farms sited too close to houses

The reason why the United Kingdom has an inadequate health and safety standard for wind farms, which has resulted in people being made ill and even forced to abandon their homes because of noise, is now clear.

Staff from power firms have been working in Government departments, advising them on matters such as appropriate noise levels and the departments have accepted their advice (The Journal, August 28).

The result is ETSU-R-97, a document planners and the industry are obligated to follow. It allows residents of houses to be constantly subjected to in excess of 40db of noise (my door bell emits 80db) and has resulted in wind turbines being sited too close to houses.

Two questions come to mind. What gives politicians the right to inflict noise pollution on citizens of this country? And why are politicians and engineers deemed to be the correct persons to determine safe noise levels?

The French National Academy of Medicine has called for a halt to large scale wind developments within 1500m of houses, because the sounds emitted by the blades constitute a permanent risk for persons exposed to them.

However, reports of people being distressed by noise with separation distances greater than 1500m have been confirmed by research carried out by the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and the US National Wind Co-ordinating Committee.

More from National Wind Watch

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

Energy Price Shock -Two Energy Firms to Raise Prices

August 21, 2008

Editor:
If you live in North America take a close look at what is coming. The Greens want to destroy the economies of
the industrialized world, via political pressure and the blocking of opening oil reserves and new nuclear power.
Expect massive increases in your electric bill in the very near future. Watch as more and more manufacturing flees North America and heads to China and other Asian countries.
While China and others continue to build coal plants – we will rely on expensive intermittent wind and solar for our power.
Why?
Read the Green Agenda – after which you should be rightfully pissed at your elected officials.

Energy firms E.On and Scottish and Southern Energy are to raise gas and electricity prices by up to 29%.

E.On said it would up its gas prices by 26% and electricity bills by 16% on 22 August for domestic customers.

Gas rings

The move comes shortly after British Gas announced a record rise in bills

Scottish and Southern followed a few hours later by announcing a 29.2%
increase in gas bills, with electricity tariffs up by 19.2% on 25
August.

This is E.On’s second price rise for domestic customers this year. In
February it put up gas bills by 15% and electricity tariffs by 9.7%.


We
are extremely concerned that the one in three pensioner households
likely to be living in fuel poverty by the end of the year will feel
forced to cut back on essential food or fuel

Gordon Lishman, Age Concern

Complete Article