Archive for the ‘Enbridge wind farm in Kincardine Ont.’ Category

EPCOR and the Ontario Power Authority mutually agree to terminate Kingsbridge II contract

October 15, 2008
Suncor wind farm Ripley

Embridge wind farm Kincardine

CTV News did a story on health problems associated with wind farms. Ernie Marshall moved from his home at the Kingsbridge l wind farm after suffering health problems. I would like to think this had something to do with Epcor’s  decision not to go ahead with the second phase of the project. A corporation with a heart?

Wind turbines cause health problems, residents say – CTV News

TORONTO and GODERICH, ON, Oct. 15 /CNW/ – EPCOR Utilities Inc. (EPCOR) announced today that the company and the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) have mutually agreed to terminate the renewable energy supply agreement for EPCOR’s 160 megawatt Kingsbridge II wind project in the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh.

The Kingsbridge II project was selected through a Request for Proposals
(RFP) process in November 2005, and a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for output from the project was signed on November 21, 2005. The PPA required the project to be in service by October 31, 2008.

EPCOR experienced delays obtaining provincial and municipal approvals forthe project, and uncertainty respecting regulations concerning the project’s layout, design, and testing. As a result, EPCOR would be unable to meet the contracts conditions as a result of circumstances beyond its control. EPCOR has decided in cooperation with the OPA that it will not proceed with this project as originally planned. EPCOR will not incur any asset write-downs associated with this decision.

Source CNW Group

Advertisements

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

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

Wind Turbine Noise Video – Suncor Wind Farm Ripley Ont.

May 13, 2008

Update:
Both Suncor and the Ontario govt. have viewed this video. They have yet to respond. Not a big surprise.

Video I took at the Suncor wind farm Ripley Ont. The Ontario govt. continues to put the health of citizens at risk. The industry and the govt. say wind turbines are whisper quiet. You be the judge

Turbines Meet Ontario Noise Guidlines

April 30, 2008

.Dust-up over wind farms

Source the Toronto Sun

Report: Noise from turbines meet guidelines

By JONATHAN JENKINS, QUEEN’S PARK BUREAU

There’s no scientific proof wind turbines make disturbing levels of noise and, although more study is needed, Ontario’s guidelines are sound, a long-awaited consultant’s report for the ministry of the environment says.

The report by Ryerson prof Dr. Ramani Ramakrishnan was finished in December 2007 but was only posted on the government’s Environmental Registry website on Monday.

It reviews the work of a Dutch scientist, Dr. G.P. Van Den Berg, who found that 98-metre tall turbines at a German wind farm near the Dutch border made more — and more annoying — noise at night than expected. The report has been heralded by groups opposing wind farm projects near their homes.

“(Van Den Berg’s) dissertation was to provide scientific evidence for increased annoyance from wind farms during evening and night time hours,” Ramakrishnan wrote. “The review showed the above was not the case.

“One of the main criticisms of the doctoral dissertation of Van Den Berg is that the conjectures of his research have not been supported by solid scientific data.”

The Dutch study should be used as a catalyst for further work, though, Ramakrishnan said.

Holland has accepted the findings of Dr. G.P. Van Den Berg.

Hiring someone to trash Dr. G.P. Van Den Berg to further the wind scourge, shows the lack of integrity of both the govt. and the wind industry.

I experienced the Dr. G.P. Van Den Berg theory personally at the Kingsbridge l wind farm. It was early Oct of last year. I returned to the home of Ernie Marshall, after attending an all candidates meeting, to pick up my car. Beautiful fall evening, no wind at ground level but the wind at hub height was still strong enough to turn the turbine blades. How loud was the noise? Throw a pair of work boots in the dryer and turn it on. Go get your pillow, curl up beside the dryer. Sleep well. That in essence is the findings of Dr. G.P. Van Den Berg. (added) RS

Mr. Marshall and his wife have since moved out of their home. Mr. Marshall says his health is getting better and he and his wife now enjoy uninterrupted sleep at night. (added) RS

His report also found Ontario’s noise guidelines for wind turbines are reasonable and strike a balance “between noise impact and the need for wind farms, based on currently available scientific data.”

What the hell does that statement mean. Noise impact! The wind industry is promoted as whisper quiet. The need for wind farms? What need? The only thing that wind farms can hope to offer the people of Ontario is an unstable, unnecessarily expensive electrical system. (added) RS

Kate Jordan, a spokesman for the ministry of environment, said the report, held back from December, was being posted on the Environmental Registry for 30 days to allow the public to comment on it. “We wanted to make sure it was the final report. We needed to know it was complete,” Jordan said of the late release.

The report has found what the industry has believed for some time, Sean Whittaker, vice-president of policy for the Canadian Wind Energy Association, said.

“The report does confirm that the findings of Van Den Berg are put into question,” Whittaker said.

“CANWEA has been confident that the noise guidelines we have here in Ontario are very good.”

Ontario has about 500 megawatts of Canada’s 1,856 megawatts of wind power. CANWEA wind projects could rise to as much as 4,600 by 2020.

Ron Mattmer, who lives a kilometre from a proposed wind development in Kincardine, says he supports wind power but is opposed to locating them so close to homes.

He said the ministry is “in denial” about Van Den Berg’s noise findings and have “jiggered” their own limits to ease development.

Source the Toronto Sun
.
Comment By Ron Stephens

“CANWEA has been confident that the noise guidelines we have here in Ontario are very good.”

They are confident because they were instrumental in the formation of those guidelines.

I remember Ford claiming the PINTO didn’t blow up. Big Pharma is always getting the FDA to pass drugs that end up hurting or killing people.

Industry policing its self, with govt. pushing the bull down the taxpayers throat. Neo-Liberalism at it’s worst. Never underestimate the power of denial, especially when govt. is on the side of industry.

Here is an email I just received the other day.

Maybe the wind industry or the govt. could comment .

I live 808m from a Enercon 82 wind turbine and within a km. of 11 other turbines at the Ripley Suncor/Acceon wind project. My health and the health of my neighbours has deteriorated over the past 5 months. We hear a constant roaring of jets 24/7 and at night when the house is quiet there is a CONSTANT HUMMING which going right through your head no matter what you try to do occurs. We have had many meetings but the humming still goes on and we are still waken 2-??? times/night. We do NOT get a deep sleep.

But of course this person must be complaining because 1- they like to complain 2- they didn’t make any money on the deal 3- they must be crazy 4- they work for or are being paid by the fossil fuel industry 5- they hate Mother Earth.

This govt. and the wind industry are so full of crap it is ridiculous. This scam is no different than the door to door reno scams. Promise a lot and never let the truth get in the way.

The wind industry and the govt., here in Ontario, claimed they could greatly reduce emissions. Lets see the peer reviewed results. Why aren’t the papers full of the results the wind industry claims? They don’t exist, not through my research. If they do, lets see them.

Bird and Bat kills too small to worry about. Then why the deal to hide the results from the public.

Noise – the turbines are whisper quiet, about as much noise as your fridge they said. Then why are people being forced from their homes.

A doctor from Kingston stated that the health problems created by wind turbines are only temporary and a persons health will return once they no longer live near the turbines. If that doesn’t sound the alarm bells what will?

This is a CRIME against the citizens of the Province of Ontario.

Explain this CanWEA and the McGuinty govt. of Shame

Reaction to the Scottish Government’s refusal to construct one of Europe’s largest onshore wind farms, 181 turbines on Lewis in the Western Isles , has exposed the myth of wind power.

In response to Scottish industry’s concerns that its lights may go out, Britain’s power industry had to admit it would not make one iota of difference as wind power is too unstable to be included in any calculations of how much power is needed to satisfy the country’s needs – whether or not the wind is blowing our power stations will still burn the same amount of fossil fuel.

A spinning turbine’s only value, for the environmentalists, is as an icon of their power over the vulnerable and as an “at least we are doing something” comfort blanket for gullible politicians, plus, of course, an exponential currency generator for the wind industry. full article here


Never forget – Enron started the wind scam. Enron is gone but the scam lives on. Google Enron, Maurice Strong and Al Gore. Maybe that will open your eyes.

The govt. should have put the scrubbers on the coal plants and built a new nuke. Cost approx. 10 billion. Cost for wind, solar, gas plants, new transmission lines and a new nuke, 60-70 billion. Think what that extra money could have done for Health Care, Education and our Farmers

Read Agenda 21. It’s about a lot more than just the wind industry.

Note: I, unlike Mr. Mattmer, do not support wind power as presented.

“Ron Mattmer, who lives a kilometer from a proposed wind development in Kincardine, says he supports wind power but is opposed to locating them so close to homes.” (found in Toronto Sun article above)

I do however, support Mr. Mattmer, and all the other people in Ontario who have worked so tirelessly to expose the truth. Please join us in the fight for truth and Democracy.

If the govt. is serious about the environment they would be putting the money into grants to retrofit homes and encourage home solar and wind. This would reduce the need for new generation and save money in the process. After all, it’s your tax dollars subsidizing the wind industry of which the only “benefit ” to you will be higher electrical costs.
The wind industry on the other hand will make a fortune.

I think it is time for an open televised debate – maybe on TVO. I, and many others, including engineers, are available, and look forward to such a debate. The govt. and the wind industry debating with citizens of Ontario. Sounds like democracy to me.

What is going on now is about as anti-democratic as it gets.

Councils are told to pass the wind farms or they will be taken to an OMB hearing at a cost of approx. $100,000. and they are told they will lose, and God forbid-they will look anti-green. Did I mention the “GREENS” are pagan based and anti-Christian. Ever wonder why Mr. McGuitny wants to remove the Lords prayer from the Legislature?

Kingsbridge l has been a source of noise, flicker and stray voltage complaints for the two years it has been operating. People and animals suffer up to a kilometer away, yet no health study. The setback for Kingsbridge ll 450 meters.

Criminal

Turn off the TV, put down the newspapers and do your own research. Get the family involved. Think often and think critically.

Democracy is not a right. When a democracy is not guarded, protected and demanded by its citizens it will be lost. That day is getting very close.

RS

Ron Stephens ran as an Independent candidate for Huron-Bruce in support of those suffering from wind turbine nuisance and he continues to fight for their rights.

Editor:
Once again, I ask both the govt. and the wind industry to look over this blog and if you find something you can prove is not correct let me know and the appropriate corrections will be made.

Update- Fri. May 1st – 9:30 am
Someone from the govt. of Ont. and Suncor have read this post. Site Tracker stats

Critic says new Enbridge fee 'outrageous'

February 18, 2008

Editor: This is what happens when business has too much influence over govt. The OEB has, for all intents and purposes, overturned a Supreme Court Decision.

Enbridge is building a huge wind farm in Bruce County Ont. They said they want to be good corporate neighbors. I feel better about Enbridge after reading this – don’t you.

The Provincial Govt. just handed out 25 million of your tax dollars to universities to try and figure out how to integrate the energy from wind farms into the grid.

There is a video link of the story at the bottom of the page.

Time for the people of this province to show some

OUTRAGE!

Critic says new Enbridge fee ‘outrageous’

Enbridge is set to charge its Ontario customers a new fee to help pay the costs of an out-of-court settlement. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled against the natural gas company — for charging unfair fees.

The Supreme Court found that the company had billed illegal late-payment penalties from 1994 to 2002. The fees had been approved by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB).

The company agreed to pay $22 million in a settlement, but the OEB said Enbridge now has the right to reclaim that money, even if it’s from the same customers it overcharged.

Gord Garland, who launched the lawsuit against Enbridge over the late fees, said the company is again mistreating its customers.

“It’s outrageous that a company engaged in and essentially convicted of a criminal act would then ask its customers to pay for that act,” he told CTV News.

In the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Frank Iacobucci wrote that “the late-payment penalties were collected in contravention of the Criminal Code,” which trumps any OED ruling.

The OEB has also approved the new fee. In response to questions from CTV News, the OEB issued a statement explaining its decision. It noted that:

  • Costs had been incurred prudently;
  • Enbridge was acting in accordance with provincial government guidelines;
  • The late payment penalties Enbridge was charging were approved by the Board at that time; and,
  • the Ontario Superior Court had ruled in favour of Enbridge on two prior occasions, before being overruled by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Lawyers said that because Enbridge is a utility, it’s guaranteed ‘cost recovery.’

“What the OEB does is determine what the costs were and allow the utility to recover them from the customers,” said regulatory expert George Vegh.

The new fee may be only a few dollars, but Garland said customers will be furious.

“That is money being taken out of Enbridge’s customers’ pockets and being put into Enbridge’s pockets,” he said.

Link to video

CTV

Industrial Wind Farms Banned

December 4, 2007

From the Editor: I think everyone fighting against the plague that is wind farms should write a note thanking the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG for doing it’s duty. That duty is look out for the best interest of it’s citizens. Everyone needs to make sure that their council reads this and “DEMAND” that they implement the Resolution set out by the Gillespie County Economic Development Commission.

Resolution of the Gillespie County Economic Development Commission

Industrial Wind Farms

The Gillespie County Economic Development Commission opposes the construction of industrial wind farms in Gillespie County and the surrounding Texas Hill Country area. This position is taken after a careful consideration of the issues associated with the economic and environmental impact of industrial wind farms.

The Hill Country is a jewel of Texas. It is highly touted and highly regarded for its landscapes and scenic beauty. It is a desirable area to both visit and live and property values and the robustness of the tourism economy reflect its attractiveness. Wind turbines are incompatible with the elements that make the Hill Country special. Their presence would cause irreversible harm. There is ample reason to believe that industrial wind farms would cause a general reduction in property values and would cause a significant reduction in tourism. Our county and city governments and our school districts are responsible and fiscally conservative. Accordingly, the loss of revenue from reduced tourist dollars and a tax based reduced by declining property values will result in a corresponding tax rate increase. Tax increases do not stimulate economic vitality.

The environmental impact of industrial wind farms is known. Wind turbines create a noise that is described as a penetrating low-frequency thudding vibration that travels even further than the measured audible noise. The spinning blades can create a flickering light on one side of a blade and a flickering shadow on the other side that can literally cause humans and animals to experience spatial disorientation. The spinning blades also kill and maim birds and bats. Each tower requires a cleared area of several acres at its base and the towers must be connected by roads capable of handling heavy equipment. The destruction of the landscape and wildlife habitat required for this is permanent. And, each tower is required to be lighted with a flashing red light at night. These adverse environmental impacts are a direct cause of the reduction in property values mentioned earlier.

The economic development commission generally applauds the search for alternative energy sources to satisfy our increasing demands. However, the commission is skeptical about the real potential for wind power’s contribution.

The U.S. Department of Energy reports that wind power has the potential to contribute 1.2% of our energy demand by the year 2030. To achieve this miniscule contribution to energy needs the federal government subsidizes the construction of wind farms through production tax credits and accelerated depreciation schedules. This essentially passes along a majority of the cost of construction of wind farms to taxpayers. The Gillespie County Economic Development Commission believes that the potential economic loss to the community is grossly out of proportion to the immeasurably small potential contribution industrial wind farms here could make to the energy solution.

The economic development commission respects the rights of individual property owners to make decision regarding their property without outside interference. However, the commission is concerned that property owners who exercise their property rights and sign lease options with industrial wind companies are actually relinquishing control of their property. While industrial wind farms may provide some economic benefit to the participating land owner, adjacent landowners will experience a decrease in property values and other adverse effects which effectively infringes upon their property rights. And there are additional complications. Transmission lines will be required to move the electricity from the wind farms to the electric grid. It is likely that eminent domain would be used to acquire rights-of-way for new transmission lines from non-participating, unwilling land owners.

To summarize, the Gillespie County Economic Development Commission believes that concern for the economic cost to the Gillespie County community as a whole far outweighs consideration of uncertain financial benefits to a few and a marginal at best contribution to future energy needs.

WHEREAS, there are now and there may be other companies in the future who are attempting to enter into lease agreements with landowners in Gillespie County for the purpose of erecting wind turbines (wind farms) on the scenic landscape of our community; and

WHEREAS, the construction of such wind farms will certainly be detrimental to the wildlife habitat of the area; and

WHEREAS, wind farms erected with the shadows of Enchanted Rock will forever scar a popular recreational asset of the area; and

WHEREAS, the construction of such wind farms will destroy the peaceful existence of the quality of life the residents of Gillespie County have come to enjoy over the years by generating noise from the turbines, creating “shadow, strobe or flicker” effects; and

WHEREAS, it is widely accepted by professional appraisers and members of the real estate community that land values where wind farms are built and the land of the adjoining property owners will be devalued by an estimated 25% to as much as 50% of its market value; and

WHEREAS, according to ERCOT wind study maps, the amount of wind generated in this area is in the bottom 20% of the available wind locations in the state of Texas; and

WHEREAS, the City has so agreed, and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG:

The construction of wind turbines (wind farms) is not an industry that is welcomed or encouraged to come to the Gillespie County area.

Fredericksburg City Council

3 December 2007

Industrial wind turbine development to end

November 6, 2007

From the editor

I would like to thank the President of France for using his office to do the right thing for his people. The  people of France have worked very hard to get the govt. to change its position on wind energy. The people of Canada, the USA and every other country that is being bastardized by bad energy policy need to stand and be counted, just like the people of France.

Will our media even acknowledge this story?

A job well done President Sarkozy and a special thank you to all those who worked so hard to shine the light on the reality of the wind industry.

France, Press Releases

Sarkozy announces new wind turbine policy

Industrial wind turbine development to end in rural and wild areas

The Sustainable Environment Federation (FED), with the heritage and countryside associations who demonstrated in Paris on October 6 against industrial wind energy, are pleased by President Sarkozy’s redirection of French policy concerning wind turbines and renewable energy.

In his comments at the closure of the « Grenelle de l’environnement », the president of the republic announced the end of the « rush » that has characterized French policy on wind turbines up to now and that ultimately means degradation of the environment. New wind turbines will be installed first in industrial farm fields and far from emblematic locales.

Eric Rosenbloom of  Kirby Mountain corrected a term in the translation, which you should read, les friches industrielles are “brownfields” not “industrial farm fields“. (That limits development even more!)

In an improvisation that was not in the prepared text provided to the press, M. Sarkozy turned to José-Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, and added : « Frankly, when I see some European countries, it doesn’t make me envious ».

The president of the republic also announced acceleration of research into energies of the future.

This new policy marks the end of industrial wind turbine installations in rural and wild areas. This is a relief for the 800 villages and 52 departments represented in the October 6 demonstration. It is also a powerful contribution to the image of France and shows Europe that an energy policy can reconcile the fight against global warming and respect for the countryside and every life.

*******

The 1500 demonstrators on October 6 brought six demands. Many of them have been accepted : publicize the true numbers of wind energy development (M. Borloo [environment minister] has committed to this), protect public health from wind turbine nuisance, protect the cultural and natural heritage of France, restore peace in the villages, commit to an effective energy strategy.

The sixth concerns the financial scandal of the price of wind-generated electricity. The highly elevated price encourages the production of intermittent energy which does not promote the reduction of greenhouse gases. It will lead to speculative pressure for the few areas in France that meet the criteria of the new policy.

Just as the president announced that the policy of supporting biofuels will be reviewed, price support for wind turbines needs to be reviewed.

Fédération Environnement Durable
Les Associations de Patrimoine

Télécharger le communiqué de presse en Français
Download this translation

OMB Hearing – Decision Issued July 16th

July 19, 2007

From the Editor

I have just finished reading the OMB judgment for the Enbridge wind farm in Kincardine. My take on the Judgment goes like this. One man who knows nothing about the wind industry is charged with listening to testimony from both sides and making a judgment. Even though people testified about the problems they are experiencing from the wind farms near their homes, their testimony was dismissed because it is a different wind farm. Two separate engineering reports by the wind industry state that any turbine within 1000 meters will have a negative affect, I can find no reference to these reports in the decision. Makes no sense. Elizabeth May of the Green party who is a big promoter of green energy sides with Anne Murray when it comes to the siting of wind farms near homes. Not the OMB. The question that needs to be answered is, does the the OMB have any power to force changes or is it just a rubber stamp. The chair states that the Enbridge wind farm conforms to the MOE and Bruce County guidelines. It does not however conform to the guidelines set out by the WHO.

Tell your Liberal MPP what you think.

Here is another story of a family run out of their homes

On July 20, 2007 Ruth & I decided to drive from the Gulf Shore to Elmira, which is on the northeastern tip of PEI, to visit with Dwayne Bailey and his father, Kevin, and view the new local wind farm. Both abandoned their lifelong homes because they could not tolerate the noise from this facility.

The OMB gives no weight to these events, and the govt just denies there is a problem.

When I get some time I will post the entire decision and you can decide if the judgment was correct and in the best interest of the public.

A very bad day for the people of Ontario. Everybody must continue too fight this McGuinty Govt. and their ridiculous energy policy. The corporations didn’t care about polluting the world and they don’t give a damn about saving the world. They care about the money and that’s all they care about.

To all those fighting wind farms and any other stupid govt. policy around the world. Keep fighting. You are heroes of the common man

Tell your Liberal MPP what you think.

Europe drying up for wind energy developers

July 12, 2007

‘Wind energy in the U.S. “is like Europe was years ago,” says Xavier Viteri, head of Iberdrola’s renewable-energy business. “There’s a lot of room for development there ….”‘ (Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2007, page A1)

That raises the question, Why isn’t Europe like Europe was? Clearly, the momentum has slowed. Even “showcase” Denmark hasn’t added new wind capacity since 2004. Doubts have arisen about the utility of wind energy on the grid. Adverse impacts (to wildlife, landscape, and human health) can no longer be denied. Instead of repeating Europe’s mistakes, the U.S. and Canada ought to consider the limits of wind energy that European countries have already discovered.

There’s a good reason Iberdrola and other European wind developers are moving their efforts to North America. Europe doesn’t want them any more. Let’s learn from that experience instead of repeating the same boondoggle.
From Kirby Mountain