Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet

Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario

Sir: The reason you said we need to erect wind turbines in Ontario ,was because of the need to reduce CO2, in order to fight global warming.

According to Anthony Cary- High Commissioner for the United Kingdom you are incorrect in your assessment of the situation.

Apr. 25th 2007- Anthony Cary- High Commissioner for the United Kingdom stated at a Club of Rome (Canada ) meeting. “There is no direct link between CO2 emission and climate change”.

Are you telling the citizens of Ontario the truth, or are you pushing the Green Agenda. After all,it was the Club of Rome that said “We came up with the idea of global warming”

One thing for sure, your office continues to show absolute disrespect for the health and property values of the people of Ontario.

Do the right thing – and in the process gain some respect for yourself and your office.

Put a moratorium on wind turbine construction until a proper health study has been done and reviewed by an independent panel.

Otherwise, people might think you’re putting the desires of both, the Club of Rome and the UN ahead of the citizens of Ontario.

That might be looked upon as a dereliction of your duties Mr. Premier.

By Nigel Bunyan and Martin Beckford

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 26/07/2008

Thousands of homeowners may see the value of their properties plummet after a court ruled that living near a wind farm decreases house prices.

In a landmark case, Jane Davis was told she will get a discount on her council tax because her £170,000 home had been rendered worthless by a turbine 1,000 yards away.

	Estate agents have said no one is likely to buy the Jones’s house, which was worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built

The ruling is effectively an official admission that wind farms, which are accused of spoiling countryside views and producing a deafening roar, have a negative effect on house prices.

It means many other families living in the shadow of the giant turbines could see thousands wiped off the value of their homes, as the Government pushes ahead with plans to build 7,000 more wind farms over the next decade to meet ambitious green targets.

Campaigners also fear ministers want to remove the legal right to complain about noise nuisance, condemning those who live near wind farms to years of blight and reducing the opportunity for them to resist expansion plans.

Mrs Davis, who launched a nationwide campaign after her own home was rendered worthless by the deafening roar of a wind farm, claims ministers are tabling an amended to the Planning Act which will remove eight crucial words that previously offered at least some protection to householders

“For people living near wind farms, both now and in the future, it will be a disaster,” she said.

“There are many, many people living in Middle England who have worked hard all their lives and yet will see the values of their homes suddenly diminish.

“This isn’t about Nimbyism, but the rights of ordinary people to live a normal life.”

Mrs Davis, 52, a retired nurse, lives 1,017 (930m) from a wind farm at Deeping St Nicholas, Lincolnshire. Her husband, Julian, 43, originally bought the property from the county council and the couple had planned to extend it.

But the noise generated by the turbines is so severe, particularly when certain winds make all the blades rotate in unison, that it left the Davises unable to sleep. They currently live in a rented house a few miles away.

“It’s just like the effect you get in a car when the sun roof is open or a window at the back is open. In a car you can do something about it. But if it’s in your house and is coming from a giant turbine a few yards away, you can do nothing,” said Mrs Davis.

Local estate agents have acknowledged that the house, worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built in 2006, is now so severely blighted that no one is likely buy it.

Earlier this week the Davises won a landmark victory that reduced their council tax banding.

Although financially the difference is minimal, the reduction was granted on the basis that their home had been blighted by noise “on the balance of probability”.

Furthermore, the couple secured the ruling in the absence of a statutory noise nuisance – a fact that brought dismay to wind farm operators.

But Mrs Davis now fears the imminent change in legislation will turn the advantage back to the wind farm lobby, which is planning to build 4,000 turbines across the countryside – double the current number – and increase the number of those offshore from 150 to 3,000 by 2020.

From the Telegraph

Wind Farms – Lake Huron Ontario – Video

Editor:

Tried to post a comment on this video by the Windsor Star but it wouldn’t accept comments so I had to bring it here.

These comments will make sense, or not, after you view the video.

The reporter in the video says the wind will power 440,00 homes. According to the ISO – for planning purposes they are rated at 10% of capacity or 44,00 homes. Big difference.

Ernie Marshall, in the blue coveralls, and his wife have moved. Ernie was suffering from health problems he didn’t have before the arrival of the turbines. Ernie says his health is slowly returning and his doctor is happy with his progress since he moved. Both Ernie and his wife say that after two years of living near the turbines,they are finally enjoying uninterrupted sleep. The neighbors Ernie said goodbye to are still suffering from noise, stray voltage and flicker, not to mention the flashing lights on top of the turbines every night.

The gentleman in the brown coveralls has moved as well. After the problems at the Epcor site he didn’t want to be around when the Enbridge site was completed. He is well aware of the problems created by wind turbines and feared he might not find a buyer after the turbines arrived.

Neither of these people wanted to move, but felt they had no choice.

Every wind farm in southern Ont. has impacted families in a negative way.

Bob Simpson, the gentleman from Enbridge says they will respond quickly to solve any problems. Unless Mr. Simpson plans on moving the turbines farther away from peoples homes there is nothing he or his company can do. For the next twenty years people will suffer the consequences of bad planning and greed.

Mr. Simpson mentions reducing emissions. Nowhere on the planet can I find any evidence of emission reductions from the use of wind turbines.

Germany has more wind turbines than anywhere else. They are in the process of building 20 plus coal plants. I would say their emissions are about to take a big jump. Wind doesn’t seem to have done Germany much good.

The number of fossil fuel plants closed as a direct use of wind energy – o – Zero – none – zip

Wind energy has doubled in Ont. Does that mean we are twice as stupid as we should be.

When the govt. the industry and the media are all saying how great wind energy is,it’s hard to accept the reality that is the wind industry – and that’s exactly what they are counting on.

A quote from a person living at the Suncor wind farm Ripley. When asked how it was living near the turbines. “I’ll tell you how it is, our life is shit since the wind farm came.”

Ripley has a 700 meter setback, The Enbridge and Epcor wind farms have a 450 meter setback.

A video of the Ripley wind farm can be found under videos at top of page.

Do some research on your own. Theres nothing on TV anyway.

.

Video by the Windsor Star

.

Critic says new Enbridge fee 'outrageous'

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

Reputrace Pays This Blog another Visit

Editor:

We want to take this opportunity to welcome Reputace back to our blog.

We want to make sure you and your “Corporate Spy Software” ,feel as welcomed as everyone else.

There really is no need to spy on this blog.

This blog sent an open invitation to every Liberal MPP in the Province of Ontario asking that they look it over and to get back to us if they find anything they question or disagree with. To date we have had no replies. Therefore it can be concluded that the information on my blog is factual and is accepted as factual by the Liberal Party of Ont.

Tell your Liberal MPP what you think.

We would like to extend that invitation to your Corporate clients. Again, there is no need to spy.

This blog is open and we invite your clients to discuss with us any questions or concerns they may have with information we post here. If information posted on this blog is found to be incorrect, we will make changes. We try very hard to make sure what we post is factual.

Every time you, “Reputrace” visit this blog the hits tank shortly thereafter. Could be a coincidence.

Twice in recent weeks comments posted to this blog were corrupted with re-direct code, leading to not found pages. Examples of tags that were re-directed, Enbridge, Suncor, Epcor, most any tag that had anything to do with the wind industry.

We don’t wish to lay blame on anyone but we have now been forced to screen comments for security reasons. So, if we don’t post your comment it is because we feel it might be suspect.

If you have had trouble finding us we would like to apologize on behalf of those responsible.

Please visit Reputrace and say hi

This blog believes in free speech.

Wind Generator and Wind Generating Facility Ordinance for Trempealeau County

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

60 Hours of Wind Power in Ontario

I tracked the wind farm production from 1am on the 23rd of July 2007 until noon July 25th 2007.

At 9am today the four wind farms in Ont. with a total capacity of  396 MWs were producing zero MWs of electricity.

Over the 60 hrs. they produced a total of 1140 MWs. or 19 MWs per hr. which is about 4.8% of the plated capacity.

Many of those hours no electricity was produced and many more were in the 1 to 8 MW range.

The best production was on July 23 between the hrs. of 1am and 6am., the very time when power consumption is at its lowest.

Even though we may not require the power between 1am and 6am we must still buy it at a premium price.

Wind power started as an experiment and has since turned into, thanks to Enron, an investment scheme that has cost taxpayers billions and ruined the lives of the people living near the wind farms.

The Importance of Large Hydro, Clean Coal and Nuclear Technologies within a Future Framework on Climate Change

From the editor
All the environmentalists better take a hard look at this. Looks like wind power is just to create carbon credits. Here comes big Hydro Dams, Big Coal Plants and Nuclear. We need to join forces and take back our electrical system.

T h e e 8 ‘ s r e c o mm e n d a t i o n s
Flexible Mechanisms under a future international framework on climate change must guide investments towards low
greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting options.
International institutions and national governments are increasingly looking to the private sector to invest in development
projects, especially in the case of climate-related initiatives.
To promote private sector involvement, the Flexible Mechanisms must not restrict the types and sizes of technologies and
projects that can be implemented to fight climate change and promote sustainable development.
The e8, an international group of leading electricity companies from the G8 countries, has undertaken small demonstration
projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in the Kingdom of Bhutan and on the Galapagos Islands in Ecuador.
One of the most important lessons from these projects is that Flexible Mechanisms can play a major role in reducing GHG
emissions if large-scale electricity generation projects are permitted and indeed promoted.
The CDM process presents several barriers to project development. As a result, most of the projects registered to date are:
1. Projects targeting gases (HFC, N2O, CH4) with higher global warming potential than CO2 in order to generate a high
volume of CO2 credits and revenue so as to be financially attractive, and;
2. Small- or medium-size low cost energy sector projects.
Barriers to the deployment of large-scale electricity generation technologies should be eliminated in order to promote the
development of projects that will make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gases and increasing access to electricity.

Large-scale electricity generation technologies that should be further promoted by the CDM include:
Large hydro plants – As of December 2006, the CDM Executive Board (CDM EB) had approved only 17 hydroelectric
projects over 15 MW out of 456 CDM projects, of which only a few have installed capacity in excess of 100 MW. The
European Union Emission Trading System (EU ETS) has placed certain restrictions on the recognition of projects
exceeding 20 MW. Credits from hydroelectric projects exceeding 20 MW are only recognised if the projects comply, in
particular, with the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams. Such restrictions have limited the potential
of large hydroelectric projects to contribute to the efforts invested in reducing GHG worldwide. Large hydroelectric
generation projects can support sustainable development and achieve significant reductions in CO2 emissions, and
should thus be fully recognized by the Flexible Mechanisms.
Other large renewable projects – Introducing more renewables in the future energy mix when and where it is
appropriate, will help to ensure security of supply along with the reduction of CO2 emissions. This type of project
should continue to receive strong support through the future framework process.
Large efficient coal power plants – The relative low cost and abundance of coal will ensure that coal-fired electricity
generation will continue as a significant source of electricity generation. Opportunities for improving the efficiency
of coal-fired generation and reducing GHG emissions include implementation of supercritical and other clean coal
technologies, and carbon capture and storage. With the development of appropriate baselines, the reductions in
CO2 emissions associated with these new technologies can be verified and should be recognized by the Flexible
Mechanisms.
Nuclear power plants – Internationally, there is growing recognition that nuclear generation will have to be expanded
to mitigate CO2 emissions while reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Although the international climate change
agreements do not expressly prevent a project developer from proposing such a project to the CDM EB, no nuclear
projects have been presented to date. Nuclear generation must be recognized by the Flexible Mechanisms as a carbon free
source of electricity.

E8 website

Green Party of Canada Opposes Placing Industrial Wind Farms too Close to Homes

The following article is the first of a new series dedicated to local issues. We’ll try to present topics of interest to everyone and we invite readers to share their experience and knowledge on local challenges. This article was written by Bernard Viau, editor of Green Canada Vert and secretary of the electoral district association (EDA) in the Quebec riding of Montmagny L’Islet Kamouraska Rivière-du-Loup, located in the lower Saint-Lawrence river area.

Wind farm projects are being announced every month in Quebec and are growing like mushrooms, but the air is turbulent in the wind industry. The promoters tell us that wind farms will reduce greenhouse gas emissions (but reducing our consumption of meat will do more to reduce the GHG emissions).

Don’t be fooled, the money they are investing in wind energy has nothing to do with the environment. Promoters build wind farms because there is a lot of money to make. Firstly, it’s a tax shelter and a very efficient one. They also receive production bonuses from the government and special credits for reducing air pollution.

Wind farms may be built on private land but they affect the landscape, which is common property, so to speak. Opposition to wind farms has focussed mainly on this spoiling of the landscape. Most of the time, we judge things according to their potential return on investment and so, it is only normal that promoters and shareholders are at loss when one speaks of the “value” of a landscape. In Europe, citizens are complaining that miles of landscape have been destroyed by wind farms; many are even complaining about health hazards associated with them. In Europe, land values have fallen around wind farms, and tourism also. Let’s face it, a wind farm is like a forest of huge towers with intermittent headlights on top of them for airplanes; nobody can miss them!

Also construction needs a lot of cement; a sea of cement would give a better picture. Thousands of trucks, very heavy, very broad and very long, damage the roads, on top of polluting with diesel fumes, noise, vibrations, dust and traffic. House foundations will be affected, and the following spring roads will break up.

In 30 years, if the promoters have not declared bankruptcy to avoid paying for dismantling of wind towers, the foundations will be left to the grandchildren of the original owners. It would be better to force promoters to put money in trust to cover end-of-life dismantling; a form of asset fund for future generations.

If promoters and shareholders had their way, public enquiries would not be necessary. Industrial wind farms are not nice and green like the promoters want us to believe.

Complete Story

Anne Murray lends voice to opponents of N.S. wind farm

By DARRELL COLE The Canadian Press | 5:41 PM

GULF SHORE — Nova Scotia’s songbird wishes a proposed wind farm in Gulf Shore would just fly away.

Singer Anne Murray, who has a summer home in the area, is joining other residents in opposing the construction by Atlantic Wind Power Corp. of 20 to 27 100-metre-high wind turbines in the province’s northwest corner.

“I just think it’s too close. It’s in all our backyards,” said Murray, who grew up in nearby Springhill. “I think wind power is a good thing, and I am all for them when they’re in the right place. I don’t believe these ones are in the right place.”

The project is presently undergoing an environmental assessment. Depending on how that goes, construction could begin in 2009.

Area residents have been fighting the project since it was first proposed and urged Cumberland County to set the distance between the turbines and their properties at a minimum of two kilometres. Instead, the municipality passed a bylaw setting the distance at the greater of three times the height of the turbine, or 500 metres.

Company president Charles Demond has said a two-kilometre setback would kill the project.

Murray feels the concerns being raised by the Gulf Shore Association and area residents aren’t being taken seriously. She believes there are too many unanswered questions surrounding the placement of turbines close to homes, including the effects of noise, vibration and shadow flicker.

“Some people think this is just a bunch of hysterical people opposed to change, but nothing could be farther from the truth,” she said. “These people are in favour of wind power, but the bylaw passed by the county doesn’t set the distance far enough between their homes and these turbines.

“I’m all for progress and I’m all for change, but not this close.”

Murray said she’s also not opposed to using her celebrity to help project opponents because she feels this wind farm will have a “catastrophic” impact on Pugwash and the Gulf Shore area.

The Amherst News

Canada's dumbest politician

Lorrie Goldstein

Thu, April 26, 2007

Canada’s dumbest politician

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a surprise winner for the stupidest comment ever made by a Canadian politician about the environment. We know a lot of you were expecting it would be Stephen Harper, John Baird, Stephane Dion or a member of the Alberta legislature.

But our winner is Dwight Duncan, Ontario’s energy minister, who says Ontario’s Liberal government won’t install scrubbers on the smokestacks of its coal-fired electricity generating stations — among Canada’s, and North America’s, worst emitters of air pollution and greenhouse gases.

As Duncan put it: “We’re not going to spend $1.6 billion on technology that doesn’t help climate change. That’s just dumb.”

Actually, Mr. Duncan, what you’ve just said is dumb. It’s so dumb that whenever anyone looks up “dumb” in the dictionary, there should be a picture of you.

Read the rest of the story it gets worse