Archive for the ‘farming the wind’ Category

Winds Turbines and Health

September 28, 2009

Editor:

Fairchild Television contacted me in June and in July their film crew came to the Ripley wind farm to shoot a feature about the negative affects of living near wind turbines.

Originally over 12 minutes I edited it so only the English parts remain. If I can get it translated I will post more of the video.

I wish to thank Sherona and her crew for making the trip from Toronto, also Fairchild Television for the original production.

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

In Rural New York, Windmills Can Bring Whiff of Corruption'

August 18, 2008

Editor: I have been
writing and posting about the wind fraud for two years. It’s time for govt. of all stripes to come clean. What’s behind the wind industry?
Read the Green Agenda.

Corruption

Christinne Muschi for The New York Times

Kathy Laclair of Churubusco, N.Y., dislikes the noise from the wind turbine blades and says their shadows give her vertigo.
More Photos >

‘In Rural New York, Windmills Can Bring Whiff of Corruption’);

‘The wind industry has arrived in force in upstate New York, but some residents say the companies have brought with them an epidemic of corruption and intimidation.’);

Published: August 17, 2008

BURKE, N.Y. — Everywhere that Janet and Ken Tacy looked, the wind companies had been there first.



Christinne Muschi for The New York Times

To some upstate towns, wind power promises prosperity. Others fear noise, spoiled views and the corrupting of local officials.
More Photos »

Dozens of people in their
small town had already signed lease options that would allow wind
towers on their properties. Two Burke Town Board members had signed
private leases even as they negotiated with the companies to establish
a zoning law to permit the towers. A third board member, the Tacys
said, bragged about the commissions he would earn by selling concrete
to build tower bases. And, the Tacys said, when they showed up at a
Town Board meeting to complain, they were told to get lost.

“There were a couple of times when they told us to just shut up,”
recalled Mr. Tacy, sitting in his kitchen on a recent evening.

Lured
by state subsidies and buoyed by high oil prices, the wind industry has
arrived in force in upstate New York, promising to bring jobs, tax
revenue and cutting-edge energy to the long-struggling region. But in
town after town, some residents say, the companies have delivered
something else: an epidemic of corruption and intimidation, as they
rush to acquire enough land to make the wind farms a reality.

“It really is renewable energy gone wrong,” said the Franklin County
district attorney, Derek P. Champagne, who began a criminal inquiry
into the Burke Town Board last spring and was quickly inundated with
complaints from all over the state about the wind companies. Attorney
General Andrew M. Cuomo agreed this year to take over the investigation.

“It’s a modern-day gold rush,” Mr. Champagne said.

Mr.
Cuomo is investigating whether wind companies improperly influenced
local officials to get permission to build wind towers, as well as
whether different companies colluded to divide up territory and avoid
bidding against one another for the same land.

The industry
appears to be shying away from trying to erect the wind farms in more
affluent areas downstate, even where the wind is plentiful, like Long
Island.

But in the small towns near the Canadian border, families
and friendships have been riven by feuds over the lease options, which
can be worth tens of thousands of dollars a year in towns where the
median household income may hover around $30,000. Rumors circulate
about neighbors who can suddenly afford new tractors or trucks.
Opponents of the wind towers even say they have received threats; one
local activist said that on two occasions, she had found her windshield
bashed in.

Full Article from the NY Times

'Windfarm output is never zero. Sometimes it's less'

July 3, 2008

Editor:This research should, once and for all, answer any questions about wind power.

All pain and no gain for the users of electricity and the environment.
Nothing but a massive con by govt., big business and the media.
Really, what is a wind turbine? A steel stick with a whirligig on top.
Not something I want to depend on for my electrical needs.

Not only is wind a poor way to produce the power required, the turbines are being placed
too close to homes and having a negative affect on people.

Pie in the sky ideas will never provide the power we require. We need real power and we need it now.

Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought

In a just-released article for the journal Energy Policy, titled Will British weather provide reliable electricity?, consulting engineer Jim Oswald and his co-authors model the output to be expected from a large, 25+ gigawatt UK windfarm collection of the type the government says it would like to see in service by 2020. Wind is generally seen as the renewable technology best suited to the UK climate, and so it forms the bulk of most renewables plans for Blighty.

One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at wind power is variability. That is, when the wind drops (or blows too hard) the windmills stop spinning and you get no power. To begin with, Oswald simulates the output rises and falls that might result from a lot of windfarms distributed around the UK by using Met Office archived data from different points up and down the land. Many wind advocates have argued that with enough windfarms, widely enough distributed, you would get more reliable power output as some windmills would always have wind.

Oswald’s analysis says this isn’t true, with calm conditions across pretty much all the UK being fairly regular events.

Analysis from 1996 to 2005 shows similar results: large, rapid, and frequent changes of power output being common occurrences … any national power system has to manage under the worst case conditions likely to occur … These are not extreme cases, whose frequency is so low as to render the events negligible. Rather, these are representative …

If the government succeeds in building its mighty 25 gigawatts of wind base by 2020, according to Oswald’s Met Office data-based model its output will dip to pretty much nothing fairly routinely.

The next line of defence for wind advocates is normally the idea of hooking up the UK’s grid with high-capacity links to those of other European nations, creating a “Supergrid” with wind so widely spread that output would be sure to even out. But Oswald has bad news for that idea, too. He compares his modelled UK big-wind output with that which has been produced in recent times by other European wind bases, particularly the substantial German/Danish one.

Modelled 25 GW British and actual continental EON wind load factors compared.

Ill winds blow nobody any good.

Not only does the large continental wind base exhibit nasty rollercoaster surges in aggregate output, these surges tend to match those to be expected in the UK. When the wind isn’t blowing across most of the UK, it isn’t blowing in Germany, Denmark etc. either. Worse still, this happens in the dead of winter when electricity demand is highest.

There is good agreement between the model and the [real-world European wind power output] data, which further supports the argument that wind output is controlled by the arrival and dispersal of large low-pressure systems moving over the coasts of Western Europe.

Being an engineer, Oswald examines the worst situations that occurred in his time frame – those that engineers would need to design the system to cope with. The nastiest situation that could happen would be early-evening flat calms in winter.

Read the full report

AIM representatives misled Essex council-Anderson Said

February 1, 2008
 Editor:
The wind industry is based on false information and  false promises. The wind industry will never agree to a real debate because  the scam would be exposed. Mr. Anderson did a good job of exposing parts of the misinformation that the wind industry is allowed to put forward. Councils need to be more forceful with the industry. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Developer dominates wind power “discussion” meeting


By Andy Comber

A Toronto-based wind power company’s presentation overshadowed what was to be a scheduled “wind farm discussion” by Essex Town Council, held prior to the regular council meeting, Jan. 21.

“Currently, we have four projects in southern Ontario,” said Mike Crawley, president and CEO of AIM PowerGen Corporation. Crawley spoke to council after presenting a six-page outline on wind power, which included details on a 24-turbine project southwest of Harrow.

“We started testing wind in the region in the last year and a half,” said Crawley, speaking of the Harrow Wind Power Project in Colchester South, bordered north to south by Gore Road and County Road 50, and east to west by Dunn Road and County Road 41.

“We’re extremely hopeful to move the project forward,” he said.

AIM’s outline expressed the company’s concerns over the draft report of Essex County’s Windpower and Renewable Energy Planning Study prepared by the Jones Group, a consultant team working to define county land use policies for renewable energy projects, including wind, solar and biomass digesters.

“The recommendations in the Jones Group report are far more restrictive than in any Ontario county that has seen wind power projects built,” the AIM outline stated.

Ward 3 Councillor Paul Innes agreed with AIM’s concern that the county plan was “more stringent” than those set out by the province, leaving little room for lower tier municipalities, such as Essex, to account for local circumstance.

“I don’t see the need to be so restrictive,” said Innes, who asked council to support standards closer to the minimums established by the province.

Other councillors expressed concern over the impact of placing the towering wind turbines within sight of the many communities on the shoreline. The turbines proposed are 80 metres high at the hub, with 40-metre-long blades.

“Can you provide a map of where they are planning to go?” asked Deputy Mayor Richard Meloche, who expressed concern about placement in relation to residents.

Ward 3 Councillor Ron Rogers expressed concern over the intermittent nature of wind power. The province is still dependent on fossil-fuel power plants, the only facilities that can ramp up or down to allow for wind power.

“You can’t use nuclear or hydro, they run constantly,” he said.

Rogers also expressed concern over water vapour released into the atmosphere by fossil-fuel plants to adjust for wind power. Water vapour is considered a greenhouse gas, contributing up to two-thirds of the “greenhouse effect” which warms the Earth.

“It’s not a silver bullet,” answered Crawley, who agreed that wind power was only part of the solution in the search for alternative energy sources.

Members of the Essex County Wind Action Group (ECWAG), which is lobbying for the responsible development of wind power in Essex County, expressed concern that the meeting, which was identified as a “wind farm discussion” on council’s agenda, was “one-sided”.

“The legitimate concerns brought forward by many residents were not even touched on,” said Bill Anderson, chair of ECWAG, which places the effects of wind turbines on humans and wildlife at the top of their list of concerns. ECWAG includes members from across the county, including the town of Essex, but they were not invited to speak at the meeting, Anderson noted.

“AIM’s representative told (Essex) council that for siting purposes Harrow’s population density is ‘comparable’ to areas where they are operating turbines presently, when in fact it is five times as populous,” Anderson said. “We urge residents living along the shoreline near County Road 50 to sit up and pay attention to what is happening right now, as this may have a serious impact on your property values.”

Anderson said that the AIM representatives misled Essex council on many other issues, including their explanation on how Ontario’s power grid operates.

“Calling gas and coal an ‘intermediate’ power source between nuclear and wind power is fictitious to the extreme,” he said.

The Essex Free Press

Worldwide rush for wind power could result in massive debt

November 30, 2007

Posted November 30, 2007

As told in a recent ad, a Johnsburg farmer who will host wind turbines now has many regrets.

He regrets having been the “lure” to draw in other unsuspecting landowners. He regrets that he has allowed fields to be subdivided, road base to be spread on land once picked bare of rocks, costly tiling to be cut up. He regrets that he’s no longer the person who controls his own land and is now told where to go by security guards. He regrets the divide he has created between friends, between neighbors and between family members.

He regrets not having looked into all the ramifications first. That farmer is now locked in to a binding contract. But there are many landowners who have not yet suffered this fate.

Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy asks that landowners considering a contract first step back and study the issues. As with any financial transaction, don’t put a lot of trust in those who stand to gain financially.

Look for Web sites and information from those experiencing the effects of this worldwide “gold” rush for wind power. People across world are rebelling. They’re finding that they’ve lost control of their land and their lives. And they’re in danger of financial hardship if these companies dissolve.

Our irresponsible government representatives are forcing this “windfall” for wind investors on us. Their knee-jerk reaction to the global climate change alarms will cause billions of dollars to be wasted, lives to be ruined, and environments degraded for what is, in actuality, a very inefficient energy source.

With a declining tax base and state and U.S. legislators driving us further into massive debt, taxpayer subsidies for wind will be impossible to maintain.

And with the subsidies gone, what will you be left hosting?

Don Bangert,

Chilton

postcrescent.com

Kincardine-Coldest day of the year

January 25, 2007

7pm temp in Kincardine Ontario is -15, windchill is -22 and we have 413 mw of wind capacity.

The wind farms, which are causing many problems for families living near them, are producing at 7pm, a grand total of 43 mw or 10.5% of their rated capacity.

Let us bow our heads and pray we never have to depend on the wind to keep us warm.

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

 

Landowners be Aware

January 13, 2007
Signing it all away for crumbs from the table

wulfshagen04.jpg
click image full size

From Kirbymtn blogspot

“A copy of a boilerplate easement agreement between a windfarm developer and a landowner has crossed my desk. Those who have already seen such contracts have remarked on the irony of landowners defending their right to do what they want with their own land against the considerations of their neighbors but signing away that very right to the wind company.”

“The contract is for 2 years, and then 20 years once a turbine is installed, with the developer retaining the option to extend it another 30 years after that. Of course, the developer can terminate the deal at any time. The owner can’t.”

for more information click link
http://www.savewesternny.org/landowners.html

Although this information is from NY State it is still important

crash1.jpg
click image full size