Archive for the ‘Gosfield’ Category

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

Disturbing wind brewing

May 8, 2008

Editor:
First, I would like to thank the The Chatham Daily News for printing this story.

Nowhere on the planet has industrial wind energy proved it’s claims. Dalton McGuinty, our esteemed Premier, calls  wind energy  expensive and unreliable. What does that statement infer. To me it says, he is not in charge, but is in fact taking orders. A little research on your part will verify what I have said.

The wind industry is part of the E8 which is about the internationalization of energy. The wind farms are carbon credit creators. They have no other purpose.

I have worked with the people and councilors involved with the Kingsbridge l wind farm for over a year. Kingsbridge l one has been a source of noise, flicker and stray voltage problems since it began operation. One family that has just moved says they are now, after 2 years, finally enjoying a full nights sleep. The nearest turbine to their home was approx. 550 meters.

They have just passed Kingsbridge ll with a setback of 450 meters. Now, if your thinking, wait a minute, if people at 550 meters are having problems then why would they make a setback of only 450 meters.

According to a councilor, at the re-zoning meeting Apr.17th.,  they were told  by lawyers and govt. any setback over 450 meters would prompt an OMB hearing costing the township $100,000 and the township would lose.

Dwight Duncan is on record saying the govt. doesn’t want to force anything on anyone. The truth is exactly the opposite.

The wind industry with the backing of the govt. is picking off small municipal councils one at at time with lies and threats. This should be of grave concern to all citizens in the province.

The old saying “United we stand divided we fall” needs to instituted by all councils in Ont. Until a coalition of councils is formed and it stands united the “wind scourge” will continue unabated.

You, as councilors, were elected to look out for the best interests of your constituents and the community. Too often I have heard to same lame excuses. (1- they will take us to an OMB hearing. (2- we don’t have the resources to fight this.

If you are a councilor and you agree with the above statements, please resign immediately.  Otherwise, educate  your constituents about the fraud that is taking place. It is your duty. As long as you, the council, try and separate yourself from your constituents, the “wind scourge” will continue its unrelenting march across this Province, laying ruin upon the lives and property values of the very people you were elected to protect.  Embrace those who voted for you, tell them the truth.  Get the people on  side through truthful education.

I recently had a comment sent to this blog from a family living at the Ripley wind farm. They are saying that they and their neighbours are suffering from sleep disturbances caused by the noise emitted from the wind turbines and feel their health has deteriorated in the last five months since the arrival of the wind farm. The nearest turbine to their home is 808 meters. If these people are suffering at 808 meters, how can a setback of 450 meters be justified? It can’t.

There is more than ample evidence that the turbines are being sited too close to homes.

The wind industry and the govt. continually saying there is no “ABSOLUTE” proof of these health issues should be a wake up call to everyone. Denial has always been one of the favorite tools of both govt. and big business.

The wind industry is a fraud and the govt. is complicit (choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, esp. with others; having complicity.) The govt. knows that wind (1- does not have the ability to keep the lights on in Ont. (2- wind is not capable of substantially cutting C02 emissions. (3- wind cannot continually power anywhere near the number of homes the industry and govt. claim.

Yet, these are all things being promoted by both the wind industry and the govt.

I always invite the govt. to look at this blog to make sure it is accurate and to let me know if there is anything they think needs to be changed. Govt. agencies visit this blog quite often. So far there have been no requests for any changes.

We try very hard to be as accurate as possible.

Note: The number of visits from K12 schools colleges and universities is  growing daily. The idea that Global warming is a fraud is being accepted by more people everyday. People will find the truth, even when the media works to hide it. Once you wrap your mind around the global warming fraud, you can ask, why are we destroying rural Ont. with wind turbines. Why?

Do your own research

Disturbing wind brewing

An article written in response to articles published in The Chatham Daily News April 15, “Gengrowth wind turbines approved,” and April 17, “Open house held, another wind farm project proposed.”

Don Quixote, in Cervantes’ classic by the same name, gallantly road off on his faithful steed, to slay the haunting, implacable, and ever-present giant — the windmill. Poor Quixote didn’t have a chance.

Concerned residents of Chatham-Kent feel the same frustration as independent companies, such as Gengrowth, and now Calgary based BowArk Energy Ltd. and Windsor-based Wind Prospect Inc. are proposing to add another 50 turbines to the 20 already approved by the Council of Chatham-Kent. Montreal based Kruger Energy is putting up 44 turbines near Port Alma. The windy invasion has just begun.

Many other wind energy companies are lining up with the direction and view to make Chatham-Kent a grid of hulking windmill giants and an eco-industrial park. It is a fast blowing wind. Not only, wind farm projects, but also the token and obligatory information nights cropping up all over the municipality. Interestingly, the information nights follow in the wake of deals cut by turbine developers and individual landowners prior to consultation with the public and a seemingly complicit council. This council represents taxpayers, and has an elected responsibility to protect the municipality’s most important natural, cultural and economic assets. Agricultural land, hundreds of acres, will ultimately be taken out of production. We have a unique fragile ecosystem including Rondeau Provincial Park and conservancy lands. Lake Erie is one of our greatest natural assets, tourist/vacation attractions, and cultural gems. Then there are heritage properties including, the historic Talbot Trail. Community and cultural identity is based on its natural assets and historical roots.

Gengrowth wind turbines are to be situated in a great monotonous line along the historic Talbot Trail, through Palmyra, Morpeth, and stretching out along the shores of Lake Erie. It is hard to imagine that in 2008, precious land bordering beautiful natural beaches and cliffs of Lake Erie will be dotted with giant wind turbines sweeping the countryside.

This is only one of many lines and grids that will weave through, connect, and wind around heritage and cultural landmarks while fencing in small towns and fencing out the natural beauty of rural Chatham-Kent.

While looking up, through and around these hunkering giants, one has to wonder what benefits they bring to Chatham-Kent and surrounding communities. It is interesting to note that some communities, like Leamington, have succeeded in stopping the spread of this invasion. Obviously, with the exception of the landowners who have generously allowed acreage to be taken out of production, very little is said about the economic and employment benefits to the trusting, green-friendly citizens of Chatham-Kent. While the public is assured that “Turbines have a significantly smaller impact on birds and bats than the dangers posed by high-rise buildings, predators or climate change.” What, perhaps, is being ignored is that this area is unique and fragile because it attracts an abundance of unusual bird species, and as a result is considered a Mecca for bird watchers and campers. The impact of turbines and its effect on a distinct and fragile eco system have not been studied to the fullest extent due to the fact that an independent environmental study has not been undertaken or supported by municipal council. Nor has a consultation with the Heritage Committee been initiated by council prior to granting permission to Gengrowth.

Like Quixote, one cannot help but feel an unsettling and disturbing ill wind brewing. While some residents of this municipality embrace wind turbines as a welcome and renewable energy alternative, others find it more prudent to consider the cost and long-lasting effects. The “not in my backyard mentality” is, admittedly, too often a selfish and a shortsighted response. This backyard, however, is species rich, agriculturally fertile and it comes with an enviable historical and cultural legacy.

Hopefully, there are a few Don Quixotes left. It is important and necessary to fight against the smiling giants of profit and opportunity whose false promises of economic benefits are, in this opinion, full of hot air and come at a great expense. It is time to demand that both the provincial and municipal governments preserve the heritage, and unique cultural and natural assets of Chatham-Kent. It is time to “tilt at windmills.”

Patricia Pook

Ridgetown

The Chatham Daily News

8 May 2008

C-K business owner makes case for wind turbine setbacks

February 13, 2008

C-K business owner makes case for wind turbine setbacks

The need for proper setbacks in Chatham-Kent between wind turbines and homes and natural settings was voiced loudly Tuesday by Chatham businessman Harry Verhey.

Verhey told Chatham Sunrise Rotary Club members — of which he is a member — that he isn’t challenging the use of wind turbines, but is convinced there is an urgent need to determine setbacks that are right for the municipality.

“The recent proliferation of industrial wind projects will have a negative impact on the community,” he said. “The massive size of industrial wind turbines conflicts with the scale and character of the Chatham-Kent landscape.”

Verhey said the improper siting of industrial wind turbines will result in the loss of the scenic rural landscape, wildlife habitats and migration routes, peace, quiet and health of our citizens and future economic development opportunities.

Verhey made his comments while introducing Chatham-Kent planning official Ralph Pugliese, the club’s guest speaker.

“We are a unique community and cannot follow provincial minimum setback guidelines of only 250 to 600 metres,” said Verhey.

He said there is a need to come up with new setbacks that are right for the municipality.

“I love this community, its people, the rural landscape and the lifestyle available to us here,” said Verhey. “It’s my hope we will all be able to feel the same way in the future.”

Verhey noted Chatham-Kent is playing host to applications for the installation of hundreds of industrial-sized wind turbines.

“These turbines are of monstrous proportion,” he said. “The Greenfield Ethanol plant stack in Chatham is 260 feet high. The proposed turbines are nearly 400 feet high — as tall as a 40-storey apartment building.”

Verhey said there are many questions regarding how wind turbine developments will affect the surrounding area.

“Will property values decrease, will it stop new construction and future housing developments near by, is wildlife at risk and are there negative health affects?” he asked.

Verhey said he’s convinced the public is unaware of wind turbine developments in Chatham-Kent, planned locations for each turbine and any associated adverse affects.

“We need to evaluate the landscape of the potentially-affected areas, consult with the public and develop a criteria for the public input process,” he said.

Verhey said ads run in local papers by the proponents of wind farms aren’t enough — “for the most part the public is unaware of turbine developments and locations.”

He said significant cultural heritage landscapes, important bird areas, which include wetlands and staging areas, shorelines, the Thames River valley, small rural community’s areas for future development and rural homes need to be protected.

Club member Paul Roy of Pain Court said there is a need for the municipality to hold public meetings to help clear up the confusion that exists about wind turbines.

Larry and Linda Reaume of Erie Beach, club guests, said they would never have purchased their “dream” home at Erie Beach if they knew wind turbines were going to be erected in their backyard.

“We looked for a place to buy for years and finally settled on a home near the lake in south Chatham-Kent in 2006,” said Larry Reaume. “We had no idea the area was ripe for wind turbines.”

Source C-K News 

Sound specialist offers expertise on industrial wind installations

February 6, 2008
Sound specialist offers expertise on industrial wind installations

[ News Watch Home ]

“Understanding Sound Associated with Industrial Wind Developments”, was the theme of the presentation by Rick Bolton, Engineer & Sound Specialist, and sponsored by Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood (CHRN), on Wednesday, January 30, at Perry’s Masonic Temple.

Though Wednesday’s inclement weather prohibited attendance by many from outlying areas, citizens and Town Board members from Perry, Gainesville, Leicester, and Orangeville were there. Mr. Bolton’s presentation was designed to convey a basic understanding of the complexities of sound, effects on humans, and flaws in current analysis standards being employed by wind developers in the U.S.

Mr. Bolton began by explaining that sound associated with wind turbines is an extremely complex issue, and one that needs thorough analysis. “Sounds are waves – just like light and water,” he said. These sound waves are measured in deci-Bels (dB, or dBA – A-weighted deci-Bels – most closely imitate the human ear).

“Human audibility is extremely sensitive,” he said. “In fact, far more sensitive than anything we can use to record sound electronically. While the human ear can detect to 0 dBA, the lowest range even the most expensive noise meters can measure is 14 dBA.”

Elaborating on the factors that can amplify sound, Bolton pointed out:

1.) Sound can propagate for over a mile, and even further over water;

2.) Sound gets worse in water (i.e. – ice, fog);

3.) Low frequencies can double sound by refraction off hard surfaces (hillsides, snow-pack);

4.) ‘Wave Coherence’, created by a number of turbines together, amplifies sound;

5.) When the wind is blowing, it can refract noise from the elevated source-point downward;

6.) Sounds below 30 Hz, termed ‘infrasound’, create serious health problems (turbines have been indicated as being a strong source of ‘infrasound’)

7.) Ice-loading on the front edge of turbine blade tips disturbs air flow around the blade, creating turbulence, and increasing sound.

8.) Modulation occurs when the blade compresses air as passing the mast of the turbine, and is worsened by large groups of turbines’ blades not operating in sync. (Bolton has never seen modulation addressed in any wind developer provided studies.)

Bolton explained the many ways wind developers methodology is flawed. Field measurements are not done correctly (i.e. – improper microphone placement, no justification for sampling sites, etc.); accurate samplings need to be done for a full year to account for seasonal variations, but aren’t; and computer prediction models wind developers rely on are inadequate because they don’t account for modulation, coherence, refraction, and icing.

Facts contained in Perry’s DEIS from the sound study done by Horizon for Perry were brought up that highlighted Bolton’s point that sound studies being done are totally inadequate: “5 monitoring locations; Survey was carried out over roughly a 3-week period; Unfortunately, 3 primary & 2 backup instruments were destroyed by water infiltration, so octave band data could not be collected for ALL positions for the entire 3-week survey; There were a number of periods of either inclement weather or low wind speeds – conditions that are not generally useful; General conditions of temperature, barometric pressure, & wind for the survey period are shown in plots below as observed at DANSVILLE, NY – some 20 miles southeast of the site.”

Illustrating and explaining his points with numerous charts and graphs that were part of his presentation, he also included examples and measurements from homes that had been abandoned by their owners due to the resulting life-altering health effects of living too close to turbines. Not surprisingly, these health problems have been linked to sleep disturbances.

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend that sound level should not exceed 30 dBA for a good night’s sleep. WHO also unanimously agrees that noise levels greater than 42 dBA create sleep disturbances, and that disturbed sleep has serious health effects.

Bolton explained that rural country settings currently enjoy extremely quiet night-time noise levels of 20 – 30 dBA. However, wind developers typically propose 50 dBA as acceptable noise levels at property lines of neighboring homes to their industrial wind installations. They do so despite the fact that the NYS DEC recommends no more than a 6 dBA increase over existing night-time ambient noise levels.

“Every 6 dBA is a perceived doubling of sound, or loudness,” Bolton said. When you understand this, you can begin to understand the problems that are occurring from siting these facilities far too close to people’s homes in rural areas. Bolton’s research suggests that 3,000′ – 5,000′ setbacks from the nearest property line should be the rule of thumb.

Neither citizens, nor the town officials being rushed through zoning, siting, and approval processes by wind developers truly understand the vast difference between 30 and 50 dBA until it is too late. Bolton stressed the importance of “getting it right” before allowing industrial wind facilities to be built, since mitigation after the fact is not available. He has yet to see wind developers do any follow-up studies for those now experiencing problems. They simply ignore them.

Bolton also explained that NY Townships are perpetuating flawed methods by accepting, and placing in their ordinances, the 50 dBA sound levels being submitted by wind developers, without demanding justifications – despite the fact that this is contrary to SEQR rules. NYS DEC’s Environmental Conservation Rules for SEQR state that the noise pollution potential must be evaluated at each affected “receptor”.

NYS DEC’s Program Policy, “Assessing & Mitigating Noise Impacts”, states: “When a sound level evaluation indicates that receptors may experience sound levels or characteristics that produce significant noise impacts, or impairment of property use, the Department is to require the permittee or applicant to employ necessary measures to either eliminate, or mitigate, adverse noise effects.”

If our townships fail to hold developers accountable to required standards, “we will lose the privilege, and precious asset, of having the peace and quiet of the country,” he said.

Mr. Bolton then took questions from the crowd. In response to questions asking what he thought of being “surrounded” by up to 23 turbines within 1.5 miles of their homes, he answered, “I would be VERY concerned if I were you.”

When asked if he has conducted any studies in the Perry area, Bolton replied that he had. Those who attended Perry’s Public Hearing October 16, 2006, will remember Mr. Bolton adding his comments, and handing in the study he did for Perry to the Board that evening. (Mr. Bolton’s comments on the Noise Issue can be found in the Comments to Perry’s DEIS under H-1, pages 1-24.)

By Mary Kay Barton

Batavia Daily News

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