Archive for the ‘Kincardine news’ Category

Home near turbines won't sell

May 23, 2008

Editor
A property 900 meters from wind turbines In England had been deemed unsaleable. Most wind turbines in Ont. have a 450 meter setback. Kiss your property value goodbye.

Don’t forget to send your elected officials a card thanking them for their concern.

.

Home near turbines won’t sell – agent

A couple who have been forced out of their home by wind turbine noise have found out their house is unsaleable.

Jane and Julian Davis moved out of their Deeping St Nicholas home in Christmas 2006 after months of sleepless nights due to what they believe is noise and vibration from wind turbines, which are around 900m from their property.

They have long believed it has no value, and their fears have now been proved justified, after estate agents Munton and Russell refused to market the property at Grays Farm.

Mrs Davis said: “We have said for a long time that our house has no market value at the moment.

“But people said ‘put your money where your mouth is’ and prove it. While we knew that was the case, it is still a very painful thing to see written down.”

Russell Gregory wrote to Mr and Mrs Davis saying until the problems with wind turbines were resolved it was impossible to put a current market value on the property as no prospective buyer would want to live there and no mortgage lender would be prepared to lend on it.

He said: “I don’t think I have ever refused one before.

“Everything has a value, but where that value lies with something like this is a bit of an unknown quantity.

“We have a duty towards the buyer but if you can’t sleep there then it is uninhabitable.”

Mr and Mrs Davis own the house but they have another 23 years to run on the tenancy of the farmland.

And if it was not for Lincolnshire County Council relaxing their rules, Mr and Mrs Davis would not be allowed to moved out without losing the land and the bungalow in which Mr Davis’ parents still live.

The whole situation has seen their plans for the future, including extending the house, thrown into turmoil.

Mrs Davis added: “It was all our life’s dreams. We had plans to build on. Everything was ready to proceed but ultimately there was no point.”

By Tom Hughes

Spalding Today

22 May 2008

Wind turbine noise affects health

February 24, 2008

Editor
This is a damning report of the govt., the wind industry and the Provincial and Federal health departments.


research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms”.

Health Canada has never done a study of the health affects of wind turbines on the health of the people. I’ve asked, as have many others, both the Provincial and Federal Health Ministries why there hasn’t been a health study conducted. Now we know.

They already know industrial wind turbines are being placed too close to people and they know they have negative affects. Once you have been run off your property, the ill affects you experienced living next to a 400 ft. high wind turbine will disappear. Using their logic, there is no need for a health study.

d_entremont-point-pubnico.jpg
Daniel d’entremont and his family were forced from their home. The good news is their health is slowly returning to normal. They can’t live in their home any longer, but who cares about a home when you have your health.

Your government doesn’t give a damn, it’s that simple.

.

Wind farm raises health concerns; No long-term effect, says Kingston doctor

Posted By Jennifer Pritchett

Kingston’s public health department will lobby government for more research into the health effects of wind turbines.

Dr. Ian Gemmill, Kingston’s medical officer of health, says there hasn’t been enough monitoring done to determine whether they’re harmful.

Gemmill made the declaration at a board of health meeting this week in response to residents who live near the proposed site of a wind farm to be built on Wolfe Island.

The citizens had asked public health to assess the health risks associated with the turbines, but based on the information that is available, Gemmill said, there is nothing to indicate that wind turbines have any long-term effect on people’s health.

“We haven’t got a lot of evidence to go on right now,” said Gemmill. Gemmill said that though there are concerns about low-level noise, appearance and stress caused by the turbines, research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms.

As well, much of the research that is available, he said, doesn’t appear to come from reputable sources.

“Our conclusion is that while there may be some short-term concerns, this will not have a long-term health effect,” said Gemmill.

Board member Vicki Schmolka told the board that she wasn’t sure that she agreed with Gemmill’s conclusion. She indicated that she felt there are health concerns associated with the turbines that the board should investigate further.

“Seems to me what we’re really saying is that this person needs to move away and they’ll be OK,” she said.

Schmolka, who is also a city councillor, asked Gemmill if he was comfortable saying that there were definitively no long-term health effects from wind turbines.

“I’m saying it’s reversible,” he responded. “I know that people are bothered by this, but the question here is when do we become involved.”

thewhigJennifer Pritchett

Wind turbine noise affects health

According to the results of a new peer-reviewed study made available to us by the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health, the connection between noise and coronary heart disease — particularly at night — is serious.

Wind energy ordinances must include a top limit for how much turbine noise can safely be added to our environment.

More than 15 million Americans currently have some form of coronary heart disease (CHD), which involves a narrowing of the small blood vessels that supply blood and oxygen to the heart. Risk factors for CHD include diabetes, high blood pressure, altered blood lipids, obesity, smoking, menopause, and inactivity.

To this list we can now add noise, thanks to a recent study and assessment of the evidence by the WHO Noise Environmental Burden on Disease working group.

“The new data indicate that noise pollution is causing more deaths from heart disease than was previously thought,” says working group member Deepak Prasher, a professor of audiology.

The working group compared households with abnormally high noise exposure with those with quieter homes. They also reviewed epidemiologic data on heart disease and hypertension, and then integrated these data.

“Many people become habituated to noise over time,” says Prasher. “The biological effects are imperceptible, so that even as you become accustomed to the noise, adverse physiological changes are nevertheless taking place, with potentially serious consequences to human health.”

Chronic high levels of stress hormones such as cortisol, adrenaline, and noradrenaline can lead to hypertension, stroke, heart failure, and immune problems. According to research, arousal associated with nighttime noise exposure increased blood and saliva concentrations of these hormones even during sleep.

“Taken together, recent epidemiologic data show us that noise is a major stressor that can influence health through the endocrine, immune, and cardiovascular systems,” says Prasher.

The broader implications of chronic noise exposure also need to be considered.

“Noise pollution contributes not only to cardiovascular disease, but also to hearing loss, sleep disruption, social handicaps, diminished productivity, impaired teaching and learning, absenteeism, increased drug use, and accidents,” says physician Louis Hagler, who coauthored a review on noise pollution in the March 2007 Southern Medical Journal.

Hagler added, “The public health repercussions of increasing noise pollution for future generations could be immense.”

M. Nathaniel Mead

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Wind Watch News

Wind Generator and Wind Generating Facility Ordinance for Trempealeau County

December 18, 2007

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

Wind Power Flaps

December 18, 2007

 Editor:
Elizabeth May is the leader of the Federal Green Party of Canada. She loves wind farms, even though she doesn’t seem to understand them particularly well. She is just now starting to  understand some of the realities. Credit to her for finally starting to listen to people. The people fighting wind farms are not NIMBY’S, they are citizens with real concerns that are not being properly addressed. The info in her letter about Ont. is completely  wrong. The wind farms that are being built in Ont. are sited just as improperly as the ones her friends in the wind industry say are improper in Nova Scotia. We also have people being driven from their homes here in Ont. I invite anyone who feels a wind farm, proposed or already installed, is improperly sited to give Elizabeth a call or send her an email. Link at end of story.

Wind Power Flaps
July 16th, 2007

This last week there have been a number of wind power related controversies. One played out through the blog pages of this web site; another continues to rage in the little village of Pugwash, Nova Scotia.

There is no question that the Green Party of Canada is unequivocally in favour of wind power. We need to catch up with the rest of the world, with the leadership of Denmark and Germany, to generate a significant amount of energy from wind.

The Green Party is also firmly committed to grassroots decision-making, local democracy, self-determination – however you want to describe the values of supporting the local in the face of global pressures.

What to do when these two commitments appear to be in conflict?

My approach is first to listen. To try and find out what the main objection is to a project that falls within our general mandate, in this case to promote renewable energy.

When I was Executive Director of Sierra Club of Canada, I was contacted by a Nova Scotia man, Daniel D’Entremont, who claimed his and his family’s life was being destroyed by the proximity of his home to a 17 turbine wind farm. He called me because he knew I had worked to help local residents impacted by the Sydney tar ponds and coke ovens site. He thought I was someone who would care.

Helping someone against a wind farm was a real stretch for Sierra Club, but I asked the local Atlantic Canada chapter if they thought there was anything to his claims. I asked a friend who is in the wind energy business to look at the Pubnico Wind Farms and check out the proximity to the D’Entremont home. It was about 400 meters away and yes, their health was suffering. The kids couldn’t sleep well. The family had more headaches. No one helped them. Sierra Club Atlantic Canada Chapter publicly called for relocation for the D’Entremonts and proper siting of wind farms. Still, no one helped. In the end, they abandoned their house and moved.

Last week I had a call from a reporter wondering what I thought about Anne Murray being against a wind farm near Pugwash My first thought was not sympathetic. I think objections to wind farms based on aesthetics, not liking the look of the towers, should give way to the need to shut down coal plants and bring in wind. I disagree with the position taken by someone I admire enormously, Robert Kennedy Jr, who has been against turbines located off the shores of Cape Cod. With Bush’s smog policies (codenamed “Clear Skies”) it would be hard to see the turbines from the famous Hyannis port complex.

Nevertheless, before shooting from the hip, I called around. I went on the company website. I found that it was the same developer who had had conflicts with the D’Entremonts. And, once again, my contacts in the wind energy field in Nova Scotia said this was bad siting. So I stood up for Anne Murray, who is not guilty of NIMBY but is putting herself in the public eye to help a large group of community residents who don’t get the media attention one of Canada’s best loved singers can get.

(She phoned to thank me and said before she had done anything public, she had checked with David Suzuki to see if he thought it was the right thing to do).

Meanwhile, the whole controversy highlights the weaknesses of Nova Scotia’s renewable energy policy. There are no standard offer contracts, as in Ontario, to help bring in lots of smaller, better sited, projects. There are no standard set-backs agreed upon to ensure that renewable energy doesn’t destroy life for the neighbours.

Are there health effects when wind is too close to homes? The literature says yes. Should those of us who believe in wind energy forget the human element? Should local grassroots democracy only matter when we like the result?

Green Party of Canada

Reeve outraged by MPP’s comments

December 12, 2007

Editor
It’s about time the Reeve gets outraged at Carol Mitchell and the McGuinty Govt. Carol Mitchell and the Liberal govt. lied to the people of ACW from the outset and continue to do so. After all the problems with Kingsbridge l, does the Reeve finally have the backbone to tell Mitchell and her lying co-conspirators to piss off once and for all.
carol2.jpg Carol Mitchell thinks that everything David Suzuki says is true. Isn’t that right Carol. Carol, you are just another Suzuki Sheep. Suzuki is a fraud,
Suzuki Says “Sorry, intelligence was never my strong suit.”
and so are you and your Liberal bandits. Lose the smile and hang your head in shame for what you are doing to this province.

Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Township Reeve Ben Van Diepenbeek is outraged at comments by
Huron-Bruce MPP Carol Mitchell

By Sara Bender
Signal-Star Publishing
Wednesday December 12, 2007

Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Township Reeve Ben Van Diepenbeek is outraged at comments by Huron-Bruce MPP Carol Mitchell regarding the township’s wind turbine setbacks.
Mitchell made comments last week on FM 101.7 radio stating that the township is “dragging their feet” by not passing their wind turbine bylaw. She said “the township should move so the Kingsbridge II wind project can begin.”
Firstly, Van Diepenbeek said the township is not passing a wind turbine bylaw but rather a consolidated bylaw for the three wards. He said the township’s consolidated bylaw is not ready to proceed yet and will still have to go through a public process before it can be passed.
“We are not going to pass one part of the bylaw now; we want all of the consolidated bylaw complete,” he said. Van Diepenbeek said Mitchell should know that it is not the township “dragging their feet” but the Ministry of Environment. He said Mitchell was with council when they met the minister several months ago and they have been waiting for information since then so they could move forward.

Globalization : Policy Regime Changes
Complete Restructuring of Energy Sector
PEmerging global energy (and infrastructure)
transnationals that can work within and between
global regions (Hydro Quebec,Enron, others)
P Postwar utility: vertically integrated monopoly
(VIM) : energy production, transmission and
distribution in one firm P Neoliberal idea: divide VIM into different functionally specialized firms
P New functionally specialized firms form an energy sector that is integrated by a market
P All firms/markets within energy sector would need arms length regulation
P New organization provides opportunity structures for transnational investmentGlobalization Electrical Energy

Goderich Signal Star
ACW Council waits for wind word from ministry-Update

Posted on September 6, 2007.

EPCOR is not responding to the public’s concerns.

Posted on January 27, 2007.

Wind Turbine Setbacks-UPDATE Sept.11 2007-

Posted on January 25, 2007.

Best slogan gets a Free Coffee

Posted on January 7, 2007.

Kirby Mountain: U.K. Noise Association: 1 mile setback needed for wind turbines

Posted on December 2, 2006.

 

 

 

 

Senators cut renewable electricity rule from energy bill

December 11, 2007

From the Editor
This looks like what might turn out to be good news. Now the wind industry won’t be able to claim the 15% renewable requirement. I sure hope this passes.

Update: it Passed

Wind Companies tax credits dropped by H. JOSEF HEBERT AP

Tax breaks for a wide range of clean energy industries, including wind, solar, biomass and carbon capture from coal plants, were part of the tax package that was dropped. Senate Democrats earlier also abandoned a House-passed provision that would have required investor-owned utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other renewable sources.

(Click to read entire article)Democratic leaders in the Senate plan to bring an energy bill back to the floor on Thursday, after dropping a provision that would have required utilities to generate a portion of their electricity using renewable energy sources.

“We’re not going to be able to keep in the bill the renewable electricity standard,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today. “That’s too bad.”

Senate leaders were still working on the tax provisions for the bill this afternoon, but Reid said the bill would cost about $21 billion, about the same as the House version.

Last week, the House passed an energy bill that included the renewable electricity language as well as a tax package that would hit the oil and gas companies up for more than $13 billion in higher taxes.

The renewable electricity provision would have required utilities to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity using renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, although 4 percentage points could be made up through greater energy efficiency.

However, utilities in the South had warned they would not be able to meet that standard and would be forced to pass along higher costs to their consumers. And the White House had threatened to veto the bill over that issue.

The bill’s crown jewel — a requirement the nation’s fleet of cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans achieve an average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 — has broad, bipartisan support on Capitol Hill and particular enthusiasm in the Senate.

Proponents argue that requirement would save the nation 1.1 million barrels of oil a day in 2020, comparable to about half the oil the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.

The bill would propel development of technologies to tap sources of “cellulosic” ethanol made from switchgrass, cornstalks and other non-food crops by requiring the nation use 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022.

The legislation would set new energy efficiency standards for appliances such as dish washers and washing machines and phase out the current generation of energy-inefficient, incandescent light bulb.

By David Ivanovich

Houston Chronicle

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

ACW Council waits for wind word from ministry-Update

September 6, 2007

From the editor:

We need more men and women with the backbone and conviction of Councilor
Barry Millian

 

I got involved with the wind farm issue in Oct. 2006. The Kingsbridge l wind farm started operation in the spring of that year in the Twp. of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh. I had no intention of getting involved. I did like a lot of others, I drove by the wind farm in Oct. and my first reaction was that it didn’t directly affect me so don’t worry about it. What made me stop at several farms to see how the people were dealing with the wind farm, I’m not entirely sure. What I found was good honest people, that have been lied to and have had both their lives and property values ruined.

Epcor who built the Kingsbridge l wanted to build Kingsbridge ll even though there were many problems with No. l. The council wanted to give the go ahead with no regard for the people who were already experiencing problems.

I and several others trying to find the truth about wind farms were told by frustrated residents from ACW to contact Councilor Barry Millian. We were told that he was the only one who seemed interested in making sure the residents were protected from adverse effects that might be caused by putting the turbines too close to homes.

We sent Mr. Millian volumes of information on the subject of which he studied. The G.P. van den Berg: “Effects of the wind profile at night is one paper he paid close attention too and it showed why the people living near the wind farm were having problems sleeping at night.

Councilor Millian who under intense pressure to allow Kingsbridge ll to proceed, stood his ground and convinced the council to wait until they got an answer from the ministry with regards to the G.P. van den Berg Report.

They were promised an answer by the end of Feb. 2007. They still do not have an answer to date. It is now promised sometime in Oct., after the Provincial election.

If the govt. acknowledges the G.P. van den Berg Report they will not be able to put the turbines as close to homes as they are.

It appears the govt. is sitting on the report trying to put through as many wind farms as they can before they get caught.

The OMB hearings are a farce when the govt. is withholding information that would force the turbines to be much further from homes.

Was the Enbridge 110 turbine wind farm near Kincardine passed because information was withheld by the govt.?

I asked Marie LeGrow, senior project coordinator for the MOE, how they could go ahead with the OMB hearing for the Enbridge wind farm when they hadn’t completed the study on the G.P. van den Berg Report. I was told that because the Enbridge wind farm was already in process, the report regardless of the outcome, would not affect the Enbridge project

Below is the story from The Goderich Signal-Star

Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Twp. council will not pass its new comprehensive zoning bylaw until the Ministry of Environment responds to the township’s concerns about wind turbines.

At the Aug. 21 meeting, council was to set a date to review comments and changes to the comprehensive zoning bylaw with the planning department. However, Counc. Barry Millian said council should not rush passing the bylaw until the township gets answers back from the ministry following their meeting on July 30 at the Huron County council chambers.

“The minister said she will get back to us in October and we’ve waited this long, why not wait another month?” asked Millian.

Township resident Harry Kerr said the wind turbines neighbouring his property are more than 800 metres away but “damn noisy”.

“The 400 metre setback is not enough,” said Kerr.

Millian urged all council members to study the reports on the wind turbines.

“Nobody is going to disagree with the Ontario government saying that there is a need for renewable energy but we don’t know anything about it and the government just wants us to do it,” said Millian. “We can’t talk to anyone in Ontario about this because it’s new and no one knows anything about it and I challenge anyone in this room to argue with me about this.”

Council agreed to wait for the minister’s response.

By Sara Bender

The Goderich Signal-Star

5 September 2007

We need more men and women with the backbone and conviction of Councilor
Barry Millian

You’re a good man

The Dangers of Wind Power

August 24, 2007

From the Editor:

Ontario and most jurisdictions in North America seem unwilling to learn from the mistakes of others. It is very easy to build clean cost effective electrical systems but our governments keep on chasing the wind dream. The dream will turn out to be a nightmare for the system operators, the farmers who lease their land, the people living near the wind turbines and last but not least the ratepayers who will get hammered with ever rising hydro bills.

The fields will end up as junk yards of rusting broken down turbines . The investors will come out on the good end because the wind industry is a tax scheme not an electrical system.

The report below should help you understand the reality of the wind industry. 

 

[ News Watch Home ]

Wind turbines continue to multiply the world over. But as they grow bigger and bigger, the number of dangerous accidents is climbing. How safe is wind energy?

It came without warning. A sudden gust of wind ripped the tip off of the rotor blade with a loud bang. The heavy, 10-meter (32 foot) fragment spun through the air, and crashed into a field some 200 meters away.

The wind turbine, which is 100 meters (328 feet) tall, broke apart in early November 2006 in the region of Oldenburg in northern Germany — and the consequences of the event are only now becoming apparent. Startled by the accident, the local building authority ordered the examination of six other wind turbines of the same model.

The results, which finally came in this summer, alarmed District Administrator Frank Eger. He immediately alerted the state government of Lower Saxony, writing that he had shut down four turbines due to safety concerns. It was already the second incident in his district, he wrote, adding that turbines of this type could pose a threat across the country. The expert evaluation had discovered possible manufacturing defects and irregularities.

Mishaps, Breakdowns and Accidents

Read the full report 

Wind Power Will Save Us……NOT!

August 19, 2007