Archive for the ‘Liberal energy policy’ 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.

Shut up and pay for your windmill

March 1, 2009

Shut up and pay for your windmill

David Frum, National Post Published: Saturday, January 03, 2009

Must we destroy the environment in order to save it? In the province of Ontario, the answer seems to be “yes.” This month, the Liberal provincial government of Dalton McGuinty will finish drafting its proposed Green Energy Act. The Act’s early drafts call for a big increase in renewable energy production in Ontario. Sounds nice! How do we get there? The plan contains two big elements: (1) a huge cash giveaway and (2) a brusque slap-down of local democracy. Let’s talk about local democracy first. Communities often resist wind and solar power for the simple reason that they ruin the beauty of local landscapes. When you think of wind power, for example, don’t think of the solitary turbine that overtops the CNE grounds in Toronto. To meet the goals set out in the Green Energy Act, Ontario will have to build tens of thousands of these massive turbines, linked by a vast network of electrical transmission wires. Many hundreds of these turbines are proposed for my own beloved Prince Edward County. When people in places such as Prince Edward County hear about “the environment,” they think of their environment. They think responsible stewardship means protecting what is lovely and natural. To them, it seems perverse to ruin the landscape in the name of preserving the environment. So they resist. To deal with this resistance, the Green Energy Act proposes to strip local governments of their zoning powers. (In the draft’s own words, the province will propose: “Streamlined regulatory and approvals processes that enable the rapid but prudent development of green energy projects across the province, reducing uncertainty and transaction costs to all involved.”)

Read more at Financial Post

wind turbines towering over farm

China Building 500 Coal Plants

January 29, 2009

At the two minute mark of the video below, from Australia, we learn that China is building 500 coal plants over the next ten years — One new power plant every four days.

China is  exempt from KYOTO

Think About it!

In Ontario, Canada, the govt. is filling rural Ont. with wind turbines under the guise of saving the environment and closing our four coal plants. ( wind has never been responsible for the closure of any fossil fuel plant)

We are going to close four coal plants at the same time China builds one every four days.

Think About it!

In the USA Obama said he will bankrupt the coal plants.

Think About it.

The Scam is Huge

and

it’s not about saving the environment and it’s not Green

Think About it!

Where is Maurice Strong? Father of Kyoto and Mentor of Al Gore and David Suzuki

CHINA


Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Think About it!

Man decries 'intimidation tactic' Critic of Wolfe Island wind plant issued cease-and-desist order

September 12, 2008

What can I say – Industry and govt. working together = citizens take a back seat.

Posted By JENNIFER PRITCHETT WHIG-STANDARD STAFF WRITER

   

The Calgary-based company building a $410-million wind plant on Wolfe Island has issued a cease-and-desist letter to a citizen it claims is spreading “false and defamatory statements.”

Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. sent the letter in connection with a statement made by Wolfe Island resident Chris Brown, an outspoken

critic of some aspects of the project.

Brown, a local musician, is one of a handful of citizens who sit on a community liaison committee Canadian Hydro set up last year to answer local concerns about the project.

Brown regards the letter as an attempt to gag critics of the project.

“It’s an intimidation tactic,” he said.

Brown said he isn’t against wind power or the Canadian Hydro project on Wolfe Island. He does want to see the 86 turbines that are being erected there placed in areas where they won’t impact wildlife or people.

The cease-and-desist letter goes back to an e-mail Brown sent to former St. Lawrence College president Volker Thomsen and others, following an international wind energy conference at the college in June.

Brown said he hoped “the examples brought to light by the conference can prevent Wolfe Island from becoming an autopsy of grid monopoly and community exclusion.”

Canadian Hydro took exception to his comments, saying they suggest the firm “has no respect for the environmental and regulatory process and fails to consult with the community.

“Canadian Hydro has conducted itself in a responsible manner throughout the approval process,” stated the cease-and-desist letter.

The letter, written by Canadian Hydro’s Toronto-based lawyer Paul B. Schabas, warns Brown of the possibility of future legal action.

“Should you persist in this course of conduct, please be advised that our client will proceed against you and pursue all legal and equitable remedies available to it without further notice being provided to you. Kindly govern yourself accordingly,” Schabas wrote.

When theWhig-Standardrequested an interview with Canadian Hydro about the letter, the firm issued a short statement from Geoff Carnegie, its development manager for the Wolfe Island project.

In it, Carnegie wrote that Brown’s “claim of community exclusion overlooks three and a half years of community consultation by Canadian Hydro, as documented in the Environmental Review Report.

“The purpose of our letter to Mr. Brown was to insist that he act responsibly and utilize the relevant facts in his arguments.” Brown said he refuses to be quieted. “I will continue to exercise my right

to free speech and advocate for a full and transparent public review of this project, just as I will continue to participate in the community liaison group to ensure proper communication between proponent and citizenry,” he wrote in a response to Canadian Hydro.

The Kingston Wig Standard

The Wind Energy Scam- Compare the Numbers

July 11, 2008

Editor:

Let me start by saying, I’m no fan of Mr.Harper.

Both Harper and Dion are TRAITORS.

Dion wants Canada to be ruled by the unelected officials at the UN

and

Harper wants to integrate us with the US and Mexico.

Either way Canada will no longer call the shots concerning it’s future.

Dion and Suzuki keep screaming about “EVIL CO2″.

They, along with the wind industry keep telling us we should be more like Denmark and Germany.

Why? It’s not because of their low CO2 emissions.

Why is India Electricity – production by source:fossil fuel: 81.7%
hydro: 14.5%
nuclear: 3.4%
other: 0.3% (2001)
and China exempt form Kyoto. Their CO2 emissions are higher than ours.
Do some research.

Denmark
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 82.7%
hydro: 0.1%
nuclear: 0%
other: 17.3% (2001)
(They have been using wind since the 70’s)

Germany
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 61.8%
hydro: 4.2%
nuclear: 29.9%
other: 4.1% (2001)
(We are told that Germany has more wind energy than anyone,yet Germany is in the process of building 20+ new coal plants)

Canada
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 28%
hydro: 57.9%
nuclear: 12.9%
other: 1.3% (2001)

Looks to me that the rest of the world should be following Canada.

We are told we need to follow the examples of Denmark and Germany. Why?
Even if they managed to cut their emissions from fossil fuel by 50% they would still have higher emissions than us.

We need to recall our elected officials today and demand an explanation.

Ontario could have put the scrubbers on the coal plants and built a new nuke for about 10 billion- according to the senior policy adviser for the ministry of energy.
Instead we are spending between 60 and 70 billion on a faulty dream.

No money for health, education or agriculture.
There is no excuse for the massive fraud taking place in this country.

Read Agenda 21 and Cloak of Green both found here

Have some fun – Google Enron,Al Gore,Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton.

http://www.windfarms.wordpress.com.

Enjoy the day and the scam

Ron

Britain’s Climate Madness

July 3, 2008

Absurd and Costly

There is not the faintest chance that 7,000 wind turbines can be constructed in this time, given the construction capacity restrictions and tight timetable. But, even if the turbines

were built, this would not be the end of the matter. Britain would still require a considerable back-up of conventional electricity-generating capacity because the turbines would frequently produce no electricity at all, given the fluctuation in wind speeds. Paul Golby, Chief Executive of E.ON UK, has said that this back-up capacity would have to amount to 90% of the capacity of the wind turbines, if supplies were to be reliable. This would be an absurd, and costly, misallocation of resources, with the extra costs falling on households and businesses. But, costs apart, there is yet another problem. And that is whether the necessary back-up capacity is likely to be available.

The current Government has woefully neglected Britain’s energy infrastructure, and much of Britain’s current electricity-generating capacity is due for closure over the next 10 to 15 years. Most of Britain’s ageing nuclear power stations are due to be decommissioned, and half of Britain’s coal-fired power stations are due to be retired because of the EU’s Large Combustion Power Directive (concerned with controlling emissions of, for example, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides). Under these circumstances, there is a very real risk that there will not be adequate conventional back-up capacity despite the Government’s welcome acceptance of the need for nuclear power (there will inevitably be delays in construction) and the operation of new gas-fired capacity (which, incidentally, makes Britain unduly dependent on imports, as our own supplies are dwindling fast).

The prospect of power cuts is, therefore, all too real. Brutally, the lights could go out, and business and the public services, now so dependent on computers, would suffer. The folly of putting so many eggs in the basket of wind power is the height of irresponsibility.

The EU’s Renewables Directive: Disproportionate Burden

The Government’s ‘dash for wind’ in order to develop a “low-carbon economy” is, of course, part of its climate-change policy of cutting carbon emissions in order to “combat global warming”. Any expansion of nuclear power would also curtail carbon emissions, and, indeed, if one believes that a low-carbon economy is a good idea (perhaps for security reasons as well as ‘saving the planet’), one might ask why not allocate far more resources to nuclear power and far fewer to renewables.

Alas, this would not be permitted under the EU’s 2008 Renewables Directive.(1) Under this Directive, the UK has agreed to meet 15% of its energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. Whilst renewables include biomass, solar power, wind, wave/tide, and hydroelectricity, nuclear power is excluded. Insofar as the Renewables Directive is part of the EU’s policy of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990, this is perverse to say the least.

Whilst the UK has a 15% renewables target for 2020, just 1.5% of energy consumption was met by permissible renewables in 2006.(2) The UK has committed itself, therefore, to increase its renewables share ten-fold by 2020. With the possible exceptions of Malta and Luxembourg, the UK is faced with by far the greatest challenge in reaching its 2020 target. In addition, the unit costs in the UK are relatively high because Britain lacks access to cheap biomass resources in the electricity and heat sectors, and is placing greater reliance on high cost, expensive electricity technologies, such as wind (mainly) and wave/tidal. By contrast several EU countries are well-placed, including Austria, Finland, and Sweden, as are many of the central and eastern European countries.

It is, therefore, unsurprising that the UK is likely to carry a disproportionate burden of the costs of meeting the EU’s 2020 renewables target. According to a study by Pöyry Energy Consulting, the UK could carry around 20-25% of the total EU costs.(3) Pöyry has estimated that the annual cost in 2020 could be around £150 to £200 per UK household, and the lifetime costs up to 2020 would be £1,800, even as high as £2,800, per UK household. These are significant sums, and they are likely to be under-estimates.

Given my earlier comment that the Government’s plans for 7,000 wind turbines will not be achieved by 2020, there is no chance that we will meet the renewables target. (And, in any case, 7,000 turbines, even if built, are apparently inadequate for Britain to meet the 15% target.) The Government is living in fantasy-land – but it seems hell-bent on pursuing an energy policy which will be costly, will dangerously distort energy policy, and will leave the country vulnerable to black-outs.

The Economic Effects

Even if the lights stay on, it is clear that the Government’s current strategy will lead to higher and less competitive energy prices in Britain, other things being equal. For households, especially low income and pensioner households, this will bite into general living standards. Businesses, especially energy intensive industries, will continue to lose competitiveness and will migrate overseas to, say, India or China. The Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG) estimates that various ‘green measures’ (the Renewables Obligation, the Climate Change Levy, and the costs of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme) already account for a quarter of total energy costs for their members. The situation will surely deteriorate. Britain’s chemicals, cement, and steel industries, to name but three, are likely to shrink, jobs will be lost, and the balance of payments will deteriorate.

Wind power: is it a realistic option?

July 3, 2008

Wind power: is it a realistic option? – Money Week

Is wind power as green as it seems?

Denmark is the world’s most wind-intensive state with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. But this figure is misleading, says Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies. Not one conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed.

In fact, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.

Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is “expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green”, says Lodge.

Full Story-Money Week

Wind Turbines Being Erected All Over Rural Ontario – Destroying Lives and Property Values

June 19, 2008

This could be your home if you live in rural Ontario

The Enbridge wind farm Kincardine

115 turbines being erected right now

Today at 8 am the 472MWs of wind energy in Ontario were producing 8Mws

WOW!

Energy you can never count on

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine
click for full size

The Enron scam continues

Below is a video from the Suncor wind farm, Ripley Ontario. Since the video was made several families moved out of their homes because of the noise. Suncor has shut down some of the turbines so the people could move home.

Bigger setbacks are required.

A councilor who voted for the wind farm in Ripley, and has at least one turbine on the property, has been forced to leave the farm after suffering headaches, nosebleeds and sleep disturbances caused by the wind turbines. The closest turbine to the home is 700 meters.

Maybe that’s a form of poetic justice.

The Ripley council was warned about the negative affects that would occur if the turbines were within 1km of homes. Evidence suggests a setback of 1mile or 1.5km is required as a buffer between a home and a turbine.

Most setbacks in Ontario range from 300 – 450 meters.

How many families have to suffer, before the govt. wakes up to the reality that wind turbines are being placed too close to homes.

Or do they even care?

.

This also happened at the Port Burwell Wind farm, severe headaches and nosebleeds. The result, the family was bought out by the developer.

Wherever wind farms have been erected in Ontario, both people and animals are suffering from both noise and stray voltage.

I got a call from a farmer the other day, who says the feet on his bull are burnt because of stray voltage, he also lost many calves last spring.

YET

The MOE in Ontario continues to allow new wind farms while refusing to call for a health study or require realistic setbacks.

The bastardization of Ontario continues unabated

Thank Dalton McGuinty
a
UN Puppet

'Climate Chancellor' a Failure?

June 3, 2008

Editor:
Mr. McGuinty, have a taste of reality.

Your energy policy is a disaster for the Province and its citizens. Everyday, more people understand the error of your ways.

To date the media has been quiet, but they too are becoming informed of your flawed policies, thanks to everyday citizens. The media will turn on you and that change is not far off.

You have neglected Health Care, Education, Manufacturing and Agriculture in your quest to save us from the nonexistent  global warming, climate change “boogie man”.

In the process you have put the above in jeopardy,  while squandering billions.

The province of Ontario belongs to us, not you and your cable (a combination or clique of partisans of any kind, acting for their own interests, especially if greedy, clamorous, and reckless of the common good.) of fools.

Never forgot to fear the voter Mr. McGuinty

Wake up Mr. Mcguinty –  wake up to the reality of what you are doing to this once proud Province.

You are fast becoming the main character in

“The Emperor has no Clothes”

or

McGuinty – UN Puppet

Do what your energy adviser suggested – Put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build a nuke.

.

Is Germany’s ‘Climate Chancellor’ a Failure?

By Dirk Kurbjuweit and Christian Schwägerl

A year after pitting herself against the world’s leaders over climate change, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has backed down and gone silent on key environmental policies. It seems that the one opponent she can’t bear confronting is the German voter.

Once a hero to environmentalists worldwide, Angela Merkel is faltering badly on climate change policy.

REUTERS

The German chancellor in Greenland: Once a hero to environmentalists worldwide, Angela Merkel is faltering badly on climate change policy.

This is the so-called “climate chancellor?” This woman who, at the International Transport Forum in Leipzig, spoke enthusiastically about the nearby air freight hub, economic growth and the transport of goods? Who suddenly seems awkward and at a loss for words when it comes time to talk about climate protection? Who has stopped offering answers on the subject and only asks questions, like: Does it make sense to subsidize electricity from renewable sources? Is it fair to expect the owners of older cars with high CO2 emissions to pay higher taxes?

Environment Minister Gabriel repeatedly makes a big production out of his efforts to impose as little a burden as possible on citizens, especially those of lesser means. However, the tenants’ rights fight only intensified the battle between the environment and economics ministries, which is crippling the government.

Staffers at the Economics Ministry say that Gabriel’s officials are pleased when the citizen suffers. In return, the Environment Ministry maintains that the Economics Ministry does everything in its power to prevent anything that works. The relationship between Glos and Gabriel, the most important relationship in Merkel’s cabinet when it comes to climate policy, isn’t working.

The government has not even managed to ensure that consumers can gain access to electricity generated by wind turbines. Many hundred kilometers of new power lines are needed to transport electricity from the plants in northern and eastern Germany to the country’s south, where a number of nuclear power plants are scheduled to be gradually phased out. The necessary expansion of the power grid has been held up by citizen protests, red tape and costs.

To address these problems, Economics Minister Glos supports a law that is now scheduled to be part of the cabinet resolution on June 18. But because he fears citizens’ initiatives against new power lines, Environment Minister Gabriel advocates the installation of underground power lines, which are several times as expensive as overhead lines. The conflict has made potential investors nervous for months.

spiegel.de/international/germany

Wind power was useless in blackout

June 1, 2008

Editor:
Another example of the importance of wind energy.

The Ont. govt. is a regular visitor to this site and should have learned something by now. I’ve come to the conclusion they suffer from one of the following.

1) They can’t comprehend what they read.

2) They are stupid and suffer from very low IQs.

3) They are evil traitors and are following the UN – New World Order Agenda.

Which one do you think it is?

With these fools at the helm, it is easy to understand why our Health Care, Education, Agriculture and Manufacturing sectors are in such disarray.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Read Agenda 21
Now!

.

Wind power was useless in blackout

The British Wind Energy Association claims that there are more than 2,000 turbines in the UK with an installed capacity of 2,500 megawatts. Where was all this megawattage when it was needed on Tuesday, when 500,000 homes were blacked out as Sizewell B and eight other power stations shut down?

The answer is simple: the 2,000 turbines were impotent and would have made the situation worse had the grid operators tried to feed in their spurious outputs.

Coincidentally, Government figures describing the CO2 savings achieved in 2007 show no contribution from wind. The wind industry received nearly £320 million during 2007 in subsidies — from us, the consumers.

A letter by Bob Graham, Inchberry, Morayshire to the Telegraph

1 June 2008