Archive for the ‘Ministry of Environment’ Category

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

Advertisements

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

Wind Turbines Fail in Ontario

June 3, 2008

Ontario has 472 MWs of wind energy and wants to build 1,000s more.

According to the govt, the wind industry, newspapers, magazines, radio and TV, “that’s enough clean emission free energy to power 141,600 homes”.

Somehow, probably just an oversight on everyones part, they fail to mention the fact that the numbers are based on peak capacity.

I checked Sygration (output and capacity numbers for all generation in Ont.) at noon today.

Remember, 141,600 homes is the number they want you to believe.

At noon today, the turbines were not producing 472 MWs, they were producing – Drum roll please …………………………………………………………………………………………………

5MWs

Enough to power 1500 homes. 1MW = 300 homes

Question to all the people who think windmills (they’re not really turbines) are such a great idea? What are the other 140,100 homes supposed to do for power. Wait for the wind ?

The “Greens don’t want to use fossil fuels or nuclear. So they must not want any power.

So, I’m asking all the “Greenies” to please call their utility and get disconnected from the grid. Don’t wait do it now!

That will solve several problems.

1) Remove the need for new generation

2) Show an immediate reduction in emissions (something that wind energy has never accomplished)

3) Remove the need to bastardize rural Ontario with wind farms

Never forget two things

1) Denmark is a small country of 5.3 million ( about the size of metro Toronto), They have been using wind since the 1970s and they are still heavily dependent on their neighbors for energy.

2) Germany has the most wind energy, and is held up as an example to follow. Germany is in the process of building 20 plus coal plants.

The manufacturing sector in Ontario is already starting to flee. The higher the cost of electricity gets the fewer manufacturing jobs there will be.

That’s a Fact

What do Al Gore, David Suzuki, Global Warming and the Wind Industry have in common?

They are all Frauds brought to by the UN

Do the research

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

Is wind power a lot of hot air?

May 30, 2008

Editor:
This is part of a response I wrote to a comment from Mark Aug.2007

Mark
Let me try this. I just checked the energy output numbers for the province of Ontario. At 10am today the 400 MW of wind in Ont. were producing 4MW or 1% of their plated capacity. If you think wind is going to power Ontario or anywhere else you are dreaming. Most wind farms are to backed up by natural gas plants. Expensive and great emitters of ground level ozone which in fact is more dangerous than the emissions from the coal plants.
Maybe this will help you understand.
France is powered by 80% nukes 10% fossil fuel and 10% hydro. France is slated for 5000 windmills. You can’t use nukes to back up wind and they only have 10% hydro power. Wind has to have a back up of at least 80%. In order to do this the only option is to add more fossil fuels. So in order for France to use wind they must in fact add to the pollution levels not decrease them.

Ron

atomcat
August 11, 2007

Now some information from France
April 2008

.

Is wind power a lot of hot air?

President of the environmental company, Fédération Environnement Durable, Jean-Louis Butré, has labelled the drive for wind energy “a strategic error on a national scale.” He says wind energy actually increases demands on thermal energy reserves.

He said: “Wind turbines only work 20% of the time so we need to have back-up energy – in France this comes from thermal energy and natural gas, in Germany it comes from burning fossil fuels.

“So the more we rely on wind energy, the more we are actually producing gases which contribute to the ozone effect.”

Mr Butré believes the cost of wind energy is prohibitive.

“Wind energy costs two to three times the price of other forms of electricity, which would result in people paying an extra €200 or €300 for each electricity bill.

The homes of residents living near a turbine may also be worth 30% less.

“France is a country which relies on tourists yet turbines are ruining our landscape.”

Germany, currently the leader in wind energy and considering a ban on nuclear energy, has just ordered the construction of more than 20 power stations using coal as an energy source, as a back-up energy supply.

Expats Kath and Ian Haines moved to the peaceful hamlet of Peusicot near Genouillé (Poitou-Charentes) last year, unaware that a wind park with eight 135m turbines was to be built just 650m from their door.

Now they fear their house will be worth a third of the original price and worry how the turbines will affect their health.

Mr Haines said: “Everyone knew about the turbines but no one – not the mayor, estate agent or members of a local group campaigning against the turbines, said anything until two weeks after we had moved in. It was like a bombshell – we felt devastated.

“We are worried about possible nervous complaints as a result of vibrations from the turbines, and they are supposed to be noisy at night.

“We have been told it will take two years to set up the turbines and we are worried about how large machines and road traffic will fit down the tiny lane.

“We expect our property to drop by at least one third in value. The turbines will affect wildlife, bird migration, everything.”

Wind generated electricity is more expensive to produce, costing between €40 and €55 per megawatt hour compared to coal and gas which cost €30 and €45 per megawatt hour to produce.

The cheapest energy form is nuclear, costing just €26 to produce.

Source The Connexion

Gerretsen withdraws from key decision on wind project

May 30, 2008

Update:
Govt.visit. They spend a lot of time on this site. Hope they learn something.

Domain Name gov.on.ca ? (Canada) IP Address 142.106.170.# (Government of the Province of Ontario)

May 30 2008 11:19:00 am


Editor:
Lunatics or criminals? You make the call.

The Liberal party is proof positive how low politicians can go. Cover up a massive sewage spill into the Ottawa river,OttawaSun, and trash the lives of people with wind turbines. Glad we have the Mnistry of Environment. What would we do without them? A-holes.

“As a result of [the integrity commissioner’s] advice and ruling, Premier Dalton McGuinty has appointed Tourism Minister Peter Fonseca, to exercise my decision-making authority with respect to the Wolfe Island Wind Project,” Gerretsen wrote in his letter to constituents.

So, Gerretsen is still calling the shots – but they are coming out of the mouth Peter Fonseca. Kind of like a puppet sitting on Gerretsens’ lap. A dummy so to speak.

I have an idea for tourism on Wolfe Island Mr. Fonseca. Take the entire Liberal Party and put them in stocks in the center of Wolfe Island and sell fruit and vegetables to the tourists to throw at them – and it’s carbon neutral

I feel this would be a good use of politicians and I’m sure this plan would generate far more income than the wind turbines.

I call it “A better tourism plan for Ontario”

The McGuinty govt has their heads so far up the ass of business interests only their toes are sticking out.

.

Conflict claims plague minister; Gerretsen withdraws from key decision on wind project

Three days before Environment Minister John Gerretsen was to make a key decision about the fate of the wind-power project on Wolfe Island, the Kingston and the Islands MPP has withdrawn from the heart of the contentious issue.

Gerretsen yesterday announced he was recusing his decision-making authority with respect to the Wolfe Island Wind Project because of allegations from island residents that he was in a conflict of interest.

In a letter sent to media outlets and about 15 citizens on Wolfe Island, Gerretsen described how opponents to the project have questioned his ability to deal with the project in a “fair and unbiased fashion.”

“I take any potential conflict of interest allegations very seriously,” Gerretsen told the Whig-Standard.

He declined to comment on whether he personally believes he was in a conflict situation.

“I’d rather not give you my own personal opinion on it at this point in time,” he said in an interview. “I’m not prepared to answer that. “I did what I thought was the right action and the integrity commissioner has dealt with that.”

The allegations stem from Gerretsen’s attendance last summer, before he was appointed environment minister, at a corn roast on Wolfe Island organized by Canadian Hydro Developers Inc., the proponent for the wind project. The event, held at a private residence, was also attended by local media and municipal politicians from the Township of Frontenac Islands.

As well, the proponents, Canadian Hydro, bought tickets totalling $1,500 to attend at least one fundraising dinner for Gerretsen.

Gerretsen made the decision to divest himself of the decision-making responsibility on the wind project after consulting with Ontario’s integrity commissioner, whose office ensures that provincial politicians aren’t making decisions on issues that could benefit them.

“As a result of [the integrity commissioner’s] advice and ruling, Premier Dalton McGuinty has appointed Tourism Minister Peter Fonseca, to exercise my decision-making authority with respect to the Wolfe Island Wind Project,” Gerretsen wrote in his letter to constituents.

While the integrity commissioner determined there was no conflict of interest, she recommended Gerretsen to withdraw from the decision-making process because of a perceived conflict.

In her written decision to Gerretsen, she addressed his attendance at a Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. event last year.

“It is my opinion attending and speaking at the event was not contrary to the Members’ Integrity Act. However, both of these events appear to have created a perception that you favour one group of ministry stakeholders over another,” said Lynn Morrison, acting integrity commissioner.

In a letter to Gerretsen, Fonseca and deputy environment minister Gail Beggs, McGuinty directed ministry officials to “refrain from having any discussions with Minister Gerretsen or his staff on this file, and to seek direction from Minister Fonseca on the matter as appropriate.”

It’s unknown whether the decision that was expected early next week will still be made on schedule.

Gerretsen had been reviewing a decision of the director of the environmental assessment and approvals branch not to grant a request from citizens to require Canadian Hydro to complete an environmental assessment that will investigate the impacts of the project.

“I would imagine that it will still be within the timelines, but it may be somewhat later,” said Gerretsen. “These decisions aren’t always necessarily made within the necessary timelines.”

He said Fonseca will be briefed by Environment Ministry officials.

By Jennifer Pritchett

The Kingston Whig – Standard

30 May 2008

Turbines Meet Ontario Noise Guidlines

April 30, 2008

.Dust-up over wind farms

Source the Toronto Sun

Report: Noise from turbines meet guidelines

By JONATHAN JENKINS, QUEEN’S PARK BUREAU

There’s no scientific proof wind turbines make disturbing levels of noise and, although more study is needed, Ontario’s guidelines are sound, a long-awaited consultant’s report for the ministry of the environment says.

The report by Ryerson prof Dr. Ramani Ramakrishnan was finished in December 2007 but was only posted on the government’s Environmental Registry website on Monday.

It reviews the work of a Dutch scientist, Dr. G.P. Van Den Berg, who found that 98-metre tall turbines at a German wind farm near the Dutch border made more — and more annoying — noise at night than expected. The report has been heralded by groups opposing wind farm projects near their homes.

“(Van Den Berg’s) dissertation was to provide scientific evidence for increased annoyance from wind farms during evening and night time hours,” Ramakrishnan wrote. “The review showed the above was not the case.

“One of the main criticisms of the doctoral dissertation of Van Den Berg is that the conjectures of his research have not been supported by solid scientific data.”

The Dutch study should be used as a catalyst for further work, though, Ramakrishnan said.

Holland has accepted the findings of Dr. G.P. Van Den Berg.

Hiring someone to trash Dr. G.P. Van Den Berg to further the wind scourge, shows the lack of integrity of both the govt. and the wind industry.

I experienced the Dr. G.P. Van Den Berg theory personally at the Kingsbridge l wind farm. It was early Oct of last year. I returned to the home of Ernie Marshall, after attending an all candidates meeting, to pick up my car. Beautiful fall evening, no wind at ground level but the wind at hub height was still strong enough to turn the turbine blades. How loud was the noise? Throw a pair of work boots in the dryer and turn it on. Go get your pillow, curl up beside the dryer. Sleep well. That in essence is the findings of Dr. G.P. Van Den Berg. (added) RS

Mr. Marshall and his wife have since moved out of their home. Mr. Marshall says his health is getting better and he and his wife now enjoy uninterrupted sleep at night. (added) RS

His report also found Ontario’s noise guidelines for wind turbines are reasonable and strike a balance “between noise impact and the need for wind farms, based on currently available scientific data.”

What the hell does that statement mean. Noise impact! The wind industry is promoted as whisper quiet. The need for wind farms? What need? The only thing that wind farms can hope to offer the people of Ontario is an unstable, unnecessarily expensive electrical system. (added) RS

Kate Jordan, a spokesman for the ministry of environment, said the report, held back from December, was being posted on the Environmental Registry for 30 days to allow the public to comment on it. “We wanted to make sure it was the final report. We needed to know it was complete,” Jordan said of the late release.

The report has found what the industry has believed for some time, Sean Whittaker, vice-president of policy for the Canadian Wind Energy Association, said.

“The report does confirm that the findings of Van Den Berg are put into question,” Whittaker said.

“CANWEA has been confident that the noise guidelines we have here in Ontario are very good.”

Ontario has about 500 megawatts of Canada’s 1,856 megawatts of wind power. CANWEA wind projects could rise to as much as 4,600 by 2020.

Ron Mattmer, who lives a kilometre from a proposed wind development in Kincardine, says he supports wind power but is opposed to locating them so close to homes.

He said the ministry is “in denial” about Van Den Berg’s noise findings and have “jiggered” their own limits to ease development.

Source the Toronto Sun
.
Comment By Ron Stephens

“CANWEA has been confident that the noise guidelines we have here in Ontario are very good.”

They are confident because they were instrumental in the formation of those guidelines.

I remember Ford claiming the PINTO didn’t blow up. Big Pharma is always getting the FDA to pass drugs that end up hurting or killing people.

Industry policing its self, with govt. pushing the bull down the taxpayers throat. Neo-Liberalism at it’s worst. Never underestimate the power of denial, especially when govt. is on the side of industry.

Here is an email I just received the other day.

Maybe the wind industry or the govt. could comment .

I live 808m from a Enercon 82 wind turbine and within a km. of 11 other turbines at the Ripley Suncor/Acceon wind project. My health and the health of my neighbours has deteriorated over the past 5 months. We hear a constant roaring of jets 24/7 and at night when the house is quiet there is a CONSTANT HUMMING which going right through your head no matter what you try to do occurs. We have had many meetings but the humming still goes on and we are still waken 2-??? times/night. We do NOT get a deep sleep.

But of course this person must be complaining because 1- they like to complain 2- they didn’t make any money on the deal 3- they must be crazy 4- they work for or are being paid by the fossil fuel industry 5- they hate Mother Earth.

This govt. and the wind industry are so full of crap it is ridiculous. This scam is no different than the door to door reno scams. Promise a lot and never let the truth get in the way.

The wind industry and the govt., here in Ontario, claimed they could greatly reduce emissions. Lets see the peer reviewed results. Why aren’t the papers full of the results the wind industry claims? They don’t exist, not through my research. If they do, lets see them.

Bird and Bat kills too small to worry about. Then why the deal to hide the results from the public.

Noise – the turbines are whisper quiet, about as much noise as your fridge they said. Then why are people being forced from their homes.

A doctor from Kingston stated that the health problems created by wind turbines are only temporary and a persons health will return once they no longer live near the turbines. If that doesn’t sound the alarm bells what will?

This is a CRIME against the citizens of the Province of Ontario.

Explain this CanWEA and the McGuinty govt. of Shame

Reaction to the Scottish Government’s refusal to construct one of Europe’s largest onshore wind farms, 181 turbines on Lewis in the Western Isles , has exposed the myth of wind power.

In response to Scottish industry’s concerns that its lights may go out, Britain’s power industry had to admit it would not make one iota of difference as wind power is too unstable to be included in any calculations of how much power is needed to satisfy the country’s needs – whether or not the wind is blowing our power stations will still burn the same amount of fossil fuel.

A spinning turbine’s only value, for the environmentalists, is as an icon of their power over the vulnerable and as an “at least we are doing something” comfort blanket for gullible politicians, plus, of course, an exponential currency generator for the wind industry. full article here


Never forget – Enron started the wind scam. Enron is gone but the scam lives on. Google Enron, Maurice Strong and Al Gore. Maybe that will open your eyes.

The govt. should have put the scrubbers on the coal plants and built a new nuke. Cost approx. 10 billion. Cost for wind, solar, gas plants, new transmission lines and a new nuke, 60-70 billion. Think what that extra money could have done for Health Care, Education and our Farmers

Read Agenda 21. It’s about a lot more than just the wind industry.

Note: I, unlike Mr. Mattmer, do not support wind power as presented.

“Ron Mattmer, who lives a kilometer from a proposed wind development in Kincardine, says he supports wind power but is opposed to locating them so close to homes.” (found in Toronto Sun article above)

I do however, support Mr. Mattmer, and all the other people in Ontario who have worked so tirelessly to expose the truth. Please join us in the fight for truth and Democracy.

If the govt. is serious about the environment they would be putting the money into grants to retrofit homes and encourage home solar and wind. This would reduce the need for new generation and save money in the process. After all, it’s your tax dollars subsidizing the wind industry of which the only “benefit ” to you will be higher electrical costs.
The wind industry on the other hand will make a fortune.

I think it is time for an open televised debate – maybe on TVO. I, and many others, including engineers, are available, and look forward to such a debate. The govt. and the wind industry debating with citizens of Ontario. Sounds like democracy to me.

What is going on now is about as anti-democratic as it gets.

Councils are told to pass the wind farms or they will be taken to an OMB hearing at a cost of approx. $100,000. and they are told they will lose, and God forbid-they will look anti-green. Did I mention the “GREENS” are pagan based and anti-Christian. Ever wonder why Mr. McGuitny wants to remove the Lords prayer from the Legislature?

Kingsbridge l has been a source of noise, flicker and stray voltage complaints for the two years it has been operating. People and animals suffer up to a kilometer away, yet no health study. The setback for Kingsbridge ll 450 meters.

Criminal

Turn off the TV, put down the newspapers and do your own research. Get the family involved. Think often and think critically.

Democracy is not a right. When a democracy is not guarded, protected and demanded by its citizens it will be lost. That day is getting very close.

RS

Ron Stephens ran as an Independent candidate for Huron-Bruce in support of those suffering from wind turbine nuisance and he continues to fight for their rights.

Editor:
Once again, I ask both the govt. and the wind industry to look over this blog and if you find something you can prove is not correct let me know and the appropriate corrections will be made.

Update- Fri. May 1st – 9:30 am
Someone from the govt. of Ont. and Suncor have read this post. Site Tracker stats

Letter from Dr. Pierpont to Kim Iles

February 18, 2008

Editor:
The Ontario govt. ie well aware of the problems caused by wind turbines. They are well documented. They know they are putting the health of citizens at risk. The govt. must stop this insanity now and they must be held responsible for their actions.

I would like to thank Nina Pierpont for her tireless efforts to bring these problems into the open. There are thousands of people around the world fighting the wind farm scourge. Fighting against governments that show no respect for their citizens. The fight will continue until the battle is won.

To all those who still think wind farms are about clean energy and fighting global warming – WAKE UP!

The whole thing is one big FRAUD

Dear Ms. Iles,

February 16,2008

Dear Ms. Iles,
Yes, there are indeed medical problems caused by noise and vibration from current, upwind, three-bladed industrial wind turbines. I am in the process of preparing a paper for publication in a medical journal documenting the consistency of these problems from family to family, the study subjects being a collection of families in several countries who have been
driven from their homes by problems with sleep, headaches, tinnitus, equilibrium, concentration, memory, learning, mood, and child behavior-problems which started when the turbines went into operation and which resolve when the family is away from the turbines. These problems all occur in proximity to recently built industrial turbines, put into operation in 2005,2006, and 2007.

The ear is indeed the most sensitive receptor for noise and vibration. This does not mean,
however, that if you cannot hear it, it cannot hurt you. The ear does more than hear. A number of the effects of noise and vibration from wind turbines appear to be mediated by
the inner ear, which is a complex organ, only one of whose functions is detecting certain sorts of vibration as noise. The inner ear also detects movement, acceleration, and position relative to gravity. Inner ear (vestibular) signals ramify throughout the central nervous system, influencing brain functions related to sleep, vision, hearing, movement, digestion, thinking, and learning and memory. My data indicate that one of the principal effects in Wind Turbine Syndrome is vestibular detection of either airborne pressure waves or solid borne vibration (via bone conduction), which is influencing the vestibular system as if the
body or head were moving, when it’s not.

Continue Reading

Biofuels emissions may be 'worse than petrol

February 7, 2008

 Biofuels emissions may be ‘worse than petrol’

Biofuels, once seen as a useful way of combating climate change, could actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, say two major new studies.

And it may take tens or hundreds of years to pay back the “carbon debt” accrued by growing biofuels in the first place, say researchers. The calculations join a growing list of studies questioning whether switching to biofuels really will help combat climate change.

Biofuel production has accelerated over the last 5 years, spurred in part by a US drive to produce corn-derived ethanol as an alternative to petrol.

The idea makes intuitive environmental sense – plants take up carbon dioxide as they grow, so biofuels should help reduce greenhouse gas emissions – but the full environmental cost of biofuels is only now becoming clear.

Extra emissions are created from the production of fertiliser needed to grow corn, for example, leading some researchers to predict that the energy released by burning ethanol is only 25% greater than that used to grow and process the fuel.

Carbon debt

The new studies examine a different part of biofuel equation, and both suggest that the emissions associated with the crops may be even worse than that.

One analysis looks at land that is switched to biofuel crop production. Carbon will be released when forests are felled or bush cleared, and longer-term emissions created by dead roots decaying.

This creates what Joseph Fargione of The Nature Conservancy and colleagues call a “carbon debt”. Emissions savings generated by the biofuels will help pay back this debt, but in some cases this can take centuries, suggests their analysis.

If 10,000 square metres of Brazilian rainforest is cleared to make way for soya beans – which are used to make biodiesel – over 700,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide is released.

The saving generated by the resulting biodiesel will not cancel that out for around 300 years, says Fargione. In the case of peat land rainforest in Indonesia, which is being cleared to grow palm oil, the debt will take over 400 years to repay, he says.

Missing corn

The carbon debts associated with US corn are measured in tens rather than hundreds of years. But the second study suggests that producing corn for fuel rather than food could have dramatic knock-on effects elsewhere.

Corn is used to feed cattle and demand for meat is high, so switching land to biofuel production is likely to prompt farmers in Brazil and elsewhere to clear forests and other lands to create new cropland to grow the missing corn.

When the carbon released by those clearances is taken into account, corn ethanol produces nearly twice as much carbon as petrol.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDLIFE GROUPS CHARGE INDUSTRY BIAS

January 17, 2008

Editor:
The same thing is going on here in Ont. Both gov., and industry get away with too much.  Where is the media?  Before you buy your next newspaper, magazine or turn on the TV news, ask yourself a question, who is your media working for?
If you don’t think you are getting honest, even, two-sided information from your media, then stop supporting that media, both with your dollars and your eyes.

PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

http://www.windaction.org/releases/13645

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDLIFE GROUPS CHARGE INDUSTRY BIAS IN KEMPTHORNE’S SELECTION OF MEMBERS FOR HIGH-LEVEL COMMITTEE ON WIND POWER AND WILDLIFE

Membership of Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee violates FACA

WASHINGTON D.C. (January 17, 2008) – In a letter submitted today (http://www.windaction.org/documents/13651), environmental and wildlife groups [1] called on Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne to revamp the membership of the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The current membership violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs the establishment of federal advisory committees.

“Secretary Kempthorne has clearly skewed the composition of the committee in favor of the industry representatives while ignoring leading experts on critical wildlife impacts,” said Eric R. Glitzenstein of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, the law firm representing the groups. “This is precisely the kind of committee composition that the Federal Advisory Committee Act was designed to prohibit,” he added.

he Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee was formed to provide advice and recommendations to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in developing effective measures to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and their habitats related to land-based wind energy facilities (see Fed. Reg. 72:11373 (March 13, 2007)). Secretary Kempthorne announced the appointment of 22 people to the committee on October 24, 2007.

Under FACA the committee must have balanced points of view represented and the functions to be performed, and will not be inappropriately influenced by any special interest. In their letter, the groups assert that the committee’s overall composition clearly violates FACA in several ways.

* No committee members possess research expertise or publication record regarding bats, nor direct knowledge or experience involving bat interactions with wind turbines.

This is a glaring omission in light of recent reports[2] and Congressional testimony [3] on the issue of massive bat mortality at wind energy facilities. For example, a recent study estimated that up to 111,000 bats may be killed [4] every year should only 3,868 MW of wind turbines be constructed within the Mid-Atlantic Highlands regions of VA, WV, MD, and PA. As of today, in those states, there are over 6,300 MW of wind turbines under study for interconnection to the regional electricity grid.

* The committee lacks the requisite expertise regarding bird impacts, especially with respect to effects on migratory birds using the Appalachian mountain ridges in the eastern U.S., despite the fact that dozens of planned wind projects are slated for this part of the country.

* No committee members have significant research, scientific, or regulatory experience with wind energy development and associated wildlife impacts resulting from onshore wind projects in the eastern U.S.

According to the letter, these scientific and technical omissions are especially troubling in light of the many individuals on the committee who either expressly represent or are clearly aligned with the interests of the wind industry.

The groups call on Secretary Kempthorne to appoint appropriate experts to the committee who are experienced in wind energy development in the eastern U.S., where thousands of industrial wind turbines are proposed, and many are already in operation. Several highly-qualified candidates who applied for committee membership but were not appointed are listed in the letter. Their expertise includes both bats and birds and extensive knowledge of nocturnal migration. In addition, the groups encourage the appointment of experts with research experience in forest fragmentation impacts, particularly in the eastern forest region.

CONTACT:

Kieran Suckling, Center for Biological Diversity, (520) 275-5960

Eric Glitzenstein, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, (202) 588-5206

Lisa Linowes, Industrial Wind Action Group, (603) 838-6588 (llinowes@windaction.org)

###

[1] Center for Biological Diversity; The Humane Society of the United States; Hawk Migration Association of North America; Industrial Wind Action Group; D. Daniel Boone; Maryland Conservation Council; Save Our Allegheny Ridges; Friends of Blackwater Canyon; Protect the Flint Hills; Chautauqua County Citizens for Responsible Wind Power; Green Berkshires, Inc.; Juniata Valley Audubon; Ripley Hawk Watch; Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound; and Wildlife Advocacy Project.

[2] http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11935

[3] http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=32&extmode=view&extid=47

[4] http://www.windaction.org/documents/11179