Archive for the ‘NIMBY’ Category

Not in my Backyard Jane Pepino

February 27, 2009

Not in My Backyard – The Jane Pepino Story


Ron Stephens

February 25, 2009

I met Ms. Pepino during the 2007 OMB hearing in Kincardine Ontario, where she represented Enbridge in their quest to install a large 110 turbine wind farm in the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario.

Ms. Pepino proved to be a formidable force for the people trying to defend their property and enjoyment thereof.

After a lengthy seven week hearing the OMB ruled in favour of Enbridge who subsequently erected the wind turbines.

Feb. 7th, 2009 Ms. Pepino gave a presentation concerning the proposed Honeywood wind farm in the township of Mulmur. Ms. Pepino owns property near the proposed wind farm.

During the presentation, Ms. Pepino brought forward, many of the same concerns brought forward by the citizens of the Municipality of Kincardine where she represented Enbridge in 2007.

Did Ms. Pepino learn the truth about the Wind Industry and the inadequacies of the MOE guidelines during the seven week OMB hearing?

Or, is Ms. Pepino just another NIMBY trying to do the same thing as the citizens of Kincardine – protect her property and enjoyment thereof.

The Toronto Hamptons

It’s the city’s best-kept secret: Everyone from Andy Barrie to Jane Pepino has a place in Creemore http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030920/CREEMORE20

“Ms. Pepino, who leads the hectic urban life of a prominent lawyer during the week, has been spending weekends at “the farm” since 1990.

She was drawn to her place near the hamlet of Honeywood not just because of the peace and quiet, but for its proximity to the city and because she and her family can use it year-round.”

“I wanted peace and quiet”

Peace and quiet is what rural Ontario is about for most that have chosen to live there.

Is Ms. Pepino more deserving of peace and quiet than other residents of rural Ontario are?

Excerpt from CORE (Conserve our Rural Environment)Newsletter November 9th 2009 http://www.corecares.ca/Resources/CORE_NEWSLETTER_Feb4_09.pdf
CORE is raising outstanding concerns directly with the proponent, and will be requesting an elevation if these are not satisfactorily addressed. However, it is imperative that individuals do the same: Eolectric must understand its proposal has impact on this community, and the Township of Mulmur must understand the details of those concerns in preparing its response as well. A copy of the Notice of Completion, with all necessary information is attached.

Please provide copies of all correspondence to:

CORE

c/o N. Jane Pepino

Aird & Berlis LLP

1800 – 181 Bay Street, Box 754

Toronto, ON M5H 2T9

Email: jpepino@airdberlis.com

All requests for elevation by others to date – Denied

Ms. Pepino is a powerful lawyer with powerful friends. Can Ms. Pepino and Core be the first to have their elevation request accepted?

If the request is granted what does it really say about due process in Ontario?

Excerpt from Minutes of PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE – TOWNSHIP OF MULMUR- September 10, 2008

Jane Pepino (JP). CORE. Bob Duncanson (BD). CORE. Stephen Headford (SH) JP feels that Mulmur Township is the wrong place for this project.

Is Mulmur Township the wrong place for this project? – 5 wind turbines compared to the 110 installed in Kincardine Township- Does the “Toronto Hamptons” and the people who live there feel they and their concerns are more important compared to the rest of the citizens of Ontario.

What are some of the concerns of Jane Pepino and Core?

Excerpt from CORE Presentation Feb 7th, 2009

PROPOSED HONEYWOOD WINDFARM

http://www.corecares.ca/Resources/PowerPointPresentation_Feb07_09.pdf

Noise

Property devaluation

Shadow Flicker Study incomplete, uses distant
data source, not local

Visual Impact Analysis – not prepared in
accordance with Township Guidelines; being

peer reviewed

Insufficient setbacks for safety – ice throw,

blade throw, structure topple

Offers to lease unfair to property owners
If “non participating”- i.e., no turbine, payment estimated
to be $40 per hectare–about $800/ year for 50 acres.
Can be cancelled anytime by Geilectric– right after zoning,

Places a “gag” on owner, yet notice registered on title,

effecting marketability
Binds owner to sign a lease that is not attached-

Who pays taxes? Insurance? Decommissioning?

What if Geilectric goes bankrupt? Sells to another wind company?

Has the potential to bind land beyond 20 years– review of

compensation levels? Planning Act approvals?

Effectively restricts ability to get, or use, severances

These are the same concerns brought forward at the Enbridge/Kincardine OMB hearing in 2007 and every other wind farm proposal in Ontario

Does Ms. Pepino believe her concerns are substantially different from anyone else’s? Does she believe that she has a greater right to retain the enjoyment and valuation of her property over that of others? Alternatively, does she know something the rest of us do not?

If everyone else fighting for his or her rights can be referred to as NIMBY’S doesn’t that make Ms. Pepino one of us?

If so, let me be the first to welcome Ms. Pepino to the growing community of NIMBY’s. (Not in back yard)

I suggest all wind farm applications be put on hold until the Honeywood wind farm has been dealt with.

Ron Stephens

http://www.windfarms.wordpress.com

Toronto Star – Wind Farms

January 27, 2009
Toronto Star – Propagandist for the Govt.?
Update: Response I received from the Toronto Star editorial board when I asked questions about one of their editorials. (found below)
If you live in rural Ontario you may want to consider canceling the Toronto Star. They’ll take your money but they won’t recognize you.

Response to my letter to the editorial board of the Toronto Star. If you live in the Rural Ontario  you count for nothing.

Dear Mr. Stephens:
The “community” I am referring to is the Star’s community of readers.
Given that the Star is considered “the voice of the GTA” this would be
the community of readers in Toronto and the Greater Toronto area.
Certainly, many people in many communities would disagree with the views
put forward in this editorial opinion (as will any editorial). That is
their prerogative, as it is yours.
I will not be taking any further action on this editorial; nor will I be
providing you will “verification’ of the research done by the Star’s
editorial board as that is certainly not our practise.
I think the arguments put forward in the editorial speak for themselves
and it is beyond the scope of my role to question the conclusions drawn
in Star editorials.
As I told you, an editorial is an opinion based on the editorial board’s
interpretation of the facts at hand. While you may hold another opinion
I see no value in our debating these facts. I am not going to change
your mind about this issue and the Star’s editorial board is not likely
to reverse its position on this issue at this point in time.
Regards,
Kathy English

Kathy

I would like you to verify the research done and the content of the
research.

“This editorial view was arrived at after much research, thought and
debate by members of the Star’s editorial board, a group of six
journalists, under the direction of Editorial Page Editor Ian Urquhart,
who are charged with the responsibility of determining and expressing
the Star’s position on important matters affecting our community.
Because editorials represent the institutional voice of the newspaper,
they are never signed by the individuals who write them”.

I would also like someone to explain who’s community the article is
referring to.
I know many people, in many communities who would strongly disagree with
the position of the editorial board of the Toronto Star, including the
senior policy adviser for the Ministry of Energy and the ex-CEO of the
OPA.

I have invited the Provincial govt. to go through the information on my
site and point out any inaccuracies. To date, even though they are on my
site daily, they have never questioned or requested any changes.
I therefore request that your editorial staff go through my site as
well.

I want to know how they came to their conclusions.

The editorial board must be able to justify their position or it could
be considered propaganda.

Regards

Ron Stephens

Editor: The first casualty of war is TRUTH.
There is a war being waged against the rights of the citizens of Ontario by the environmental movement and the Toronto Star has become a propagandist for the movement.

1. a person involved in producing or spreading propaganda.
2. a member or agent of a propaganda.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Cite This Source
I added the name of the writer to this article. Maybe the writer of this piece of propaganda didn’t want her name to be associated with such a piece of trash. I thought Tyler Hamilton (energy writer) could spew some garbage, but Ms. Gillespie has given Mr. Hamilton a new low to strive for.

SAVE THE PLANET-CUT LESS TREES-

CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TODAY!


EDITORIAL TheStar.com | Opinion | Windmills vs. NIMBYism
Oct 20, 2008 04:30 AM – By Kerry Gillespie

After three years of effort, a $300 million wind farm that would have brought green power to Ontario has been cancelled. This is the latest casualty of a provincial planning process that just isn’t up to the task of ensuring that the best interests of all Ontarians prevail.

I guess the people forced from their homes and those living in misery because of wind turbines, don’t count in Ms. Gillespie’s Ontario.(added)


The province wants the clean energy that comes from projects like wind turbines. So much so that Energy Minister George Smitherman sent a $60 billion plan on how to meet the province’s electricity needs for the next two decades back to the drawing board to get more renewable energy and conservation into the mix.

According to the senior policy adviser I talked to – 10 billion spent on a real electrical system, would have provided Ontario with cost effective, clean, affordable electricity. He says we are dealing with politics. Try running your home or business on politics. At least 50 billion will be unnecessarily wasted ,causing your electric bill to skyrocket, and driving business from the province.(added)

Yet time and time again wind farms and other environmentally worthy projects run into the wall that is Ontario’s outdated, drawn-out planning process. Some manage to make it through. The wind farm planned for a township near Goderich didn’t.

The delays in getting through the process are difficult enough – often amounting to millions of wasted dollars – but the real problem comes when someone, and there’s always someone, wants to oppose the project. The NIMBYists are able to use the myriad planning steps – rezoning, official plan amendment, council approval, provincial environmental assessment and the spectre of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board – as weapons in their fight.

As a spokesperson for the doomed Goderich wind farm said: “We’re a very conservative province, so it’s difficult to put anything anywhere.”

It’s not just wind farms the NIMBYists fight. They also oppose traditional generating stations. That forces Ontario to buy expensive – and often dirty – power from elsewhere.

And they fight urban “intensification” in the form of highrise buildings, which help curb sprawl.

In some European jurisdictions, municipalities are given the right to say where wind turbines can’t go. But they also have to say where they can go. In Ontario, it’s simply too easy to say no and hope to delay the project long enough that the developers give up and decide to give it a try in someone else’s backyard.

According to a  councilor involved in the Kingsbridge ll wind farm, he was told that any setback over 450 meters would not be tolerated. He was told to pass the setback or the township would be taken to the OMB and that the township would lose, costing the township $100,000. This, dispite the fact Kingsbridge l at 450 meters had already caused major problems for people living in the shadows of the turbines.(added)

The energy minister is right to call for more renewable energy. Now the provincial government must make sure its planning processes support that goal, even if it means someone may have to gaze upon a windmill from the living room window.

Because reality and truth no longer matter to the Toronto Star, I ask that you show your disapproval by boycotting the paper. Until they understand their duty to the public (seek and print the truth) they do not deserve your support.  I will be making a formal complaint to

Bureau of Accuracy/Public Editor

You can contact the Star’s Bureau of Accuracy and Public Editor by email at publiced@thestar.ca; by phone at 416-869-4949; or by fax at 416-869-4322

To cancel your subscription or to let the Star know how you feel –(added)Customer Service (including subscription inquiries, delivery issues, billing inquiries, vacation stops or other customer service inquiries or complaints)
Email: circmail@thestar.ca
Phone: 416-367-4500 or 1-800-268-9213

TheStar.com

Windmills vs. Nimbyism (another take on the article above)

Wind turbines cause health problems, residents say – CTV News

OPTIONS FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS IN ONTARIO

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet

Is Nimby the new “N” Word

Wind power: Another look

December 17, 2008

Editor:

The letter below, Wind power: Another Look by Dr Ruth Pugh DC reiterates what people have been saying for years.

The wind industry and govt. got the public to accept the idea of wind farms by using the brainwashing techniques of repetition and perception and they have been relentless in their efforts.

You can’t turn on a TV pick, up a paper or listen to the radio without being exposed to the propaganda machine selling ‘wind energy’.

My nephew dropped by and downloaded a racing game and sure enough, as he was racing around, there they were – wind turbines along the side of the road.

I called the office of CanWEA in Ottawa just over two years ago and told Britt (communications director) that the wind industry would be over in two years.  I couldn’t see how the perception could last any longer.

By the way Mr. Hornung (president of CanWEA) – Britt said you would call me back to discuss my concerns – I’m still waiting.

Once I discovered the depth of the deception and the political connections, I realized it would take some very dedicated people to bring the truth to the average person.

Those people are now in place and more are joining everyday, in the effort to expose the wind industry for what it is, and they are committed to their goal.

Perception is a tool used to sell product and ideas.  Perception and reality are seldom the same.

In the movie about Enron, there is a statement ” As long as the perception holds – it is the truth.” Truth finally caught up with Enron. (Enron and the Environmental Movement)

Paul Watson co-founder of Greenpeace said “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true”.

Enron collapsed and so will the wind industry, because truth will eventually win out over perception.

Enjoy the Holidays and begin the new year with a rested and renewed spirit.

Ron Stephens

http://www.windfarms.wordpress.com

Wind power: Another look

Concerning wind energy and the proposed wind farms in Oxford county, certainly health hazards to those who live near wind farms is a consideration. However, let’s look at the legitimacy and desirability of wind power as a source of energy.

At first glance wind power seems like a clean, renewable source of energy, part of the solution for global warming.

However, wind power is unpredictable. Energy from industrial wind power can not be stored. Thus, when the wind is not blowing consistently the wind turbines must be backed up by conventional power sources. The most effective backup is natural gas generators. How often does the wind not reach Base Load electricity demands? The existing wind turbines in Ontario in 2006 and 2007 reached less than 10 per cent of what the system demanded over 50 per cent of the time.

Ms. Schofield suggested looking at the successful use of wind energy in Europe. In Germany and Spain, natural gas generators are installed to offset the unpredictable output from the wind. The generators output nearly matches the wind turbines output. Protests in France, Denmark and Holland have caused stiff restrictions to be placed on further wind turbine construction. In June 2008, an independent study of the success of wind turbines in the U.K. determined that wind power was “expensive, unreliable, and not saving any natural gas.” In the U.S., Senator Alexander looked at independent studies and determined that wind power provided “puny amounts of high-cost unreliable power.” No fossil fuel facilities have been shut down or not built due to the roughly 50,000 world-wide wind turbines.

So on top of health hazards, devaluing real estate, and the cost to consumers and taxpayers to pay for government subsidies and tax breaks for these wind farms, we find out that they don’t even provide the “green” power we’d like to believe they did. Not that’s a con.

The risks of allowing these wind farms in Oxford County far outweigh any benefits.

Dr Ruth Pugh DC

Woodstock

Woodstock Sentinel-Review

17 December 2008

Are turbines making some people sick?

November 9, 2008

Editor:

The problems with wind turbines being placed near homes has been known for years.

The Govt of Ontario is well aware of the problems, because they have volumes of information on the subject, but have chosen to ignore it. They
are guilty of putting the health of residents of Ontario at risk.

A fact that can no longer be disputed.

Dr. Ian Gemmill, Kingston’s medical officer of health, 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”.

Are turbines making some people sick?

James Cowan, National Post Published: Friday, November 07, 2008

Opponents of wind farm developments allege turbines are not just ugly and inefficient, they can also make you sick. There are growing reports of people who live near wind turbines complaining of headaches, nausea, sleeplessness and other symptoms. Sufferers contend the illness is caused by low frequency noise and vibrations released by the turbines, along with the flickering shadows cast when the sunlight is cast through the blades. While wind power proponents contend there is conclusive evidence turbines are safe, Kingston’s Medical Officer of Health was concerned enough to say developments need to be monitored. Here, we present four views on so-called “wind turbine syndrome.” — James Cowan, National Post

The Sufferer

“Our home was 423 metres from the nearest turbine. When we first heard about the project, we were trying to be green — we always recycled more than we threw in the trash — so I thought it was great. I was in favour of them, even as they were doing the construction around us. But my health did deteriorate immediately when the turbines were on . . . I had ringing in my ears, it felt like there was something crawling in my ears — I said ‘what in earth is going on?’ And then the shadowing effect when the sun is behind the blade, it was so bad, I just thought the top was going to blow off the top of my head. But we went camping in July and it cleared up — I didn’t have a headache, I wasn’t going to bathroom as frequently, I had none of the itchy ears. I came back and it immediately started again. When the blades were facing the house, I couldn’t concentrate at all, I couldn’t sleep, my body would ache . . . so finally I started to clue in that something had to be going on with the turbines. I could tell before I got out of bed, just based on how I felt, whether they were running.”

— Helen Fraser, former neighbour of Melancthon Wind Project in Ontario

Article continues at the National Post

Gordon Brown puffs the great wind scam – A Lesson for Canada and the USA

October 26, 2008

Editor: The most important things people need to understand are

  1. The wind industry backed by govt. is a scam. (truth hurts)
  2. Our govt has handed the decision making for our power generation over to the e8 (internationalization of energy) a UN based agency.
  3. Any country that gives up it’s electrical system, has  given up it’s sovereignty. Electricity supply and cost are the most important part of any economy. Once control of the electrical system has been lost (or given away) the ability to make real economic decisions has been lost.
  4. You have now accepted rule by unelected officials.
  5. End of sovereignty.
  6. This is about a lot more than wind energy. It’s about the loss of your freedoms and your nation state.

The time has come for every thinking citizen to join in the fight against the wind industry and  treasonous govt. policy, that has been put in place to undermine both our democracy and sovereignty.

Gordon Brown puffs the great wind scam

Even in these dark times, it is still possible to be shocked when our Prime Minister personally endorses a flagrant perversion of the truth. Last year, for example, many of us felt outraged when Gordon Brown pretended that the Lisbon Treaty was somehow totally different from the EU Constitution, in order to wriggle out of his party’s manifesto promise of a referendum. Last week Mr Brown in effect did it again when he endorsed the deception at the heart of his Government’s wildly exaggerated claims about the benefits of using wind to make electricity.

In a video for the British Wind Energy Association, the industry’s chief lobby group, Mr Brown claimed: “We are now getting 3 gigawatts of our electricity capacity from wind power, enough to power more than 1.5 million homes.”

This deliberately perpetuates the central confidence trick practised by the wind industry, by confusing “capacity” with the actual amount of electricity wind produces. In fact, as the Government’s own figures show, wind turbines generate on average only 27 to 28 per cent, barely a quarter, of their “capacity”.

In other words, far from producing those “3 gigawatts”, the 2,000 turbines already built actually contributed – again on official figures – an average of only 694 megawatts (MW) last year, less than the output of a single medium-size conventional power station. Far from producing “enough to power more than 1.5 million homes”, it is enough to power barely a sixth of that number, representing only 1.3 per cent of all the electricity we use. Yet for this we have already blighted thousands of square miles of countryside, at a cost of billions of pounds.

Indeed, at the same BWEA-sponsored event, Mike O’Brien, energy minister, went on to perpetuate the second confidence trick practised by both Government and industry, which is to conceal the fact that all this is only made possible by the huge hidden subsidy given to wind energy through the Renewables Obligation. This compels electricity companies to pay way over the odds for the power generated by wind turbines, a burden passed on to us all in our electricity bills.

Mr O’Brien claimed that the cost of electricity generated by offshore wind turbines would drop by 8 per cent, failing to explain that it would then be raised by 50 per cent through the hidden subsidy. He then soared even further into make-believe by saying that he was “assessing plans” to build a further 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020, “enough electricity for every home in the country”.

Mr O’Brien must know that there is not the remotest chance that we could build the 10,000 monster turbines needed to achieve this, at a rate of more than two a day, when it takes weeks to instal each vast machine. At present, of the giant barges needed for the work, there is only one in the world. Even if it were possible, the construction costs alone, on current figures, would be anything up to £100 billion – the price of 37 nuclear power stations, capable of producing nearly 10 times as much electricity – while the subsidies alone would add £6 billiion a year more, or 25 per cent, to our electricity bills.

Why do our ministers think they can get away with talking such nonsense?

What is humiliating is that they do it largely to appease the EU, which has set us the wholly impossible target of producing 32 per cent of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020. What is dangerous is that even contemplating such a mad waste of resources is diverting attention from the genuine need to build enough proper, grown-up power stations to keep our lights on. For that the time is fast running out, if it hasn’t done so already. It is on that Mr Brown should be concentrating, not on trying to pull the wool over our eyes with such infantile deceits.

By Christopher Booker

Telegraph

26 October 2008

You might ask – If the wind industry is such a scam why isn’t the media saying anything?

DAVID ROCKEFELLER THANKS MEDIA FOR ITS SILENCE

The Green Agenda

Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?

August 23, 2008

Let’s start with what one manufacturer considers to be safe for its workers. The safety regulations for the Vestas V90, with a 300-ft rotor span and a total height of 410 feet, tell operators and technicians to stay 1,300 feet from an operating turbine — over 3 times its total height — unless absolutely necessary.

That already is a much greater distance than many regulations currently require as a minimum distance between wind turbines and homes, and it is concerned only with safety, not with noise or visual intrusion.

In February 2008, a 10-year-old Vestas turbine with a total height of less than 200 feet broke apart in a storm. Large pieces of the blades flew as far as 500 meters (1,640 feet).

The Fuhrländer turbine planned for Barrington, R.I., is 328 feet tall with a rotor diameter of 77 meters, or just over 250 feet (sweeping more than an acre of vertical air space). According to one news report, the manufacturer recommends a setback of 1,500 feet, over 4.5 times the total height. In Wisconsin, where towns can regulate utility zoning for health and safety concerns, ordinances generally specify a setback of one-half mile (2,640 ft) to residences and workplaces.

But that may just be enough to protect the turbines from each other, not to adequately protect the peace and health of neighbors.

When part of an array, turbines should be at least 10 rotor diameters apart to avoid turbulence from each other. In the case of the proposed 77-meter rotor span in Barrington, that would be 770 meters, or 2,525 feet. For the Gamesa G87, that’s 2,850 feet; for the Vestas V90, 2,950 feet — well over half a mile.

Jane and Julian Davis, whose home is 930 m (3,050 ft) from the Deeping St. Nicholas wind energy facility in England, have been forced by the noise to rent another place in which to sleep. In July 2008 they were granted a 14% council tax reduction in recognition of their loss. It appears in this case that the combination of several turbines creates a manifold greater disturbance.

Since the human ear (not to mention the sensory systems of other animals or the internal organs of bats, which, it is now emerging, are crushed by the air pressure) is more sensitive than a giant industrial machine, doubling that would be a reasonable precaution (at least for the human neighbors — it still doesn’t help wildlife).

Sound experts Rick James and George Kamperman recommend a 1 km (3,280 ft) distance in rural areas.

Both the French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile (or 1.5 km) between giant wind turbines and homes. Trempealeau County in Wisconsin implemented such a setback. National Wind Watch likewise advocates a minimum one-mile setback.

More at Kirby Mountain

Junk Science: the wind cries ‘bailout!’

July 10, 2008

Editor: Enron pulled the same scam.

Google-Enron,Al Gore,Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton to appreciate the origins of the wind scam

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens launched a media blitz this week to
announce his plan for us “to escape the grip of foreign oil.” Now he’s
got himself stuck between a crock and a wind farm.

Announced via TV commercials, media interviews, a July 9 Wall Street
Journal op-ed and a Web site, Pickens wants to substitute wind power
for the natural gas used to produce about 22 percent of our electricity
and then to substitute natural gas for the conventional gasoline used
to power vehicles.

Pickens claims this plan can be accomplished within 10 years, reduce
our dependence on foreign oil, reduce the cost of transportation,
create thousands of jobs, reduce our carbon footprint and “build a
bridge to the future, giving us time to develop new technologies.”

It sounds great and gets even better, according to Pickens. Don’t
sweat the cost, he says, “It will be accomplished solely through
private investment with no new consumer or corporate taxes or
government regulation.” What’s not to like?

First, it’s worth noting Pickens’ claim made in the op-ed that his
plan requires no new government regulation. Two sentences later,
however, he calls on Congress to “mandate” wind power and its
subsidies. Next, Pickens relies on a 2008 Department of Energy study
claiming the U.S. could generate 20 percent of its electricity from
wind by 2030.

Setting aside the fact that the report was produced in consultation
with the wind industry, the 20-by-2030 goal is quite fanciful.

Even if wind technology significantly improves, electrical
transmission systems (how electricity gets from the power source to
you) are greatly expanded and environmental obstacles (such as
environmentalists who protest wind turbines as eyesores and
bird-killing machines) can be overcome, the viability of wind power
depends on where, when and how strong the wind blows — none of which is
predictable.

Wind farm-siting depends on the long-term forecasting of wind
patterns, but climate is always changing. When it comes to wind power,
it is not simply “build it and the wind will come.” Even the momentary
loss of wind can be a problem. As Reuters reported on Feb. 27, “Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency.”

The electric grid operator was forced to curtail 1,100 megawatts of
power to customers within 10 minutes. Wind isn’t a standalone power
source. It needs a Plan B for when the wind “just don’t blow.”

This contrasts with coal- or gas-fired electrical power, which can
be produced on demand and as needed. A great benefit of modern
technology is that it liberates us from Mother Nature’s harsh whims.
Pickens wants to re-enslave us with 12th century technology.

Then there’s the cost of the 20-by-2030 goal — $43 billion more than
the cost of non-wind assets, according to the DOE — and this doesn’t
include many billions of dollars more for additional transmission
lines. Could the 20-by-2030 goal even be accomplished?

By Steven Milloy

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He
is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct
scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Fox News

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

Is Nimby the new "N" Word

March 19, 2008

Editor
Over the last year and a half I have had the opportunity to attend many council meetings dealing with wind farms. I have been called a Nimby several times, even though I am not directly affected, nor will I be, by any wind turbine installation. So, why was I called a Nimby? Could it be that I asked questions the govt. and the wind industry don’t want to answer, or can’t answer, without exposing the fraud.

The word Nimby was chosen to effectively remove the voice of, and belittle, a segment of society.

The word Nimby is being used in the same context and for the same purpose as the word “Nigger’ was used in the past. To marginalize people.

Years ago, Blacks were run off their land without compensation. The same thing is happening today. People who can no longer deal with the negative health affects of living near wind turbines are being forced to move, without compensation.

In most cases the people who are, or will be affected by a wind farm have no one to turn to for help. Not their council, upper levels of govt. or the media. They are alone in their misery, just as the Blacks were years ago. I know how these people feel because I have met many of them and they deserve better.

Sure, I have talked to people in the govt., the media and people on the street who agree with me and the other “Nimby’s” but are afraid to, or not allowed to speak out. Kind of reminds me of Black history.
When I was twelve, I’m 53 now, I got to experience “Nigger” first hand. A black family moved into my town, I believe they were the first. They had a son the same age as me and we became friends.

I remember walking down the street with him when some older guys started calling him “Nigger” and to go back where he came from. You could see the hurt in my friends eyes. What did he do wrong? Nothing. Did he do something to those calling him names? No. So, why did they call him names, because that is what Sheeple do.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaCite This Source

Sheeple is a term of disparagement, a portmanteau created by combining the words “sheep” and “people“; a reference to herd mentality. It is often used to denote persons who acquiesce to authority, and thus undermine their own human individuality. The implication of sheeple is that as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by authority figures, without processing it to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them.

Ignorant people, with lazy minds is what allows govt. and media to continue to use propaganda instead of truth. Both govt. and marketing firms know this and use Sheeple to their advantage.

Sheeple let others think for them. So when the media and govt. tags someone or some group with a derogatory label, like Nimby, the Sheeple not only accept the tag, they use it.

The same thing has happened with “Global Warming”. Anyone, and that includes some of the best scientists in the world, are called Skeptics and Deniers.

These names are used to discredit and marginalize anyone who would dare question or attempt to engage in debate.

The way I see it, you are either a Sheeple or a Nigger.

Call me a Nigger.

They fought for their rights.

Instead of joining the Sheeple on Earth Day and turning out your lights. I suggest we turn on the lights, the music and celebrate the fact that

Nimby’s, Skeptics and Deniers still roam the earth.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Cite This SourceShare This nig·ger <img nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. Definitions 1a, 1b, and 2 represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense. Definition 1a, however, is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral or familiar way.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.

Please spend some time educating yourself about renewable energy, the Green Movement and the New World Order. They are all connected.

Give your mind a well deserved workout, spend some time with a Nimby, Skeptic or a Denier. They won’t bite

Wind energy: beware, turbulence ahead

November 22, 2007

[Bernard Viau was the editor of the national newsletter for the Green Party of Canada. When he posted an article denouncing wind in early July, Green Party of Canada Opposes Placing Industrial Wind Farms too Close to Homesthere was such a backlash that he resigned his post.]

Wind farm projects are growing like mushrooms after a rainy day, but the air is turbulent in the wind industry. Industrial wind farms are not as nice and green as promoters want us to believe. Like an opponent puts it : “There is more here than immediately meets the eye with industrial wind generators, and often the devil is in the details.”

Pugwash in Nova Scotia, Wolfe Island in Ontario, Saint-Arsene in Quebec, and Edinbane in Scotland are actually living very stressful times. These small places are being called names by both industrialists and environmentalists because of their opposition to a green energy project.

Lots of other small places have the same problem in the world : Carrolltown in New York, Cairnbrook in Pennsylvania, Chilton in Wisconsin, Glenrock in Wyoming, Saint-Joseph in Manitoba, Greensburg in Kansas, Benjamin in West Virginia, Mount Hays in British Columbia, Sevenmile Hill in Oregon, Bagthorpe in England and many others.

Wind farm projects are growing like mushrooms after a rainy day, but the air is turbulent in the wind industry. Industrial wind farms are not as nice and green as promoters want us to believe. Like an opponent puts it : “There is more here than immediately meets the eye with industrial wind generators, and often the devil is in the details.”

Like a lot of other countries, Canada is actually facing a rush of private wind energy companies. Don’t be fooled, the money promoters are investing in wind energy has nothing to do with the environment. What these astute industrialists want is clear : profit from government Green Energy Projects, grab all incentive money available, commit as little as possible to local economy and then run or sell their wind farms to large income funds. All political parties are praising the wind energy but all, including the Green Party, are carefully avoiding the tough questions. The truth is that our politicians are misinformed, naïve and gullible. They all want to be known as green because nowadays for everyone, green is the politically correct colour to wear. The story is the same whether you live in Canada, in Australia, in Scotland or in France.

Don’t misunderstand me ! I believe that making a profit is a sign of good management. I have no anti-capitalistic thinking and I believe that the wealth of nations is built by entrepreneurs but I also strongly believe in responsible investment. A few years ago, I did sell one of the first Canadian tax shelter in the wind energy when I worked as a investment broker. Don’t give me that grap thinking about what is good for the economy and the global market. Buying garlic from China at the supermarket instead of buying it from local producers is totally stupid from a common sense point of view and some wind farms also defy pure common sense as you will see.

Most wind energy projects are industrial in size, ranging from 30 to 150 turbines. Simple people are often blinded by the very words “wind energy”. They cannot imagine that one could oppose so green a project as a wind farm. Well, I’m opposed to some industrial wind farm projects and for good reasons ! Wind farms do have downside effects : on the landscape, on health, on property value and also on our energy supply.

Wind farms may be built on private land but they affect the landscape, which is common property, so to speak. We judge things according to their potential return on investment. It is then only normal that promoters are at loss when one speaks of the “value” of a landscape. In Europe, citizens are complaining that miles of landscape have already been destroyed by wind farms and that people have been forced to leave their homes for health reasons. Let’s face it, a wind farm is like a forest of huge towers with intermittent headlights on top of them for airplanes ; nobody can miss them ! Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder but still, some landscape are exceptional and we need to protect them ; a wind farm project in front of Niagara Falls would certainly not gain public support in Canada.

The French National Academy of Medicine has called for a moratorium of all industrial wind farms within one and a half kilometers of any residence, because they felt there was a risk for people exposed to the sounds generated by the turbines. The United Kingdom Noise Association recommends the same. A number of health issues have already been raised and researchers have found a cluster of symptoms near industrial wind turbines : headaches, dizziness, nausea, exhaustion, anxiety, anger and irritability.

The wind industry has been trying to convince everyone that there is no problem with bird kills but independent scientific reports of bird and bat deaths near a wind facility estimates the annual death toll between three and six thousand, far worse than anything the wind industry is ready to admit publicly.

It is a well known fact in Europe that land value near a wind farm declines immediately because nobody wants to live near a forest of huge towers. A wind farm is different from the idyllic postcard we mentally have of wind mills in Holland and a wind farm is not a tourist attraction. A wind farm area is a ghetto area, land prices go down. In Danemark, the liberal government is about to pass a bill to give compensation for land loss value to people living near a new wind turbine.

The construction of a wind farm also implies a lot of cement ; a sea of cement would give a better picture. Thousands of very long, broad and heavy trucks will damage all the network of roads. Who will pay the bill ? In 30 years, if the promoters have not declared bankruptcy to avoid paying for dismantling the towers, the cement foundations will be left to the grandchildren of the original owners. Promoters should put money in trust to cover end-of-life dismantling ; a form of asset fund for future generations.

By nature, wind is erratic. An expert who spent his whole life working in generating stations says that “wind power can never become part of any large power grid, it is nothing more than an unreliable add on which is a serious nuisance to grid operators.” A wind farm produces little electricity and adds almost nothing to our generating capacity but yes, it is green and more importantly, it has the favour of politicians around the world.

Promoters say that their wind farm brings an economic windfall, but 75% of the expenses are for the turbines built by multinationals. The truth is that local entrepreneurs will provide the sand, the gravel and the donuts. The company pays royalties to the farmers for their land but prices vary a lot depending on how gullible people are and contracts are secrets of the trade. Farmers often realize later on that all the drainage system is modified and that their lands are permanently damaged for crops. An industrial wind farm creates few jobs locally because the turbines can be monitored by a technician working far away in an office filled with computers.

During public hearings, two promoters were recently scolded by the commissioners for having failed to mention and supply critical information, for not having notified residents affected, for having frequently changed site plans without consulting the township and for failing to comply with several regulations, showing in fact no regard for the environment or for the residents. This is the reality Wolfe Island near Kingston Ontario is actually living and there are hundreds of other cases around the world.

Urban environmentalists, unaware of the real issues, are often saying that any opposition to wind farm project is wrong. If greedy promoters and big shareholders had their way, public enquiries would never be necessary. It is not a question of NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude. One company in Ontario has a wind farm project right in front of a wildlife protected area. Some far-west entrepreneurs would like to construct wind farms right in your frontyard. The landscape, the local environment and public opinion are being ignored, this is totally unacceptable for society as well as detrimental to the wind industry in general.

These huge towers will still be on our landscape when today’s decision makers are dead. In June of last year, during public hearings by an environmental commission, we proposed that wind farms should be moved away from cultivated lands, away from rivers, from migratory corridors, scenic landscape and heavily populated areas. The best place for wind turbines is the seashore like in Holland. Substantial indemnities should go to repair the road system and standards should be set for the contracts with the farmers. Local residents should be paid on a system based on proximity to the turbine rather than on a system based on straight rent because landscape is a form of common space which belongs to everyone. Municipalities have to become partners with the wind industry. Power utilities should have standard offer contracts that permits local participation. Large wind farm projects, especially those over 100 turbines, should be moved in Canada’s northlands or on the shores of large hydroelectrical reservoirs.

Some will say that the wind farms are replacing coal fired generating plants or nuclear generators. This is not the case. We have better alternatives. Geothermal energy is the greenest and most economical alternative to meet our heating requirements while solar energy is the best one for our energy requirements. Wind energy projects have several downside effects. Why is it that the protection of multinationals and the wind industry’s interests override the protection of wildlife, the environment, local public opinion as well as pure common sense ? The answer is that money talks.

The people building wind farms are not environmentalists but astute promoters who want to profit from green subsidies using tax shelters. These companies feel that they should be able to do as they like without regard for the stakeholders. Milton Friedman would be proud of them for he once wrote that an officer of a company who cares about anything else but maximizing shareholders dividends is to be considered as a subversive element. How could he receive a Nobel prize in Economy ?

Because of greedy promoters, large industrial wind farms are rapidly becoming anti-environmental because they are symbols, not of our respect for the environment but of industrial domination over our resources. The situation is the same in every modern country of the world. Only China has no opposition to the wind industry, but is opposition really possible in China ? The best options for our heating and energy requirements are clearly solar and geothermal energies. Governments should transfer tax credits from wind to geothermal and solar energy. They should also start seriously to promote the use of these green energy in all public buildings and give strong fiscal incentives to companies working in the energy efficiency field. Wind farms are unreliable and are not the best solution to the world energy problems.

If you ever wake up in the middle of a 100 turbine wind farm project, you will not be fighting alone.

Bernard Viau
viaub@sympatico.ca

August 4, 2007

cmaq.net