Archive for the ‘Ontario wind energy’ Category

No future for wind in Ontario

March 2, 2009
Editor:
Received this story from a reader this morning. I had to rub my eyes several times before I could believe what I was reading and in the Toronto Star no less.
Someone that understands electrical generation writing the truth about wind generation. Wow!
I and thousands of others have been saying the same thing for years. All the articles until the last few days seem to be written by one “green group” or another pushing wind and telling us about their vision.
All I can say is try heating your home or running your business on a vision.
Put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build a nuke- cost 10 billion and it will provide clean reliable energy for the Province. (C02 is not a pollutant)
The vision 60-80 billion ( money that is not going to health care, education, agriculture or many other places the money would be better used)  and the air won’t be any cleaner.
The truth is getting out but will this be enough to stop the madness presently found at Queens’ Park. Don’t forget both the Conservatives and the NDP have bought into and have been promoting this same “MAD” vision.
I have included the emails for all MPP’s in this Province at the end of the article. Take a minute and send them your thoughts.
Remember between 50 and 70 billion will wasted on the “Mad Vision” That doesn’t count the millions or billions wasted to date in the massive promotion of this “Mad Vision”
Wind is and always was about the creation of carbon credits. Not cleaner air.
The “Green sales pitch” has run out of Air, Wind and Gas
.
No future for wind in Ontario

PATRICK CORRIGAN/TORONTO STAR

Need for support from gas-powered plants means it’s also not even very green
Mar 02, 2009 04:30 AM



The Ontario government says its new Green Energy Act, if passed, will help Ontario become “North America’s leader in renewable energy.”

But since most of this new renewable energy will be from wind, it may not be the smartest move for Ontario because its large hydro and nuclear capacity is not compatible with wind generation. Wind requires natural gas-fired generation for support and natural gas will be a most precarious fuel for Ontario.

The future of industrial wind power in Ontario is tied to natural gas-fired electricity generation and that, as will be seen, is unsustainable. The Ontario power grid needs flexible support to keep supply and demand in balance, and providing this support will be made more difficult when we add the vagaries of wind.

Although nuclear units can handle the daily and weekend changes in electricity demand, they have limited capability for the kind of frequent power-up and power-down requirements that would be needed for this support. Furthermore, hydroelectric plants may not always be available due to fluctuations in water supply and water management agreements.

Even without restrictions on nuclear and hydro, it makes little economic sense to run reliable suppliers of steady power, with high fixed costs and low operating costs, at reduced output to support the expensive, intermittent and varying output from wind farms.

So, with coal being phased out by 2014, natural gas-fired generation will have to be used to support wind. Due to the simultaneous demands of home heating and electricity generation in the winter, that may lead to gas shortages. So some of these plants may be dual fuelled with gas and oil, which is not a pleasant thought.

The Ontario government is putting too much faith in natural gas for electricity generation, as the United Kingdom did with its “dash for gas” from the North Sea in the 1990s when gas was cheap. Now the U.K. is in terrible shape with its gas running out and the threat of power shortages in the next decade.

There is no long-term future for gas-fired generation in Ontario because of greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, rising costs, the demands on gas for other uses (in the tar sands, the chemical industry, home heating, exports to the United States), declining reserves, the questionable security of foreign supplies or, in short, the waste of a premium non-renewable resource just to generate electricity.

Since Ontario’s wind generators require natural-gas-fired generation for support, this creates an uncertain future for wind turbines and their transmission infrastructure that one day will not be compatible with a nuclear/hydro powered grid. Nor is there an environmental benefit to adding wind to a clean nuclear/hydro grid.

There is an alternative to building more natural gas-fired power plants in the Greater Toronto Area and other locations to replace the coal-fired stations. That is to increase the arbitrary limit on nuclear from the 14,000 megawatts imposed by the government. Bruce Power showed its willingness to build new nuclear power plants last October when it asked the nuclear safety regulator for a licence to prepare a site at Nanticoke, in addition to new units at the Bruce site.

The government’s power plan envisages nuclear supplying 40 per cent of electricity demand by 2027. This should be raised to more than 70 per cent, with hydro supplying most of the remainder. If there is no market for nuclear-generated electricity during off-peak and overnight hours (for power exports, recharging electric cars, producing hydrogen and/or compressed air for generating clean peaking power and other uses), the plants can reduce their output to meet the demand. This means that even if practical wind energy storage were available, wind still would not be needed on a future all nuclear/hydro grid.

The demand on the grid from recharging electric cars should not be underestimated. The president and CEO of French nuclear giant Areva said that it would take an additional 6,400 megawatts of electricity if just 10 per cent of France’s cars were electrically powered. That translates into about 1,700 megawatts (two Darlington-size units) for Ontario.

In France, the nuclear energy share of electricity production is about 78 per cent from its 58 reactors, with the balance divided nearly equally between hydro and fossil, and with the nuclear units able to meet daily changes in electricity demand. Sweden has a grid the same size as Ontario’s but with almost all nuclear/hydro generation.

Wind has no long-term future in Ontario and will be more of a hindrance than a help to the grid’s reliability. The Ontario Energy Board should take a good hard look at the government’s Integrated Power System Plan, eliminate wind and promote cleaned-up coal-fired stations operating past 2014 until sufficient nuclear is online to avoid the building of anymore unsustainable gas-fired plants.

The technical, economic and environmental issues associated with wind power have not been fully explored. Let’s hope the Ontario Energy Board will give them due consideration when it reconvenes so that money can be put where it will do Ontario the most long-term good.

Donald Jones is a professional engineer, now retired after 35 years of CANDU system design.

Comments on this story are moderated

From the Toronto Star
Liberals MPP’s
saggelonitis.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
lalbanese.mpp@liberal.ola.org
warthurs.mpp@liberal.ola.org
warthurs.mpp@liberal.ola.org
bbalkissoon.mpp@liberal.ola.org
rbartolucci.mpp@liberal.ola.org
cbentley.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lberardinetti.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mbest.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lbroten.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
mbrown.mpp.co@liberal.ola.orgjbrownell.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
mbryant.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
dcansfield.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dcaplan.mpp@liberal.ola.org
acarroll.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mchan.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mcolle.mpp@liberal.ola.org
kcraitor.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
bcrozier.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
bdelaney.mpp@liberal.ola.org
vdhillon.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jdickson.mpp@liberal.ola.org
ldombrowsky.mpp@liberal.ola.org
bduguid.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dduncan.mpp@liberal.ola.org
kflynn.mpp@liberal.ola.org
pfonseca.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
jgerretsen.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mgravelle.mpp@liberal.ola.org
phoy.mpp@liberal.ola.org
hjaczek.mpp@liberal.ola.org
ljeffrey.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
kkular.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mkwinter.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jmlalonde.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jleal.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dlevac.mpp@liberal.ola.org
amangat.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
dmatthews.mpp@liberal.ola.org
bmauro.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
tmcmeekin.mpp@liberal.ola.org
pmcneely.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mmeilleur.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jmilloy.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
cmitchell.mpp@liberal.ola.org
rmoridi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
ynaqvi.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
dorazietti.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lpendergast.mpp@liberal.ola.org
speters.mpp@liberal.ola.org
gphillips.mpp@liberal.ola.org
spupatello.mpp@liberal.ola.org
sqaadri.mpp@liberal.ola.org
kramal.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dramsay.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lrinaldi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
truprecht.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lsandals.mpp@liberal.ola.org
msergio.mpp@liberal.ola.org
msmith.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
gsmitherman.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
gsorbara.mpp@liberal.ola.org
csousa.mpp@liberal.ola.org
htakhar.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mvanbommel.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jwatson.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jwilkinson.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dzimmer.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Opposition MPP’s
ted.arnott@pc.ola.org,
bob.bailey@pc.ola.org,
toby.barrett@pc.ola.org,
dinovoc-@ndp.on.ca,
garfield.dunlopco@pc.ola.org,
christine.elliott@pc.ola.org,
fgelinas-qp@ndp.on.ca,
hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca,
ernie.hardeman@pc.ola.org,
randy.hillierco@pc.ola.org,
ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca,
tim.hudakco@pc.ola.org,
sylvia.jones@pc.ola.org,
frank.klees@pc.ola.org,
pkormos-qp@ndp.on.ca,
lisa.macleod@pc.ola.org,
rmarchese-co@ndp.on.ca,
gerry.martiniuk@pc.ola.org,
norm.millerco@pc.ola.org,
pmiller-qp@ndp.on.ca,
julia.munro@pc.ola.org,
bill.murdoch@pc.ola.org,
john.otooleco@pc.ola.org,
jerry.ouellette@pc.ola.org,
mprue-qp@ndp.on.ca,
bob.runciman@pc.ola.org,
joyce.savoline@pc.ola.org,
laurie.scott@pc.ola.org,
peter.shurman@pc.ola.org,
norm.sterling@pc.ola.org,
tabunsp-qp@ndp.on.ca,
jim.wilson@pc.ola.org,
elizabeth.witmer@pc.ola.org,
john.yakabuski@pc.ola.org

John Gerretsen, M.P

January 13, 2009

By Ron Stephens
Independent candidate for Grey – Bruce

The letter below is from Hugh Christopher Brown of Wolfe Island, Ontario.

He, like many others in this province, is frustrated with the Minister of Environment. From the office of Premier McGuinty to the office of your local MPP, the government has shown absolute disrespect for the citizens of this province.

From the dismantling of Ont. Hydro by Maurice Strong, the father of Kyoto, to the present day, our electrical system has been guided, not by those who understand our electrical systems and the needs of the province, but by the E8, another Maurice Strong product, and Agenda 21 from the UN.

Our electrical system has been sold off, and the citizens and manufacturing sector are being fed to the wolves.

It would not matter which party is in power. They have all bought into the idea of rule by the UN. Sustainability they like to call it. Sustainability means giving up our rights and freedoms to an outside entity.

Treason, if you will.

Every political party in this province will push wind farms to appease the “Green Movement”. Why? Because they are gutless traitors.

The govt. cannot present a case to defend their actions, because other than Green rhetoric, there is no case.

Nowhere in the world has wind energy proven it’s worth. The Danes are fighting against wind farms in Denmark, birthplace of modern day wind energy.

Germany, home to more wind power than any other country is building 26 coal plants. Why? Wind is not doing the job, nor will it ever.

Denmark saw wind as a clean alternative. It is a very small country of 5 million, yet it is heavily dependent on it’s neighbours for it’s power.

Enron discovered they could make a lot of money and gain control of large portions of the American grid by jumping on the “Global Warming” wagon.

Clinton, Gore and Maurice Strong were all involved in helping Enron.

Through subsidies and tax benefits, combined with their natural gas interests, there was billions to be made.

Nothing has changed. The wind industry of today is the ghost of Enron reborn, and it’s just as evil.

Don’t take my word, do your own research.

Please support the people of Wolfe Island and the many other communities threatened by wind farms by sending your thoughts to the Minister of the Environment.

.

April 12, 2008

Mr. John Gerretsen, M.P

Minister of the Environment

135 St. Clair Ave W., 15th Floor

Toronto, Ontario

M4V 1P5
RE: WOLFE ISLAND WIND PROJECT – APPEAL REQUEST FOR EA
Dear Mr. Gerretsen:
I am in absolute disbelief that an individual Environmental

Assessment has been denied for this project.

CREC has obliged itself to deliver a wind plant with nameplate

capacity of 197.8 megawatts, to be operational by October 2008.
In a letter to Shelia Allen, dated January 4 2008, Ontario Projects

Manager Geoff Carnegie refers to financial penalties to be imposed by

the OPA should CREC fail to deliver on this obligation.
In the same letter, Mr Carnegie also comments on the economic

“non-viability” of turbine deactivation or removal, and allows that

CREC will counter adverse effects only by employing “commercially

reasonable” efforts.
So Mr. Gerretsen, am I to understand that a private energy company is

taking money to fulfill a production quota, self site a power plant,

and now declares itself immune to accountability on financial basis?
I do not need to go into great detail about the social and

environmental uniqueness of Wolfe Island. You have been well furnished

with documents to that effect. You know that this island sits at the

head of the biggest estuary on the planet, is on the flight path of a

significant number of migratory species, and is the nesting site for

many endangered species. You also know as a CLASS IV IBA, Wolfe Island

would not even qualify for this development were the proposal made

today.
You are also well aware that not a single turbine has been moved in

response to the

many recommendations of Environment Canada, Ministry of Natural Resources,

Ducks Unlimited and the Kingston Field Naturalists. So what exactly is

going on?
You have attended a conciliatory BBQ with optioned landowners and

told concerned citizens that you “like the look of windmills”.
You are the Minister of The Environment, and you demand nothing more

of corporations than they self regulate their practices as much as is

‘commercially reasonable’ ?
I am well aware of the political risks of criticising wind energy. I

also know that if these projects are done recklessly, it jeopardizes

the future of wind development in our country.
You need look no further than our divided community, or the price of

real estate Melanthon to see where a lack of policy is getting us.

Does your party want to go down as the builders of sustainability,

viable public infrastructure, or the contractors of political

expedience? To choose the later risks not only your legacy, but as I

stated, that of the industry itself.
I like the look of windmills too. I like the clusters of 4-5 you

see outside of Danish villages, or the 20 in Copenhagen’s harbour.

Denmark is the leader in renewable energy, has decades of experience

in wind harnessing, uses minimum setbacks of two kilometres, and

practices the environmentally meaningful method of energy production:

‘use at source’. This is not the paradigm being followed here.
Our constituency is further insulted that we are left to the mercy

of absurd ‘post construction mitigation’, carried out at the

discretion of a company which has lied to us with promises of turbine

deactivation in the event of high avian mortality, noise, ice throw or

other perils. Mr Carnegie’s letter lets us know this form of

mitigation is actually an autopsy. Once our habitats are desecrated,

CREC proposes buying land elsewhere and “creating new sites with

desirable habitat features”. So much for good old conservation. I

would call this level of vanity ‘Biblical’.
If a bump-up is denied , we will take every political and legal

measure to bring this ill-informed green washing to light. As a

musician who travels the world, I have watched communities grow up

quickly in the face of political opportunists. I am no longer asked in

interviews what my problem with wind power is, but where is my

government in all this?
I would like to say that it is working with due diligence to secure

meaningful and sustainable practises. Today those are definitely not

the words I use. Give our island the respect of full environmental

assessment, and let us implement appropriate safeguards to protect the

environment and your constituents. Anything less implicates a

dedicated ignorance or ulterior motive.
Sincerely,
Hugh Christopher Brown

Wolfe Island, Ontario

c.c.
Lynn Moore, Chair

Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment

792 Fairfax Dr., Kingston, Ontario K7M 4V7
c.c.
Dalton McGuinty, Premier

Legislative Building

Queen’s Park

Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1

dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
Mr. Robert W. Runciman

Room 436, Main Legislative Building

Toronto ON M7A 1A4

rwrunciman@brockville.com
John Yakabuski

Official Opposition Energy Critic

Queen’s Park

Room 202, N.W., Legislative building

Toronto, Ontario M7A lA8

john.yakabuski@pc.ola.org
Ted Arnott

Tourism Critic PC

181 St. Andrew St E, 2nd Flr

Fergus ON N1M 1P9

ted.arnott@pc.ola.org
Ms. Peggy Smith, Solicitor

160 Johnson St.,

Kingston, Ontario K7L 1Y1

middle@kos.net
Mr. John Tory, PC Leader,

Room 200, NW, Legislative Bldg,

Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario M7A lA8

leader@ontariopc.net
Ms. Elizabeth May, Leader

Green Party of Canada

P.O. Box 997, Station B

Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5R1

leader@greenparty.ca

Kingsville as partner in anti-wind farm fight

December 17, 2008

Leamington council plans to ask Kingsville to join it in hiring a consultant to object to offshore wind turbines proposed for Lake Erie.

Leamington Mayor John Adams said council had a large delegation of residents in 2006 who were opposed to the offshore turbines. At that time, council said it was opposed to the offshore wind farm.

“We certainly support the residents even now,” Adams said Tuesday.

Council agreed Monday to forward its questions to the Ministry of Environment, meet with the developer and see if Kingsville is interested in hiring a consultant.

A report to Leamington council Monday listed some of the concerns and questions for the developer. The first was the proximity to Point Pelee National Park, bird and bat migration and the impact on fish.

The report said residents were also concerned about the potential impacts on tourism, cottaging, recreation, aesthetics and views.

Leamington wants to know the exact location of the turbines, their height above water level and the air and noise impacts.

The issue has a long history. After residents opposed the proposal, the provincial government put a moratorium on offshore wind developments in November 2006 until they could be studied. By January 2008, the moratorium was lifted.

Adams said the consultant’s report will come back to council next year and council will likely hold a public meeting. Although the municipality is only a consulting agency, because the development would be on Crown land, the towns do have some control over granting easements to run powerlines on land.

“That’s where the municipalities would have a bigger say in whether to allow it or not,” Adams said. “Right at this point, I would say they would not allow it.”

In January, Kingsville council reaffirmed its opposition to offshore wind turbines. Since both councils were meeting Monday night, Kingsville council has not had a chance to deal with Leamington’s request.

full article at Windsor Star

Essex considers wind farms ban

December 16, 2008

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine

Essex considers wind farms ban

ESSEX — The Town of Essex became the first area municipality to propose a ban Monday on wind turbine projects until all health questions raised by residents are clearly answered by provincial experts.

“We are gambling with the health, safety and quality of life of the people around us,” said Coun. Ron Rogers, who proposed the ban. “We need answers and guidance from our provincial ministries.”

The council debate on the ban is set for Feb. 23 to allow wind industry, provincial government and health experts to respond to issues such as noise, vibration, risk of structural failure, ice throw from blades, and electrical surges.

Input will also be sought from other Ontario municipalities that have banned or are about to ban the giant turbines even though provincial planning policy has encouraged wind energy development.

Rogers said he was frustrated with the divergent opinions on wind turbines, and the lack of help from the province and Essex County in sorting them out.

Among local municipalities, for example, the minimum proposed setback from turbines to homes ranges from the high of 600 metres in Amherstburg to the low of 300 metres in Lakeshore and Kingsville, Rogers noted. Essex decided to go down the middle with a minimum setback of 450 metres, he added.

Provincial experts ought to advise municipalities on safe setbacks for wind turbines so the numbers don’t vary all over Ontario, Rogers said.

The $100,000 study done by Essex County on wind energy ducked the minimum setback issue completely, Rogers said.

Council chamber was packed with residents who mostly applauded Roger’s idea. Mayor Ron McDermott had to ask some not to interrupt councilors or risk ejection.

None of the companies that have proposed wind turbine projects in the town were present.

Closest to starting construction in 2009 is a 24 turbine, $100 million project by AIM PowerGen over 1,400 acres of farmland southwest of Harrow. That project is supposed to annually generate about $300,000 in lease payments to farmers and about $81,000 in property taxes.

“I won’t support the motion before us tonight,” said Coun. Randy Voakes. “Don’t think I haven’t wrestled with it.”

In tough economic times, the town has to accept development that will bring some new jobs and revenue into the community, Voakes. “Every little bit will help families in need,” he said.

Voakes thought the health questions raised by Rogers had been answered in the last two years. “We’re the only municipality dragging our feet on this issue.”

But Rogers downplayed the job creation benefits of wind turbines as limited to construction crews and a handful of full-time maintenance workers.

McDermott objected to the government telling municipalities to accept wind energy without answering all the questions that residents are asking. “They’re making us spend our money to investigate this,” said the mayor.

“I want the province to tell me what a safe setback is,” said Deputy Mayor Richard Meloche.

Meloche added: “I probably get 20 emails a day on the horror stories people have gone through.” On the other hand, he added, wind turbine companies say complaints are rare and the risks minimal.

“I have concerns,” said Meloche – but not the expertise to make decisions.

Full story at the Windsor Star

Leave a comment here or at the Star.

Is the govt. being honest about wind energy

December 10, 2008

poll results

wind turbines towering over farm

Is the govt. being honest about wind energy

Yes (198)
No (840)
Don’t Know (83)

Total votes: 1121

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Before You Sign a Wind Turbine Contract

Windmills vs. NIMBYism – Toronto Star -Propagandist For the Wind Industry

October 20, 2008
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 country 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

EPCOR and the Ontario Power Authority mutually agree to terminate Kingsbridge II contract

October 15, 2008
Suncor wind farm Ripley

Embridge wind farm Kincardine

CTV News did a story on health problems associated with wind farms. Ernie Marshall moved from his home at the Kingsbridge l wind farm after suffering health problems. I would like to think this had something to do with Epcor’s  decision not to go ahead with the second phase of the project. A corporation with a heart?

Wind turbines cause health problems, residents say – CTV News

TORONTO and GODERICH, ON, Oct. 15 /CNW/ – EPCOR Utilities Inc. (EPCOR) announced today that the company and the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) have mutually agreed to terminate the renewable energy supply agreement for EPCOR’s 160 megawatt Kingsbridge II wind project in the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh.

The Kingsbridge II project was selected through a Request for Proposals
(RFP) process in November 2005, and a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for output from the project was signed on November 21, 2005. The PPA required the project to be in service by October 31, 2008.

EPCOR experienced delays obtaining provincial and municipal approvals forthe project, and uncertainty respecting regulations concerning the project’s layout, design, and testing. As a result, EPCOR would be unable to meet the contracts conditions as a result of circumstances beyond its control. EPCOR has decided in cooperation with the OPA that it will not proceed with this project as originally planned. EPCOR will not incur any asset write-downs associated with this decision.

Source CNW Group

Green, not dumb – The Reality of Wind Energy

September 29, 2008

Editor:

It is quite unfortunate that a man like Mr. Carr, former CEO of the Ontario Power Authority, who has known for a long time, the problems with wind energy, declined to step forward until now.

Many families in the province have had their lives ruined while he and his colleagues remained silent.

That said, maybe his words will encourage others to step forward.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who refused, to shut up, lay down or go away. Be proud of the fight you have, and continue to wage. Truth and justice are always worth the effort.

May other citizens learn from your example.

Jan Carr, former OPA CEO, will now tell you exactly what we have been saying for years.

Thanks for coming forward Mr. Carr, and welcome aboard the truth train.

Mr. Carr’s letter to the Globe and Mail.

.

Green, not dumb

Toronto — My wife suggested Murray Campbell’s use of “old” in “dumb old utility guys” should be my basis for a complaint to a human rights tribunal (‘Dougs’ Take Warning: Curious George Is Keen On Green – Sept. 25), as the former CEO of the Ontario Power Authority.

Let the facts speak for themselves. The OECD’s International Energy Agency and the websites of the European utilities themselves say it all. In spite of hype about their innovation in renewable energy, both Germany and Denmark derive half of their electricity from coal-fired stations. As its nuclear generating stations reach the end of their design-lives, Germany will have to decide between building new coal-fired generation (it already has 10 times the amount that Ontario has) and abandoning its no-new-nuclear policy. With a quarter of its supply coming from renewables and more on the way, Ontario’s electricity is already considerably greener than Germany’s and soon will take league leadership from Denmark.

Then check electricity prices. Germans pay double and Danes triple what Ontarians do.

From the Globe and Mail

Today at noon, Ontario’s 672MW’s of wind were producing 32MW’s

Province to push renewables – Green Energy for Ontario

September 19, 2008

The Ontario Govt. seems to like this story. Maybe if they read it enough times they might just figure out the scam themselves. It’s 4:15 Fri. the 26th of  Sept. The Gov. of Ontario has viewed this page 12 times today.

gov.on.ca Toronto, Ontario 4:06:34 pm 3 24:48 http://windfarms.wordpress.com/agenda-21/

gov.on.ca Toronto, Ontario 4:03:20 pm 7 62:45 http://kincardine.wordpress.com/…09/21/ontario-pushes-renewables/

gov.on.ca Toronto, Ontario 3:41:46 pm http://kincardine.wordpress.com/…09/21/ontario-pushes-renewables/

gov.on.ca ? (Canada) Time of Visit Sep 26 2008 3:00:35 pm Last Page View Sep 26 2008 3:37:56 pm Visit Length 37 minutes 21 seconds Page Views 6 Visit Entry Page http://kincardine.wo…o-pushes-renewables/

gov.on.ca Toronto, Ontario Sep 26 1:50:25 pm
http://kincardine.wordpress.com/…09/21/ontario-pushes-renewables/

gov.on.ca ? Sep 26 2008 1:16:51 pm

http://kincardine.wo…o-pushes-renewables/

gov.on.ca ? Sep 26 2008 9:44:51 am
http://kincardine.wo…o-pushes-renewables

As you read through this article from the Toronto Star, you might want to ask yourself. Where are the people and engineers that actually understand our energy system. Then I want you to read the Green Agenda in order to understand what is taking place. This is not about energy, it about control. You might also ask yourself how these people gained such influence over our elected officials.

I try not to cuss, but under the circumstances it seems appropriate.

Global Warming is a complete and total fraud. The sooner you understand it the better off you will be.

Smitherman calls for review of energy plan to speed conservation, and green technologies (Smitherman used to be the Ont. health minister. He’s the guy who wanted our elders to sit in their own dirty diapers until they were 75% full. Go fuck yourself Smitherman.)added

Energy Reporter ( Hamilton says he’s an energy reporter yet he has no idea what he’s talking about. If he did, he would refuse to write this drivel. A shill for CanWEA and the wind industry in general.  Tyler go fuck yourself.) added

NIAGARA FALLS–Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman has directed Ontario’s power authority to review and “fine tune” the province’s 20-year energy plan with the goal of accelerating conservation efforts and adding more renewable energy to the electricity mix.

But Smitherman, also deputy premier, said yesterday in a speech to energy-industry officials that the government is sticking with its target of phasing out coal by 2014 and maintaining the capacity of Ontario’s nuclear power fleet.

Inspired by recent learning expeditions to Spain, Denmark and Germany, considered global leaders in renewable energy adoption, and to California, the energy-conservation capital of North America, Smitherman said he’s convinced that more can be done in Ontario to unlock the potential of conservation and clean energy.

The Wind Energy Scam- Compare the Numbers

(Denmark is a tiny country  with about the same population as Metro Toronto, they are 83% dependent on fossil fuel for their energy. Germany is now fast tracking coal plants because they need energy.  Germany is over 60% dependent on fossil fuel for their energy and it will rise as they add coal plants. Go fuck yourself Smitherman.)added

The review will also look at ways to improve transmission capacity that has limited the development of renewable-energy projects, as well as explore opportunities for pump storage – a way of storing water power in natural geological reservoirs for use during peak times.

“With innovation and strong leadership I know we can raise the bar on the energy system,” said Smitherman, making his first major speech since he took over the “super ministry” in June. “Just because we’re doing well doesn’t mean we can’t do it better.”

(Smitherman, you couldn’t even figure out how to keep our elders in clean diapers and we are to trust you with our electrical system. Go Fuck yourself)added

In an interview, Smitherman said he would work “very closely” with the Ontario Power Authority over the next six months to refine the plan.

Environmental groups appreciated the strengthened commitment to green power and conservation but said Smitherman, by leaving the nuclear file untouched, didn’t go far enough.

“We agree that prioritizing renewable energy and conservation is essential as such economic strategy holds huge potential for job creation and the establishment of new industries to replace job losses in Ontario,” said José Etcheverry from the David Suzuki Foundation.

“However, we also believe that rethinking the commitment to new nuclear and refurbishments should be now top on the agenda to develop a truly innovative, reliable, and competitive green-energy sector in Ontario.”

(David Suzuki and his followers want no coal and no nukes. Think about it! Suzuki go fuck yourself)added

Both the Canadian Wind Energy Association and the Ontario Waterpower Association said they were encouraged by the announcement. “I am particularly pleased with the recognition that enabling transmission is critical to the achievement of our renewable energy targets,” said Paul Norris, president of the water association.

The Ontario Power Authority’s proposal – called the Integrated Power System Plan – is currently in the hands of the Ontario Energy Board. The regulator launched a hearing early last month that will determine if the plan is “economically prudent” and “cost effective.”

Under the current plan, Ontario’s nuclear power capacity is limited to 14,000 megawatts, which will be maintained by building new reactors or refurbishing old ones. Renewable energy has been doubled to 15,700 megawatts, while conservation and demand management efforts are targeting a 6,300-megawatt reduction in peak-time energy consumption by 2025.

Some industry associations, including the Power Workers’ Union, consider the renewable and conservation targets already too aggressive and say coal plants should be cleaned up and kept in the mix.

Smitherman said Ontario hasn’t begun to scratch the surface and the government isn’t going to rest on its laurels. “I’m pretty stoked, really, about the early progress that we’ve made, and the message that sends about the next steps.”

Keith Stewart, an energy expert with WWF-Canada, said it’s unclear what will happen at the current energy board hearings. “It is difficult to see how the hearings would proceed while the review is under way.”

(Stewart is not an energy expert anymore than anyone reading this is.(Keith Stewart has a PhD in political science from York University, where he studied environmental politics Gerald Butt’s the ex-principal secretary for McGuinty, is now the head of WWF Canada and a Bilderberger. For working so hard to undermine Ont. and it’s economy, go fuck yourselves.)added

This article is from the Toronto Star one of Ontario’s many propaganda machines

Read the GREEN AGENDA.

get educated

and

WAKE UP!

Wind energy unreliable, says E.On

Wind Energy – Can it last? – The Scam Continues For Now

September 13, 2008

Can it last?

On the back of the BBC having a go at subsidy wind farms, we now have The Sunday Telegraph joining the battle.

This paper is retailing a report from the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) which asserts that wind is failing to deliver value for money and distorting the development of other renewable energy sources. Furthermore, excessive subsidies make them an expensive and inefficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The report is actually written by John Constable, of REF, and Robert Barfoot, the chairman of the North Devon branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. And even this has a greenie tinge as they say the subsidy scheme is encouraging energy firms to build as many wind farms as possible because it is more profitable than investing in other more expensive forms of renewable technology, such as wave power.

Actually, the main problem is that the generosity of the subsidy scheme is diverting cash from investment in longer-term schemes such as nuclear, and also driving generators to invest in increasingly expensive gas, this being the most suitable back-up for wind.

Nevertheless, the report authors say: “The market for renewable energy is an artificial one created and maintained by government legislation. The question is whether this consumer-derived money is well spent. It is worth noting that the excessive subsidy offered to onshore wind development has drawn developers even to sites where the wind resource is very weak and the environmental impact severe.”

Full report at EU Referendum