Archive for the ‘Ontario wind farms’ Category

Video of Dr. Copes Speaking in Owen Sound-Wind Turbines

October 3, 2009

Editor:

As you read the article that follows, pay attention to what Bill Murdoch MPP has to say. First – the Ont. Conservative Party planned to install more wind turbines than the Liberals – stated in their 2007 election platform.

Murdoch says he opposed the GEA but he never bothered to vote against it.  When his office was asked why Murdoch was not in the House for the vote his rep said he had a prior engagement.  What could be more important than voting on the removal of Municipal rights.

Murdoch is as guilty as anyone for not standing up for the people of his riding. Why was he not holding information meetings in his riding to inform and advise his constituents about the coming folly.

Why didn’t Murdoch attend the meeting held on the 1st?  It was held just down the street form his office

Gutless, or part of the Treason taking place in this province. You decide!

Posted By Denis Langlois   Owen Sound Times

It’s too late to stop the surge of wind-farm development in Ontario, even by arguing the turbines cause illness, says Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound MPP Bill Murdoch.

“As far as what they can do about it, there really isn’t a heck of a lot,” he said yesterday.

Murdoch’s comments come a day after about 120 people attended a public meeting at the Grey Bruce Health Unit in Owen Sound about health effects of wind turbines.

The Progressive Conservative MPP said residents’ concerns will likely fall on deaf ears of policy makers and Liberal cabinet ministers at Queen’s Park, since the Green Energy Act is now law.

Asked what people can do, Murdoch initially said “not a thing. It’s over. It’s a law.”

Later, he said concerned residents can write to Premier Dalton McGuinty or the Ontario Ministry of Health. Letters to Murdoch’s office will be forwarded, he said.

“They’re pretty much euchred. I don’t know where they can go. Some will say (I) can do something about it. There’s not a thing I can do about it. It’s a law,” he said.

People who believe the giant wind turbines cause illness can seek medical attention from a doctor, retain a lawyer and sue, Murdoch said, but that will likely be a “waste of money.”

Emotions ran high at Thursday’s public meeting, which the health unit organized to provide wind turbine information to residents.

Keynote speaker Dr. Ray Copes, a director at the Ontario Agency of Health Protection and Promotion, was heckled by the crowd several times after his one-hour slide presentation revealed little new information.

People took exception to Copes’ characterization of health impacts caused by turbines as an “annoyance” and his claim no proof exists linking illness to wind turbines.

People opposed to wind farms say turbines cause health problems such as chronic sleep disturbance, dizziness, exhaustion, anxiety, depression, irritability, nausea and ringing in ears.

Medical officer of health Dr. Hazel Lynn said she is aware “suffering” is being attributed to turbines, but has no power to make or influence changes to the Green Energy Act. The health unit cannot perform in-depth studies on health claims either, she said.

Lynn criticized the act at the public meeting, saying “we need more choices” since it strips local municipalities of the authority to make decisions about turbine setbacks. The act requires a 550-metre setback from a turbine to residential properties.

Murdoch said he opposed the act at Queen’s Park for that reason.

Progressive Conservatives MPPs voted against it and Murdoch said perhaps a change in government would lead to some changes. The next provincial election is in 2011.

“There’s going to be a lot of wind turbines put up in the next two years, I would assume, within the context of that law,” he said.

The province has promised to eliminate coal-fired power by 2014 and add 975 wind turbines by 2012.

A second public meeting, organized by the health unit, is scheduled for Tuesday from 7 to 9 p.m. at Walkerton’s Jubilee Hall.

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

Doctor calls for health study

February 2, 2009

Doctor calls for health studies on windmill farms

By JOHN MINER, SUN MEDIA

When London surgeon Robert McMurtry decided to build a house, he wanted to go green — geothermal heating, solar panels for hot water and a wind turbine for electricity.

But when he started reading about wind turbines, the former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario said he had a change of heart.

“I thought, ‘Holy Toledo, there are some issues here.’ ”

Dozens of wind turbines have already been built or proposed in Southwestern Ontario, as Queen’s Park tries to wean Ontario off dirty coal-fired electricity plants and reduce its reliance on nuclear power.

McMurtry is calling for health studies into the wind turbine farms popping up across Ontario with backing by the provincial government. With towers nearly 100 metres tall, and blades half that long, the turbines can be an imposing sight, even from afar.


fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);
<!– –>

“At minimum, they should be doing a survey of people around wind farms and getting a sense of how many people are complaining of problems,” he said.

“If there is enough evidence, they should mount a formal epidemiological study,” McMurtry said.

In the U.S. and Western Europe especially, where wind farms are more advanced than in Canada, complaints abound about the low-frequency sound the giant windmills generate.

In Canada, Ontario is one of the only provinces with any regulations governing wind farms, requiring a noise-impact assessment for areas up to 1,000 metres from the wind turbine.

McMurtry is concerned about the health complaints he’s heard from people living near wind farms, including sleep disturbance from the noise of the giant turbine blades.

“Once you have sleep disturbance for a few days, you aren’t going to be feeling well,” he said.

Last week, the province announced it’s backing six new wind farm projects, including three in Chatham-Kent, that are expected to create 558 jobs.

Total investment in the new farms is expected to reach $1.32 billion.

McMurtry, who has taken his concerns to Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman, said it’s going to be an uphill battle to convince people to look hard at the health implications because turbines have become closely associated with green energy.

“It has got an iconic, symbolic status that really carries a lot of weight and there is a very powerful, worldwide lobby group behind it,” he said.

McMurtry said turbines smaller than the ones being installed may be better than the monsters now going up.

“Harness the wind safely. Let’s look at other alternatives. There are better, smarter options,” he added.

Monica Elmes, of the Chatham-Kent Wind Action Group, an organization opposed to the wind farms, said the turbines will be an unreliable, intermittent source of electricity and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

“All Ontario residents are truly the losers in this scam,” Elmes said in an e-mail.

For the latest local coverage, read The London Free Press on the web or in print.

Video of the Ripley wind farm

DIRE WARNINGS FOR ONTARIO

January 19, 2009

WORLD RENOWNED EXPERT ISSUES DIRE WARNINGS TO RESIDENTS OF ONTARIO

Picton, Ontario, January 15, 2009-

200 Picton area residents braved frigid temperatures Thursday night to hear about the serious health risks associated with Industrial Wind Turbines.

Dr. Magda Havas Ph.D., Associate Professor of Environmental and Resource Studies at Peterborough’s Trent University and one of the world’s leading research experts in the areas of electromagnetic pollution, radio frequency radiation, ground current and dirty electricity delivered alarming warnings about the dangers to human and animal health, posed by Industrial Wind Turbines.

Dr. Havas was the featured speaker in Picton. Havas identified two significant problem areas that pose substantive threats to the health of those living or working in proximity to wind turbine developments – Infrasound or Low Frequency Sound emitted by the turbines themselves and both Dirty Electricity and stray voltage related to the electricity produced by turbines.

The human body feels and reacts to sound waves that we cannot hear. These waves, in the low end of the sound spectrum (under 20 Hz), are well documented to cause nausea, joint pain, insomnia, depression, agitation, increased blood pressure and possible heart problems. It is also a major cause of Vibroacoustic Disease which can lead to vision problems, digestive problems, cardiovascular problems, and circulatory difficulties.

Since infrasound can carry over very long distances, Dr. Havas says that the jury is still out on how far away from people Industrial Wind Turbines should be located. She quoted the French Academy of Medicine guidelines which call for a minimum setback of 1.5 kilometers and Dr. Nina Pierpont of New York State, who has done comprehensive research into turbine related illnesses, who calls for a minimum of 2 kilometers.

But Dr. Havas was quick to point out that infrasound is not the only danger to local residents posed by wind turbines. She is particularly concerned about the impacts of “Dirty Electricity” also a byproduct of Wind Turbines in Ontario, “… the worst part of it is that it could all be eliminated with proper design and care”, Havas said. “However, there is a cost involved….do you think that they will spend the money necessary to correct a problem that they refuse to admit even exists?”

Some of the symptoms created by Dirty Electricity in the home resemble those caused by infrasound. They include nausea, sleep disorders, headaches, dizziness, tinnitus and irregular heart beat. Havas has done important research into this area and studies have identified substantially increased rates of cancers, increased blood sugar among some diabetics, skin sensitivities, and other equally disturbing conditions.

Havas’ presentation followed that of Bill Palmer a Professional Engineer with experience in risk assessment and public safety. Palmer identified the fact that Hydro One has setback guidelines to protect their critical Hydro lines from possible turbine damage but the Ontario Government has put no setbacks in place to protect people. “Hydro requires a setback of 500 meters from their most important lines – to protect against mechanical damage from a turbine collapse or blade failure”, Palmer said. “Unfortunately, no such guidelines are in place for public safety to protect people traveling on roadways, in their fields adjacent to a turbine, or in their homes…..There are no guidelines in place to protect citizens from these same mechanical risks that Hydro One has setbacks for. He went on to show how the calculation of the setback required for noise from wind

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

Bonnechere Valley Township Loses Backbone

January 7, 2009

Editor:

A few days ago the Bonnechere Valley Township called for a moratorium on wind farms until studies could be done to make sure the wind turbines were being located at safe distances from people.

I got an email a short time ago saying that during an emergency meeting the council rescinded their request. (An emergency meeting for a wind farm?)

I will update as I get more information.

I have seen this kind on nonsense before while trying to convince the ACW council to call for larger setbacks for the Epcor-Kingsbridge ll wind farm near Goderich Ont.

Please read what the Bonnechere Valley Township said a few days ago and then try to figure out the reason for the quick flip.

I know, but you try and figure it out.

BV TOWNSHIP adds it’s name to “Councils with Backbone”!

PREAMBLE:

Wind energy generation is a useful and potentially environmentally friendly method of augmenting our growing energy needs. At present, many municipalities across Ontario and the rest of Canada are considering numerous approvals for projects to harness this energy source. These projects are being undertaken mostly on private lands that cover terrains ranging from flat farmlands to mountains with heavy forest cover. Each application is being considered on a case-by-case basis with engineering and environmental reports being commissioned before decisions are made. However, the technical nature of the information in these reports is frequently beyond the ability of most municipal staff to comprehend in any meaningful way; therefore, we rely upon reviews by different engineers for interpretation. Even these reviewers do not have sufficient resources to undertake more than a casual review of the technical data and are unable to do much more than fact check the data. Some of the issues of greatest concern to the public, such as noise, economic impact and possible medical side effects, are little understood by the engineers as well as municipal councils and staffs, even after these reports and peer reviews are presented. Our tendency is be dismissive of challenges to findings that show noise levels to be within Ministry of Environment guidelines. Supposed medical concerns are generally dismissed outright. This could be a costly mistake.

There is a growing body of concern around the world that there is a need for a more comprehensive study of the reported incidents of apparent adverse health reactions due to prolonged exposure to the environmental alterations caused by industrial wind generation projects. It is beyond the expertise of municipalities and the resources available to them to undertake any meaningful studies in this area. Additionally, it would be wasteful in terms of time, money and resources to study this issue on a project-by-project basis. The provincial and federal levels of government in conjunction with the international community need to determine the nature of these health concerns through scientific study in order to create guidelines for safe setback distances from residential and other sensitive occupancies.

Please visit the SOS site for full statement

Suncor wind farm Ripley

Suncor wind farm Ripley

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Roger Fuhr – A Fox in the Hen House!

December 20, 2008

I wondered why Mr. Fuhr was so vile in his response to WCO.  WCO asked his council to consider joining other councils asking for a health study before any more wind turbines are erected in Ontario.

Yesterday when this was posted I thought Mr. Fuhr was just misinformed.

NOW WE KNOW

Council Minutes, Jan 30, 2006 7:30 p.m.
Roger Fuhr and Tyler Moore, CEO of Permanent Power Solutions met with council to make a presentation on Wind Energy. Council asked questions of the presenters. Reeve McKay thanked them for coming and explaining this interesting concept. Council will give it some consideration when working on the building plans.

Township of Perth South – Local Business Listings:

FREE BREEZE Energy Systems ltd.
4236 Perth Line 20
St. Pauls, Ontario, N0K 1V0
ph. 519-271-1636
fx. 519-271-1636
eml. roger@freebreeze.com
www.freebreeze.com

Primary Contact: Roger Fuhr

Number of Employees 2007: 8

Wind & Solar Power – FreeBreeze Energy Systems Ltd. provides turn-key renewable energy systems. We specialize in custom wind and solar installations of all sizes.

Operating since 2001 out of Waterloo and St. Pauls

Mr. Fuhr is a fox in the hen house – are there more on this council?

What about the other councils?

The foxes and weasels must be rooted out!

Put them on a slow boat to China so they can be with their mentor Maurice Strong


As you can see below, Mr. Fuhr appears to be wearing his turbine proudly and refuses to accept any information that may cast a shadow on his turbine or its perceived benefits for society.

No one is suggesting Mr. Fuhr  give up his turbine – live and let live – but should his beliefs be forced upon the rest of society?

Money above all else!

perth-south-council-2007
click to enlarge

Township of Perth South,
Council & Staff

Back Row – left to right: James Aitcheson, Councillor; Wm. Doupe, Operations Manager; Cathy Barker, Councillor; Stuart Arkett, Councillor; Elizabeth Armstrong, Councillor; Roger Fuhr, Councillor; Don Templeman, CBO; Front Row: Muriel King, Clerk-Treasurer; Ronald McKay, Reeve; Robert Wilhelm, Deputy-Reeve

Mr. Fuhr – The govt. of Ontario visits this site on a daily basis. I requested they look over the information contained and to contact me if they find any information they feel is incorrect. To date there have been no requests for any changes. Please educate yourself and your council.

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Are turbines making some people sick?

Germany Plans Boom in Coal-Fired Power Plants

Wind turbines cause health problems, residents say – CTV News

The Wind Energy Scam- Compare the Numbers

Wind energy unreliable, says E.On

Here is the request sent to you and your council by WCO ( Wind Concerns Ontario)

Honorable Mayor and Councilors,

The Ontario Provincial government has mandated development of wind electrical generators across rural Ontario communities yet has set the entire process in motion with no guidelines or information given to the rural municipalities.
They have downloaded the entire responsiblity to small rural communities who do not have the resources to deal with this new and complex technology in regards to planning and protection of residential and sensitive wildlife areas.
In the past few weeks, several municipalities are beginning to question this and are now asking the province to take some responsibility if they are insisting on forcing this onto rural communities.  (Please click on each link to learn more on what these communities are doing.)
FACT:   The Province of Ontario has conducted NO epidemiology/health studies on wind turbines and human health nor have they consulted any in creating their policies.

FACT:   In comparison with other countries in the world, the province of Ontario is allowing some of the closest setbacks from homes and families.    This allows virtually no protection from any health, noise or flicker problems.

FACT:  The Province of Ontario has refused every request to date (appox 19) to conduct a full environmental assessment – only proponent driven “reviews” (basically checklists) with no independent confirmation or peer review.

FACT:   The Province of Ontario has relied on CanWEA, a consortium and industrial lobby group for 350 wind companies to obtain the majority of their pricing, policy and information in regards to siting.

FACT:  Families in Melanchon have been bought out of their homes and then made to sign gag orders to stop any complaints.   Families in Ripley have been evacuated from their homes due to dirty electricity and stray voltage due to industrial wind turbines.  There are also complaints from the Goderich and Port Burwell wind farms and most recently, Port Alma.

FACT:   The Province of Ontario has downloaded the entire responsiblity onto small rural municipalities who do not have the resources to deal with this new, complex issue.

WHY?    So the Provincial government will be blameless in the end.

We urge you to please follow the lead of Loyalist Township, Dawn-Emphemia Township, South Algonquin Township, Prince Edward County, the Township of Norwich, the Township of St. Clair, the Municipality of Essex and the Municipality of Leamington in sending a message to the provincial government  that this is unacceptable.
No one but YOU the rural municipal Councilors and Mayors have the power to act.
Respectfully,
Maureen Anderson
Wind Concerns Ontario
http://windconcernsontario.org
And your response –
Sent to WCO website:
I am absolutely shocked to read so many comments here that are, quite frankly, totally irresponsible. Its hard to imagine how many people suffer from NIMBY in this province. Also difficult to believe that so many are in denial still regarding climate change. I have an idea, lets go with safe nuclear power, its not like we are leaving any problems with future generations like byproducts that we can’t dispose of. And, lets build more of these plants in the backyards of those people who would not like to have wind generators. We could give them the option of a coal fired generator in their backyard if they don’t like the nuclear one. Is this a fairer solution to you power wasters out there?? Sincerely, Councillor Roger Fuhr, Township of Perth South, Ontario.
rfuhr@quadro.net

Dear Mr. Fuhr

To offer the alternative of a coal or nuclear generation in my backyard is clearly not an option our provincial gov’t is imposing on myself and my neighbours having to face Industrial Wind Development.  What is being forced upon us,  is  plain and simply several  400 ft structures that are causing Vibroacoustic disease among residents living within 2 km of these behemoths. Have a look at Ripley, Goderich, Shelburne and now Melancthon.   In addition because there is no good regulation that can help municipalities site these fans on a stick properly,  wind developers are getting away with undersized transmission design which are leading stray voltage and dirty electricity into people’s homes.  The symptoms are described as living in a microwave.   I can see from your sarcasm you would boil that down to the NIMBY syndrome without so much as an effort to investigate for yourself. I’ve been to visit these people and it’s nothing short of a train wreck.

If the health issues are not enough for you,  how about sinking taxpayers dollars into an unreliable, non dispatchable, inefficient, miniscule amount of energy all to the tune of 2.5 x the going electricity rates.   In turn,  there will be not one fossil fuel generating plant closed nor will we gain  on the GHG emissions.  Looks like  your wish for us NIMBY’s to face a coal generating plant my happen anyway just like Germany is presently doing with 26 new coal generating plants despite having the largest penetration of wind energy.

We all want to do good things for our world, our families our communities our environment.  At first glance wind seems to fit in with these good intentions.  But now is the time to stop with the ideology and put good hard numbers and investigate this before it goes too far and hurts exactly what we are all trying our darndest to protect.
I beg of you Mr. Fuhr, stop accusing us of being NIMBY’s.  We are all deeply concerned citizens that are facing the challenge of a lifetime as well as a very real threat.
Colette McLean
Essex County landowner facing the threat of 30 turbines all within 2 km of my home.

Dear Ms. McLean:  I sincerely apologize for any offense taken by you for my comments. There certainly was no intent there to do so.  While I do not consider myself to be an expert in the field, your comment regarding lack of effort to investigate is absolutely not true.  I have been educating myself for almost 5 years now regarding such issues. I, for one, view the installations at Shelburne and etc. as beautiful projects indicating our desire to become responsible users of power.

Vibrocaustic disease is, in my opinion, not a proven fact,  and even if it was, it pales in comparison to the effects of nuclear accidents. I’m sure you have viewed the effects of the meltdown of the reactor at Chernobyl.  Which medical issues do you view as being worse?  I do not know of anyone who would want a nuclear reactor in their back yard.  And, I view the issue of leaving nuclear waste behind for future generations to deal with as absolutely irresponsible in every way, shape and form.  How long do you think it will be before these wastes poison our water, land, and whatever other resources that we do not own, but simply borrow from our children, would you like some of this heavy water in your well? Living near hydro lines of any type has been an issue for years, I’m sure you know that homes are not allowed to be built close to such transmission lines.  Why do you think that is, perhaps because wind generators cause this?  No, it is because electricity in the forms we produce it and move it, is not a natural occurence which is yet another example of how man abuses nature.

Do you have a microwave oven in your home?  Do you use it or ever eat food cooked in a microwave? Do you believe that such food is safe for human consumption?  If yes to any of these, then you are already near to, and consuming microwaved foods.  Are you prepared to ban microwave ovens from society?

Wind developers are hooking their equipment into one of the most antiquated transmission systems in the developed world, and so are generating devices of all kinds, such as coal, nuclear, hydro and etc.  It is the fault of our provincial government that our transmission system has been allowed to be outdated, despite the billions of dollars that have been poured into the grid over the decades.  Some of this investment has been absolutely wasted on such things as drastic cost overruns to build nuclear plants and also millions of dollars to get rid of executives within hydro one and related firms.  Are you pleased to be paying a debt retirement fee on your power bill?  Do you believe that any business should be allowed to make such charges to their customers?  The behemoths known as Hydro One, OPA, OPG and whatever other derivitives the provincial goverment can come up with, are totally dysfunctional organizations in every sense of the word.

Regarding electricity rates, I surely hope you understand that our power bills have been being subsidized by taxpayers for decades now.  Do you believe that the cost to produce electricity is 5.3 cents per killowatt hour?  If you do, try dividing your entire power bill by the number of kilowatt hours that you have purchased, this should be an indication for you of how they hide the actual cost of power.  I believe the actual cost of electricity should be paid up front, and that this actual cost of production is most certainly in excess of 15 cents per kilowatt hour.  Nuclear production of power easily exceeds that cost.  Even solar power, one of the cleanest ways to produce electricity, has been granted a 42 cent per kilowatt hour rate by the Ontario government.  Surely you must be able to deduce that 5.3 cents a kilowatt hour in no way, shape or form, accurately represents the cost of production.
I have to admit, that I am unaware of any such new coal fired plants being built in Germany and I would ask you to provide me with proof of such, I simply find this difficult to believe.  Is there a reputable website that you can refer me to so that I might research this myself please?  I know that Germany is a world leader in renewable energy, a model that we should be using in my opinion, so I will need to be convinced that this is actually true. If it is, I will surely want to research the reasons why they are doing this, have you done so?
In closing Ms. McLean, I want you to know that my comments here are not directed at you or any specific group.  Rather, this is entirely directed at the Provincial Government.  Successive governments have been irresponsible in matters of power production, transmission and management thereof.  It is time for us to stop downloading our problems onto future generations, it sickens me to think that we cannot as a society, be responsible for our own power needs without leaving a legacy of pollution, debt and perhaps total environmental disasters.  I beg not only you, but all members of the human race to start being responsible for the power that you use, or to stop using power.  Stop wasting it, conserve, educate yourself, commit acts of green.  But above all, please stop the propaganda machine that I believe the wind concerns website represents.  Contact a scientist to get their opinion instead.

Regards,

Councillor Roger Fuhr

Township of Perth South,,,, and concerned citizen regarding the future of our children, grandchildren and subsequent generations
My responses are in red below.

Colette McLean

—– Original Message —–

From: roger fuhr

Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:30 PM

Subject: Re:

Dear Ms. McLean:  I sincerely apologize for any offense taken by you for my comments. And yet you continue through  this message to further expound hugely offensive and ill informed statements. There certainly was no intent there to do so.  I beg to differ on this one.  While I do not consider myself to be an expert in the field, your comment regarding lack of effort to investigate is absolutely not true. My condemnation here is meant for politicians such as yourself who have the responsibility and the power to protect the residents of their municipality or county,  to find out from other areas in Ontario what is going on now with wind development.  We are going into our 4th year of wind,  and for some reason even local politicians are not investigating and are actually ignoring their residents who are suffering. I have been educating myself for almost 5 years now regarding such issues. I, for one, view the installations at Shelburne and etc. as beautiful projects indicating our desire to become responsible users of power. This is the problem,  wind turbines are only a symbol of our desires, not a real solution

Vibrocaustic disease is, in my opinion, not a proven fact, and because of your power to make this decision, based on exactly what kind of epidemiological experience?  low frequency noise generated by wind turbines (all it takes is a dBC scale reading to determine) affects people. That is a proven fact (check the World Health Organization site ) whether you want to call it VAD or Wind Turbine Syndrome.  www.windturbinesyndrome.org Until  we have a full epidemiological study no one will ever know the true extent of this issue.

and even if it was, it pales in comparison to the effects of nuclear accidents.  I’m sure you have viewed the effects of the meltdown of the reactor at Chernobyl.  When was the last time you heard of such a incident in Ontario after 50 years of Nuclear. Which medical issues do you view as being worse?   The choice is not between wind or nuclear, because wind will never be able to replace nuclear. Besides I thought wind was meant to replace fossil fuels?? in order to decrease GHG emissions.  Nuclear as you know does not contribute to GHG. I do not know of anyone who would want a nuclear reactor in their back yard.  And, I view the issue of leaving nuclear waste behind for future generations to deal with as absolutely irresponsible in every way, shape and form.  How long do you think it will be before these wastes poison our water, land, and whatever other resources that we do not own, but simply borrow from our children, would you like some of this heavy water in your well? Again how is wind going to address this issue in any significant way? Living near hydro lines of any type has been an issue for years, I’m sure you know that homes are not allowed to be built close to such transmission lines. and yet throughout the county I see houses within less than 500 m. Why do you think that is, perhaps because wind generators cause this?  No, it is because electricity in the forms we produce it and move it, is not a natural occurrence which is yet another example of how man abuses nature.  Are you suggesting we stop generating electricity??  You are not understanding my comment,  because of wind installations,  the issue of stray voltage and dirty electricity has become more of an issue. These installations are undersized and poorly designed and because wind developers need to hand over the transmission to Ontario Hydro (since they are  responsible now for the maintenance of this transmission system),  wind developers (the generating company) can walk away blaming the transmission problems on Ontario Hydro.

Do you have a microwave oven in your home? Yes Do you use it or ever eat food cooked in a microwave? Yes Do you believe that such food is safe for human consumption? Yes If yes to any of these, then you are already near to, and consuming microwaved foods.  Are you prepared to ban microwave ovens from society? No,  I  don’t object to using a microwave but I  have issues to living in one.  Your line of questions I find completely patronizing and irrelevant to the issues raised.

Wind developers are hooking their equipment into one of the most antiquated transmission systems in the developed world, and so are generating devices of all kinds, such as coal, nuclear, hydro and etc.  It is the fault of our provincial government that our transmission system has been allowed to be outdated, despite the billions of dollars that have been poured into the grid over the decades.   Some of this investment has been absolutely wasted on such things as drastic cost overruns (based on  concerns from citizens who oppose Nuclear, which pushed the gov’t to stop and start these projects over and over again I thought you were talking about the transmission system not the building of generating plants??? to build nuclear plants and also millions of dollars to get rid of executives within hydro one and related firms.  Are you pleased to be paying a debt retirement fee on your power bill? So are you saying that if I agree to wind development this will all go away? Do you believe that any business should be allowed to make such charges to their customers?  The behemoths known as Hydro One, OPA, OPG and whatever other derivatives the provincial government can come up with, are totally dysfunctional organizations in every sense of the word.  Again if I say yes to wind development,  will the dysfunction go away?  Mr. Fuhr,  you are simply getting side tracked by a very convoluted argument and problem.  I never said we didn’t have problems with our energy industry in Ontario but I just can’t see how wind is going to solve any of what you mention,  In fact,  I can see wind is only going to complicate things as well as increase the cost to us as consumers.  My latest hydro bill just announced that the recent increases where due, in part,  conservation measures and renewable projects.

Regarding electricity rates, I surely hope you understand that our power bills have been being subsidized by taxpayers for decades now.  Do you believe that the cost to produce electricity is 5.3 cents per killowatt hour?  If you do, try dividing your entire power bill by the number of kilowatt hours that you have purchased, this should be an indication for you of how they hide the actual cost of power. I also know that Darlington and Pickering are being paid 3 cents per KW and they manage to pay all of their expenses, (including thousands of employees) and still maintain a profit.  Again,  if I say yes to wind development will my electrical bill go down? or am I at least guaranteed that it will not go up because of wind development? I believe the actual cost of electricity should be paid up front, and that this actual cost of production is most certainly in excess of 15 cents per kilowatt hour.  Seems to me you were just saying we were paying the actual cost, but it’s actually hidden in other charges. Nuclear production of power easily exceeds that cost.  Even solar power, one of the cleanest ways to produce electricity, has been granted a 42 cent per kilowatt hour rate by the Ontario government.  All because of solar’s cost of production will not allow even the 15 cents to be profitable. Surely you must be able to deduce that 5.3 cents a kilowatt hour in no way, shape or form, accurately represents the cost of production.   Therefore is it all right to continue to subsidize an industry for 20 years in order to maintain it’s profitability and in turn provide minuscule amounts of energy???
I have to admit, that I am unaware of any such new coal fired plants being built in Germany and I would ask you to provide me with proof of such, I simply find this difficult to believe.  I believe Muzzco Inc. sent you the references.  Is there a reputable website that you can refer me to so that I might research this myself please?  www.windaction.org I know that Germany is a world leader in renewable energy, a model that we should be using in my opinion, so I will need to be convinced that this is actually true. If it is, I will surely want to research the reasons why they are doing this, have you done so? The wind developers tell us that it is because Germany wants to make money selling electricity.  In the case of Alberta,  a new gas generated plant was introduced last year  specifically because of the large influx of wind they allowed onto their grid.

In closing Ms. McLean, I want you to know that my comments here are not directed at you or any specific group.  Did you not direct your response to Wind Concerns Ontario,  a group of 26 affiliates all across Ontario of concerned citizens, who are fighting for their lives with not so much as any kind of financial support other than out of pocket expenses for flyers, Internet services travel etc.  Rather, this is entirely directed at the Provincial Government.  Than I would suggest you direct your letter to Minister George Smitherman and Dalton McGuinty and not me or to Wind Concerns Ontario. Successive governments have been irresponsible in matters of power production, transmission and management thereof.  It is time for us to stop downloading our problems onto future generations, it sickens me to think that we cannot as a society, be responsible for our own power needs without leaving a legacy of pollution, debt and perhaps total environmental disasters.  I beg not only you, but all members of the human race to start being responsible for the power that you use, or to stop using power. Does this mean you want to shut down hospitals,  nursing homes,  manufacturing where people earn their living?  Can you explain to me how I am suppose to stiop using power?? Stop wasting it, conserve, educate yourself, commit acts of green.  But above all, please stop the propaganda machine that I believe the wind concerns website represents.  Contact a scientist to get their opinion instead.  I would suggest the same to you Mr Fuhr. Our groups has among us scientist, engineers, doctors and lawyers,  all expressing the same concerns about wind development.  We are not against initiatives that help improve wise use of energy, reduction of GHG emissions, or renewable energy sources.  We are seeking from people like yourself,  who have the power to make the decisions with regards to policy,  to make these decisions based on good science,  not ideology.

Regards,

Councilor Roger Fuhr
Township of Perth South,,,, and concerned citizen regarding the future of our children, grandchildren and subsequent generations

The final response from Mr. Fuhr

From: roger fuhr

Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 1:06 PM

Subject: Re:

Simply wow, it is an extremely rare occurence to find a group of such narrow-minded, uninformed people as this.  After all the emails I have received in return, not in even ONE of them is a solution suggested other than, “I love nuclear and all of its poisons and risks”.  You people remind me of that group of individuals who ran around in, if memory serves, about the 17th – 18th century destroying machines of all types that people had built because they thought it would cost them their jobs if these machines were allowed to survive.  I am simply floored. I can see that there is no way to discuss this logically with any of you.  I do have a solution for you though, but guess what, you won’t like it. Hmmmm isn’t that odd,, offering solutions, what a concept huh?  SELL YOUR PROPERTIES, GET OUT OF DODGE, LIVE SOMEWHERE WHERE THERE IS NO WIND, hence no possibility of wind generators. Maybe right beside one of those cozy nuclear cancer causing generators that you all love so much. Shocked, (l’il pun there),,,,, You have certainly assisted me in my determination to spread the truth on this subject,, Thank you,,,,
.
Mr. Fuhr – after reading this exchange, in which you acknowledge your lack of knowledge on the subject, you should hang your head in shame.

But if you did, your turbine might fall off your head – and we wouldn’t want that.

At the very least you should offer a heart felt apology to the people you have gone out of your way to offend. You might also want to consider resigning. You have embarrassed your community.
Please read this last post

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