Editor:
Agenda 21 is responsible for most of the wrongs in the world at this time in history. Understand what Agenda 21 means and be prepared to beat it back. If we don’t beat it back we will all be enslaved by a small group of psychopathic criminals.
Freedom or Tyranny those are the choices.
Choose wisely!
The Ontario govt. has passed Bill 150/Green Energy Act. The act not only removes the rights of Municipal govt., it also puts the economy of Ont. in real jeopardy.
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
poll results
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
Editor: The most important things people need to understand are
The time has come for every thinking citizen to join in the fight against the wind industry and treasonous govt. policy, that has been put in place to undermine both our democracy and sovereignty.
Even in these dark times, it is still possible to be shocked when our Prime Minister personally endorses a flagrant perversion of the truth. Last year, for example, many of us felt outraged when Gordon Brown pretended that the Lisbon Treaty was somehow totally different from the EU Constitution, in order to wriggle out of his party’s manifesto promise of a referendum. Last week Mr Brown in effect did it again when he endorsed the deception at the heart of his Government’s wildly exaggerated claims about the benefits of using wind to make electricity.
In a video for the British Wind Energy Association, the industry’s chief lobby group, Mr Brown claimed: “We are now getting 3 gigawatts of our electricity capacity from wind power, enough to power more than 1.5 million homes.”
This deliberately perpetuates the central confidence trick practised by the wind industry, by confusing “capacity” with the actual amount of electricity wind produces. In fact, as the Government’s own figures show, wind turbines generate on average only 27 to 28 per cent, barely a quarter, of their “capacity”.
In other words, far from producing those “3 gigawatts”, the 2,000 turbines already built actually contributed – again on official figures – an average of only 694 megawatts (MW) last year, less than the output of a single medium-size conventional power station. Far from producing “enough to power more than 1.5 million homes”, it is enough to power barely a sixth of that number, representing only 1.3 per cent of all the electricity we use. Yet for this we have already blighted thousands of square miles of countryside, at a cost of billions of pounds.
Indeed, at the same BWEA-sponsored event, Mike O’Brien, energy minister, went on to perpetuate the second confidence trick practised by both Government and industry, which is to conceal the fact that all this is only made possible by the huge hidden subsidy given to wind energy through the Renewables Obligation. This compels electricity companies to pay way over the odds for the power generated by wind turbines, a burden passed on to us all in our electricity bills.
Mr O’Brien claimed that the cost of electricity generated by offshore wind turbines would drop by 8 per cent, failing to explain that it would then be raised by 50 per cent through the hidden subsidy. He then soared even further into make-believe by saying that he was “assessing plans” to build a further 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020, “enough electricity for every home in the country”.
Mr O’Brien must know that there is not the remotest chance that we could build the 10,000 monster turbines needed to achieve this, at a rate of more than two a day, when it takes weeks to instal each vast machine. At present, of the giant barges needed for the work, there is only one in the world. Even if it were possible, the construction costs alone, on current figures, would be anything up to £100 billion – the price of 37 nuclear power stations, capable of producing nearly 10 times as much electricity – while the subsidies alone would add £6 billiion a year more, or 25 per cent, to our electricity bills.
Why do our ministers think they can get away with talking such nonsense?
What is humiliating is that they do it largely to appease the EU, which has set us the wholly impossible target of producing 32 per cent of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020. What is dangerous is that even contemplating such a mad waste of resources is diverting attention from the genuine need to build enough proper, grown-up power stations to keep our lights on. For that the time is fast running out, if it hasn’t done so already. It is on that Mr Brown should be concentrating, not on trying to pull the wool over our eyes with such infantile deceits.
By Christopher Booker
26 October 2008
You might ask – If the wind industry is such a scam why isn’t the media saying anything?
What can I say – Industry and govt. working together = citizens take a back seat.
Posted By JENNIFER PRITCHETT WHIG-STANDARD STAFF WRITER
The Calgary-based company building a $410-million wind plant on Wolfe Island has issued a cease-and-desist letter to a citizen it claims is spreading “false and defamatory statements.”
Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. sent the letter in connection with a statement made by Wolfe Island resident Chris Brown, an outspoken
critic of some aspects of the project.
Brown, a local musician, is one of a handful of citizens who sit on a community liaison committee Canadian Hydro set up last year to answer local concerns about the project.
Brown regards the letter as an attempt to gag critics of the project.
“It’s an intimidation tactic,” he said.
Brown said he isn’t against wind power or the Canadian Hydro project on Wolfe Island. He does want to see the 86 turbines that are being erected there placed in areas where they won’t impact wildlife or people.
The cease-and-desist letter goes back to an e-mail Brown sent to former St. Lawrence College president Volker Thomsen and others, following an international wind energy conference at the college in June.
Brown said he hoped “the examples brought to light by the conference can prevent Wolfe Island from becoming an autopsy of grid monopoly and community exclusion.”
Canadian Hydro took exception to his comments, saying they suggest the firm “has no respect for the environmental and regulatory process and fails to consult with the community.
“Canadian Hydro has conducted itself in a responsible manner throughout the approval process,” stated the cease-and-desist letter.
The letter, written by Canadian Hydro’s Toronto-based lawyer Paul B. Schabas, warns Brown of the possibility of future legal action.
“Should you persist in this course of conduct, please be advised that our client will proceed against you and pursue all legal and equitable remedies available to it without further notice being provided to you. Kindly govern yourself accordingly,” Schabas wrote.
When theWhig-Standardrequested an interview with Canadian Hydro about the letter, the firm issued a short statement from Geoff Carnegie, its development manager for the Wolfe Island project.
In it, Carnegie wrote that Brown’s “claim of community exclusion overlooks three and a half years of community consultation by Canadian Hydro, as documented in the Environmental Review Report.
“The purpose of our letter to Mr. Brown was to insist that he act responsibly and utilize the relevant facts in his arguments.” Brown said he refuses to be quieted. “I will continue to exercise my right
to free speech and advocate for a full and transparent public review of this project, just as I will continue to participate in the community liaison group to ensure proper communication between proponent and citizenry,” he wrote in a response to Canadian Hydro.
Editor
E.ON, based in Duesseldorf, Germany, is one of the world’s leading energy companies
They should know – they build wind farms. Germany is in the process of building over 20 new coal plants.
Wind energy is so unreliable that even if 13,000 turbines are built to meet EU renewable energy targets, they could be relied on to provide only seven percent of the country’s peak winter electricity demand, according to a leading power company E.On.
E.On has argued that so little wind blows during the coldest days of winter that 92 percent of installed wind capacity would have to be backed up by traditional power stations.
Full story at Source: Energy Digital
From Maxedoutmama
Here is a paper for dullards like me who didn’t understand the implications of trying to hook highly variable wind power into a power grid. The bottom line is that effective usage is low and that actual replacement effect is even lower:
A power station takes days to start producing electricity from a cold start. Time is needed to boil the water, to superheat the steam, to warm all the components of the power station, and to spin the turbogenerators up to operating speed.
Each power station is designed to provide an output of electricity. It can only provide very little more or very little less than this output (i.e., a power station has a “low turndown ratio”).
…
The problem of matching electricity supply to varying demand is overcome by operating power stations in three modes called “base load,” “generation,” and “spinning standby.”
Some power stations operate all the time providing electricity to the grid, and they are said to provide “base load.”
Other power stations also operate all the time but do not provide electricity all the time. They burn (or fission) their fuel to boil water and superheat the resulting steam which is fed to the steam turbines that are thus kept hot and spinning all the time. Of course, they emit all the emissions from use of their fuel all the time. But some of this time they dump heat from their cooling towers instead of generating electricity, and they are then said to be operating “spinning standby.”
One or more power stations can be instantly switched from spinning standby to provide electricity to match an increase to demand for electricity. It is said to be operating “generation” when it is providing electricity. Power stations are switched between spinning standby and generation as demand for electricity changes.
Thus the grid operator manages the system to match supply with demand for electricity by switching power stations between “generation” and “spinning standby.”
So if you are installing a bunch of new coal power plants to handle load, you will really be running them all the time with very little savings of fossil fuels. You can control some of the grid surge by diverting the power production away from the grid when your wind kicks in, but that of course doesn’t change fuel consumption very much.
Read the full report here. Maxedoutmama
Editor: I believe Mr. Hoffman is the first politician to publicly say he is against wind farms, and to explain the reasons for his decision. Well done Mr. Hoffman.
Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario
There is a real conflict emerging over the proposed wind turbines
apparently to be installed from Dacre, all along the Opeongo Line
through Wilno, Barry’s Bay and to Algonquin Park.
Neighbors are getting set against one another over this; even some families have started to split, brother against brother.
The issue has serious implications for all of Renfrew County.
Wind turbines sound great when you first hear about them. Who is against renewable energy?
Farmers who struggle to make a living are eying up the $9,000 they are to receive per turbine per year.
Ten turbines is a retirement income of $90,000!
Who would blame the farmers! And the Bonnechere and Madawaska
township councils can see much-needed tax dollars flowing in. But there
are problems with the whole scheme.
Considerable forest will have to be cut to install them, roads
built to service them, skylines altered as hundreds pepper the horizon,
their red lights flashing at night; and they are noisy too.
I know, because I went to Shelburne Ontario to see them.
My sense is that once we are all informed and determine the net
impact, we will choose to say to our would-be wind-farmer neighbor, as
I have done with mine, “Sorry old friend, I can’t support this
project.”
Yours truly,
Dr. Ben Hoffman
Federal Green Party Candidate, Eganville, ON
Send Ben an email to show your support
ben.hoffman@greenparty.ca
Full article at the Daily Observer
Wind power: is it a realistic option? – Money Week
Is wind power as green as it seems?
Denmark is the world’s most wind-intensive state with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. But this figure is misleading, says Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies. Not one conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed.
In fact, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.
Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is “expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green”, says Lodge.
Full Story-Money Week
Death of Canada 