Archive for the ‘property value’ Category

Wind Farms – Lake Huron Ontario – Video

May 31, 2008

Editor:

Tried to post a comment on this video by the Windsor Star but it wouldn’t accept comments so I had to bring it here.

These comments will make sense, or not, after you view the video.

The reporter in the video says the wind will power 440,00 homes. According to the ISO – for planning purposes they are rated at 10% of capacity or 44,00 homes. Big difference.

Ernie Marshall, in the blue coveralls, and his wife have moved. Ernie was suffering from health problems he didn’t have before the arrival of the turbines. Ernie says his health is slowly returning and his doctor is happy with his progress since he moved. Both Ernie and his wife say that after two years of living near the turbines,they are finally enjoying uninterrupted sleep. The neighbors Ernie said goodbye to are still suffering from noise, stray voltage and flicker, not to mention the flashing lights on top of the turbines every night.

The gentleman in the brown coveralls has moved as well. After the problems at the Epcor site he didn’t want to be around when the Enbridge site was completed. He is well aware of the problems created by wind turbines and feared he might not find a buyer after the turbines arrived.

Neither of these people wanted to move, but felt they had no choice.

Every wind farm in southern Ont. has impacted families in a negative way.

Bob Simpson, the gentleman from Enbridge says they will respond quickly to solve any problems. Unless Mr. Simpson plans on moving the turbines farther away from peoples homes there is nothing he or his company can do. For the next twenty years people will suffer the consequences of bad planning and greed.

Mr. Simpson mentions reducing emissions. Nowhere on the planet can I find any evidence of emission reductions from the use of wind turbines.

Germany has more wind turbines than anywhere else. They are in the process of building 20 plus coal plants. I would say their emissions are about to take a big jump. Wind doesn’t seem to have done Germany much good.

The number of fossil fuel plants closed as a direct use of wind energy – o – Zero – none – zip

Wind energy has doubled in Ont. Does that mean we are twice as stupid as we should be.

When the govt. the industry and the media are all saying how great wind energy is,it’s hard to accept the reality that is the wind industry – and that’s exactly what they are counting on.

A quote from a person living at the Suncor wind farm Ripley. When asked how it was living near the turbines. “I’ll tell you how it is, our life is shit since the wind farm came.”

Ripley has a 700 meter setback, The Enbridge and Epcor wind farms have a 450 meter setback.

A video of the Ripley wind farm can be found under videos at top of page.

Do some research on your own. Theres nothing on TV anyway.

.

Video by the Windsor Star

.

Is wind power a lot of hot air?

May 30, 2008

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

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

Ron

atomcat
August 11, 2007

Now some information from France
April 2008

.

Is wind power a lot of hot air?

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

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

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

Mr Butré believes the cost of wind energy is prohibitive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source The Connexion

Home near turbines won't sell

May 23, 2008

Editor
A property 900 meters from wind turbines In England had been deemed unsaleable. Most wind turbines in Ont. have a 450 meter setback. Kiss your property value goodbye.

Don’t forget to send your elected officials a card thanking them for their concern.

.

Home near turbines won’t sell – agent

A couple who have been forced out of their home by wind turbine noise have found out their house is unsaleable.

Jane and Julian Davis moved out of their Deeping St Nicholas home in Christmas 2006 after months of sleepless nights due to what they believe is noise and vibration from wind turbines, which are around 900m from their property.

They have long believed it has no value, and their fears have now been proved justified, after estate agents Munton and Russell refused to market the property at Grays Farm.

Mrs Davis said: “We have said for a long time that our house has no market value at the moment.

“But people said ‘put your money where your mouth is’ and prove it. While we knew that was the case, it is still a very painful thing to see written down.”

Russell Gregory wrote to Mr and Mrs Davis saying until the problems with wind turbines were resolved it was impossible to put a current market value on the property as no prospective buyer would want to live there and no mortgage lender would be prepared to lend on it.

He said: “I don’t think I have ever refused one before.

“Everything has a value, but where that value lies with something like this is a bit of an unknown quantity.

“We have a duty towards the buyer but if you can’t sleep there then it is uninhabitable.”

Mr and Mrs Davis own the house but they have another 23 years to run on the tenancy of the farmland.

And if it was not for Lincolnshire County Council relaxing their rules, Mr and Mrs Davis would not be allowed to moved out without losing the land and the bungalow in which Mr Davis’ parents still live.

The whole situation has seen their plans for the future, including extending the house, thrown into turmoil.

Mrs Davis added: “It was all our life’s dreams. We had plans to build on. Everything was ready to proceed but ultimately there was no point.”

By Tom Hughes

Spalding Today

22 May 2008

Disturbing wind brewing

May 8, 2008

Editor:
First, I would like to thank the The Chatham Daily News for printing this story.

Nowhere on the planet has industrial wind energy proved it’s claims. Dalton McGuinty, our esteemed Premier, calls  wind energy  expensive and unreliable. What does that statement infer. To me it says, he is not in charge, but is in fact taking orders. A little research on your part will verify what I have said.

The wind industry is part of the E8 which is about the internationalization of energy. The wind farms are carbon credit creators. They have no other purpose.

I have worked with the people and councilors involved with the Kingsbridge l wind farm for over a year. Kingsbridge l one has been a source of noise, flicker and stray voltage problems since it began operation. One family that has just moved says they are now, after 2 years, finally enjoying a full nights sleep. The nearest turbine to their home was approx. 550 meters.

They have just passed Kingsbridge ll with a setback of 450 meters. Now, if your thinking, wait a minute, if people at 550 meters are having problems then why would they make a setback of only 450 meters.

According to a councilor, at the re-zoning meeting Apr.17th.,  they were told  by lawyers and govt. any setback over 450 meters would prompt an OMB hearing costing the township $100,000 and the township would lose.

Dwight Duncan is on record saying the govt. doesn’t want to force anything on anyone. The truth is exactly the opposite.

The wind industry with the backing of the govt. is picking off small municipal councils one at at time with lies and threats. This should be of grave concern to all citizens in the province.

The old saying “United we stand divided we fall” needs to instituted by all councils in Ont. Until a coalition of councils is formed and it stands united the “wind scourge” will continue unabated.

You, as councilors, were elected to look out for the best interests of your constituents and the community. Too often I have heard to same lame excuses. (1- they will take us to an OMB hearing. (2- we don’t have the resources to fight this.

If you are a councilor and you agree with the above statements, please resign immediately.  Otherwise, educate  your constituents about the fraud that is taking place. It is your duty. As long as you, the council, try and separate yourself from your constituents, the “wind scourge” will continue its unrelenting march across this Province, laying ruin upon the lives and property values of the very people you were elected to protect.  Embrace those who voted for you, tell them the truth.  Get the people on  side through truthful education.

I recently had a comment sent to this blog from a family living at the Ripley wind farm. They are saying that they and their neighbours are suffering from sleep disturbances caused by the noise emitted from the wind turbines and feel their health has deteriorated in the last five months since the arrival of the wind farm. The nearest turbine to their home is 808 meters. If these people are suffering at 808 meters, how can a setback of 450 meters be justified? It can’t.

There is more than ample evidence that the turbines are being sited too close to homes.

The wind industry and the govt. continually saying there is no “ABSOLUTE” proof of these health issues should be a wake up call to everyone. Denial has always been one of the favorite tools of both govt. and big business.

The wind industry is a fraud and the govt. is complicit (choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, esp. with others; having complicity.) The govt. knows that wind (1- does not have the ability to keep the lights on in Ont. (2- wind is not capable of substantially cutting C02 emissions. (3- wind cannot continually power anywhere near the number of homes the industry and govt. claim.

Yet, these are all things being promoted by both the wind industry and the govt.

I always invite the govt. to look at this blog to make sure it is accurate and to let me know if there is anything they think needs to be changed. Govt. agencies visit this blog quite often. So far there have been no requests for any changes.

We try very hard to be as accurate as possible.

Note: The number of visits from K12 schools colleges and universities is  growing daily. The idea that Global warming is a fraud is being accepted by more people everyday. People will find the truth, even when the media works to hide it. Once you wrap your mind around the global warming fraud, you can ask, why are we destroying rural Ont. with wind turbines. Why?

Do your own research

Disturbing wind brewing

An article written in response to articles published in The Chatham Daily News April 15, “Gengrowth wind turbines approved,” and April 17, “Open house held, another wind farm project proposed.”

Don Quixote, in Cervantes’ classic by the same name, gallantly road off on his faithful steed, to slay the haunting, implacable, and ever-present giant — the windmill. Poor Quixote didn’t have a chance.

Concerned residents of Chatham-Kent feel the same frustration as independent companies, such as Gengrowth, and now Calgary based BowArk Energy Ltd. and Windsor-based Wind Prospect Inc. are proposing to add another 50 turbines to the 20 already approved by the Council of Chatham-Kent. Montreal based Kruger Energy is putting up 44 turbines near Port Alma. The windy invasion has just begun.

Many other wind energy companies are lining up with the direction and view to make Chatham-Kent a grid of hulking windmill giants and an eco-industrial park. It is a fast blowing wind. Not only, wind farm projects, but also the token and obligatory information nights cropping up all over the municipality. Interestingly, the information nights follow in the wake of deals cut by turbine developers and individual landowners prior to consultation with the public and a seemingly complicit council. This council represents taxpayers, and has an elected responsibility to protect the municipality’s most important natural, cultural and economic assets. Agricultural land, hundreds of acres, will ultimately be taken out of production. We have a unique fragile ecosystem including Rondeau Provincial Park and conservancy lands. Lake Erie is one of our greatest natural assets, tourist/vacation attractions, and cultural gems. Then there are heritage properties including, the historic Talbot Trail. Community and cultural identity is based on its natural assets and historical roots.

Gengrowth wind turbines are to be situated in a great monotonous line along the historic Talbot Trail, through Palmyra, Morpeth, and stretching out along the shores of Lake Erie. It is hard to imagine that in 2008, precious land bordering beautiful natural beaches and cliffs of Lake Erie will be dotted with giant wind turbines sweeping the countryside.

This is only one of many lines and grids that will weave through, connect, and wind around heritage and cultural landmarks while fencing in small towns and fencing out the natural beauty of rural Chatham-Kent.

While looking up, through and around these hunkering giants, one has to wonder what benefits they bring to Chatham-Kent and surrounding communities. It is interesting to note that some communities, like Leamington, have succeeded in stopping the spread of this invasion. Obviously, with the exception of the landowners who have generously allowed acreage to be taken out of production, very little is said about the economic and employment benefits to the trusting, green-friendly citizens of Chatham-Kent. While the public is assured that “Turbines have a significantly smaller impact on birds and bats than the dangers posed by high-rise buildings, predators or climate change.” What, perhaps, is being ignored is that this area is unique and fragile because it attracts an abundance of unusual bird species, and as a result is considered a Mecca for bird watchers and campers. The impact of turbines and its effect on a distinct and fragile eco system have not been studied to the fullest extent due to the fact that an independent environmental study has not been undertaken or supported by municipal council. Nor has a consultation with the Heritage Committee been initiated by council prior to granting permission to Gengrowth.

Like Quixote, one cannot help but feel an unsettling and disturbing ill wind brewing. While some residents of this municipality embrace wind turbines as a welcome and renewable energy alternative, others find it more prudent to consider the cost and long-lasting effects. The “not in my backyard mentality” is, admittedly, too often a selfish and a shortsighted response. This backyard, however, is species rich, agriculturally fertile and it comes with an enviable historical and cultural legacy.

Hopefully, there are a few Don Quixotes left. It is important and necessary to fight against the smiling giants of profit and opportunity whose false promises of economic benefits are, in this opinion, full of hot air and come at a great expense. It is time to demand that both the provincial and municipal governments preserve the heritage, and unique cultural and natural assets of Chatham-Kent. It is time to “tilt at windmills.”

Patricia Pook

Ridgetown

The Chatham Daily News

8 May 2008

CORPORATION HEAD QUITS AS SCANDAL IS REVEALED TO PUBLIC

April 7, 2008

Editor:
Ever wondered why you can’t get anyone in govt. to listen when confronted about the negative affects of wind farms?  T

hey don’t give a damn  about you, your family or your property value. They smell money.

This is the Enron Scam on steroids. Ex-politicians filling their pockets with your tax dollars.

What do you get in return? Higher electrical costs, higher taxes, and if you are unlucky enough to live near a wind farm, a life altering experience.

Sunday, April 06, 2008

‘Unrelated’ ICBC resignation unbelievable

.
CORPORATION HEAD QUITS AS SCANDAL IS REVEALED TO PUBLIC

Michael Smyth
The Province

Trying to figure out Paul Taylor’s “coincidental” resignation as boss of ICBC is sort of like kicking the tires on one of their chop-shop write-offs — or attending one of the insurance monopoly’s rigged auctions.

There’s a lot more going on here than meets the eye of the average sucker.

{Snip} …

But if you still think Taylor’s departure is “completely unrelated” to ICBC’s little chop shop of horrors out in Burnaby — well, I know an ICBC insider who can get you a heckuva deal on a rebuilt Yugo (as long as you’re not picky about things like working air bags).

Completely unrelated? Give me a freaking break. The public has been ripped off. ICBC insiders have benefitted from a shabby scheme usually reserved for grifters and sharpies.

Most disturbing of all is the possibility illegally rebuilt vehicles have been hustled to unsuspecting B.C. drivers without the proper safety checks.

There’s more than a monopoly’s corporate reputation on the line here. People’s lives were possibly put at risk so ICBC insiders could line their own pockets.

And now the CEO is strapping on his parachute and hitting the silks during the crisis? Very impressive.

They can call it “completely unrelated” if they want. I call it an abdication of duty. Taylor should be promising the public that he’ll get to the bottom of this extremely disturbing scandal and take his lumps if he’s found ultimately responsible.

Instead, he’s running away. And his corporate and political masters have nothing but praise.

Source The Province

Mr. Taylor, President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), will join NaiKun Wind Group as President and Director. Steven Eckert, a former consultant to BC Hydro

Ex-AECL boss’ firm could make Millions

Tory insider’s involvement in project ‘doesn’t pass the smell test’:

Ottawa Citizen Saturday, December 22, 2007
Michael Burns, the B.C. businessman and backroom Conservative who recently resigned as chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., is also chairman of a Vancouver wind power firm the federal government approved for up to $10 million in alternate energy funding while Mr. Burns was AECL chairman. The offshore wind power company, NaiKun Wind Energy Group, has two former assistants to Prime Minister Stephen Harper as senior officers and also has other well-connected Conservatives on its board of directors. NaiKun received approval for wind.
Mr. Taylor, President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), will join NaiKun Wind Group as President and Director. Steven Eckert, a former consultant to BC Hydro
Ventus Energy Inc. – The Toronto-based company, whose flagship wind projects are in PEI. . Former Ontario premier David Peterson is a board member of privately held Ventus.

If you know of any other Canadian ex-politicians involved in the energy scam please let me know.

Wind farm prospects promising

April 2, 2008

Editor
This wind farm is located in Northern Ont. far away from the heavily populated southern part of the province. What I find interesting about this piece is the statement below.

“Noise isn’t expected to be a concern because the nearest dwelling is two km away from any of the proposed turbines, Kerr said”.

What about the people in Southern Ont. where the wind turbines will be, on average, only 400 meters from homes. Should these people expect noise problems.

Research and real life experiences show that the odds on these people suffering noise, flicker, and real estate depreciation will be very high.

The wind industry has convinced the govt. that they need small setbacks in order to make their project cost effective. The fact is, homes are to close together in Southern Ont. to accommodate a reasonable setback. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO………

The govt., from your local council to the office of Premier Dalton McGuinty, and the wind industry have decided that you and your property are not important. They sell wind farms on the idea of saving the environment, while they trash your environment. Ironic.

The wind industry making money is more important than you, your family or your property.

Give Dalton a call and ask him yourself. If he tells you the wind turbines are to reduce C02 which causes GLOBAL WARMING. You might want to inform him the warming stopped in 1998. The C02 – global warming argument doesn’t hold water.
Wait a minute you say. If the warming stopped in 1998 why are they building wind farms?

Good Question

The only GREEN I can find in the wind industry is the cash being made, at your expense.

Germany has the most wind yet they are building 26 new coal fired plants. Doesn’t give one much faith in wind, does it.

Anyone from the govt. or the wind industry that wants to debate, I’m available. 519-396-1958

.

Wind farm raises health concerns

Posted on March 28, 2008.

Editor
research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms”.

.

Wind farm prospects promising

One of the more significant economic developments Marathon has seen in several years has taken another step to being approved.

Brookfield Power‘s plan for a $250-million wind-power farm about 20 kilometres west of town could receive government approval this spring following a mandatory public review of an environmental “screening” report.

The Ottawa-area company wants to build 66 turbines on Crown land in an unpopulated area just north of Neys Provincial Park.

The turbines, each 80 metres tall and sporting three blades as long as half a soccer field, are to collectively produce up to 100 megawatts of electricity.

That‘s about half the capacity of Brookfield‘s existing wind farm just outside Sault Ste. Marie.

Brookfield project manager Ian Kerr said construction on the Marathon-area site is expected to begin in 2010, creating a maximum of 200 jobs over the 18-month construction period.

The company will likely establish an office in Marathon to be staffed by about 10 service technicians, Kerr added.

Though the network of turbines will require the construction of about 40 km of access roads, there will only be a handful of locations from the Trans-Canada Highway that will offer a view of the machines, said Kerr.

Noise isn‘t expected to be a concern because the nearest dwelling is two km away from any of the proposed turbines, Kerr said.

The environmental report does not identify any significant impact on birds or other wildlife.

Though details haven‘t been finalized, the wind farm is expected to plug into the provincial energy grid through an existing 230,000-volt transmission line.

Kerr said the turbines the company plans to use have a life-span of about 25 years. Service technicians access the hub and blades by climbing up inside the towers.

The environmental screening report can be viewed online at coldwellwind.com.

Hard copies can be obtained at Marathon town hall, Pic River First Nation band office or the Ministry of Environment office in Thunder Bay at 435 James St. S.

Public comments must be received by May 1.

By CARL CLUTCHEY

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

chroniclejournal.com

Wel’s windfarm critic has plenty of hits at hearing

February 28, 2008

 Editor:
Meet Sean Cox, a man with attitude. The right attitude. Forget about being polite. Get your message through to the dim witted politicians that are supposed to be looking out for the best interests of their constituents. Take no crap, they work for you. Make sure they understand this fact loud and clear. Call them at home, show up at their doors. Make their lives as miserable as they are attempting to makes yours.

WAKE THEM UP AND MAKE THEM LISTEN

Wel’s windfarm critic has plenty of hits at hearing

The more Wel Networks’ proposed Te Uku wind farm is investigated, the worse it looks, says one of the project’s most vociferous critics.

Aotea Harbour aerodynamicist Sean Cox the man most responsible for the project’s hearing still running returned to Ngaruawahia yesterday to take another crack at Wel’s application to build and operate a 28-turbine wind farm.

With a mix of pointy-headed science and gratuitous insults, he delivered a 212 hour dissertation on the problems with wind farms, Wel Networks, the Resource Management Act process, and new trends in the energy sector.

Earlier Wel Networks had painted him as an unreliable witness who lacked credibility, but Mr Cox scored plenty of hits in concluding the wind farm was “an economic and power supply disaster”.

“If it had been built a year ago it would not have earned enough in the last year at wholesale power rates to get close to covering its interest payments,” he said.

He believed Wel’s economic modelling took no account of damage from adverse weather, legal action from future realised health effects, obsolescence due to improved alternate technology, or reduced income through technological change or altered government policies.

“Wind power is now obsolete for the North Island,” he said, in tabling economic models for alternate power projects.

And there was an ominous warning for Wel if they did proceed. “Should these turbines be built, they will be the best monitored ones in the world. Every watt of power, every squeak of sound, every whiff of subsonics and every bird they kill will be recorded. Then we will see who was right.”

Mr Cox, a wind farm pioneer and designer of fighter aircraft for British Aerospace, refused to give his full qualifications to the hearing.

“Just call me Mr Cox. Far too much weight is given to qualifications and it disadvantages ordinary people. Take the evidence as I have presented it.

By Bruce Holloway

Waikato Times

C-K business owner makes case for wind turbine setbacks

February 13, 2008

C-K business owner makes case for wind turbine setbacks

The need for proper setbacks in Chatham-Kent between wind turbines and homes and natural settings was voiced loudly Tuesday by Chatham businessman Harry Verhey.

Verhey told Chatham Sunrise Rotary Club members — of which he is a member — that he isn’t challenging the use of wind turbines, but is convinced there is an urgent need to determine setbacks that are right for the municipality.

“The recent proliferation of industrial wind projects will have a negative impact on the community,” he said. “The massive size of industrial wind turbines conflicts with the scale and character of the Chatham-Kent landscape.”

Verhey said the improper siting of industrial wind turbines will result in the loss of the scenic rural landscape, wildlife habitats and migration routes, peace, quiet and health of our citizens and future economic development opportunities.

Verhey made his comments while introducing Chatham-Kent planning official Ralph Pugliese, the club’s guest speaker.

“We are a unique community and cannot follow provincial minimum setback guidelines of only 250 to 600 metres,” said Verhey.

He said there is a need to come up with new setbacks that are right for the municipality.

“I love this community, its people, the rural landscape and the lifestyle available to us here,” said Verhey. “It’s my hope we will all be able to feel the same way in the future.”

Verhey noted Chatham-Kent is playing host to applications for the installation of hundreds of industrial-sized wind turbines.

“These turbines are of monstrous proportion,” he said. “The Greenfield Ethanol plant stack in Chatham is 260 feet high. The proposed turbines are nearly 400 feet high — as tall as a 40-storey apartment building.”

Verhey said there are many questions regarding how wind turbine developments will affect the surrounding area.

“Will property values decrease, will it stop new construction and future housing developments near by, is wildlife at risk and are there negative health affects?” he asked.

Verhey said he’s convinced the public is unaware of wind turbine developments in Chatham-Kent, planned locations for each turbine and any associated adverse affects.

“We need to evaluate the landscape of the potentially-affected areas, consult with the public and develop a criteria for the public input process,” he said.

Verhey said ads run in local papers by the proponents of wind farms aren’t enough — “for the most part the public is unaware of turbine developments and locations.”

He said significant cultural heritage landscapes, important bird areas, which include wetlands and staging areas, shorelines, the Thames River valley, small rural community’s areas for future development and rural homes need to be protected.

Club member Paul Roy of Pain Court said there is a need for the municipality to hold public meetings to help clear up the confusion that exists about wind turbines.

Larry and Linda Reaume of Erie Beach, club guests, said they would never have purchased their “dream” home at Erie Beach if they knew wind turbines were going to be erected in their backyard.

“We looked for a place to buy for years and finally settled on a home near the lake in south Chatham-Kent in 2006,” said Larry Reaume. “We had no idea the area was ripe for wind turbines.”

Source C-K News 

Sound specialist offers expertise on industrial wind installations

February 6, 2008
Sound specialist offers expertise on industrial wind installations

[ News Watch Home ]

“Understanding Sound Associated with Industrial Wind Developments”, was the theme of the presentation by Rick Bolton, Engineer & Sound Specialist, and sponsored by Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood (CHRN), on Wednesday, January 30, at Perry’s Masonic Temple.

Though Wednesday’s inclement weather prohibited attendance by many from outlying areas, citizens and Town Board members from Perry, Gainesville, Leicester, and Orangeville were there. Mr. Bolton’s presentation was designed to convey a basic understanding of the complexities of sound, effects on humans, and flaws in current analysis standards being employed by wind developers in the U.S.

Mr. Bolton began by explaining that sound associated with wind turbines is an extremely complex issue, and one that needs thorough analysis. “Sounds are waves – just like light and water,” he said. These sound waves are measured in deci-Bels (dB, or dBA – A-weighted deci-Bels – most closely imitate the human ear).

“Human audibility is extremely sensitive,” he said. “In fact, far more sensitive than anything we can use to record sound electronically. While the human ear can detect to 0 dBA, the lowest range even the most expensive noise meters can measure is 14 dBA.”

Elaborating on the factors that can amplify sound, Bolton pointed out:

1.) Sound can propagate for over a mile, and even further over water;

2.) Sound gets worse in water (i.e. – ice, fog);

3.) Low frequencies can double sound by refraction off hard surfaces (hillsides, snow-pack);

4.) ‘Wave Coherence’, created by a number of turbines together, amplifies sound;

5.) When the wind is blowing, it can refract noise from the elevated source-point downward;

6.) Sounds below 30 Hz, termed ‘infrasound’, create serious health problems (turbines have been indicated as being a strong source of ‘infrasound’)

7.) Ice-loading on the front edge of turbine blade tips disturbs air flow around the blade, creating turbulence, and increasing sound.

8.) Modulation occurs when the blade compresses air as passing the mast of the turbine, and is worsened by large groups of turbines’ blades not operating in sync. (Bolton has never seen modulation addressed in any wind developer provided studies.)

Bolton explained the many ways wind developers methodology is flawed. Field measurements are not done correctly (i.e. – improper microphone placement, no justification for sampling sites, etc.); accurate samplings need to be done for a full year to account for seasonal variations, but aren’t; and computer prediction models wind developers rely on are inadequate because they don’t account for modulation, coherence, refraction, and icing.

Facts contained in Perry’s DEIS from the sound study done by Horizon for Perry were brought up that highlighted Bolton’s point that sound studies being done are totally inadequate: “5 monitoring locations; Survey was carried out over roughly a 3-week period; Unfortunately, 3 primary & 2 backup instruments were destroyed by water infiltration, so octave band data could not be collected for ALL positions for the entire 3-week survey; There were a number of periods of either inclement weather or low wind speeds – conditions that are not generally useful; General conditions of temperature, barometric pressure, & wind for the survey period are shown in plots below as observed at DANSVILLE, NY – some 20 miles southeast of the site.”

Illustrating and explaining his points with numerous charts and graphs that were part of his presentation, he also included examples and measurements from homes that had been abandoned by their owners due to the resulting life-altering health effects of living too close to turbines. Not surprisingly, these health problems have been linked to sleep disturbances.

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend that sound level should not exceed 30 dBA for a good night’s sleep. WHO also unanimously agrees that noise levels greater than 42 dBA create sleep disturbances, and that disturbed sleep has serious health effects.

Bolton explained that rural country settings currently enjoy extremely quiet night-time noise levels of 20 – 30 dBA. However, wind developers typically propose 50 dBA as acceptable noise levels at property lines of neighboring homes to their industrial wind installations. They do so despite the fact that the NYS DEC recommends no more than a 6 dBA increase over existing night-time ambient noise levels.

“Every 6 dBA is a perceived doubling of sound, or loudness,” Bolton said. When you understand this, you can begin to understand the problems that are occurring from siting these facilities far too close to people’s homes in rural areas. Bolton’s research suggests that 3,000′ – 5,000′ setbacks from the nearest property line should be the rule of thumb.

Neither citizens, nor the town officials being rushed through zoning, siting, and approval processes by wind developers truly understand the vast difference between 30 and 50 dBA until it is too late. Bolton stressed the importance of “getting it right” before allowing industrial wind facilities to be built, since mitigation after the fact is not available. He has yet to see wind developers do any follow-up studies for those now experiencing problems. They simply ignore them.

Bolton also explained that NY Townships are perpetuating flawed methods by accepting, and placing in their ordinances, the 50 dBA sound levels being submitted by wind developers, without demanding justifications – despite the fact that this is contrary to SEQR rules. NYS DEC’s Environmental Conservation Rules for SEQR state that the noise pollution potential must be evaluated at each affected “receptor”.

NYS DEC’s Program Policy, “Assessing & Mitigating Noise Impacts”, states: “When a sound level evaluation indicates that receptors may experience sound levels or characteristics that produce significant noise impacts, or impairment of property use, the Department is to require the permittee or applicant to employ necessary measures to either eliminate, or mitigate, adverse noise effects.”

If our townships fail to hold developers accountable to required standards, “we will lose the privilege, and precious asset, of having the peace and quiet of the country,” he said.

Mr. Bolton then took questions from the crowd. In response to questions asking what he thought of being “surrounded” by up to 23 turbines within 1.5 miles of their homes, he answered, “I would be VERY concerned if I were you.”

When asked if he has conducted any studies in the Perry area, Bolton replied that he had. Those who attended Perry’s Public Hearing October 16, 2006, will remember Mr. Bolton adding his comments, and handing in the study he did for Perry to the Board that evening. (Mr. Bolton’s comments on the Noise Issue can be found in the Comments to Perry’s DEIS under H-1, pages 1-24.)

By Mary Kay Barton

Batavia Daily News

AIM representatives misled Essex council-Anderson Said

February 1, 2008
 Editor:
The wind industry is based on false information and  false promises. The wind industry will never agree to a real debate because  the scam would be exposed. Mr. Anderson did a good job of exposing parts of the misinformation that the wind industry is allowed to put forward. Councils need to be more forceful with the industry. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Developer dominates wind power “discussion” meeting


By Andy Comber

A Toronto-based wind power company’s presentation overshadowed what was to be a scheduled “wind farm discussion” by Essex Town Council, held prior to the regular council meeting, Jan. 21.

“Currently, we have four projects in southern Ontario,” said Mike Crawley, president and CEO of AIM PowerGen Corporation. Crawley spoke to council after presenting a six-page outline on wind power, which included details on a 24-turbine project southwest of Harrow.

“We started testing wind in the region in the last year and a half,” said Crawley, speaking of the Harrow Wind Power Project in Colchester South, bordered north to south by Gore Road and County Road 50, and east to west by Dunn Road and County Road 41.

“We’re extremely hopeful to move the project forward,” he said.

AIM’s outline expressed the company’s concerns over the draft report of Essex County’s Windpower and Renewable Energy Planning Study prepared by the Jones Group, a consultant team working to define county land use policies for renewable energy projects, including wind, solar and biomass digesters.

“The recommendations in the Jones Group report are far more restrictive than in any Ontario county that has seen wind power projects built,” the AIM outline stated.

Ward 3 Councillor Paul Innes agreed with AIM’s concern that the county plan was “more stringent” than those set out by the province, leaving little room for lower tier municipalities, such as Essex, to account for local circumstance.

“I don’t see the need to be so restrictive,” said Innes, who asked council to support standards closer to the minimums established by the province.

Other councillors expressed concern over the impact of placing the towering wind turbines within sight of the many communities on the shoreline. The turbines proposed are 80 metres high at the hub, with 40-metre-long blades.

“Can you provide a map of where they are planning to go?” asked Deputy Mayor Richard Meloche, who expressed concern about placement in relation to residents.

Ward 3 Councillor Ron Rogers expressed concern over the intermittent nature of wind power. The province is still dependent on fossil-fuel power plants, the only facilities that can ramp up or down to allow for wind power.

“You can’t use nuclear or hydro, they run constantly,” he said.

Rogers also expressed concern over water vapour released into the atmosphere by fossil-fuel plants to adjust for wind power. Water vapour is considered a greenhouse gas, contributing up to two-thirds of the “greenhouse effect” which warms the Earth.

“It’s not a silver bullet,” answered Crawley, who agreed that wind power was only part of the solution in the search for alternative energy sources.

Members of the Essex County Wind Action Group (ECWAG), which is lobbying for the responsible development of wind power in Essex County, expressed concern that the meeting, which was identified as a “wind farm discussion” on council’s agenda, was “one-sided”.

“The legitimate concerns brought forward by many residents were not even touched on,” said Bill Anderson, chair of ECWAG, which places the effects of wind turbines on humans and wildlife at the top of their list of concerns. ECWAG includes members from across the county, including the town of Essex, but they were not invited to speak at the meeting, Anderson noted.

“AIM’s representative told (Essex) council that for siting purposes Harrow’s population density is ‘comparable’ to areas where they are operating turbines presently, when in fact it is five times as populous,” Anderson said. “We urge residents living along the shoreline near County Road 50 to sit up and pay attention to what is happening right now, as this may have a serious impact on your property values.”

Anderson said that the AIM representatives misled Essex council on many other issues, including their explanation on how Ontario’s power grid operates.

“Calling gas and coal an ‘intermediate’ power source between nuclear and wind power is fictitious to the extreme,” he said.

The Essex Free Press