Archive for the ‘tax shelters’ Category

Cash blown in the wind

January 5, 2009

Editor:

The govt. of Ont. is wasting the tax dollars of hard working people at an alarming rate, yet the media remains silent. The taxpayer has become an unwitting investor. The only problem is they will see no stock certificate and no return on their investment. They will however see higher utility rates. This theft needs to stop NOW!

The story below refers to the goings on in Oregon but the same story is being played out all over North America.

.

I want to thank Klockarman from Glore Lied for this story.

Cash blown in the wind; in pursuit of green energy Oregon is wasting millions of tax dollars on risky ventures and prosperous businesses

Kudos to The Oregonian today for taking off their green-colored goggles for a moment, and investigating a massive waste of the state’s taxpayer dollars.

Harry Esteve reports:

Oregon taxpayers are shelling out tens of millions of dollars to subsidize green energy projects, making the state a magnet for solar and wind companies.

But an investigation by The Oregonian shows that the money also is going to risky ventures with questionable environmental benefits and to prosperous companies that need no incentives but are cashing in anyway.



The handouts come from Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credit program — the state’s fastest growing tax shelter. The credits are so easy to obtain that more than 4,000 applicants have lined up to get them whether they need them or not. Klondike Wind Farms, for example, seeks $44 million in state tax breaks even though eastern Oregon’s wind-blown geography has proved a profitable turbine location, subsidies or no.

“It’s gotten out of hand,” says Chuck Sheketoff, director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy, which studies the impact of state tax policies on low-income residents. “It’s being scammed. It’s not serving its purpose.”

Even banks and big corporations that have nothing to do with renewable energy are grabbing the tax breaks. Under the state’s generous incentives, groups and companies that qualify for tax credits can turn around and sell them. Most do. Standard Insurance, for example, paid $2.5 million to Flakeboard, an Albany mill that makes composite wood. In exchange, Standard gets to use $3.5 million in tax credits the mill received for building a wood-burning boiler that can generate electricity.

Oregon’s energy tax credits began as a small, targeted program aimed at conservation and efficiency. It kicked into high gear after the 2007 legislative session, when Kulongoski pushed for some of the biggest tax breaks offered anywhere in the nation.

Under the 2007 rules, companies could apply for up to 50 percent of the cost of the project, up to a limit of $20 million, as long as they could show the project would save energy or produce renewable energy or fuel alternatives.



At the time, state officials projected the changes would add $2 million to a projected $23 million hit on the state’s two-year budget. They were wrong. Less than two years later, the program is costing taxpayers $78 million. And that figure easily could triple again. State records show more than 4,400 applications pending for the credits, for projects worth $716 million.

Read it all at The Oregonian.

Visit Klockarman at Glore Lied

Press Release – Wind Farm Demonstration in Paris

October 6, 2008

Editor

If you are fighting wind farms in North America, you are not alone. You have probably been told how well wind is working in Europe (it’s not) and that we should do the same. Well we should do the same.

Stop the wind scourge now!

.

Saturday Oct 4th, in Paris, 2000 to 3000 people coming from France and
various European countries demonstrated peacefully against windfarms.
Antoine Waechter was among them. Green candidate in the 1988 French
presidential election, Mr Waechter subsequently split from the Greens to
found the Independent Ecological Movement. He is shown on the picture
reading my placard. To the right of the picture, the mayor of a village in
France whose inhabitants ALL decided to sell their houses when a windfarm
project was announced in the vicinity. If you wish to know more about the
Village for Sale, please advise.

We received  messages of support coming from all over the
world, including Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Puerto Rico,
Ecuador, South Africa, Japan and Slovenia. See :
http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/

The demonstration and conference was backed by 176 associations and
federations : http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/

An international platform against windfarms was founded the same day, as
follows :

*Press release
*Paris, Saturday Oct. 4th 2008

*Founding of the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW). *
*
*In Paris today, on the occasion of the international demonstration against
wind farms, German, Belgian, Spanish and French federations and associations
have founded the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW).

This project has received the support of colleagues from 16 countries
representing several hundred federations and associations.

The founding members of this platform have agreed to make the following
declaration :
*1) Ecological deception and financial scandal*.

It has now been proved that industrial windpower does not reduce CO2
emissions and therefore does not contribute
to the fight against global warming. This is principally due to the
intermittent and uncontrollable nature of wind, which makes it necessary to
rely on the back-up of polluting fossil-fuels power stations, 24 hours a
day.

Industrial windpower is subsidized by the taxpayer-consumer.
In France for example, if the national plan is realized ( 12,500 wind
turbines ! ) this burden will amount to 2.5 billion euros annually. In
Germany, it is already costing 4 billion euros a year.
At a time when Europe is facing a deep economic crisis, it is not acceptable
that the standard of living of Europeans be further reduced in favour of
businessmen whose objective seems to be maximizing profits whatever the
consequences.
Industrial windfarms are a threat to the environment.
Landscapes, the natural and cultural heritage, wildlife, quality of life,
the security and health of Europeans are in danger !

*2) The demands made by EPAW : an immediate moratorium and more
transparency.*
The platform demands an immediate moratorium with the suspension of all
windfarm projects, approved or not.

The platform demands that be assessed, under the control of an independent
body, the objective and undisputable effects of wind farms from an
energetical, ecological and social point of view – respectively.
The platform finally demands that the guaranteed pricing of wind-produced
electricity be made the object of both a public and a parliamentary debate,
at national and european levels.

Signed by :
European Associations and Federations participating in the reunion of
October 4th 2008
Spain : Iberica 2000
Belgica : Vent Contraire, Vent de Raison
France : FED : Fédération Environnement Durable (Fédération nationale),
France : FNASSEM – Fédération Nationale des Associations de Sauvegarde ses
Sites et Monuments
Germany : BLS (Bundesverband Landschaftsschutz – landscape protection,
federation of 800 local committees),
Germany : NAEB (Nationale Anti EEG Bewegung – against windfarms)

Contacts :
Kléber ROSSILLON (FNASSEM) : 06 07 21 88 64 kleber.rossilllon@wanadoo.fr
Emmanuel du BOULLAY (FED) : 06 13 54 49 07 emmanuel.du-boullay@laposte.net

Mark Duchamp + 34 679 12 99 97
INCONVENIENT VIDEOS : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729

The dark side of windfarms : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
Pictures of windfarm victims ( eagles etc. ), of turbines on fire, of
collapsed turbines, of soil & water contamination etc. :
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

ESPAÑOL :
Videos inconvenientes : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729
La cara oscura de los parques eólicos:
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1255
Fotos de víctimas de parques eólicos ( águilas etc. ), incendios de
aerogeneradores, contaminación de las aguas por sus lubricantes etc. :
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp



Another One Bites the Dust

March 28, 2008

Editor
They burn, they explode, they make noise, they make little electricity when you need it, and they drive people from their homes. No wonder the Green Fanatics like them so much.

Stupid people pushing stupid ideas.

Smoke pours from the top and bottom of one of the wind turbines at the Ewington Wind Farm near the Heron Lake exit north of Interstate 90 Wednesday morning. The Brewster and Okabena Fire Departments responded to the scene, but upon the advice of Suzlon Wind Energy officials, the fire was allowed to burn itself out. (Brian Korthals/Daily Globe)

Before You Sign a Wind Turbine Contract

March 14, 2008

Editor
I know that many farmers are struggling these days but please be very careful what you agree to.

I haven’t seen a contract myself,  but I did have a farmer relate his version of the sales pitch.

He was told that if the wind turbines were not installed very quickly the lights would go out and he would be responsible. He was told he needed to do his part to keep the lights on and save the environment. Neither statement is true.
The farmers I know are very honest hard working people. They do not spend a lot of time on the internet doing research.

They are led to believe they are doing their civic duty and in return they are offered a very meager amount of money to give up their land rights.

The worst part is the govt. is a helping to facilitate this  fraud with the farmers own tax dollars.

[splashcast c TEWF7605YP]

Lots of interesting things in wind contracts

Having read several different industrial wind energy landowner contracts, I really have to hand it to wind developers. In exchange for a few thousand dollars, the wind company can preempt landowners’ rights to: extract sand and gravel from their property, develop mineral rights on their property, allow hunting, build additional outbuildings or plant trees, etc.

If, in the sole discretion of the wind developer, such activities would interfere with or alter the flow of wind currents over the property, or interfere in any way with the building or operation of the wind project.

The wind company has the sole discretion as to what electrical generation equipment will be placed where and when on leased property. In addition, these leases contain language which allows the wind developer to use other land owned by the landowner even if such acreage is not included in the lease agreement.

These landowner contracts subordinate the landowners’ rights in favor of the wind developers. Once landowners sign an option they are under obligation to sign the lease agreement if the developer decides to exercise the option.

One of the reasons these contracts are so restrictive is explained in comments made by NYSERDA about wind energy lease agreements: “Before allowing wind turbines to be purchased and installed, project investors, financing organizations, and power purchasers will want to be sure the lease provides clear, unimpeded rights to use of the land over the expected life of the project.”

“Termination clauses need to be ‘reasonable’ so that the risk of installing the wind turbine equipment and having the lease terminated is low and manageable. If the risk of termination is deemed too high, it will be difficult for the project developer to obtain financing for the project.”

These leases typically prevent a landowner from complaining or taking action against the wind company because of noise, flicker, visual, audio, vibrations, air turbulence, electromagnetic, electric and radio frequency disturbances and other side effects caused by the operation of the project.

Yes, I really have to hand it to these wind developers, and if you have signed one of these leases, you probably already have.

By Edna McGinnett

Edna McGinnett is a Ripley resident.

The Observer

Signing it all away for crumbs from the table

From Kirbymtn blogspot

“A copy of a boilerplate easement agreement between a windfarm developer and a landowner has crossed my desk. Those who have already seen such contracts have remarked on the irony of landowners defending their right to do what they want with their own land against the considerations of their neighbors but signing away that very right to the wind company.”

“The contract is for 2 years, and then 20 years once a turbine is installed, with the developer retaining the option to extend it another 30 years after that. Of course, the developer can terminate the deal at any time. The owner can’t.” Read more here

No breeze: the day the wind died in Texas

February 29, 2008

 Editor:
4,600 megawatts of wind power in Texas was producing only 1700 mw before the wind dropped and the 1700 mw became 300. In Ontario we have the same problem. It was cold today -10c and at 1pm the 472 megawatts of installed wind power was producing only 8 megawatts. If we had built a 472 mw nuclear plant we would have had 472 megawatts available. Regardless of how many wind turbines are installed there is no way to count on them to produce power when required. Wind turbines push up the cost of electricity without any real benefits. So, the question is, why are we building them?

Carbon credits and Tax Shelters

No breeze: the day the wind died in Texas

Texas, a model of wind power’s potential, now is a model of wind power’s pitfalls too.

Minders of the Lone Star State’s electricity grid had to cut power to some offices and factories Wednesday evening when the wind dropped—and with it, electricity produced from the state’s many wind farms. The green juice slowed from 1,700 megawatts to the trickle of 300 megawatts.

”A cold front moved through, and the wind died out,” said Dottie Roark, spokeswoman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which runs most of the state’s power grid. “That happens.”

Oh, well. Now that wind is big enough to be a real part of Texas’ electricity mix, the state is coming to grips with one of wind power’s biggest problems: the power flows only when the wind blows.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but this glitch for wind power occurred the night before the House voted on a renewable-energy bill — a vote in which the Texas delegation mostly voted against more renewable-energy subsidies.

Nuclear, coal- and gas-fired plants run almost all the time. As efficient as wind turbines have become in recent years, they still need the wind to work. And reliably predicting just when the wind will blow is still tough, despite plenty of fancy technological advances.

Wind usually falls off with rising temperatures. But a sudden gust of cool weather can do the same. The people running the electricity grid need to stay on their toes to throw other forms of power on line when wind falters.

“Renewables are a very intermittent source of electric supply,” says Larry Makovich, managing director at Cambridge Enegy Research Associates, a Boston-based energy consultancy that recently published a bullish report on the prospects for renewable energy. “What you saw in Texas is a very dramatic example as to why that is the case.”

This problem is only going to get bigger for Texas. The state has 4,600 megawatts of wind power. If wind blew all the time, that would be the equivalent of more than three nuclear plants. The state now is considering additional wind farms that could boost that figure ten-fold, say Texas’ grid operators. That is, when there’s a breeze.

Matthew Dalton
Dow Jones Newswires

Posted by Jeffrey Ball

Environmental Capital – WSJ.com

Pushing against the wind

February 3, 2008

Editor:
Same crap different country.
The IESO in Ontario states that for planning purposes wind should only be counted on for 10% of it’s capacity rating. So, 1,000MW of wind is equivalent to 100MW of conventional power. The Govt., Media, and the Wind Industry continue to refer to the number of homes powered by wind, based on full capacity not the reality of 10%. At 7am today the 472MWs of wind power in Ont. were pumping out 18MWs, which is 3.82% of their plated capacity. 300 hones powered per MW for 18MW is 5400 homes. The govt. wind industry and the media would like you to believe that 141,600 are being powered by wind.

They should all be charged for false advertising. If they are not being truthful about the real capacity of wind, what else are they not telling us about our electrical system.

How does Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ont., feel about wind energy?

Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“I think the member opposite knows that when it comes to natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming. Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable, because sometimes obviously the wind does not blow. When it comes to solar, those tend to be expensive as well.”

Pushing against the wind

The wind rush is on. Plans to erect sweeping wind farms are being unfurled at a rate of knots. But is this really clean green energy, or just another case of greedy corporates trashing our landscapes for profit? Anton Oliver argues it’s about time New Zealanders woke up to the dark side of wind power.

Forests of turbines spinning on distant hills: in these carbon-aware times, the glory of wind farms is being touted as the one-stop solution to all our energy ills. So aggressive has been the rush to build them that a week doesn’t seem to go by without a new application for an industrial-scale turbine site going before a local council for consideration under the Resource Management Act (RMA), with a mad green fervour.

You’d be forgiven, then, if it escaped your notice that wind power was part of the problem, not the solution, when the Electricity Commission last week announced that we’re teetering on the brink of yet another major electricity shortage.

The emergency button that is Whirinaki’s diesel-burning power plant (the official national standby) had been pushed, initiated by high wholesale electricity prices thanks to equipment failure at Taranaki’s combined-cycle plant, high water temperatures in the Waikato River forcing Huntly’s coal-burning plant to trim back production and becalmed summer skies over Manawatu meaning its plethora of wind turbines were as useful as wet paper toothpicks.

It may also have escaped your attention that as we rush to cover the country in wind farms (more precisely, as the energy oligarchs rush to gather the armfuls of carbon credits being dangled before them by government as a green bribe), in Europe far greater scrutiny is being applied to the imposition of these vast energy factories upon the environment.

Last week it was leaked that plans for the largest land-based wind farm in Britain, a 181-turbine development in the Scottish Hebrides, are to be vetoed by Scottish ministers due to likely negative impacts on wild birdlife. Likewise, a 27-turbine project in the rolling uplands of Cumbria, England an area with similar tourism and landscape values to Central Otago was deemed “a step too far” in the quest for green energy.

You won’t have read about it here because it’s not in the interests of this country’s major power players to tell you. The Labour-led government has its blinkers on trying to make up for its gross miscalculation of our Kyoto obligations come 2012 (which, rather than deliver us a profit as Labour initially declared, will, according to Business New Zealand projections, cost us as much as $3 billion), frantically searching for alternative revenue streams hence its renewed interest in carbon credits and emissions trading to pay for its incompetence.

Based on the evidence so far, its stated energy and climate change policy to be 90% renewable in our energy generation by the year 2025 should not be seen as green or carbon friendly, but a state-directed, revenue-motivated assault on New Zealand’s natural environment.

The least the government should have done is to come up with a sensible, national, overarching strategy for wind energy generation in New Zealand: instead energy generators including the government’s own SOE, Meridian Energy have seized upon the lack of guidelines in a frantic wind rush for the most cost-effective sites.

Hang on, isn’t the RMA supposed to safeguard us from the excesses of corporate developers?

While the RMA is touted as being a democratic process, the reality is that the success of an appellant’s case comes down to how much money they can raise; since most don’t have a spare $100,000-$500,000 in their coffers to pay a QC and their support staff.

An opponent as financially rotund as Meridian, meanwhile, has a team of lawyers and expensive experts and can afford a cartel of QCs to browbeat local councillors and other beleaguered individuals seriously out of their depth who tend to make up resource consent hearing panels.

Last week, the Crown, via the Ministry for the Environment, made a whole-of-government submission supporting Project Hayes (Meridian’s controversial 176 turbines, proposed for Central Otago, which is headed for the Environment Court).

It cited wind generation as being of national interest since it “ensures” security of energy supply by providing additional generation capacity and diversification of electricity production methods and, secondly, supposedly helps New Zealand address climate change issues.

Yet no one is asking the hard questions of a government desperate to sell itself to an increasingly green-aware public in election year.

As the fine print of the Energy Commission release indicated, wind energy is not reliable. No one knows when it will blow. At best, crude statistics are used to predict how much it will blow on average over very long time frames (months, years). Wind generation cannot be calculated with any security: will it blow tomorrow morning, Friday evening or next Wednesday at 6pm when Huntly’s going to be offline or the hydro lakes are low?

New Zealanders are sold on the concept that all wind is green, therefore large-scale wind is the panacea for all our woes. But wind farms like Project Hayes are attractive to the generator oligarchy only because of economics of scale and carbon credits: together they make industrial-sized wind not only financially viable, but exceedingly profitable.

Basing security of supply, meanwhile, on something that is as inherently unpredictable is somewhere south of foolish. Overseas experience has already shown that for every 1000 megawatts of wind generation installed less than 10% can be calculated as firm generating capacity, therefore increasing rather than decreasing traditional energy supply (often carbon-emitting) because of the fundamental problem: when the wind stops blowing, where does the power come from?

Meridian and other generators continue to regurgitate their standard spiel that this or that wind farm is “capable of producing enough electricity to power 100,000 homes”. Try supplying Wellington’s Courtenay Pl, Lambton Quay, the Beehive and ancillary government buildings with wind power only for a year and in December ask them how they got on.

Wind surges also cause massive voltage and frequency increases, threatening the integrity and stability of the grid (which, under Cook Strait, even last week had to be held at a paltry 400MW to stop the system from overloading). Of course, sudden decreases in wind have to be replaced by alternative, ready-to-go energy standbys such as Whirinaki. Not the kind of admission we tend to hear from energycoms as they try to push their wind schemes on to an unsuspecting public.

Leaving aside the belief that it will have unacceptable environmental and tourism impacts on an iconic slice of Otago, Meridian’s Project Hayes wind farm has yet to disclose any alternative methods for generating electricity when it isn’t blowing, nor how the grid will handle the load placed on it, nor even some basic science collected from the site to back up their claims that this is a good thing for the country as a whole.

Peak Oil New Zealand

Wind energy: beware, turbulence ahead

November 22, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bernard Viau
viaub@sympatico.ca

August 4, 2007

cmaq.net


REDUCTION IN CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS:

January 18, 2007

A Report by David White, BSc, C Eng, F I Chem E

Commissioned and published by the Renewable Energy Foundation

December 2004

An increase in wind capacity will have to be matched by new
conventional capacity required to cover winter peak demand when there is no wind.
This new capacity would be under-utilised, again raising the unit cost and . UK demand will continue to grow, as forecast by National Grid Transco, and power shortages seem inevitable in the medium term if the “secure” generation
capacity needed to replace obsolete plant is not forthcoming.
• In conclusion, it seems reasonable to ask why wind-power is the beneficiary of such extensive support if it not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions required,but also causes cost increases in back-up, maintenance and transmission, while at the same time discouraging investment in clean, firm generation.

Click here for the full report

The govt. of Ontario is pursuing wind power for one reason and one reason only. To get your vote. There are too many credible reports showing that wind is a poor choice for electrical generation, to come to any other conclusion. Are “YOU” a citizen of Ont. going to sit idly by while your govt, under false pretences, wastes billions of your tax dollars and puts the electrical grid in jeopardy.