Archive for the ‘The green vote in Ontario’ Category

Green Party of Canada Opposes Placing Industrial Wind Farms too Close to Homes

July 9, 2007

The following article is the first of a new series dedicated to local issues. We’ll try to present topics of interest to everyone and we invite readers to share their experience and knowledge on local challenges. This article was written by Bernard Viau, editor of Green Canada Vert and secretary of the electoral district association (EDA) in the Quebec riding of Montmagny L’Islet Kamouraska Rivière-du-Loup, located in the lower Saint-Lawrence river area.

Wind farm projects are being announced every month in Quebec and are growing like mushrooms, but the air is turbulent in the wind industry. The promoters tell us that wind farms will reduce greenhouse gas emissions (but reducing our consumption of meat will do more to reduce the GHG emissions).

Don’t be fooled, the money they are investing in wind energy has nothing to do with the environment. Promoters build wind farms because there is a lot of money to make. Firstly, it’s a tax shelter and a very efficient one. They also receive production bonuses from the government and special credits for reducing air pollution.

Wind farms may be built on private land but they affect the landscape, which is common property, so to speak. Opposition to wind farms has focussed mainly on this spoiling of the landscape. Most of the time, we judge things according to their potential return on investment and so, it is only normal that promoters and shareholders are at loss when one speaks of the “value” of a landscape. In Europe, citizens are complaining that miles of landscape have been destroyed by wind farms; many are even complaining about health hazards associated with them. In Europe, land values have fallen around wind farms, and tourism also. 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!

Also construction needs a lot of cement; a sea of cement would give a better picture. Thousands of trucks, very heavy, very broad and very long, damage the roads, on top of polluting with diesel fumes, noise, vibrations, dust and traffic. House foundations will be affected, and the following spring roads will break up.

In 30 years, if the promoters have not declared bankruptcy to avoid paying for dismantling of wind towers, the foundations will be left to the grandchildren of the original owners. It would be better to force promoters to put money in trust to cover end-of-life dismantling; a form of asset fund for future generations.

If promoters and shareholders had their way, public enquiries would not be necessary. Industrial wind farms are not nice and green like the promoters want us to believe.

Complete Story

Intellectual child exploitation, Al Gore, David Suzuki

April 9, 2007

Is classroom Global Warming preaching indoctrinating the next generation?

4/9/07

Do you know what your children are learning in school about climate change? Have you ever looked at their textbooks? Is it education or indoctrination? How accurate are the facts? How much is it an ideological or a political message? Is it a balanced curriculum offering options or one imposing a singular view? How much is fear the vehicle of indoctrination?

Do you only learn about the material when your elementary school child can’t sleep because of threats of a rising sea level? Are you like the mother who told me how children at a birthday party for her seven-year-old cried when a balloon burst because they said there would be another hole in the ozone? I hear from many people about children traumatized by what they have learned in school. A British survey of children between 7 and 11 found half of them are anxious about the impacts of global warming to the point of losing sleep. At what age do we place societal or world problems on young shoulders? US TV celebrity psychologist “Dr. Phil” says emphatically, don’t put adult problems on children’s shoulders.

No doubt, environmental advocates like Al Gore and Canadian counterpart David Suzuki believe pushing their message to young people is necessary to produce the type of people they want for their world,

Read more at Canadian Free Press 

From worst to first in wind generation

February 6, 2007

From worst to first in wind generation

Greenhouse gases up 90% from coal stations


Feb. 1.Climate change is real. It’s a serious concern to Canadians and it’s great to see these issues becoming more prominent in recent media coverage. The study by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance points to mismanagement and poor planning by the former Conservative government between 1995 and 2002.That government did not invest in clean, green power. Instead, it belched out more power from dirty coal plants. Under their watch, emissions rose by more than 125 per cent.The McGuinty government brings a different approach. In three years, we have reduced Ontario’s reliance on coal plants by more than 32 per cent. We’ve gone from worst to first when it comes to wind generation.And we’ve invested in new province-wide energy conservation programs that are producing results – and that means cleaner air for all of us.While so many other jurisdictions are expanding their reliance on coal, we’re reducing ours. Ontario stands as the only jurisdiction in the world not building more coal-fire generation, but phasing it out.
Duncan and McGuinty still don’t get it. Even the UK is backing off on-shore wind.

“Power cut for clean energy
A scheme designed to encourage the use of renewable electricity sources is set to be ditched amid claims it is expensive and inefficient. So how can Britain’s fight against climate change be resuscitated?
By Tim Webb
Published: 28 January 2007
And now, the Renewables Obligation scheme, enshrined on April Fools’ Day 2002, looks set to be abandoned.Ofgem wants the scheme, which is being reviewed by the Government in its current Energy Review (to be published in April), scrapped.”

No country has ever proved any significant emission reduction with wind. Why are countries like Germany going back to coal?
They need reliable power. Wind can’t do the job. Wind farms, on the other hand, have caused many problems for people living near them, and have also cost jobs because of high electrical costs. Duncan and McGuinty have no excuse, other than stupidity. Instead of doing what the lobby groups wanted, and that includes David Suzuki, they should have investigated wind energy and it’s problems in other countries. We all want clean energy, but it has to work and be cost effective.

David Suzuki was always a kind of hero of mine. He is however, way off base promoting wind farms. Wind was and still is workable to power a house or cottage off grid. Wind was never designed to power the grid.

We’ll eliminate coal as quickly as we can, and replace it with gas, which is extremely price sensitive, balanced with the need to ensure a continued, reliable supply of electricity. Not

Dwight give it up. Your energy plan is a failure. Face the facts


Dwight Duncan, Ontario Minister of Energy, Queen’s Park

Stretching the truth to the absolute extreme

January 28, 2007

It is -9, with the windchill it feels like -16. Ontario has 413mw of wind capacity. At 1pm the four wind-farms in Ontario are generating at 4.6%  of their rated capacity. Not too impressive.

When the Ontario govt. or the wind industry tell you that a wind farm has the capacity to power x number of homes they are stretching the truth to the absolute extreme. A wind farm has the capacity to power x number of homes only when it is running at maximum output. I have yet to see this happen.

As you can see 4.6% output is a very long way from 100% output.

The govt. plans to back up wind by building natural gas plants.

What is the most price sensitive fuel right now and into the future?

Natural gas.

This McGinty, Duncan policy is not only going to drive up electricity prices it will also cost thousands of manufacturing jobs.

It is time for every voter in Ontario to start asking some hard questions and demanding answers to the McGinty, Duncan energy policy.

This is without a doubt, the most flawed energy policy ever presented to the Ontario consumer.

Who will pay for this disaster.

YOU and your CHILDREN.

Wind-power project goes quiet for now

January 26, 2007

From the editor – one pissed off liberal

Is the tide finally turning. The truth is starting to come out about the wind industry. It’s all about the money.

Enbridge has been found guilty of “criminal misconduct” by the Supreme Court for charging its Canadian customers late-payment penalties that exceeded permissible legal interest rate levels.

The Kincardine wind farm will be built and run by Enbridge.

Convicted criminals will control the wind farm, the pipelines bringing the gas and the back-up gas plants. No chance for abuse there.

The McGinty govt. is convinced you, the taxpayers of this province, are stupid.

Prove them wrong this October. Stand up and be counted.

Carol Mitchell MPP and Paul Steckle MP of Huron Bruce will pay for this at the next election. They have failed their constituents miserably and continue to do so by pushing, the soon to fail, Dwight Duncan energy policy.

Epcor should be forced to shut down the Kingsbridge I wind project immediately. Since it’s start-up in March of last year it has caused a multitude of problems for the people living near it. To date Epcor has not addressed any of those concerns.

None
not
One

To all those who are fighting so hard to bring reason and truth into this debate, don’t get discouraged.

In the end the truth will prevail.


Below is the story from the Star

Epcor Utilities Inc. has put on hold its planned Kingsbridge II wind-power project near Goderich and is taking a $20 million charge because of uncertainties in local and provincial approvals.

The energy company, owned by the City of Edmonton, said it is rethinking the 160-megawatt project planned for the south shore of Lake Huron and is ending arrangements with some suppliers.

The company plans to take up to $20 million in charges before tax on its books from its moves.

Epcor said it will continue to operate its Kingsbridge I wind project, which was commissioned last year.

thestar.com

Wind Turbine Setbacks-UPDATE Sept.11 2007-

January 25, 2007

From the editor

Manitoba gets the first realistic setback in Canada. The people in Manitoba fought back and instead of a 500 meter setback they now have a more realistic 2000 meter from their property lines. In Ontario the setbacks are from the residence, not the property line, which makes the 450 meter setback in the Municipality of Kincardine and most other places even more ludicrous and unacceptable. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage everyone everywhere to fight for their and their neighbors rights.

You don’t have to put up with this crap.

Rural Municipality of Cartier Manitoba
Some residents voiced their displeasure with the project at the public hearing. Rasmussen said most residents were concerned about the distance turbines would be located from property lines according to the zoning bylaw.

The bylaw passed first reading by a 5-1 council vote in June. Since then, set back guidelines for erecting the turbines changed from 500 metres from neighbouring property lines to 2,000 metres.

Read the rest of the story and get inspired

Riverside County-CALIFORNIA-Restrict the placement of wind turbines within 2 miles of residential development unless the applicant supplies documentation that the machine(s) will not produce low frequency impulsive noise.

Turbines too close to homes-Ms. Lucas, speaking for the Guardians, told the hearing commissioners that the 70 wind turbines proposed for the hills southwest of Makara, each 125 meters tall, were too large to put within two kilometers of any residence. International research showed it was “general protocol” to allow a 2km buffer, even with smaller turbines.

In NZ there were no consented wind energy developments with more than a handful of houses closer than 2km. (Source-Walkato Times)

Australia-To avoid adverse noise impacts on the amenity of the surrounding community, wind farm developments should include sufficient buffers or setbacks to noise sensitive premises. As a guide, the distance between the nearest turbine and a noise sensitive building not associated with the wind farm is to be 1km. These guidelines provide that wind farm developments should be constructed and designed to ensure that noise generated will not exceed 5dB(A) above the background sound level or 35dB(A) using a 10-minute LA eq, whichever is greater, at surrounding noise-sensitive premises. (Source-Guidelines for Wind Farm Development, Planning Bulletin, Western Australia)

Australia-Wind Farm Under Scrutiny. The Myponga/Sellicks Hill wind farm will be scrutinized after claims that developer TrustPower plans to move seven of the turbines within one kilometer of dwellings. (Source-The Times)

(1600 metres in Germany, 1800 metres in Holland).

It was Alves-Pereira’s initial research, published in numerous scientific journals, which prompted the French National Academy of Medicine, earlier this month (March 2006), to call on the French government to stop all wind turbine construction within 1.5 km of people’s homes. You should understand that VAD is well established in the clinical literature; it is not conjectured. It has been amply documented and is readily detected by a variety of diagnostic tests.

What’s wrong with Ontario Canada!

First, the relatively small size of private land parcels in Ontario will present a challenge for developers due to the number of stakeholders that may perceive impacts. Windpark development may become uneconomical if municipal setbacks created to address these “perceived” concerns reduce the usable land area, thus eliminating the economics of scale necessary to develop a project.*
*14c) The Industry does not recommend that a set of standard bylaws be adopted with respect to setbacks or other municipal zoning issues.*

*”The above can be understood to mean, that if “safe setbacks” are mandated, it will make it uneconomical to site wind farms in Southern Ontario”

Setbacks in Ashfield township 400 meters

Setbacks in Municipality of Kincardine 350 meters

“Ontario’s strict sound guidelines ensure that turbines are located far enough away from residences .” What Ontario guidelines? Every municipality is left to figure it out for themselves. Chatham Kent: 300 m, Amherstburg 600 m.

Meanwhile worldwide, in countries that have learned from their mistakes, these distances are increasing due to health, quality of life and safety issues (1600 metres in Germany, 1800 metres in Holland).

You should make people aware, Mr. Hornung that CanWEA is lobbying to remove setbacks altogether in southwestern Ontario due to the small land parcels.

 

Is the Ont. govt. ignoring health issues and the right of property enjoyment for economies of scale. That’s what it sounds like to me. The wind industry is always using the term “perceived” concerns. The concerns that people have are real not “perceived”.

Dalton and Duncan need a reality check. The rights of the people of Ont. are far more important than a bunch of useless windmills.

Germany has more windmills than anyone else. They are building 8 new coal plants because wind isn’t working for them. The Danes don’t want them either, their govt. is forcing them on their people. Why? They have 30.000 people working in the industry.

“We simply cannot continue to lead the world in the field of wind-power technology if we don’t even make room for wind parks in our own country,” Connie Hedegaard, the environment minister for Denmark said“.

Dalton and Dwight or Dumb and Dumber you be the judge

 

Wind farm videos from the UK and Australia

January 22, 2007

If you don’t want your countryside littered with wind turbines I suggest you get active and start writing and calling your respective Representatives.

Don’t call Carol Mitchell MPP for Huron Bruce.
She thinks wind turbines are majestic.

Enjoy the videos

WindTurbinesareComing-UK.wmv

LivingNextDoortoaWindFarm,Australia.wmv

Electricity planning must be given back to the engineers

January 19, 2007

The framework of subsidies constructed and empowered in order to encourage development of supplementary electricity generation (it is no more than that) by wind power has become the target for every entrepreneur in the field. Wind power is now so wildly oversubsidised that the overall driver has become excessive private profits, not the real needs of the electricity demand pattern.

 

 

September  4, 2006 by Alan Shaw, Aylsham, Norwich. in The Herald

Thomas McLaughlin (August 31) has summarised perfectly the total loss of plot by both the government and the UK environmental movement generally. The framework of subsidies constructed and empowered in order to encourage development of supplementary electricity generation (it is no more than that) by wind power has become the target for every entrepreneur in the field. Wind power is now so wildly oversubsidised that the overall driver has become excessive private profits, not the real needs of the electricity demand pattern.

In introducing the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s Inquiry into Energy Issues for Scotland two years ago Professor Maxwell Irvine commented: “Energy is an emotive subject and too important to become a party political issue.” It was a perceptive warning.

But it has long since been made a party political issue by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and their fellow travellers. Politicians of every hue have adopted energy as a vote-catching issue without a trace of the complex engineering understanding necessary to formulate sound judgments.
Thomas McLaughlin is absolutely correct in equating the present-day environmental movement with the Cambridge spy ring. To the UK electricity supply industry, it is the present-day equivalent of the Spanish Civil War’s Third Column. British politicians must wake up, shake themselves free and pass such matters back to the objective professional engineers who alone understand the economic and technical issues.