Archive for the ‘windsor’ Category

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

Blowing in the Wind – Your Tax Dollars

February 27, 2008

*The Dangers of Wind Power*

*After the industry’s recent boom years, wind power providers and experts are now concerned. The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting.
Gearboxes hiding inside the casings perched on top of the towering masts have short shelf lives, often crapping out before even five years is up. In some cases, fractures form along the rotors, or even in the foundation, after only limited operation. Short circuits or overheated propellers have been known to cause fires. All this despite manufacturers’ promises that the turbines would last at least 20 years.*
August 24, 2007 by Simone Kaiser and Michael Fröhlingsdorf in Business Week
*As wind turbines multiply around the globe, the number of dangerous accidents is also climbing, causing critics to question overall safety*

It came without warning. A sudden gust of wind ripped the tip off of the rotor blade with a loud bang. The heavy, 10-meter (32 foot) fragment spun through the air, and crashed into a field some 200 meters away.

The wind turbine, which is 100 meters (328 feet) tall, broke apart in early November 2006 in the region of Oldenburg in northern Germany-and the consequences of the event are only now becoming apparent. Startled by the accident, the local building authority ordered the examination of six other wind turbines of the same model.

The results, which finally came in this summer, alarmed District
Administrator Frank Eger. He immediately alerted the state government of Lower Saxony, writing that he had shut down four turbines due to safety concerns. It was already the second incident in his district, he wrote, adding that turbines of this type could pose a threat across the country.
The expert evaluation had discovered possible manufacturing defects and irregularities.

*Mishaps, Breakdowns and Accidents*

After the industry’s recent boom years, wind power providers and experts are now concerned. The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting.
Gearboxes hiding inside the casings perched on top of the towering masts have short shelf lives, often crapping out before even five years is up. In some cases, fractures form along the rotors, or even in the foundation, after only limited operation. Short circuits or overheated propellers have been known to cause fires. All this despite manufacturers’ promises that the turbines would last at least 20 years.

Gearboxes have already had to be replaced “in large numbers,” the German Insurance Association is now complaining. “In addition to generators and gearboxes, rotor blades also often display defects,” a report on the technical shortcomings of wind turbines claims. The insurance companies are complaining of problems ranging from those caused by improper storage to                         dangerous cracks and fractures.

Wind power expert Martin Stöckl knows the problems all too well. The Bavarian travels some 80,000 kilometers (49,710 miles) across Germany every year, but he is only rarely able to help the wind farmers. It is not just the rotors that, due to enormous worldwide demand, take forever to deliver, but simple replacement parts are likewise nowhere to be found. “You often
have to wait 18 months for a new rotor mount, which means the turbine stands still for that long,” says Stöckl.

“Sales Top, Service Flop” is the headline on a recent cover story which appeared in the industry journal Erneuerbare Energien. The story reports the disastrous results of a questionnaire passed out to members of the German WindEnergy Association asking them to rank manufacturers. Only Enercon, based in Germany, managed a ranking of “good.” The company produces wind
turbines without gearboxes, eliminating one of the weakest links in the chain.

Even among insurers, who raced into the new market in the 1990s, wind power
is now considered a risky sector. Industry giant Allianz was faced with around a thousand damage claims in 2006 alone. Jan Pohl, who works for Allianz in Munich, has calculated that on average “an operator has to expect damage to his facility every four years, not including malfunctions and uninsured breakdowns.”

Many insurance companies have learned their lessons and are now writing maintenance requirements-requiring wind farmers to replace vulnerable components such as gearboxes every five years-directly into their contracts.
But a gearbox replacement can cost up to 10 percent of the original construction price tag, enough to cut deep into anticipated profits. Indeed, many investors may be in for a nasty surprise. “Between 3,000 and 4,000 older facilities are currently due for new insurance policies,” says Holger Martsfeld, head of technical insurance at Germany’s leading wind turbine insurer Gothaer. “We know that many of these facilities have flaws.”

*Flaws And Dangers*

And the technical hitches are not without their dangers. For example:

• In December of last year, fragments of a broken rotor blade landed on a road shortly before rush hour traffic near the city of Trier

• Two wind turbines caught fire near Osnabrück and in the Havelland region in January. The firefighters could only watch: Their ladders were not tall enough to reach the burning casings

• The same month, a 70-meter (230-foot) tall wind turbine folded in half in Schleswig-Holstein-right next to a highway

• The rotor blades of a wind turbine in Brandenburg ripped off at a height of 100 meters (328 feet). Fragments of the rotors stuck into a grain field near a road.

At the Allianz Technology Center (AZT) in Munich, the bits and pieces from wind turbine meltdowns are closely examined. “The force that comes to bear on the rotors is much greater than originally expected,” says AZT evaluator Erwin Bauer. Wind speed is simply not consistent enough, he points out.
“There are gusts and direction changes all the time,” he says.

But instead of working to create more efficient technology, many
manufacturers have simply elected to build even larger rotor blades, Bauer adds. “Large machines may have great capacity, but the strains they are subject to are even harder to control,” he says.

Even the technically basic concrete foundations are suffering from those strains. Vibrations and load changes cause fractures, water seeps into the cracks, and the rebar begins to rust. Repairs are difficult. “You can’t look inside concrete,” says Marc Gutermann, a professor for experimental statics in Bremen. “It’s no use just closing the cracks from above.”

The engineering expert suspects construction errors are to blame. “The facilities keep getting bigger,” he says, “but the diameter of the masts has to remain the same because otherwise they would be too big to transport on the roadways.”

*Not Sufficiently Resilient*

Still the wind power business is focusing on replacing smaller facilities with ever larger ones. With all the best sites already taken, boosting size is one of the few ways left to boost output. On land at least. So far, there are no offshore wind parks in German waters, a situation that Minister Gabriel hopes to change. He wants offshore wind farms to produce a total of  25,000 megawatts by 2030.

Perhaps by then, the lessons learned on land will ward off disaster at sea.
Many constructors of such offshore facilities in other countries have run into difficulties. Danish company and world market leader Vestas, for example, had to remove the turbines from an entire wind park along Denmark’s western coast in 2004 because the turbines were not sufficiently resilient to withstand the local sea and weather conditions. Similar problems were encountered off the British coast in 2005.

German wind turbine giant Enercon, for its part, considers the risks associated with offshore wind power generation too great, says Enercon spokesman Andreas Düser says. While the growth potential is tempting, he says, the company does not want to lose its good standing on the high seas.
*Web link:* http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2
*Note: Since this article was published (August 2007) there have been 3 more major collapses including one death.*

Oregon, US: Wind Turbine collapses kills one, injures second
worker<http://www.nowpublic.net/wind-turbine-collapse-kills-one-injures-second-worker>

Cumbria, UK Wind Turbine
Collapses<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/7168275.stm>

Beinn an Tuirc, Scotland:
http://www.campbeltowncourier.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/4354/Bent_double.html

ACW Council waits for wind word from ministry-Update

September 6, 2007

From the editor:

We need more men and women with the backbone and conviction of Councilor
Barry Millian

 

I got involved with the wind farm issue in Oct. 2006. The Kingsbridge l wind farm started operation in the spring of that year in the Twp. of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh. I had no intention of getting involved. I did like a lot of others, I drove by the wind farm in Oct. and my first reaction was that it didn’t directly affect me so don’t worry about it. What made me stop at several farms to see how the people were dealing with the wind farm, I’m not entirely sure. What I found was good honest people, that have been lied to and have had both their lives and property values ruined.

Epcor who built the Kingsbridge l wanted to build Kingsbridge ll even though there were many problems with No. l. The council wanted to give the go ahead with no regard for the people who were already experiencing problems.

I and several others trying to find the truth about wind farms were told by frustrated residents from ACW to contact Councilor Barry Millian. We were told that he was the only one who seemed interested in making sure the residents were protected from adverse effects that might be caused by putting the turbines too close to homes.

We sent Mr. Millian volumes of information on the subject of which he studied. The G.P. van den Berg: “Effects of the wind profile at night is one paper he paid close attention too and it showed why the people living near the wind farm were having problems sleeping at night.

Councilor Millian who under intense pressure to allow Kingsbridge ll to proceed, stood his ground and convinced the council to wait until they got an answer from the ministry with regards to the G.P. van den Berg Report.

They were promised an answer by the end of Feb. 2007. They still do not have an answer to date. It is now promised sometime in Oct., after the Provincial election.

If the govt. acknowledges the G.P. van den Berg Report they will not be able to put the turbines as close to homes as they are.

It appears the govt. is sitting on the report trying to put through as many wind farms as they can before they get caught.

The OMB hearings are a farce when the govt. is withholding information that would force the turbines to be much further from homes.

Was the Enbridge 110 turbine wind farm near Kincardine passed because information was withheld by the govt.?

I asked Marie LeGrow, senior project coordinator for the MOE, how they could go ahead with the OMB hearing for the Enbridge wind farm when they hadn’t completed the study on the G.P. van den Berg Report. I was told that because the Enbridge wind farm was already in process, the report regardless of the outcome, would not affect the Enbridge project

Below is the story from The Goderich Signal-Star

Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Twp. council will not pass its new comprehensive zoning bylaw until the Ministry of Environment responds to the township’s concerns about wind turbines.

At the Aug. 21 meeting, council was to set a date to review comments and changes to the comprehensive zoning bylaw with the planning department. However, Counc. Barry Millian said council should not rush passing the bylaw until the township gets answers back from the ministry following their meeting on July 30 at the Huron County council chambers.

“The minister said she will get back to us in October and we’ve waited this long, why not wait another month?” asked Millian.

Township resident Harry Kerr said the wind turbines neighbouring his property are more than 800 metres away but “damn noisy”.

“The 400 metre setback is not enough,” said Kerr.

Millian urged all council members to study the reports on the wind turbines.

“Nobody is going to disagree with the Ontario government saying that there is a need for renewable energy but we don’t know anything about it and the government just wants us to do it,” said Millian. “We can’t talk to anyone in Ontario about this because it’s new and no one knows anything about it and I challenge anyone in this room to argue with me about this.”

Council agreed to wait for the minister’s response.

By Sara Bender

The Goderich Signal-Star

5 September 2007

We need more men and women with the backbone and conviction of Councilor
Barry Millian

You’re a good man

Wind Power is an Illusion

September 2, 2007

From the Editor

The Govt. is just as bad as the wind industry. They know wind power is an illusion. The illusion is going to cost the Ontario taxpayer big time. Make sure no one gets a majority on Oct. the 1oth. A majority govt. is nothing more than a four year dictatorship of which you can’t do anything about.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

Monday 10 April 2006

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North)

My concern is that we’re creating this illusion out there that we’re doing all these wonderful things in power.

One of the things that really was amazing is that the government is counting on the total capacity of the wind power generation as fact. This all ties in to our need for power, so we don’t have another blackout, another natural disaster. To date: Melancthon Grey wind project, which is 67.5; the Kingsbridge wind project, 39.6 megawatts; Erie Shore’s wind farm, 99 megawatts; the Prince wind farm, 99 megawatts; and the Blue Highlands wind farm, 49.5. That’s a total of 354.6 megawatts. The minister keeps saying that’s how many megawatts she has coming on-stream.1730

The reality is that in this book put out by the Independent Electricity System Operator — which I think is a government body, part of the old Ontario Hydro — it says, under an asterisk at the bottom, “For capacity planning purposes, wind generation has a dependable capacity contribution of 10% of the listed figures.” So of the 354.6 megawatts that Minister Cansfield talked about today, according to our own Independent Electricity System Operator, we really only have 35 megawatts, if you consider 10%.

The rest of the story