Archive for the ‘Wolfe Island’ Category

Grey Bruce Health Unit in Owen Sound about health effects of wind

October 3, 2009

Editor:

As you read this article pay attention to what Bill Murdoch MPP has to say. First – the Ont. Conservative Party planned to install more wind turbines than the Liberals – stated in their 2007 election platform. Murdoch says he opposed the GEA but he never bothered to vote against it.  When his office was asked why Murdoch was not in the House for the vote his rep said he had a prior engagement.  What could be more important than voting on the removal of Municipal rights.

Murdoch is as guilty as anyone for not standing up for the people of his riding. Why was he not holding information meeting in his riding to inform and advise his constituents about the coming folly.

Why didn’t Murdoch attend the meeting held on the 6th?  It was held just down the street form his office

Gutless, or part of the Treason taking place in this province. You decide!

Posted By Denis Langlois   Owen Sound Times

It’s too late to stop the surge of wind-farm development in Ontario, even by arguing the turbines cause illness, says Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound MPP Bill Murdoch.

“As far as what they can do about it, there really isn’t a heck of a lot,” he said yesterday.

Murdoch’s comments come a day after about 120 people attended a public meeting at the Grey Bruce Health Unit in Owen Sound about health effects of wind turbines.

The Progressive Conservative MPP said residents’ concerns will likely fall on deaf ears of policy makers and Liberal cabinet ministers at Queen’s Park, since the Green Energy Act is now law.

Asked what people can do, Murdoch initially said “not a thing. It’s over. It’s a law.”

Later, he said concerned residents can write to Premier Dalton McGuinty or the Ontario Ministry of Health. Letters to Murdoch’s office will be forwarded, he said.

“They’re pretty much euchred. I don’t know where they can go. Some will say (I) can do something about it. There’s not a thing I can do about it. It’s a law,” he said.

People who believe the giant wind turbines cause illness can seek medical attention from a doctor, retain a lawyer and sue, Murdoch said, but that will likely be a “waste of money.”

Emotions ran high at Thursday’s public meeting, which the health unit organized to provide wind turbine information to residents.

Keynote speaker Dr. Ray Copes, a director at the Ontario Agency of Health Protection and Promotion, was heckled by the crowd several times after his one-hour slide presentation revealed little new information.

People took exception to Copes’ characterization of health impacts caused by turbines as an “annoyance” and his claim no proof exists linking illness to wind turbines.

People opposed to wind farms say turbines cause health problems such as chronic sleep disturbance, dizziness, exhaustion, anxiety, depression, irritability, nausea and ringing in ears.

Medical officer of health Dr. Hazel Lynn said she is aware “suffering” is being attributed to turbines, but has no power to make or influence changes to the Green Energy Act. The health unit cannot perform in-depth studies on health claims either, she said.

Lynn criticized the act at the public meeting, saying “we need more choices” since it strips local municipalities of the authority to make decisions about turbine setbacks. The act requires a 550-metre setback from a turbine to residential properties.

Murdoch said he opposed the act at Queen’s Park for that reason.

Progressive Conservatives MPPs voted against it and Murdoch said perhaps a change in government would lead to some changes. The next provincial election is in 2011.

“There’s going to be a lot of wind turbines put up in the next two years, I would assume, within the context of that law,” he said.

The province has promised to eliminate coal-fired power by 2014 and add 975 wind turbines by 2012.

A second public meeting, organized by the health unit, is scheduled for Tuesday from 7 to 9 p.m. at Walkerton’s Jubilee Hall.

John Gerretsen, M.P

January 13, 2009

By Ron Stephens
Independent candidate for Grey – Bruce

The letter below is from Hugh Christopher Brown of Wolfe Island, Ontario.

He, like many others in this province, is frustrated with the Minister of Environment. From the office of Premier McGuinty to the office of your local MPP, the government has shown absolute disrespect for the citizens of this province.

From the dismantling of Ont. Hydro by Maurice Strong, the father of Kyoto, to the present day, our electrical system has been guided, not by those who understand our electrical systems and the needs of the province, but by the E8, another Maurice Strong product, and Agenda 21 from the UN.

Our electrical system has been sold off, and the citizens and manufacturing sector are being fed to the wolves.

It would not matter which party is in power. They have all bought into the idea of rule by the UN. Sustainability they like to call it. Sustainability means giving up our rights and freedoms to an outside entity.

Treason, if you will.

Every political party in this province will push wind farms to appease the “Green Movement”. Why? Because they are gutless traitors.

The govt. cannot present a case to defend their actions, because other than Green rhetoric, there is no case.

Nowhere in the world has wind energy proven it’s worth. The Danes are fighting against wind farms in Denmark, birthplace of modern day wind energy.

Germany, home to more wind power than any other country is building 26 coal plants. Why? Wind is not doing the job, nor will it ever.

Denmark saw wind as a clean alternative. It is a very small country of 5 million, yet it is heavily dependent on it’s neighbours for it’s power.

Enron discovered they could make a lot of money and gain control of large portions of the American grid by jumping on the “Global Warming” wagon.

Clinton, Gore and Maurice Strong were all involved in helping Enron.

Through subsidies and tax benefits, combined with their natural gas interests, there was billions to be made.

Nothing has changed. The wind industry of today is the ghost of Enron reborn, and it’s just as evil.

Don’t take my word, do your own research.

Please support the people of Wolfe Island and the many other communities threatened by wind farms by sending your thoughts to the Minister of the Environment.

.

April 12, 2008

Mr. John Gerretsen, M.P

Minister of the Environment

135 St. Clair Ave W., 15th Floor

Toronto, Ontario

M4V 1P5
RE: WOLFE ISLAND WIND PROJECT – APPEAL REQUEST FOR EA
Dear Mr. Gerretsen:
I am in absolute disbelief that an individual Environmental

Assessment has been denied for this project.

CREC has obliged itself to deliver a wind plant with nameplate

capacity of 197.8 megawatts, to be operational by October 2008.
In a letter to Shelia Allen, dated January 4 2008, Ontario Projects

Manager Geoff Carnegie refers to financial penalties to be imposed by

the OPA should CREC fail to deliver on this obligation.
In the same letter, Mr Carnegie also comments on the economic

“non-viability” of turbine deactivation or removal, and allows that

CREC will counter adverse effects only by employing “commercially

reasonable” efforts.
So Mr. Gerretsen, am I to understand that a private energy company is

taking money to fulfill a production quota, self site a power plant,

and now declares itself immune to accountability on financial basis?
I do not need to go into great detail about the social and

environmental uniqueness of Wolfe Island. You have been well furnished

with documents to that effect. You know that this island sits at the

head of the biggest estuary on the planet, is on the flight path of a

significant number of migratory species, and is the nesting site for

many endangered species. You also know as a CLASS IV IBA, Wolfe Island

would not even qualify for this development were the proposal made

today.
You are also well aware that not a single turbine has been moved in

response to the

many recommendations of Environment Canada, Ministry of Natural Resources,

Ducks Unlimited and the Kingston Field Naturalists. So what exactly is

going on?
You have attended a conciliatory BBQ with optioned landowners and

told concerned citizens that you “like the look of windmills”.
You are the Minister of The Environment, and you demand nothing more

of corporations than they self regulate their practices as much as is

‘commercially reasonable’ ?
I am well aware of the political risks of criticising wind energy. I

also know that if these projects are done recklessly, it jeopardizes

the future of wind development in our country.
You need look no further than our divided community, or the price of

real estate Melanthon to see where a lack of policy is getting us.

Does your party want to go down as the builders of sustainability,

viable public infrastructure, or the contractors of political

expedience? To choose the later risks not only your legacy, but as I

stated, that of the industry itself.
I like the look of windmills too. I like the clusters of 4-5 you

see outside of Danish villages, or the 20 in Copenhagen’s harbour.

Denmark is the leader in renewable energy, has decades of experience

in wind harnessing, uses minimum setbacks of two kilometres, and

practices the environmentally meaningful method of energy production:

‘use at source’. This is not the paradigm being followed here.
Our constituency is further insulted that we are left to the mercy

of absurd ‘post construction mitigation’, carried out at the

discretion of a company which has lied to us with promises of turbine

deactivation in the event of high avian mortality, noise, ice throw or

other perils. Mr Carnegie’s letter lets us know this form of

mitigation is actually an autopsy. Once our habitats are desecrated,

CREC proposes buying land elsewhere and “creating new sites with

desirable habitat features”. So much for good old conservation. I

would call this level of vanity ‘Biblical’.
If a bump-up is denied , we will take every political and legal

measure to bring this ill-informed green washing to light. As a

musician who travels the world, I have watched communities grow up

quickly in the face of political opportunists. I am no longer asked in

interviews what my problem with wind power is, but where is my

government in all this?
I would like to say that it is working with due diligence to secure

meaningful and sustainable practises. Today those are definitely not

the words I use. Give our island the respect of full environmental

assessment, and let us implement appropriate safeguards to protect the

environment and your constituents. Anything less implicates a

dedicated ignorance or ulterior motive.
Sincerely,
Hugh Christopher Brown

Wolfe Island, Ontario

c.c.
Lynn Moore, Chair

Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment

792 Fairfax Dr., Kingston, Ontario K7M 4V7
c.c.
Dalton McGuinty, Premier

Legislative Building

Queen’s Park

Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1

dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
Mr. Robert W. Runciman

Room 436, Main Legislative Building

Toronto ON M7A 1A4

rwrunciman@brockville.com
John Yakabuski

Official Opposition Energy Critic

Queen’s Park

Room 202, N.W., Legislative building

Toronto, Ontario M7A lA8

john.yakabuski@pc.ola.org
Ted Arnott

Tourism Critic PC

181 St. Andrew St E, 2nd Flr

Fergus ON N1M 1P9

ted.arnott@pc.ola.org
Ms. Peggy Smith, Solicitor

160 Johnson St.,

Kingston, Ontario K7L 1Y1

middle@kos.net
Mr. John Tory, PC Leader,

Room 200, NW, Legislative Bldg,

Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario M7A lA8

leader@ontariopc.net
Ms. Elizabeth May, Leader

Green Party of Canada

P.O. Box 997, Station B

Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5R1

leader@greenparty.ca

Protesters Required for the Openning of the Kruger Port Allma Wind Farm- Contact the CBC

November 12, 2008

Editor: The CBC – a big promoter of global warming and wind farms – is looking for protesters. If you have some time and feel like protesting a wind farm in Southern Ontario please contact Rebbeca.

wulfshagen04

Hello There,
My name is Rebecca and I’m with CBC Television in Toronto. Tomorrow is the official opening ceremonies of the New Kruger Port Alma wind farm in Ontario and I was just wondering if you knew of any protests or demonstrations that will be occurring tomorrow at the event?
Thanks so much for your help.

Rebecca Kinos-Varo

CBC News Toronto

rebecca.kinos-varo@cbc.ca



Wind farm chases couple from Wolfe Island – Ontario

November 12, 2008

Editor: Just wait until the wind farm is built. Then the real problems begin.

There is nothing green about the wind industry unless you count the cash. If anyone else tried to destroy the land and and flyways the greens would be having a fit.

.

Wind farm chases couple from Wolfe Island

When Dawn and Dean Wallace moved to Wolfe Island 17 years ago, they fell in love with the peaceful, slow pace of life in the rural community.

It quickly became home and they planned to retire on the island.

That has all changed. The couple feels that construction of one of Canada’s largest wind-power projects has forced them out of the community and they’re in the process of moving off the island into a home they’ve bought northwest of Kingston in Camden East.

“It’s ironic that the very thing that’s supposed to be green has had such a negative impact on us,” said Dawn Wallace.

“It’s a green project without a green process.”

The couple lived at the corner of Baseline Road and 5th Line – at the heart of the construction zone – where dozens of trucks moved past their house daily on their way to and from a quarry that supplied stone to build the access roads and cement foundations for the wind turbines.

As a result, the Wallaces spent this past summer wearing earplugs and avoided spending time at home.

The noise and dust from dozens of trucks and heavy pieces of equipment moving past their property, at times starting as early as 4 a. m., made life almost unbearable.

They didn’t even cut their lawn until Thanksgiving weekend because of the dust.

“I have one word for it: hell,” said Wallace, a high school teacher.

The couple has documented the dust and noise by posting video footage on YouTube, which is available by searching the online site using the keywords Wolfe Island wind.

To get some relief from the noise and dust, they called the Township of Frontenac Islands, the Ministry of the Environment and the company building the wind plant, Canadian Hydro Developers Inc.

But the Wallaces say they got no relief. The trucks kept coming.

“It was very difficult to get help,” she said. “At the end of the day, it was unbearable and we got no support.”

That wasn’t completely a surprise for the Wallaces, who watched as tension grew in the community between those who supported the project and those who had concerns about the location of the wind turbines. Angry disagreements occurred at public meetings.

“[Opponents] had to endure such terrible, painful social pressures from certain members of the community for speaking out about certain aspects of the process,”Wallace said.

“What was once a community of solidarity that we contributed [to] and benefited from has become a community divided, which is very painful.”

It all became too much for the Wallaces, whose departure comes just as the project’s first turbines are being erected.

Mammoth and pre-eminent on the rural landscape, the 125-metre-high turbines are visible for miles along the western portion of the island. The giant machines tower high above what were once dormant farmers’ fields.

In the coming months, workers will be using giant cranes to erect a total of 86 turbines along the western side of the island. The project is anticipated to be up and running by April 1, 2009.

By Jennifer Pritchett
Whig-Standard Environmental Reporter

The Kingston Whig-Standard for full story

.

Proposed Wolfe Island Cement Factory 20m from Lake Ontario

link to construction phase

Wolfe Island Wind Turbines: Life on the Front Lines

Wind turbine noise – Suncor wind farm Ripley



Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?

August 23, 2008

Let’s start with what one manufacturer considers to be safe for its workers. The safety regulations for the Vestas V90, with a 300-ft rotor span and a total height of 410 feet, tell operators and technicians to stay 1,300 feet from an operating turbine — over 3 times its total height — unless absolutely necessary.

That already is a much greater distance than many regulations currently require as a minimum distance between wind turbines and homes, and it is concerned only with safety, not with noise or visual intrusion.

In February 2008, a 10-year-old Vestas turbine with a total height of less than 200 feet broke apart in a storm. Large pieces of the blades flew as far as 500 meters (1,640 feet).

The Fuhrländer turbine planned for Barrington, R.I., is 328 feet tall with a rotor diameter of 77 meters, or just over 250 feet (sweeping more than an acre of vertical air space). According to one news report, the manufacturer recommends a setback of 1,500 feet, over 4.5 times the total height. In Wisconsin, where towns can regulate utility zoning for health and safety concerns, ordinances generally specify a setback of one-half mile (2,640 ft) to residences and workplaces.

But that may just be enough to protect the turbines from each other, not to adequately protect the peace and health of neighbors.

When part of an array, turbines should be at least 10 rotor diameters apart to avoid turbulence from each other. In the case of the proposed 77-meter rotor span in Barrington, that would be 770 meters, or 2,525 feet. For the Gamesa G87, that’s 2,850 feet; for the Vestas V90, 2,950 feet — well over half a mile.

Jane and Julian Davis, whose home is 930 m (3,050 ft) from the Deeping St. Nicholas wind energy facility in England, have been forced by the noise to rent another place in which to sleep. In July 2008 they were granted a 14% council tax reduction in recognition of their loss. It appears in this case that the combination of several turbines creates a manifold greater disturbance.

Since the human ear (not to mention the sensory systems of other animals or the internal organs of bats, which, it is now emerging, are crushed by the air pressure) is more sensitive than a giant industrial machine, doubling that would be a reasonable precaution (at least for the human neighbors — it still doesn’t help wildlife).

Sound experts Rick James and George Kamperman recommend a 1 km (3,280 ft) distance in rural areas.

Both the French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile (or 1.5 km) between giant wind turbines and homes. Trempealeau County in Wisconsin implemented such a setback. National Wind Watch likewise advocates a minimum one-mile setback.

More at Kirby Mountain

Beauty Corruption – Wind Turbine Protest Song by Becky Godlee

August 6, 2008

Becky Godlee, 17, wrote, sings and plays the keyboard in Beauty Corruption, which won the online voting category of the Hertfordshire Songwriters’ competition with more than 3,000 votes.

The piece opposes the plan of Andrew Bott, who wants to install three 390ft (119m) wind turbines in the Beane Valley.

Becky said: “I was just 16 when I wrote the song. I was a bit too young to get involved in all of the meetings and planning so I decided that the best thing I could do was to write a song about how wrong it all was.”

Wind Turbines Have a Negative Affect On Real Estate Value and Health

August 1, 2008

Premier McGuinty:

You are allowing wind turbines to be placed as close as 350 meters from homes.
This blatant disregard for people and their property must stop immediately.

No more excuses. Your office, and the office of the MOE, has all the information needed to fully  understand the negative impacts of placing wind turbines too close to people and their homes.

The guidelines for wind turbines in Ontario border on criminal. (knowingly putting health at risk and causing loss of equity)

Dr. Ian Gemmill, Kingston’s medical officer of health said, “that though there are concerns about low-level noise, appearance and stress caused by the turbines, research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms“. (If a person has to move to have good health – health risk
Who is going to purchase the property – loss of equity.
Dr. Gemmill
should have added stray voltage – a very real problem and health risk to both people and animals)italic added.

The reality is this.
Nowhere in the world has wind energy ever replaced, or caused the closure, of a fossil fuel plant.
Whether or not the coal plants in Ont. ever close, wind energy will not be the main contributing factor of any such closure.
Wind energy does not do a credible job of reducing emissions. If it did, the papers would be full of stories to that affect, they aren’t.
The main purpose of wind energy is to create carbon credits (e8).

Keeping the lights on and cutting emissions, is how wind energy is promoted in Ont. Neither is a credible statement.

At noon today the 472 MW’s of wind energy were producing – a not very
impressive 32 MW’s. I almost felt compelled to turn off my air conditioner. But then, it’s not my job to ensure we have power when needed, it’s yours, Mr. Premier. 8pm – 29 MWs

Premier McGuinty, if you think this post is harsh, it’s meant to be.

I visited with some more of your “wind farm” victims today.
They have been run out of their homes and had their lives turned upside down. WHY?
I also met with some of your “soon to be victims”.
How many more have to suffer Mr. McGuinty?

Poll Results- Is the Govt. being honest about wind energy (this blog)

  1. Yes – 148
  2. No – 632
  3. Don’t Know – 60

Mr. McGuinty, the citizens and industry in this province require and deserve, a cost effective, stable electrical system.

Build it, or call an election.

Premier McGuinty, if you believe your energy plan will stand up to public scrutiny, lets have a televised debate.
You bring your experts and I’ll bring mine.

I have a feeling the public will have a very different view of wind energy after a good healthy debate, or after reading the article below.

Premier McGuinty, give me a call and lets get on with the televised debate. It’s time the public understands the reality of wind energy in Ontario.

It’s also time they came to grips with the global warming scam. 50 years later – we’re still waiting.

Global Warming Video 1958

Yours

Ron Stephens

Independent
Huron-Bruce
519-396-1958

Note: I have invited the Ont. Govt., on several occasions, to check this blog for accuracy and to contact me if  they disagree with, or question, the information contained on this blog. Even though the  Ont. Govt. visits this site  often, “site tracker” and I send them information, I have never had the Govt. question or challenge any information concerning wind energy posted here.

Turbine noise nuisance highlighted

The judgement by the Lincolnshire Valuation Tribunal said it was apparent from the evidence submitted that the construction of the wind farm 930 metres away from the appeal dwelling had a significant detrimental effect on the appellants’ quiet enjoyment of their property.

“The tribunal found that the nuisance caused by the wind farm was real and not imagined and it would have an effect on the sale price of the appeal dwelling” said the judgement.

Now estate agents have acknowledged that the house, worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built in 2006, is now so severely blighted that no one is likely buy it.

Mr Lang said that the ruling is effectively an official admission that wind farms have a negative effect on house prices, and he said that the “victims” have had to rent a house five miles away where they go to sleep.

“It means many families in Scotland living in the shadow of giant turbines could see thousands wiped off the value of their homes as the Government pushes ahead with plans to build thousands more onshore wind turbines over the next decade to meet ambitious green targets.

“Jane Davis came up in September last year and gave a moving presentation in Auchtermuchty village hall on the subject of the intrusive, damaging and unpredictable noise from wind turbines.

“Since then she has been continuing in her own campaign and supporting others in the quest to have a safe buffer zone between wind turbines and dwellings.

“Scottish Planning Policy 6 sets out a distance of two kilometres from a village, but ignores the substantial number of dwellings that could be in that zone but not in a village.

“The effect on property prices is obvious and people should not be selectively economically disadvantaged in this way. There are about 30 properties within one kilometre of the EnergieKontor site near Ceres” said Mr Lang.

Gordon Berry

The Courier

full story at Turbine noise nuisance highlighted

Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet

July 25, 2008

Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario

Sir: The reason you said we need to erect wind turbines in Ontario ,was because of the need to reduce CO2, in order to fight global warming.

According to Anthony Cary- High Commissioner for the United Kingdom you are incorrect in your assessment of the situation.

Apr. 25th 2007- Anthony Cary- High Commissioner for the United Kingdom stated at a Club of Rome (Canada ) meeting. “There is no direct link between CO2 emission and climate change”.

Are you telling the citizens of Ontario the truth, or are you pushing the Green Agenda. After all,it was the Club of Rome that said “We came up with the idea of global warming”

One thing for sure, your office continues to show absolute disrespect for the health and property values of the people of Ontario.

Do the right thing – and in the process gain some respect for yourself and your office.

Put a moratorium on wind turbine construction until a proper health study has been done and reviewed by an independent panel.

Otherwise, people might think you’re putting the desires of both, the Club of Rome and the UN ahead of the citizens of Ontario.

That might be looked upon as a dereliction of your duties Mr. Premier.

By Nigel Bunyan and Martin Beckford

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 26/07/2008

Thousands of homeowners may see the value of their properties plummet after a court ruled that living near a wind farm decreases house prices.

In a landmark case, Jane Davis was told she will get a discount on her council tax because her £170,000 home had been rendered worthless by a turbine 1,000 yards away.

Estate agents have said  no one is likely to buy the Jones's house, which was worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built - Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet
Estate agents have said no one is likely to buy the Jones’s house, which was worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built

The ruling is effectively an official admission that wind farms, which are accused of spoiling countryside views and producing a deafening roar, have a negative effect on house prices.

It means many other families living in the shadow of the giant turbines could see thousands wiped off the value of their homes, as the Government pushes ahead with plans to build 7,000 more wind farms over the next decade to meet ambitious green targets.

Campaigners also fear ministers want to remove the legal right to complain about noise nuisance, condemning those who live near wind farms to years of blight and reducing the opportunity for them to resist expansion plans.

Mrs Davis, who launched a nationwide campaign after her own home was rendered worthless by the deafening roar of a wind farm, claims ministers are tabling an amended to the Planning Act which will remove eight crucial words that previously offered at least some protection to householders

“For people living near wind farms, both now and in the future, it will be a disaster,” she said.

“There are many, many people living in Middle England who have worked hard all their lives and yet will see the values of their homes suddenly diminish.

“This isn’t about Nimbyism, but the rights of ordinary people to live a normal life.”

Mrs Davis, 52, a retired nurse, lives 1,017 (930m) from a wind farm at Deeping St Nicholas, Lincolnshire. Her husband, Julian, 43, originally bought the property from the county council and the couple had planned to extend it.

But the noise generated by the turbines is so severe, particularly when certain winds make all the blades rotate in unison, that it left the Davises unable to sleep. They currently live in a rented house a few miles away.

“It’s just like the effect you get in a car when the sun roof is open or a window at the back is open. In a car you can do something about it. But if it’s in your house and is coming from a giant turbine a few yards away, you can do nothing,” said Mrs Davis.

Local estate agents have acknowledged that the house, worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built in 2006, is now so severely blighted that no one is likely buy it.

Earlier this week the Davises won a landmark victory that reduced their council tax banding.

Although financially the difference is minimal, the reduction was granted on the basis that their home had been blighted by noise “on the balance of probability”.

Furthermore, the couple secured the ruling in the absence of a statutory noise nuisance – a fact that brought dismay to wind farm operators.

But Mrs Davis now fears the imminent change in legislation will turn the advantage back to the wind farm lobby, which is planning to build 4,000 turbines across the countryside – double the current number – and increase the number of those offshore from 150 to 3,000 by 2020.

From the Telegraph

TheTruth About the Wind Industry – Al Gore- David Suzuki- and Boone Pickens are full of hot air

July 20, 2008

An estimated 1,200 bats, most of them probably just passing through Montana, were killed after striking wind turbines at the Judith Gap Wind Farm between July 2006 and May 2007, according to a post-construction bird and bat survey.


Judith Gap Wind Farm taking toll on bats, birds
Alberta, Montana

National security set to win wind battle
England, U.K.

Windfarm bid knocked back
England

Meeting gives wind turbines a guilty verdict
Ontario

Cuomo investigating alleged ‘dirty tricks’ in in local windmill projects; Two WNY companies under investigation
New York

N.D. regulators: wind projects may endanger cranes
North Dakota

Residents rejoice as council reject plans for new wind farm
Wales

Umholtz shows his opposition to wind farm; State’s attorney threatens legal action against Tazewell County
Illinois

Fines are sought over turbines
Illinois

Residents wary of wind farm idea
New York

Visit National Wind Watch for world wide wind news

'Windfarm output is never zero. Sometimes it's less'

July 3, 2008

Editor:This research should, once and for all, answer any questions about wind power.

All pain and no gain for the users of electricity and the environment.
Nothing but a massive con by govt., big business and the media.
Really, what is a wind turbine? A steel stick with a whirligig on top.
Not something I want to depend on for my electrical needs.

Not only is wind a poor way to produce the power required, the turbines are being placed
too close to homes and having a negative affect on people.

Pie in the sky ideas will never provide the power we require. We need real power and we need it now.

Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought

In a just-released article for the journal Energy Policy, titled Will British weather provide reliable electricity?, consulting engineer Jim Oswald and his co-authors model the output to be expected from a large, 25+ gigawatt UK windfarm collection of the type the government says it would like to see in service by 2020. Wind is generally seen as the renewable technology best suited to the UK climate, and so it forms the bulk of most renewables plans for Blighty.

One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at wind power is variability. That is, when the wind drops (or blows too hard) the windmills stop spinning and you get no power. To begin with, Oswald simulates the output rises and falls that might result from a lot of windfarms distributed around the UK by using Met Office archived data from different points up and down the land. Many wind advocates have argued that with enough windfarms, widely enough distributed, you would get more reliable power output as some windmills would always have wind.

Oswald’s analysis says this isn’t true, with calm conditions across pretty much all the UK being fairly regular events.

Analysis from 1996 to 2005 shows similar results: large, rapid, and frequent changes of power output being common occurrences … any national power system has to manage under the worst case conditions likely to occur … These are not extreme cases, whose frequency is so low as to render the events negligible. Rather, these are representative …

If the government succeeds in building its mighty 25 gigawatts of wind base by 2020, according to Oswald’s Met Office data-based model its output will dip to pretty much nothing fairly routinely.

The next line of defence for wind advocates is normally the idea of hooking up the UK’s grid with high-capacity links to those of other European nations, creating a “Supergrid” with wind so widely spread that output would be sure to even out. But Oswald has bad news for that idea, too. He compares his modelled UK big-wind output with that which has been produced in recent times by other European wind bases, particularly the substantial German/Danish one.

Modelled 25 GW British and actual continental EON wind load factors compared.

Ill winds blow nobody any good.

Not only does the large continental wind base exhibit nasty rollercoaster surges in aggregate output, these surges tend to match those to be expected in the UK. When the wind isn’t blowing across most of the UK, it isn’t blowing in Germany, Denmark etc. either. Worse still, this happens in the dead of winter when electricity demand is highest.

There is good agreement between the model and the [real-world European wind power output] data, which further supports the argument that wind output is controlled by the arrival and dispersal of large low-pressure systems moving over the coasts of Western Europe.

Being an engineer, Oswald examines the worst situations that occurred in his time frame – those that engineers would need to design the system to cope with. The nastiest situation that could happen would be early-evening flat calms in winter.

Read the full report