Posts Tagged ‘Dalton McGuinty’

Celebrate Canada Day

July 1, 2009
Celebrate Canada while it still Exists

Celebrate Canada While it Still Exists

Over the years the Lberals, Conservatives and the NDP have done everything in their power to undermine this Great Land.

Support for the NAU and SPP and the signing of international agreements with the UN have worked to weaken our sovereignty.

The time has come for every Canadian to roll up their sleeves and get to work, unless of course you no longer believe in your country. If that is the case, please leave.

Prime Minister Harper officially endorses North American Union!

(Signed by Paul Martin)

Ontario becomes a Fascist State

Canadian Federal Election -2008

Advertisements

Video Report – What to Expect From Renewable Energy

May 15, 2009

The Ontario govt. has passed Bill 150/Green Energy Act. The act not only removes the rights of Municipal govt., it also puts the economy of Ont. in real jeopardy.

No Compromise on Health

April 27, 2009

No Compromise on Health News release

Toronto, April 27, 2009Wind Concerns Ontario is encouraged that the Premier of Ontario has committed to an examination of the health issues involved with industrial wind turbines.

“We’ll take advantage of the very best information that’s out there to make sure that we’re doing something that’s intelligent.

~Premier Dalton McGuinty The Canadian Press April 24, 2009

The Premier will need to go well beyond speaking only to the manufacturers of these turbines and the Canadian Wind Energy Association lobby in order to rely on the “best information” available. There are and have been better sources of information for several years. Other jurisdictions with far greater experience have implemented stronger regulations that Ontario has so far chosen to ignore. To date the “best” Ontario Health Effects information is the Wind Concerns Ontario survey presented by Dr. Robert McMurtry to the Standing Committee on the Green Energy Act on April 22.

Wind Concerns Ontario repeats its demand that Premier McGuinty apply the precautionary principle and conduct a full epidemiological study into health effects of wind turbines before any more industrial wind projects are installed in Ontario closer than 2km to any residence. This is the only way to avoid causing serious harm to those who live beside industrial wind turbines. Medical authorities elsewhere have already recommended precautionary setbacks.

The Government of Ontario must consider these various national standards:

  • Scotland requires setbacks of at least 2 km from cities, towns and villages.
  • The United Kingdom’s Noise Association recommends a one-mile (1.6 km) setback.
  • France will soon add the International Standards Organization’s absolute level of 25 dBA, as measured inside homes in response to the National Academy of Medicine’s earlier recommendation of 1.5 km. setbacks,
  • Germany specifies maximum noise levels for three different environments or “regions”:
    1. quiet 35dBA (Setbacks in quiet or country locations are typically 1000-1500 meters)
    2. middle, 40 dBA
    3. standard, 45 dBA
  • Denmark, Holland, and Sweden have a maximum noise level of 40 dBA.
  • South Australia’s standard is 35dBA or background +5dB
  • New Zealand is now reviewing its secondary noise limit of 35dBA for evening and nighttime in low background

The Canadian Wind Energy Association recommends noise levels of 40-53 dBA. They state that setbacks are normally 300-600 meters but in some cases “separation distances of less than 250 meters may achieve acceptable sound levels” (CanWea paper, “Addressing Concerns with Sound from Wind Turbines,” January 2009).

Ontario’s Ministry of Environment presently does not specify setback distances. It has established only ‘regulatory guidelines’ that allow wind turbines, depending on the wind speed, to produce from 40 to as high as 51 dBA of noise, measured not at property lines but outside homes.

The present standards for Ontario are not nearly the best but rather nearly the worst.

If the Government of Ontario aspires to be a world leader in wind energy, it should also lead the world in protecting its citizens from harmful side effects of this industry. In addition to setting world-class standards for low noise levels on the dBA scale, Ontario must determine appropriate levels on the dBC scale for low frequency sound, reported increasingly as a health concern.

No future for wind in Ontario

March 2, 2009
Editor:
Received this story from a reader this morning. I had to rub my eyes several times before I could believe what I was reading and in the Toronto Star no less.
Someone that understands electrical generation writing the truth about wind generation. Wow!
I and thousands of others have been saying the same thing for years. All the articles until the last few days seem to be written by one “green group” or another pushing wind and telling us about their vision.
All I can say is try heating your home or running your business on a vision.
Put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build a nuke- cost 10 billion and it will provide clean reliable energy for the Province. (C02 is not a pollutant)
The vision 60-80 billion ( money that is not going to health care, education, agriculture or many other places the money would be better used)  and the air won’t be any cleaner.
The truth is getting out but will this be enough to stop the madness presently found at Queens’ Park. Don’t forget both the Conservatives and the NDP have bought into and have been promoting this same “MAD” vision.
I have included the emails for all MPP’s in this Province at the end of the article. Take a minute and send them your thoughts.
Remember between 50 and 70 billion will wasted on the “Mad Vision” That doesn’t count the millions or billions wasted to date in the massive promotion of this “Mad Vision”
Wind is and always was about the creation of carbon credits. Not cleaner air.
The “Green sales pitch” has run out of Air, Wind and Gas
.
No future for wind in Ontario

PATRICK CORRIGAN/TORONTO STAR

Need for support from gas-powered plants means it’s also not even very green
Mar 02, 2009 04:30 AM



The Ontario government says its new Green Energy Act, if passed, will help Ontario become “North America’s leader in renewable energy.”

But since most of this new renewable energy will be from wind, it may not be the smartest move for Ontario because its large hydro and nuclear capacity is not compatible with wind generation. Wind requires natural gas-fired generation for support and natural gas will be a most precarious fuel for Ontario.

The future of industrial wind power in Ontario is tied to natural gas-fired electricity generation and that, as will be seen, is unsustainable. The Ontario power grid needs flexible support to keep supply and demand in balance, and providing this support will be made more difficult when we add the vagaries of wind.

Although nuclear units can handle the daily and weekend changes in electricity demand, they have limited capability for the kind of frequent power-up and power-down requirements that would be needed for this support. Furthermore, hydroelectric plants may not always be available due to fluctuations in water supply and water management agreements.

Even without restrictions on nuclear and hydro, it makes little economic sense to run reliable suppliers of steady power, with high fixed costs and low operating costs, at reduced output to support the expensive, intermittent and varying output from wind farms.

So, with coal being phased out by 2014, natural gas-fired generation will have to be used to support wind. Due to the simultaneous demands of home heating and electricity generation in the winter, that may lead to gas shortages. So some of these plants may be dual fuelled with gas and oil, which is not a pleasant thought.

The Ontario government is putting too much faith in natural gas for electricity generation, as the United Kingdom did with its “dash for gas” from the North Sea in the 1990s when gas was cheap. Now the U.K. is in terrible shape with its gas running out and the threat of power shortages in the next decade.

There is no long-term future for gas-fired generation in Ontario because of greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, rising costs, the demands on gas for other uses (in the tar sands, the chemical industry, home heating, exports to the United States), declining reserves, the questionable security of foreign supplies or, in short, the waste of a premium non-renewable resource just to generate electricity.

Since Ontario’s wind generators require natural-gas-fired generation for support, this creates an uncertain future for wind turbines and their transmission infrastructure that one day will not be compatible with a nuclear/hydro powered grid. Nor is there an environmental benefit to adding wind to a clean nuclear/hydro grid.

There is an alternative to building more natural gas-fired power plants in the Greater Toronto Area and other locations to replace the coal-fired stations. That is to increase the arbitrary limit on nuclear from the 14,000 megawatts imposed by the government. Bruce Power showed its willingness to build new nuclear power plants last October when it asked the nuclear safety regulator for a licence to prepare a site at Nanticoke, in addition to new units at the Bruce site.

The government’s power plan envisages nuclear supplying 40 per cent of electricity demand by 2027. This should be raised to more than 70 per cent, with hydro supplying most of the remainder. If there is no market for nuclear-generated electricity during off-peak and overnight hours (for power exports, recharging electric cars, producing hydrogen and/or compressed air for generating clean peaking power and other uses), the plants can reduce their output to meet the demand. This means that even if practical wind energy storage were available, wind still would not be needed on a future all nuclear/hydro grid.

The demand on the grid from recharging electric cars should not be underestimated. The president and CEO of French nuclear giant Areva said that it would take an additional 6,400 megawatts of electricity if just 10 per cent of France’s cars were electrically powered. That translates into about 1,700 megawatts (two Darlington-size units) for Ontario.

In France, the nuclear energy share of electricity production is about 78 per cent from its 58 reactors, with the balance divided nearly equally between hydro and fossil, and with the nuclear units able to meet daily changes in electricity demand. Sweden has a grid the same size as Ontario’s but with almost all nuclear/hydro generation.

Wind has no long-term future in Ontario and will be more of a hindrance than a help to the grid’s reliability. The Ontario Energy Board should take a good hard look at the government’s Integrated Power System Plan, eliminate wind and promote cleaned-up coal-fired stations operating past 2014 until sufficient nuclear is online to avoid the building of anymore unsustainable gas-fired plants.

The technical, economic and environmental issues associated with wind power have not been fully explored. Let’s hope the Ontario Energy Board will give them due consideration when it reconvenes so that money can be put where it will do Ontario the most long-term good.

Donald Jones is a professional engineer, now retired after 35 years of CANDU system design.

Comments on this story are moderated

From the Toronto Star
Liberals MPP’s
saggelonitis.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
lalbanese.mpp@liberal.ola.org
warthurs.mpp@liberal.ola.org
warthurs.mpp@liberal.ola.org
bbalkissoon.mpp@liberal.ola.org
rbartolucci.mpp@liberal.ola.org
cbentley.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lberardinetti.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mbest.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lbroten.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
mbrown.mpp.co@liberal.ola.orgjbrownell.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
mbryant.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
dcansfield.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dcaplan.mpp@liberal.ola.org
acarroll.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mchan.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mcolle.mpp@liberal.ola.org
kcraitor.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
bcrozier.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
bdelaney.mpp@liberal.ola.org
vdhillon.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jdickson.mpp@liberal.ola.org
ldombrowsky.mpp@liberal.ola.org
bduguid.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dduncan.mpp@liberal.ola.org
kflynn.mpp@liberal.ola.org
pfonseca.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
jgerretsen.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mgravelle.mpp@liberal.ola.org
phoy.mpp@liberal.ola.org
hjaczek.mpp@liberal.ola.org
ljeffrey.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
kkular.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mkwinter.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jmlalonde.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jleal.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dlevac.mpp@liberal.ola.org
amangat.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
dmatthews.mpp@liberal.ola.org
bmauro.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
tmcmeekin.mpp@liberal.ola.org
pmcneely.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mmeilleur.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jmilloy.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
cmitchell.mpp@liberal.ola.org
rmoridi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
ynaqvi.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
dorazietti.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lpendergast.mpp@liberal.ola.org
speters.mpp@liberal.ola.org
gphillips.mpp@liberal.ola.org
spupatello.mpp@liberal.ola.org
sqaadri.mpp@liberal.ola.org
kramal.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dramsay.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lrinaldi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
truprecht.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lsandals.mpp@liberal.ola.org
msergio.mpp@liberal.ola.org
msmith.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
gsmitherman.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
gsorbara.mpp@liberal.ola.org
csousa.mpp@liberal.ola.org
htakhar.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mvanbommel.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jwatson.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jwilkinson.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dzimmer.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Opposition MPP’s
ted.arnott@pc.ola.org,
bob.bailey@pc.ola.org,
toby.barrett@pc.ola.org,
dinovoc-@ndp.on.ca,
garfield.dunlopco@pc.ola.org,
christine.elliott@pc.ola.org,
fgelinas-qp@ndp.on.ca,
hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca,
ernie.hardeman@pc.ola.org,
randy.hillierco@pc.ola.org,
ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca,
tim.hudakco@pc.ola.org,
sylvia.jones@pc.ola.org,
frank.klees@pc.ola.org,
pkormos-qp@ndp.on.ca,
lisa.macleod@pc.ola.org,
rmarchese-co@ndp.on.ca,
gerry.martiniuk@pc.ola.org,
norm.millerco@pc.ola.org,
pmiller-qp@ndp.on.ca,
julia.munro@pc.ola.org,
bill.murdoch@pc.ola.org,
john.otooleco@pc.ola.org,
jerry.ouellette@pc.ola.org,
mprue-qp@ndp.on.ca,
bob.runciman@pc.ola.org,
joyce.savoline@pc.ola.org,
laurie.scott@pc.ola.org,
peter.shurman@pc.ola.org,
norm.sterling@pc.ola.org,
tabunsp-qp@ndp.on.ca,
jim.wilson@pc.ola.org,
elizabeth.witmer@pc.ola.org,
john.yakabuski@pc.ola.org

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

Texas Power grid narrowly averted rolling blackouts

February 28, 2008

 Editor:
Never let reality get in the way. Dalton McGuinty our fearful leader in Ontario says

“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”.

But he won’t let reality get in his way. No sir, not Dalton

He wants to cover Ontario with wind farms regardless of the facts.

Power grid narrowly averted rolling blackouts

Operators of the state power grid scrambled Tuesday night to keep the lights on after a sudden drop in West Texas wind threatened to cause rolling blackouts, officials confirmed Wednesday.

At about 6:41 p.m. Tuesday, grid operators ordered a shutoff of power to so-called interruptible customers, which are industrial electric users who have agreed previously to forgo power in times of crisis. The move ensured continued stability of the grid after power dropped unexpectedly.

Dottie Roark, a spokeswoman for the power grid, said a sudden uptick in electricity use coupled with other factors and a sudden drop in wind power caused the unexpected dip. As a result, grid officials immediately went to the second stage of its emergency blackout prevention plan.

“This situation means that there is a heightened risk of … regular customers being dropped through rotating outages, but that would occur only if further contingencies occur, and only as a last resort to avoid the risk of a complete blackout,” the State Operations Center said in an e-mail notice to municipalities.

Known as the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the quasi-governmental agency that manages the power grid must ensure that power generation and power use remain constantly in balance. Otherwise, the whole grid can go dark, and the result is a systemwide blackout.

According to ERCOT, those interruptible customers who lost power Tuesday night had it restored by 9:40 p.m.. The interruptible customers are generally industrial businesses that pay less for electricity in exchange for an agreement that they will let ERCOT cut their power during shortages.

Some wholesale energy prices also spiked Tuesday evening — especially in West Texas. ERCOT also reported that the drop in wind power led to constraints on the system between the north part of the state and the west.

Kent Saathoff, vice president for system operations at ERCOT, said Tuesday’s event illustrates the inherent challenges associated with using wind power. Because the wind sometimes stops blowing without a moment’s notice, engineers at ERCOT must remain nimble enough to respond to resulting instability on the grid, he said.

“There is a major workshop going on at our office right now to discuss these very issues,” Saathoff said.

Although he said the emergency event was rare, it is not unprecedented. On April 16, 2006, for instance, a much more serious shortage prompted rolling blackouts across much of Texas. ERCOT officials at that time also ordered power curtailments for the state’s interruptible customers.

That 2006 event was prompted largely by scorching heat coupled with a shutdown of several generators for spring maintenance. This time the shortage was prompted largely by a near-total loss of wind generation, as well as a failure of several energy providers to reach scheduled production and the spike in electricity usage.

ERCOT reported that wind power production plummeted Tuesday evening from about 1,700 megawatts to about 300 megawatts. A single megawatt is enough electricity to power 500 to 700 homes under normal conditions.

The emergency procedures Tuesday night added about 1,100 megawatts to the grid over a 10-minute period, according to ERCOT.

Some critics have said that wind power, although providing a source of clean energy, also brings with it plenty of hidden costs and technical challenges. Besides requiring the construction of expensive transmission lines, the fickle nature of wind also means that the state cannot depend on the turbines to replace other sorts of generators.

“This is a warning to all those who think that renewable energy is the sole answer [to the state’s power needs],” said Geoffrey Gay, an attorney representing Fort Worth and other North Texas municipalities in utility issues. “We can’t put all our eggs in one basket when it comes to any form of generation. We need to consider the cost and the reliability issues, in addition to the environmental impact.”

Susan Williams Sloan, a spokeswoman for the American Wind Energy Association, said those technical challenges are not insurmountable. She said part of the solution is to locate turbines in diverse areas of the state. “When the wind is not blowing somewhere, it’s always blowing somewhere else,” she said.

Sloan also said that technological advances will make it easier in the future to forecast wind energy.

About 4,356 megawatts of wind turbines are currently installed in Texas, she said.

By R.A. Dyer
Staff Writer

Star-Telegram

Ontario Boasts 472 MW of Wind Energy

January 27, 2008

We now have 472 MW of  clean renewable wind energy, making us less dependent on those dirty fossil fuels, or are we?

At 300 homes per MW, the wind farms in Ont. should according to  the Govt., wind industry and the media, the 472 MW should be powering 141,600 homes.

At 3pm I checked to see how wind energy was helping meet the needs of the people of Ont.

The wind farms at 3pm today were producing 10 MW, enough to power 3000 homes.

Wonder what the other 138,600 homes are being powered by.

They are being powered by dependable energies like, Hydro, Nuclear and yes folks, fossil fuels.

How does Dalton McGuinty 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.”

Dalton says “Wind Farms” are expensive and unreliable. He intends to back up the wind farms with Natural Gas, expensive and a significant contributor to global warming.

We should all be P_R_O_U_D to have Dalton McGuinty running the affairs of Ont.

I don’t want to upset anyone, but guess who’s looking after your health care and educational systems.

Dalton McGuinty – the leader of  Ontario’s Puppet Govt.

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

January 14, 2008

Editor:
I would like to thank Lynne, for sending me the Hansard below. Just what is Premier, Dalton McGuinty up to.

pinn_mcguintyhr370.jpgAccording to our Premier, Dalton McGuinty
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.”

So Mr. Premiere, instead of building a cost effective reliable electrical system for Ont., you have decided to do the exact opposite. Why?

You say, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”.

Building thousands of megawatts of gas plants, will result in a significant, unnecessary cost, with little or no benefit to the environment. Installing the scrubbers on the coal plants would have brought down the emissions very close to that of the, to be built gas plants, at a fraction of the cost. In fact, by not installing the scrubbers on the coal plants you have put the health of the people of Ont. at risk.

You go on to say
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“But we’re not just sitting on our hands as we weigh these important issues before us. Let me tell you about some of the exciting news that we have by way of creating new wind farms in Ontario. We’ve announced three new wind farms in the last month alone. At Erie Shores, there’s a new wind farm with 66 turbines producing 99 megawatts of power for 25,000 homes. The first phase of a new wind farm outside Goderich is now up. That’s 22 turbines producing enough power for 12,000 homes. And the first phase of a new wind farm is now up outside Shelburne, Ontario: 45 turbines producing 67.5 megawatts. That’s enough to power 18,000 homes”.

Your statement above sounds good, but it’s not exactly honest. According to the Independent Electricity System Operator — “For capacity planning purposes, wind generation has a dependable capacity contribution of 10% of the listed figures.”
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday 10 April 2006

According to you, the wind farms listed above, produce enough energy to power 55,000 homes, but the IESO says they have a real capacity to power only 5,500 homes.

How long would a auto company get away with advertising “our car gets 60 mpg”, when in reality it only gets 6 mpg. Not long. So why is the govt. allowed to misrepresent in such an overt manner?
You call wind energy, “expensive and not reliable”. Why are you building them?

A new report predicts that energy costs could rise as much as 70 per cent if natural gas generation replaces the four coal plants. But McGuinty said that’s the cost of cleaner air.

“The single greatest contributor to greenhouse gases in the province of Ontario is coal-fired generation so we’re going to do something about that,” he said.

You also said, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”

I had the opportunity to talk with one of your energy advisors about a year ago. He says that the gas plants are more dangerous to health than coal plants with scrubbers installed. Apparently the particulate from the gas plants is much finer and harder for the body to deal with. I was also told gas plants are great emitters of ground level ozone, which is very hard on people with asthma or other breathing problems.

Our manufacturers in Ont. are losing jobs because of the high dollar, while at the same time, Mr. McGuinty, you are doing everything in your power to drive up the cost of electricity. Any significant rise in the cost of power will drive industry out of Ont., and they won’t likely return.

Mr. McGuinty, you recently went to Ottawa looking for Federal Govt. aid to help the manufacturing sector in Ont., while at the same time you are building an electrical system that is sure to drive industry out of the Province or into bankruptcy.

Who are you working for anyway? The people of Ont. or the Maurice Strong agenda. So far, it looks like Strong has your attention. You are obviously not listening to your own energy advisors.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Further reading material

T h e E 8 r e c o mm e n d a t i o n s

green-agrenda-quotes

Mr. McGuinty, you already know the devastating affect your “Green” polices are having on people and their property values, and you seem convinced, by your own words, that your energy polices are badly flawed, “expensive and unreliable”.

Yet, you continue down this path of destruction for the Ont. economy. Why?