Posts Tagged ‘setback’

Pugwash wind farm dead

June 8, 2009

Editor:

I would like to commend Lisa of the Pugwash wind farm blog for all her hard work. Having read her blog from time to time I know she has put up with more than her share of ugly comments and even threats as she worked to inform the local population about real problems concerning wind turbines. Lisa, I hope this is the end to the wind farm threat in your area.

Pugwash wind farm dead

Last week at the candidate forum organised by the Pugwash Chamber of Commerce, Warden Keith Hunter stated that because of local opposition to a proposed wind “farm” on the Gulf Shore, it did not go ahead. He said he helped intervene on our behalf in a conversation with (then) Minister of Environment, Mark Parent. All four candidates agreed that turbines should not intrude on the neighbouring property owners. People should be able to enjoy their properties. They all agreed that wind energy, along with other forms of renewable energy, is part of what we should be doing as a Province to reduce greenhouse gases but, for a variety of reasons, they should not be placed too close to homes. Pugwash windfarm

Why did it take so long to come to this decision?

There is an election coming up and it appears all the candidates are feeling the pressure of the electorate.

All the candidates say they want more renewable energy but they all backed down from the Pugwash windfarm. Is pressure the only thing that gets the attention of our elected officials. It appears that way. We need politicians that can think for themselves not those that merely react to pressure.

Anyway, it seems they are all still riding the “global warming/climate change train”.  I guess they will change their minds on that as soon as the public wakes up to the scam and puts the pressure on their elected officials. Until that time they will continue to be spokespersons for the UN/Gore/Suzuki scam.

What the politicians are saying to get your vote Amherst Daily

Global Warming the Big LIE!

Wind farm prospects promising

April 2, 2008

Editor
This wind farm is located in Northern Ont. far away from the heavily populated southern part of the province. What I find interesting about this piece is the statement below.

“Noise isn’t expected to be a concern because the nearest dwelling is two km away from any of the proposed turbines, Kerr said”.

What about the people in Southern Ont. where the wind turbines will be, on average, only 400 meters from homes. Should these people expect noise problems.

Research and real life experiences show that the odds on these people suffering noise, flicker, and real estate depreciation will be very high.

The wind industry has convinced the govt. that they need small setbacks in order to make their project cost effective. The fact is, homes are to close together in Southern Ont. to accommodate a reasonable setback. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO………

The govt., from your local council to the office of Premier Dalton McGuinty, and the wind industry have decided that you and your property are not important. They sell wind farms on the idea of saving the environment, while they trash your environment. Ironic.

The wind industry making money is more important than you, your family or your property.

Give Dalton a call and ask him yourself. If he tells you the wind turbines are to reduce C02 which causes GLOBAL WARMING. You might want to inform him the warming stopped in 1998. The C02 – global warming argument doesn’t hold water.
Wait a minute you say. If the warming stopped in 1998 why are they building wind farms?

Good Question

The only GREEN I can find in the wind industry is the cash being made, at your expense.

Germany has the most wind yet they are building 26 new coal fired plants. Doesn’t give one much faith in wind, does it.

Anyone from the govt. or the wind industry that wants to debate, I’m available. 519-396-1958

.

Wind farm raises health concerns

Posted on March 28, 2008.

Editor
research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms”.

.

Wind farm prospects promising

One of the more significant economic developments Marathon has seen in several years has taken another step to being approved.

Brookfield Power‘s plan for a $250-million wind-power farm about 20 kilometres west of town could receive government approval this spring following a mandatory public review of an environmental “screening” report.

The Ottawa-area company wants to build 66 turbines on Crown land in an unpopulated area just north of Neys Provincial Park.

The turbines, each 80 metres tall and sporting three blades as long as half a soccer field, are to collectively produce up to 100 megawatts of electricity.

That‘s about half the capacity of Brookfield‘s existing wind farm just outside Sault Ste. Marie.

Brookfield project manager Ian Kerr said construction on the Marathon-area site is expected to begin in 2010, creating a maximum of 200 jobs over the 18-month construction period.

The company will likely establish an office in Marathon to be staffed by about 10 service technicians, Kerr added.

Though the network of turbines will require the construction of about 40 km of access roads, there will only be a handful of locations from the Trans-Canada Highway that will offer a view of the machines, said Kerr.

Noise isn‘t expected to be a concern because the nearest dwelling is two km away from any of the proposed turbines, Kerr said.

The environmental report does not identify any significant impact on birds or other wildlife.

Though details haven‘t been finalized, the wind farm is expected to plug into the provincial energy grid through an existing 230,000-volt transmission line.

Kerr said the turbines the company plans to use have a life-span of about 25 years. Service technicians access the hub and blades by climbing up inside the towers.

The environmental screening report can be viewed online at coldwellwind.com.

Hard copies can be obtained at Marathon town hall, Pic River First Nation band office or the Ministry of Environment office in Thunder Bay at 435 James St. S.

Public comments must be received by May 1.

By CARL CLUTCHEY

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

chroniclejournal.com