Skip to content

Archive for March 8th, 2012

Mar 8

The Lies Spread by Wind Proponents Continue Unabated

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like the evil spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson

Conservative MPP Lisa Thompson presented a private member’s bill today in Toronto, calling for a moratorium on Industrial Wind turbine installations, until proper studies are done to determine the extent of harm done to people if they live too close to turbines.

As you probably know by now, it was voted down by the Liberals and the NDP.  Not a huge surprise.

But what I found online today, upset me quite a bit.  It was a letter sent out to Conservative MPP’s advising them not to vote for Lisa’s bill.  It is SUCH a flagrant example of lies, half-truths and spin-doctoring, it almost makes you nauseous to read it.  But I’m going to post it in it’s entirety, so that you can read for yourself, how the blatant lies used by wind proponents rage on.  In fact, it’s hard to find one single sentence that isn’t full of lies and twisted truths.

They have no shame, no morals, no conscience.  Lisa’s bill wasn’t asking for a permanent halt to wind energy.  Just a “pause” until the matter has been thoroughly investigated.  Next time such a bill is presented to parliament, we’ll have a better idea of the unconscionable forces we’re up against. You might also take note that the author of this egregious letter is the managing director of Mindscapes.  A green energy company that stands to lose money if Lisa’s bill had passed.  One of the services listed on their company website is “Design/install consulting for wind, solar, micro-hydro, geothermal, and biomass/biogas systems”   As always….just follow the money

Donna Quixote

Uneditted letter:

DEAR FRIENDS IN PROVINCIAL OFFICE – CREW addresses URGENT need to take a stand against Private Member`s Bill for a Moratorium on WINDTo: MPPs E. Witmer, J. Milloy, M. Harris, and R. Leone:I am sure that you will all be well familiar with the Private Members Bill to be introduced by Progressive Conservative MPP Lisa Thompson (Huron-Bruce) on March 8th calling for a moratorium on wind energy development.I am writing today on behalf of the 1500 local participants in Community Renewable Energy Waterloo that live in your four ridings, who are interested and/or actively participating in renewable energy projects, including local wind projects, and who many times have spoken out about such issues.

I am also writing on behalf of my 12 staff who live among your four ridings, and most especially, I wish to speak personally, as a Conservative that has been repeatedly let down by my Provincial Party.I have met you each individually many times, and you each have earned my respect. I, and CREW’s 1500 local participants, and many other local non-Conservatives and disgruntled Conservatives alike are trusting you to represent our views.

This past provincial election was messy to speak mildly, more so than many others before it. Many surveys have repeatedly shown that the general public is consistently more than 80% in support of wind energy, and one pointed survey has even shown that more than 50% of PC party members are supportive of wind energy, including many members of CREW.
I personally know many other Conservatives who would have voted PC if not for the PC party’s recent neo-conservative, American style politicking on the energy file.As shown in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document which my company published online (here:
http://www.mi-group.ca/files/FAQ_Wind&Solar_Mindscape.pdf
), and in the many other documents which are referenced therein, there is no scientific reason to justify a moratorium on wind energy. In fact, anti-wind groups have even been dropping their court appeals against wind energy because they have been unable to produce evidence to support their complaints   (
http://environmentaldefence.ca/blog/anti-wind-groups-drop-their-appeal-when
 -asked-provide-evidence). One can only conclude that MPP Lisa Thompson has no science or truth based reasons to introduce her Private Members Bill, and that her motives must be entirely political. I find this extremely disappointing.  More: as a Conservative myself, I find this embarrassing, and degrading to the Conservative cause.

Our Province is in crisis. We have enormous debt and deficit, we need new energy generation, and we cannot afford more nuclear debt, nor the 10 year wait it would take to build new nuclear. More than a dozen other countries  from Japan to Germany are closing down their nuclear plants, and many others are refusing to buy Canada’s reactor technology, which is based on certain design assumptions which even the Americans are rejecting as fundamentally unsafe. Instead of pouring endless effort into unwanted CANDU technology, we should be putting our world leading nuclear expertise into leading the new world’s decommissioning of nuclear. There are already a dozen countries we could export this skill to, at great profit to our economy, and more will come.

I am proud of Ontario’s global reputation for technical excellence and for engineering leadership. We once led the world’s nuclear industry. We have now received global recognition for our Green Belt legislation, and for our Green Energy and Green Economy Act. We could lead the world’s nuclear decommissioning industry. And we should be leading the world’s wind industry.

Wind energy is playing a major role in the renewal of Ontario’s electricity sector – helping to phase out coal – while building a cleaner, stronger and affordable energy system for all Ontarians.

I am proud that Ontario is Canada’s leader in wind energy development. By 2018, Ontario is expected to install more than 5,600 MW of new wind energy capacity, creating 80,000 person-years of employment, attracting $16.4 billion of private investments (with more than half of that staying in the province thanks to the Green Energy Act), and contributing more than $1.1 billion of revenue to municipalities over the 20-year lifespan of the projects.

Wind energy is globally seen as a preferred method of electricity generation from a human health perspective. The common complaints are anecdotal at best, and are often simply false. For example, those who complain about low frequency noise have clearly not read the science referenced in the aforementioned FAQ document: the low frequencies they complain about are the
very same which elephants and whales use to communicate with each other, and which are sometimes used for therapy on humans, and which are emitted by the closing of a household door, or by a car driving on the street. These low frequency noises are measurable, and are simply not harmful to humans.

The balance of medical and scientific literature- including a report by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health and many statements from the Canadian Physicians for the Environment – concludes that sound from wind turbines does not have a direct impact on human health. Noise guidelines in Ontario are in place to protect the health and safety of residents. Ontario’s current 550m setback for wind turbines is among the most stringent in place in the world, and nearly 100,000 turbines are operating presently in Europe without any reported health concerns. The verdict is in, and no further research is required: there is no legitimate reason to consider a moratorium on wind.

Wind energy is clean and renewable. It does not emit smog or greenhouse gasses, has no toxic air or water emissions, consumes no water, and leaves no waste products. Wind energy projects deliver local investment, land lease payments, new high-value jobs, and economic growth to rural areas as well as a new source of taxes for municipalities.

I ask you who are Progressive Conservatives to be true to the mission and mandate of the PC Party: to progressively support emerging economic opportunities in the green energy markets in Ontario, and to pressure the present government to capture new global opportunities to lead the emerging world industry for decommissioning nuclear energy plants. As conservatives,
I ask you to support energy conservation aggressively, and to reign in energy spending by attacking real issues like the outstanding nuclear debt and the rapidly inflating costs of nuclear, and to adamantly oppose the politicizing of highly cost effective renewable energy alternatives. Section 2.1(b) and (e) of the PC Party’s Constitution says that Progressive
Conservatives should be supporting the growth of Ontario’s entrepreneurial wind sector. Section 2.1(d) says that Progressive Conservatives should be fighting for unity, not dividing the Province with false science in a fabricated debate that has only political motives. I have much more to say about this, but will refrain.

Lastly, and most importantly, I ask you as our representatives in the legislature to show your support for wind energy as a viable and important source of new clean electricity in Ontario, and to oppose MPP Lisa Thompson’s private members bill, which is neither progressive, nor conservative, nor based on science, nor anything else other than shallow
neo-conservative American style politicking. The Liberal Party is presently showing the PC Party how to fulfil its own mandate, and this is shameful. PC’s can do better, and the constituents I represent with this letter want you to do better: I ask you to step up, represent the over 1500 of us well, and help.

Minister Milloy, thank you for your ongoing support of renewable energy. I encourage you to take to heart the global opportunity looming over the decommissioning of nuclear plants, and to challenge your government to seize this opportunity by decommissioning Darlington, not refurbishing it. Ontario has other reactors currently in storage and ready for decommissioning: these should be the first in the world to be fully decommissioned, and represent a wonderful opportunity for Ontario to lead the world again.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your response. On behalf of CREW, Mindscape, and myself, I would be pleased to meet with any of you to explore these topics more fully.

Kind regards,

Derek Satnik, P.Eng., LEED(r) AP
Policy Director, Past President
Community Renewable Energy Waterloo
Derek@CREWzone.ca
www.CREWzone.ca

and
Managing Director and Chief Innovation Officer
Mindscape Innovations
ph: 519-744-3592 / 647-367-2938 / 613-366-1922 x221
cell: 519-897-6463
fax: 519-804-1030
DSatnik@mi-group.ca
www.mi-group.ca

Mar 8

What wind turbines did to this family — Ripley part 1

Sandy McLeod from Ridgetown, Ontario, discusses the effects of living among wind turbines

Mar 8

Help Protect the Bobolink in Haldimand County

From Haldimand Wind Concerns

Deadline — March 16, 2012

NextEra Energy Canada has submitted a proposal in relation to an “overall benefit permit” under clause 17(2)(c) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) with respect to the Bobolink, a threatened bird species. Of the 59 wind turbines proposed for NextEra Energy’s Summerhaven wind project in Haldimand County, two turbines and one access road are proposed to be located in 6.99 hectares (17.3 acres) of Bobolink habitat. NextEra’s Supplemental bird survey data showed a count of 196 Bobolink in this project area with 121 of those counted during the breeding season.

Bobolink populations have declined considerably over the past half century. Their feeding area, breeding habitat and nests are on the ground in fields of tall grasses or hay. Proposed construction and operation of two wind turbines and installation of an access road have the potential to adversely affect Bobolink and their habitat. The proposed permit conditions must provide benefits that exceed those adverse effects.

The Environmental Bill of Rights does not require this notice to be placed on the Environmental Registry however the MNR is posting this notice to advise the public of the permit proposal and to invite the public to submit written comments on this proposal to Catherine Jong, Species at Risk Biologist, MNR, Aylmer District.

Please submit your comments by March 16, 2012 to: esa.permits.agreements@ontario.ca and quote ER number 011-5735 in the subject line. All comments and submissions received will become part of the public record. The full permit and more information can be found on the link below.

Thank you,  Haldimand Wind Concerns


http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTE1ODc2&statusId=MTczNDc5&language=en

Mar 8

Here We Go Again — Prince Edward County Assault Continues

| Mar 08, 2012

Here we go again. Dalton McGuinty’s Green Energy Act has convinced another wind turbine company that the South Shore of Prince Edward County is an appropriate place to situate their industrial wind turbines.

WPD’s White Pines Wind Project aims to build 30 turbines – all on private land – in the southern part of the County. PECFN has reviewed this plan and finds that, once again, important natural habitat has been ignored.  Twelve of the turbines are located within the PECSS Important Bird Area.  Eight turbines are planned on the northern border of the IBA.

Not only is the IBA threatened, but also provincially significant wetlands, Life and Earth Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) are designated for turbines and access roads.  The project is close to Little Bluff Conservation Area – an important spring and fall avian migration area – and the Prince Edward National Wildlife Area.

Approximately 18 km of new roads are proposed to service these turbines. The transmission line, approximately 24 km of cable to be buried in the road allowances of existing roads, would start in an Earth ANSI and cross the Big Swamp wetland.  Ten permanent culverts will be built; many through the sensitive marsh and wetlands spread across the South Shore, which are important to biodiversity and a healthy environment.

Many aspects of this project pose significant risks to migrating land birds and raptors.  If it is allowed to proceed, the effects on the natural environment will be catastrophic.  The roads, burying of cables, turbine pads, turbines and culverts of this project will do irreparable harm to the ecology of the area.  We need to take responsibility to protect the valuable habitat of our South Shore.  Link to article

The first open house for the White Pines project is being held on Thursday, March 22 from 5:30 pm to 8:00 pm at Prince Edward Collegiate.  Take this opportunity to speak to the proponents of this questionable project and let them know of your opposition.

Why for the love of God, do these wind companies insist on putting these atrocities in fragile eco-areas?  — Donna

Mar 8

The Grand View: 4 Billion Years Of Climate Change

Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman – 08/27/2009 — The Resilient Earth

Two of the terms bandied about by global warming alarmists are “unprecedented” and “irreversible.” It is troubling that scientists, who should know better, persist in  using these terms even though the history of our planet clearly shows that neither term is accurate. Proof of this inaccuracy is obvious if we look back over the history of Earth, taking the “Grand View” of historical climate change.

According to Meg Urry, the head of the physics department at Yale University: “Scientists observe nature, then develop theories that describe their observations. Science is driven by nature itself, and nature gives us no choice. It is what it is.” While some of the dates presented here may change and scientists continue to argue some of the fine points, here is what science thinks it knows about life, the Universe and everything.

Around 13.7 billion years ago the Universe came into existence. Not long afterward the Milky Way galaxy was formed. Stars formed, transmuted elements in nuclear fire and ended their lives in supernovae explosions. This cycle was repeated many times for many different stars.

Then, 4.6 billion years ago our Sun was born out of the ashes of older dead stars. Along with the Sun a large brood of planets was also formed, including the one we call Earth. A million years after the birth of our sun, the violent explosion of a nearby supernova nearly ended life on Earth before it began. Over the next four and a half billion years, forces of nature shaped our planet and the life it harbored.

Buffeted by supernovae, barely surviving the traumatic birth of the Moon, bombarded by asteroids, the resilient Earth endured. And despite planet-freezing ice ages, devastating mass extinctions and ever changing climate life not only survived, it thrived.  Even though meteors continued to rain down on the young planet there is evidence that as long as 4.2 billion years ago liquid water, the prerequisite for life as we know it, was present. The evidence also indicates that life has been present on our planet for close to 4 billion years, though for most of that time it was relatively simple single celled life. At the start, Earth’s atmosphere was a toxic mix of methane, carbon dioxide and ammonia—oxygen was nearly absent in the atmosphere of early Earth. To humans and most of the world’s familiar flora and fauna, this atmosphere would have been toxic.

Asteroid impacts, tremendous volcanic eruptions, and shifting tectonic plates resulted in drastic changes in climate and the emergence of new life forms. Somewhere along the way the simple microorganisms, which were ancient Earth’s only inhabitants, developed photosynthesis that created a net gain of oxygen first in the ocean and later in the atmosphere. Then, 2.3 billion years ago, the world’s first ecological disaster occurred when free oxygen established a permanent presence in the atmosphere. Known as the Great Oxidation or the Oxygen Catastrophe, almost every living thing on Earth died as a result of this massive bacteria-induced climate change.

Read full article here

Observations

  • Earth’s temperature is always changing.
  • Over time there have been periods when it has been colder than it is today.
  • Life has persisted during periods both hot and cold.
  • There is no one “right” temperature.
  • Carbon dioxide has always been present in Earth’s atmosphere.
  • Over time there have been periods when CO2has increased and decreased naturally.
  • Life has persisted during periods with high CO2 and low CO2.
  • CO2levels will change with or without human contributions.
  • Over time there have been a number of ice ages—Life has endured multiple ice ages.

What the future holds climate scientists are unable to portend with all their computer models and IPCC consensus reports. The Earth and its climate are constantly changing—there is no one correct climate or temperature for our planet. Those who say CO2 is the most important factor in climate change, that human GHG emissions will cause runaway global warming, have no historical basis for such claims.

As Earth’s climate history has shown, nothing predicted by the global warming alarmists would be unprecedented—Earth’s climate has been colder than today’s and much, much warmer. CO2 levels have also been many times higher than they currently are, even during ice ages. Ice ages come and go, caused by mechanisms mankind is powerless to control. And after every ice age the world warms and the glaciers disappear only to return millions of years later. No change in climate is irreversible. Given 4 billion years of Earth history and 542 million years of complex life, blaming mankind for 9,000 years of global warming seems rather silly.

Mar 8

Legal Double Standard: Wind Energy Industry Gets Unofficial License To Kill Birds

Mark Perry — March 2012 — Wall Street Journal

According to a 2009 estimate from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (reported on the American Bird Conservancy website here), those bird fatalities happen more than 1,200 times every day (440,000 deaths annually and 50 deaths every single hour of the day on average).   For the millions of documented wind-related bird fatalities that have taken place in recent years, how many wind companies have been prosecuted? None – they get a pass.  

As Robert Bryce writes in today’s WSJ:

“For years, the wind energy industry has had a license to kill golden eagles and lots of other migratory birds. It’s not an official license, mind you. But as the bird carcasses pile up—two more dead golden eagles were recently found at the Pine Tree wind project in Southern California’s Kern County, bringing the number of eagle carcasses at that site to eight—the wind industry’s unofficial license to kill wildlife is finally getting some serious scrutiny.

Some 77 organizations—led by the American Bird Conservancy, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Endangered Species Coalition and numerous chapters of the Audubon Society—are petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to toughen the rules for the siting, permitting and operation of large-scale wind projects.

It’s about time. Over the past two decades, the federal government has prosecuted hundreds of cases against oil and gas producers and electricity producers for violating some of America’s oldest wildlife-protection laws: the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Eagle Protection Act. But the Obama administration—like the Bush administration before it—has never prosecuted the wind industry despite myriad examples of widespread, unpermitted bird kills by turbines.”

Mar 8

Massive Demonstration in Germany, May 15, 2010

Here you go. Now you know where to direct people, when they say that Germany has no problems with IWT’s.

# of Myths Blown Apart — 31

Mar 8

3 Comments

A Tale of Two Turbines…..

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us….Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

Reading the opening paragraph to Dicken’s classic novel, one could certainly apply it to any time in history, but history is not what I’m going to compare here.   As we all know, if you are a proponent of Industrial Wind Turbines, you will always find a ‘study’ somewhere to back you up.  Likewise, if you oppose Industrial Wind Turbines, you will always be able to find documentation to support your cause, but let’s take a closer look at how these research results are obtained. In the past 24 hours, I’ve read two studies.  Both of them deal with the safety of wind turbines and their affect on people. Take a look at the first study results….

Ontarians say wind turbines is one of the safest forms of electricity generation

March 07, 2012

A high 78 per cent of Ontarians say wind power is one of the safest forms of electricity generation according to a recent Oracle Research poll commissioned by the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). The poll was conducted between February 22-29 and has a margin for error of +/- 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20. “This poll indicates that the majority of Ontarians clearly believe wind energy is a safe form of electricity generation despite a minority voice that suggests otherwise. We will continue to ensure wind energy is developed in a safe and responsible manner for the benefit of all Ontarians,” said Robert Hornung, president of CanWEA.Ontario is the current provincial leader with close to 2,000 MW of installed wind energy capacity – enough to power over 600,000 homes in Ontario. In fact, 2011 was a record year for wind energy development in Ontario with the installation of 522 MW across the province.“It is time to embrace renewable energy in all of its forms, including solar and wind powered energy. Ontarians with asthma and other chronic lung disease are already benefiting from the closure of coal plants and looking forward to the decommissioning of the last one as soon as possible,” said Dr. Robert Oliphant, President and CEO, Asthma Society of Canada, in a statement. “If for no other reason, we should support renewable energy generation because it does not harm the air we breathe. In all forms, renewable energy is a safe and healthy alternative to fossil fuels.”

Right off the bat, two things jump out as glaringly obvious.  It was commissioned by the Canadian Wind Energy Association.  Certainly an unbiased group if there ever was one.  Now, I’m not saying they’ve fudged the numbers, but …

  • Who did they survey?  Was it anyone who actually lives near a wind installation?
  • How familiar are these respondents with wind installations?  Have they ever seen one up close?  Have they ever done any research into the topic?  It’s well known that if you are uneducated about a particular subject, you won’t really have a strong opinion one way or the other, so you go by what you’ve been fed by the government and by the media.  We all know that major media outlets are loathe to give much coverage to anything that is in any way, “anti-green”.
  • The comments by Dr. Robert Oliphant, while they seem credible, take on a new tone, when you know more about him.  He is a Liberal and a former MP for Don Valley West who was defeated in the last election.  Of course, he’s going to side with any of Dalton McGuinty’s pet projects.

Now let’s look at another research study.

Wind Turbine Syndrome Affects More People than Previously Thought

March 6, 2012 — by Mark Duchamp

A survey was conducted on wind farm noise as part of a Master’s dissertation by Zhenhua Wang, a graduate student in Geography, Environment and Population at the University of Adelaide, Australia.  The results show that 70% of respondents living up to 5km away report being negatively affected by wind turbine noise, with more than 50% of them “very or moderately negatively affected”.  This is considerably higher than what was found in previous studies conducted in Europe.  The survey was made in the vicinity of the Waterloo wind farm, South Australia, which is composed of 37 Vestas V90 3 MW turbines stretching over 18 km (1).   These mega turbines are reported to be emitting more low frequency noise (LFN) than smaller models, and this causes more people to be affected, and over greater distances, by the usual symptoms of the Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS): insomnia, headaches, nausea, stress, poor ability to concentrate, irritability, etc, leading to poorer health and a reduced immunity to illness.

A summary of the Australian survey has been published (3), but the full Masters dissertation has not been made available to the public. In the interest of public health, the European Platform against Windfarms (EPAW) and the North-American Platform against Windpower (NA-PAW), have asked the University of Adelaide to release this important document.

How many people will be forced to abandon their homes before governments pay attention, wonder the thousands of windfarm victims represented by EPAW and NAPAW.   “It’ll take time to gather enough money for a big lawsuit”, says Sherri Lange, of NAPAW, “but time is on our side: victim numbers are increasing steadily.”

 So, the major question to ask, is which of these two studies is the most credible?  Which results are more germane to the issue of wind turbines? Would it be the one commissioned by a group who has an “investment” in wind turbines and a former McGuinty cohort, where chances are pretty high that they didn’t ask anyone near a turbine installation what their views are?
 Or would it be the one that actually spoke to people who have to live next to these things 24/7?  
 I’m guessing that it would be the second.  Anytime you see study results like these, take a close look at who did them, who would benefit from the results and who participated.  I think you’ll eventually see a pretty clear picture of who is pushing the wind energy agenda.
(editted – Mar. 8, 2012)

Donna Quixote