Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘Ontario’

May 19

kathleen-wynne
1 Comment

Will Wynne have the political courage to admit the Green Energy Act is an unmitigated disaster for Ontario?

Lorrie Goldstein — QMI Agency — May 19, 2013

Will Premier Kathleen Wynne have the political courage to admit the painfully obvious fact that Dalton McGuinty’s experiment with green energy has been an unmitigated disaster for Ontario?

After all, without personally blaming the former premier, Wynne finally apologized last week for the Liberals’ disastrous political decision to cancel two gas-fired electricity plants — at a cost to the public of $585 million that we know of — to save a few Liberal seats in the last election.

This scandal is the direct result of McGuinty’s green energy plan to replace coal-fired electricity with natural gas, which was fine in and of itself, until the Liberals started playing politics with it and ended up burning through over half-a-billion dollars of public money to buy elections in a handful of ridings.

During her testimony before the legislative committee investigating the plant cancellations — and in her recent mea culpa on TVOntario with Steve Paikin — Wynne repeatedly emphasized how the Liberals had erred in not consulting with Oakville and Mississauga residents on the location of the gas-fired electricity plants.

And yet the reality is that what went on in Oakville and Mississauga — before the Liberals flip-flopped for crass partisan reasons — is nothing compared to what happened in rural communities across Ontario, where the Liberals literally rammed industrial wind turbines down the throats of protesting citizens.

Not only did McGuinty arrogantly dismiss these people as “NIMBYS”, his Green Energy Act took away the right of their municipal councils to have any say on the location of the wind turbines planned for their communities.

If Wynne believes it would have been the right thing to do to consult with the residents of Oakville and Mississauga about the gas plants at every step of the process, why hasn’t she paid more than lip service for doing the same with people across the province besieged by industrial wind factories?

Particularly because industrial wind factories haven’t just been a social disaster but a financial one as well, dwarfing even the huge economic damage caused by the Liberal decision to cancel the gas plants.

As noted above, that has cost us $585 million, so far.

But then-auditor general Jim McCarter concluded in his annual report in December, 2011, that the Liberals’ flawed implementation of their renewable energy plan will add billions of dollars to the costs faced by Ontarians, both as taxpayers and electricity consumers, for generations to come.

And it’s only getting worse.  Continue reading, here…..

May 7

kathleen-wynne
3 Comments

Windy Wynne

Letter to the Editor — Shoreline Beacon — May 7, 2013

Editor:

The new leader, Kathleen  Wynne and the party she now rules have reached another low.  She’s quoted as saying, “The work that we’re doing on cleaning the air in Ontario is of immeasurable benefit to people who have respiratory diseases, respiratory challenges, kids with asthma. If we’re going to deal with the pollution; if we’re going to deal with the greenhouse gases, the path that we’re on is the right one.”

While this would be an outstanding and noble cause, Ms. Wynne’s highly manipulating words only make people perceive this to be true when in reality it is not.  It seems the issues are being clouded while continuing with her and her party’s agendas.

This, in part, refers to industrial wind turbines.  There is now so much evidence from many sourced around the world that industrial wind turbines are very harmful and not green.  There is also evidence that industrial wind turbines are being used incorrectly and for profit regardless of the damage they do.  There is now so much evidence that all this so-called green energy is needing to be backed up by other energy sources, now seemingly natural gas.

Even David Suzuki says that gas generated electricity is very bad for our health. From his website, “77 per cent of particulates from    from natural gas plants are dangerously small.  These fine particulates have the greatest impact on human health because they by-pass our bodies’ natural respiratory filters and end up deep in the lungs. In fact, many studies have found no safe limit for exposure to these substances.”

So despite this evidence, the choice is being made to continue with industrial wind turbines. It is now becoming easier for everyone to see just what Ms Wynne really has in store for everyone in Ontario. Actions speak louder than words.

This along with her what has been seen as controversial sex ed curriculum.

What remains to be seen now is how many people in Ontario are willing to allow themselves and their children to be harmed before they say enough is enough.  The choice like always is yours.

Charley Urbanek

Port Elgin

May 6

25361_367430967966_4152567_n

FOI Reveals Ontario Government Reviewing Options to Downsize Wind Development

from Tom Adams Energy (as posted by Wind Concerns Ontario)

6 May 2013, 1:32 pm

Documents obtained through Freedom of Information, although heavily redacted, reveal that late last year the Ontario government was looking for options to downsize its troubled wind power development program and also trying to cover its tracks.

One option the government considered for slowing wind development across the province was denying approvals through the Renewable Energy Approval process that some wind developments must go through. The Ontario government specifically identified wind developments in internationally recognized Important Bird Areas. (For more detail on the IBA program, see this note from BirdLife International.) These developments identified as a concern are underway at the northeast of Manitoulin Island, Ernestown and Amherst Island near Kingston, and Prince Edward County.

One of the disclosed documents highlights the contradiction between seeking options to slow wind power development vs. the government’s recent commitments to accelerate government approvals and industrial development of wind power. As of October 19, 2012, a massive amount of wind capacity development — 2,360 megawatts — was in the Renewable Energy Approval process. The document notes that delaying wind power expansion would help mitigate already existing problems caused by excessive power generation during times when usage is low.

In one of the email exchanges disclosed, an official of the Ontario Power Authority is called in for a meeting with the Ministry of Energy and asks for the purpose of the meeting. The reply, “Unfortunately, I cannot put the meeting details in an email.”

Here is the FOI disclosure:
F.O.I.Request 13_05

May 3

Police estimated the crowd at 225 to 250 demonstrators

Gathering Momentum – Opponents to Industrial Wind Turbines fill Regent Theatre

Rick Conroy — Wellington Times — May 3, 2013

Eric Gillespie told the packed theatre in Picton on Thursday the appeal of the nine-turbine industrial wind turbine project at Ostrander Point was going well. This was welcome news to the hundreds of folks eager to stop the threatened industrialization of this rugged South Marysburgh shoreline. The event was sponsored by Concerned Citizens for Safe and Appropriate Green Energy (CCSAGE).

Gillespie is the lawyer appealing the Ministry of Enviroment’s approval of Gilead Power Corporation’s plans to erect nine industrial wind turbines— each reaching nearly 500 feet into the sky—on Crown Land at Ostrander Point. He is representing both the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists’ (PECFN) appeal and the Association to Protect Prince Edward County’s (APPEC) appeal of the project.

He says the panel hearing has qualified each of his nine expert witnesses. Meanwhile the MOE and Gilead are struggling to qualify their witnesses as experts. He noted that the Gilead’s bat expert wasn’t qualified by the panel after they heard his credentials. Then, Gillespie reported, a Ministry of Natural Resources official acknowledged he might be in the wrong place, telling the hearing: “I guess I am not qualified as an expert in anything.”

Gillespie also outlined the significance of a ruling this week in Clearview Township and how it might affect other legal remedies

Cheryl Anderson of PECFN echoed naturalist and writer Terry Sprague’s observations that Ostrander Point is one of the few remaining undeveloped shorelines on Lake Ontario.  Continue reading, here…..

May 3

ED-AQ607__JENEV_G_20130401171037

Ontario — Lawyer urging caution with wind leases

Paul Morden — Sarnia Observer — May 2, 2013

Petrolia lawyer Wallace Lang questioned the amount of money wind energy companies are offering farmers who lease them land to build turbines on.

Lang told more than 200 people gathered Thursday evening at Lambton Centennial School near Petrolia that the wind leases he has read typically offer landowners $15,000 a year, per turbine.

He was invited to speak by Conservation of Rural Enniskillen (CORE), a citizens group that formed earlier this year to oppose plans by several companies to build wind farms in Enniskillen Township.

“You really have to wonder if it’s a good bargain or not,” Lang said about the amount of money wind companies are offering landowners.

“It seems to be kind of chump change, really.”

The agreements can run for decades and may include inflation clauses but the lease payments are taxable, he said.

Lang told the crowd he believes more realistic compensation for landowners would be in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 a year for each turbine.

He urged landowners to be cautious, saying wind companies are sophisticated organizations that know how to market the documents they use to sign up landowners.

While they’re called option agreements, “it’s a final document,” Lang said.

“Make sure you want to do it, before you sign it.”

Farmers who do sign a lease give up a great deal of control over their property for a potentially long period of time, he said.

With renewals, the agreements he has read can run up to 57 years, Lang said.  Continue reading, here….

May 2

DMI Industries Wind Turbine Manufacturing Plant

Ontario’s Head-in-the-Sand Green Energy Policy

Kenneth P. Green — Huffington Post — May 1, 2013

Earlier this month the Fraser Institute published a report sharply critical of one of the flagship policies of the Ontario government, namely the Ontario Green Energy Act (GEA). We found that the Act is costing Ontario over $5 billion annually but yields negligible environmental benefits, and that equivalent or greater benefits could have been achieved using conventional pollution control measures at less than one-tenth the cost.

We also found that, due in large part to the GEA, Ontario is going from having some of the cheapest electricity in North America to having some of the most expensive. This will increase industry operating costs and cut the rate of return to investment in mining and manufacturing by between 13 and 30 per cent, further weakening key economic sectors and threatening long term job losses. And we pointed out that the choice to pursue wind power under the GEA was a particularly bad idea, as wind power generation is almost perfectly out of phase with energy consumption in Ontario, resulting in the dumping of surplus wind energy into the U.S. market at a loss of some $200 million annually.

Shortly after its release, our report was cited during a debate in the Ontario legislature on the GEA. Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli dismissed it out of hand, saying: “The Fraser Institute report recommends that we go back to coal. They claim that coal is clean, and they’re recommending we go back to coal.” That was the justification for shutting his eyes to the disaster that GEA policy has created.

Even if what the Minister said was true, it would in no way be an adequate response to our findings. Ontario has lost a quarter of a million manufacturing jobs in the past decade. And it has thrown away its long-standing competitive advantage in electricity prices for the sake of minuscule environmental benefits that could have been achieved in other ways at a fraction of the cost.

But what makes the Minister’s response most disturbing is that it is so disconnected from reality. Ontario has always used coal for at least some of its electricity. So do many Canadian provinces, most U.S. states, most of Europe, China and all the other jurisdictions our exporters compete against. Even Germany, which Ontario claims to be copying in its green energy strategy, opened two new coal-fired power plants last year, will open six more this year, and plans six more after that. Ontario is ready to price our manufacturing sector out of business based on an ideologically-driven energy strategy at odds with all our major trading partners.

Moreover, our data on the environmental consequences of various air quality measures come from the same study the Ontario Ministry of Energy relies on as the basis for its decision-making. We are not making some random claim that “coal is clean,” we are reporting the numbers the government itself uses.

The study we cite (originally confidential) by DSS Management Consultants was commissioned in 2005. It estimated potential air quality benefits under various scenarios: a continuation of business-as-usual, different combinations of extra nuclear and gas facilities to replace the Lambton and Nanticoke coal-fired power plants, and a complete retrofit of the coal plants focused on upgrading its pollution control equipment. DSS found that shutting down the coal-fired power plants altogether would have extremely small effects on the air contaminants that determine the Ontario Air Quality Index, and the changes would be essentially identical to those achieved by a relatively low-cost coal plant retrofit.  Continue reading, here….

May 2

Chilton-street-montage

Ontario’s Green Disaster — Pursuit of windpower particularly ill-considered

Ross R McKitrick and Kenneth P. Green – Financial Post — May 1, 2013

The province could soon top North America in electricity costs

In 2009 the Ontario government passed the Green Energy Act (GEA), with the aim of increasing the province’s use of renewable energy such as wind and solar power, biofuels, and small-scale hydro. The centerpiece of the Act is a schedule of subsidized electricity purchase contracts – called Feed-in-Tariffs – that provide long-term guarantees of above-market rates for power generated by those renewables.

The GEA may have been well-intended but a recent Fraser Institute analysis, called The Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario’s Green Energy Act, demonstrates that it is driving up Ontario’s energy costs and poses a threat to economic competitiveness for the manufacturing and mining sectors. What little environmental benefit it is expected to generate could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost. Unless the province changes course, the GEA will saddle Ontarians with needlessly high energy costs for decades to come.

Ontario’s pursuit of windpower was particularly ill-considered because provincial demand tends to be out of phase with wind patterns. In Ontario, 80% of wind-power generation occurs when demand is so low that the entire output is surplus and must be dumped on the export market at a substantial loss.

The province’s Auditor General estimates that Ontario has already lost close to $2-billion on surplus wind exports: Figures from the electricity grid operator also show the ongoing losses are $200-million annually. The wind grid is also inherently inefficient due to seasonal variability. Seven megawatts of installed wind energy capacity are needed to provide a year-round replacement for one megawatt of conventional power.  Read full article, here….

May 2

kathleen-wynne

Ontario Liberals’ last power trip

Terence Corcoran — Financial Post — May 1, 2013

Thursday’s Ontario budget  should be the last gasp of the McGuinty Liberals in a province that needs a premier who can say more about provincial affairs than “I didn’t have access to those financial parameters.”

The Ontario Liberal budget Thursday could be the last gasp of a decade-long governance disaster. It certainly should be. The current premier, Kathleen Wynne, was first elected as part of Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal sweep of the 2003 election.  Ms. Wynne’s current trick is to distance herself from the past ten years of mismanagement, policy bungles, grotesque  waste, pro-union pandering, tax-gouging, big spending green dirigisme.

As Ms. Wynne put it during questioning the other day over the rocketing cost of the Liberal government’s cancellation of two electricity- generating plants,  “I didn’t have access to those financial parameters.” She wasn’t told. Didn’t ask.  The cost of the power plant deals is now up to $600-million, money that served no purpose, vapourized for political reasons.

When it comes to the financial parameters of 10 years of bungled McGuinty statism that spans electricity, medical spending, green belts and transit,  Ms. Wynne has a lot of dodging to do. She apparently wasn’t there for the billion-dollar air ambulance crack up, the billion-dollar e-health meltdown.

Nobody told her that all the spending — up 60% over the McGuinty years — would lead to a fiscal mess, even though she voted on the budgets that delivered the deficits that now loom for years to come.  She never saw the financial parameters of the Green Energy Act and the cost of wind and solar to taxpayers and ratepayers.  Kathleen Wynne missed it all.   Continue reading, here….

May 1

hydro-meter

Ontario’s Energy Transition

World Nuclear News — April 29, 2013

Air quality in Canada’s Ontario province has improved dramatically in recent years, simultaneously with the ramping up of nuclear power and the phase-out of coal.

Ontario is home to a large portion of Canadian industry, the cities of Ottawa and Toronto and some 40% of the country’s population of 33.4 million. Data from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment shows a dramatic reduction in the air pollution that in 2005 was affecting these people for at least ten days during the year. The worst-affected places in 2005 had been 14 of 37 Ontario locations with more than 40 smog-warning days. Every location had at least ten smog days.

In 2011, by contrast, the worst-affected place had only eight smog-warning days, while 18 of the 37 locations had no smog warnings at all. Overall, days on which the people were warned about unhealthy levels of smog at one location or another have dropped from 53 in 2005 to just nine in 2011.

Energy transitions 

Ontario’s approach is in stark contrast to that taken in Germany, which has a commitment to end the use of nuclear power and rely instead on renewable sources. This has seen significant coal capacity being constructed as a ‘bridge technology’ to a hoped-for renewable future. Japan too is struggling to replace the nuclear power kept offline since the 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi. Imports of LNG have leapt and officials recently began fast-tracking planning permission for coal plants. Meanwhile, a report by the International Energy Agency noted unhappily that the UK was the only country that has committed to not build any more unabated coal.

While Ontario has encouraged and facilitated investment in renewables and gas as well as efficiency in power generation and industry, two power sources have played leading roles in the province’s transition: coal, because it has been gradually reduced and is set for phase-out; and nuclear, because it has increased to replace that supply.

Ontario has progressed steadily since a policy was announced in 2003 and is set to close its last operating coal-fired power plant next year. The 1140 MWe Lakeview coal plant was closed in 2005, leaving in operation Lambton with 1976 MWe, Nanticoke with 3964 MWe and small units amounting to 517 MWe. Those small units might be converted to burn gas and biofuels while Nanticoke and Lambton are being progressively closed, with final exit from coal planned for 2014.  Continue reading, here….

Apr 28

wynne1.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox

Green Energy Act: Ontario government still sees no evil

Ross R. McKitrick and Kenneth P. Green — Toronto Sun — April 27, 2013

Earlier this month the Fraser Institute published a report sharply critical of one of the flagship policies of the Ontario government, the Green Energy Act (GEA). We found the Act is costing Ontario over $5 billion annually but yields negligible environmental benefits, and that equivalent or greater benefits could have been achieved using conventional pollution control measures at less than one-tenth the cost.

We also found that, due in large part to the GEA, Ontario is going from having some of the cheapest electricity in North America to having some of the most expensive. This will increase industry operating costs and cut the rate of return to investment in mining and manufacturing by between 13 and 30%, further weakening key economic sectors and threatening long term job losses. And we pointed out that the choice to pursue wind power under the GEA was a particularly bad idea, as wind power generation is almost perfectly out of phase with energy consumption in Ontario, resulting in the dumping of surplus wind energy into the U.S. market at a loss of some $200 million annually.

Shortly after its release our report was cited during a debate in the Ontario legislature on the GEA. Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli dismissed it out of hand, saying: “The Fraser Institute report recommends that we go back to coal. They claim that coal is clean, and they’re recommending we go back to coal.” That was the justification for shutting his eyes to the disaster that GEA policy has created.

Even if what the minister said were true, it would in no way be an adequate response to our findings. Ontario has lost a quarter of a million manufacturing jobs in the past decade. And it has thrown away its longstanding competitive advantage in electricity prices for the sake of minuscule environmental benefits that could have been achieved in other ways at a fraction of the cost.

And the minister’s response is disconnected from reality. Ontario has always used coal for at least some of its electricity. So do many Canadian provinces, most U.S. states, most of Europe, China and all the other jurisdictions our exporters compete against. Even Germany, which Ontario claims to be copying in its green energy strategy, opened two new coal-fired power plants last year, will open six more this year, and plans six more after that. Ontario is ready to price our manufacturing sector out of business based on an ideologically-driven energy strategy at odds with all our major trading partners.  Continue reading, here….

Apr 24

thumbnail.aspx
1 Comment

Rural residents in Ontario have ‘embraced’ wind and solar power. WHAT?????

I lost count at 10, the number of fallacies, misrepresentations and stunningly WRONG assertions made in this article by Kelly Egan of the Ottawa Citizen.  Of course, no  comment section is available at the bottom of the article, so feel free to fire off some emails to Mr. Egan to let him know just how much rural Ontario has ‘embraced’ wind power. — DQ

Ottawa Citizen — April 24, 2013

Kelly Egan: Tied to be FIT, like it or not

OTTAWA — Solar and wind power are either key ingredients to the future of the human race or the work of lefty, nutso, organic, rainbow-chasing, hemp-wearing, fringe-element whack-jobs.

Pardon the preview of the next Ontario election.

The provincial Conservatives don’t much like wind and solar power. At least not with the payout structure set up by the Liberals, which saw the most expensive kind of solar power bought for 80 cents a kilowatt/hour from small producers, at a time when a kilowatt/hour was worth a nickel. The economics, on the surface, of insanity.

Having said that, it was neither solar nor wind that got Ontario into an Everest of hydro debt ($13 billion, give or take.) No, that was nukes and such. Neither was it wind nor solar that, if Conservative figures are correct, gave us more than 11,000 workers in the public electricity sector making more than $100,000 a year. No, that was nukes and such, with its army of required geniuses.

Mind-boggling.

Here’s the political problem for the Tories, though. Lots of people, in theory, like wind and solar power. Others, in practice, have embraced it, particularly farmers and rural types, among their main constituents.  Continue reading, here….

Apr 23

scales-of-justice-h-1000

Ontario court allows lawsuits against wind company and landowners … just a matter of time

Canadian Newswire — April 23, 2013

Court Accepts 22% to 50% Loss of Property Values is Occurring Today; Court and Wind Company also Acknowledge Health and Noise Issues in Context of Motion

TORONTO, April 23, 2013 /CNW/ – In a decision released late yesterday, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has determined that while residents of Clearview Township cannot bring claims for a proposed industrial wind project at this time, the ruling is “without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ rights to commence an action for identical or similar relief when and if the Fairview Wind Project receives the necessary approvals to be constructed.” [Para. 6]

The court has specifically recognized that claims against wind companies and against landowners who agree to host wind turbines are possible as soon as projects receive approval. [Para. 37] “There are many people who have been waiting to see how the courts would respond to these types of claims” said lawyer Eric Gillespie, whose firm acts for the plaintiffs in the actions. “It now seems clear that as soon as a project is approved residents can start a claim. This appears to be a major step forward for people with concerns about industrial wind projects across Ontario.”

In addition, Gillespie’s firm acts for other clients in areas where wind projects have been approved. “Dozens of plaintiffs who have already started actions appear to have had the right to bring claims validated” he said. “We can definitely expect more claims now that this door has been opened.”

The plaintiffs also filed extensive expert evidence, which was unchallenged by the defendant wind company WPD Canada Limited and landowners. For the purposes of the motion, the defendants took the position that this evidence should be taken as proven and the court adopted this submission. [Para. 8]

After reviewing the evidence of appraiser Ben Lansink, the court states: “(i)n summary, the plaintiffs’ evidence shows that they have already suffered harm through a loss in property values and the corresponding interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties.”  [Para. 9] “The plaintiffs have filed expert appraisal evidence indicating that their properties are likely presently devalued by between 22 to 50 per cent or more, based upon the Proposal as presented.” [Para. 31] “… :( I)n this case the court accepts that the plaintiffs have suffered, and are currently suffering, losses culminating in diminished property values …” [Para. 34, emphasis added]

The court also received evidence from Dr. Robert McMurtry, a medical doctor and internationally recognized and published author on the health effects of industrial wind turbines, that in his view: “there is … a high probability that the proposal will cause one or more of the following adverse effects to the plaintiffs` properties: audible noise, low frequency noise, infrasound, visual impact and/or shadow flicker. There is also a high probability that the proposal will cause one or more of the following adverse health effects at the plaintiffs’ properties: sleep disturbance, annoyance, headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and/or panic episodes.”

The court also had evidence from Mr. Richard James, an Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) acoustician, who concluded: “[i]n my professional opinion, the [project] poses a very strong probability almost amounting to a mathematical certainty that the project will … (e)xceed the MOE 40 dBA thresholds for wind turbine noise …”

While the court concluded that since the project design etc. may change there is no way of knowing that these effects will in fact occur [see for example Para. 41], “(t)he fact that a major wind company and a court accepted this kind of evidence as being proven on this motion appears to be unprecedented” said John Wiggins, who together with his wife Sylvia commenced the initial lawsuit. “Government and wind proponents around the world have been denying for many years that turbines devalue properties and cause adverse health effects. To have a multi-national wind company and a court agree that these kinds of problems can be taken as proven elsewhere in the context of this motion, and that a court accepts property losses of 22 to 50% or more are in fact already occurring in Ontario right now, appears to be a real victory.”

SOURCE: Cunningham & Gillespie LLP

Apr 23

is9QUgQxdRig
1 Comment

Municipalities getting tough on turbines

(Tip of the hat to Bluewater Against Turbines — BAT)

Monte Sonnenberg — Simcoe Reformer — April 23, 2013

NORFOLK – An important shift in Norfolk County’s position on wind turbines could occur this week.

Simcoe Coun. Charlie Luke was impressed last week with a motion that the Township of Wainfleet forwarded to council.

The Wainfleet motion, which passed April 9, congratulated Premier Kathleen Wynne on her willingness to reconsider the province’s actions under the Green Energy Act.

The Wainfleet motion also suggested that Wynne was no longer willing to force municipalities to accept wind turbines if they don’t want them. Wainfleet council then proceeded to declare itself an unwilling host to wind turbine development.

Coun. Luke liked the resolution so much that he will table a similar motion Tuesday declaring Norfolk an unwilling host to additional wind farm development.

Luke’s motion says “Be it resolved that Norfolk County council applauds the position taken by the Premier and the Government, and that, based on the position of Norfolk County council and the input received from the community regarding (industrial wind turbines), the Province of Ontario – and specifically the Ministry of Environment – be now advised that Norfolk County is not a ‘willing host’ for industrial wind turbine projects.”

If Luke finds a seconder and the motion passes, it will be a significant departure from the county’s position on wind turbines to this point. As it stands, Norfolk council has asked the province for a moratorium on turbine development everywhere until Ontario and Ottawa produce updated studies on their potential impacts on health.

Alleged health impacts were not in the news when the county approved the 56-turbine Lake Erie Wind Farm in South Walsingham and Houghton five years ago. Since then, dozens of individuals across Ontario have come forward with complaints that the province’s 550-metre setback for turbines is insufficient to dampen their potential ill effects. The Township of Wainfleet was rebuffed in court earlier this month when it tried to impose a two-kilometre setback on turbines within its jurisdiction.

“To me, they’re industrial,” Luke said in an interview. “I’m just getting a little concerned that we’re starting to industrialize our countryside. These wind turbines look out of place to me in Norfolk. We’re rural and have a lot of woodlots. Is this what we want our landscape to look like? I don’t.”    Continue reading, here….

 

Apr 22

1297404454555_ORIGINAL

‘They have not been honest’: Ontario PCs to call for non-confidence vote before Wynne can present budget

Canadian Press – April 22, 2013

Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives plan to move a motion of non-confidence in Premier Kathleen Wynne’s minority Liberal government even before it presents the provincial budget, The Canadian Press has learned.

The basis for the motion, officially called a want of confidence, is the Liberals’ continued attempts to mislead the public and cover up the true costs of their political decisions to cancel gas plants in Oakville and Mississauga, a senior Conservative source told the news agency.

“We believe because the Liberal Party has continued to put its self interests ahead of taxpayers, they can no longer be trusted to govern,” the source who requested anonymity said in an interview.

“As the auditor general has revealed, they have not been honest about the true costs of at least the Mississauga gas plant.”

Auditor General Jim McCarter reported last week that the true cost of halting the Mississauga plant in mid-construction, just days before the 2011 election, was about $275 million, not the $190 million Wynne and the Liberals have been claiming.

The report also cast serious doubt on the Liberals’ claim that cancelling a much larger gas plant in neighbouring Oakville in 2010 will cost $40 million, and the auditor’s investigation into that project isn’t expected to be finished until late August.

The justice committee has been holding public hearings into the cancelled gas plants, which were at the centre of a contempt of parliament motion last fall that ground proceedings virtually to a halt when Dalton McGuinty suddenly prorogured the legislature and announced his resignation as premier.

Even though Wynne has promised to get the opposition all the answers and documents it’s looking for on the gas plants, witnesses at the committee have provided contradictory testimony and some experienced memory lapses that the Tories said just continued the cover-up started under McGuinty.  Continue reading, here….

Apr 19

power_cut

Welcome to Ontario’s renewables future: Britain’s energy crisis – when will the lights go out?

The effects of two decades of short-sighted spinelessness in energy policy may soon be all too apparent.

Martin Vander Weyer — The Spectator — April 20, 2013

The day Margaret Thatcher died was also the day Britain nearly ran out of gas. In late March, it was reported that stored reserves were down to just two days’ supply. As the cold spell continued, the BBC even reported the names of ships bringing liquefied natural gas from Qatar, each cargo representing six hours’ worth of urgently awaited heat and power for the nation: the Mehaines had just docked at the Isle of Grain, the Zarga had been sighted approaching Milford Haven.

The worst-case scenario was that the last gasometer would be flat by 8 April, and since a third of UK electricity generation relies on gas, that would, or might, have meant temporary blackouts for businesses in some areas in order to maintain supply to homes, schools and hospitals. This drama didn’t actually come to pass, attention was distracted by the death of the Iron Lady, and the arrival of more spring-like temperatures means heating has at last been turned down, easing gas demand overall.

But if it had happened, Thatcher’s detractors would have claimed it was all her fault for launching, in the troubled final phase of her Downing Street tenure, an electricity privatisation scheme that has gradually descended towards market failure, offering little strategic attraction to investors and a potentially catastrophic absence of long-term security of supply for consumers. Her supporters would answer that a dozen secretaries of state since 1990 have had the opportunity to refine what she began — and that, as with so much of her legacy (‘Britain now has perhaps the most efficient electricity supply industry in the world,’ she wrote confidently in 1995) the benefits have been warped and diluted by the vacillations of inadequate successors.

And even though the lights didn’t go out this time, the near-miss — plus a rash of stories about delays in the building of new power stations — offers a warning of what’s very likely to happen later in this decade, especially if the recent pattern of cold winters continues. A convergence of risks long foreseen by experts means that one of these days, ‘Who got us into this mess?’ will be overtaken as a national debate topic by ‘Why are we shivering in the dark?’  Continue reading, here….

« Older Entries