Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘wind’

May 12

money-online-586x398

Maine governor: So, can we back off on all of these wind initiatives yet?

Erika Johnsen — Hot Air — May 11, 2013

Over the past few years, along with the huge raft of federal support the wind industry receives via tax credits, payouts, regulations, and initiatives, it’s also been all the rage for states to set up their own wind-friendly subsidies and renewable portfolio standards to help out the wind industry so that politicians at all levels can trumpet how much they care about Being Green to their constituents. All the cool kids are doing it, so why not, right?

Well, because it’s unduly expensive, it isn’t delivering on its promises, it’s a drain on state resources, and it’s contributing to increasing everyone’s energy costs — so says Maine’s Republican Governor Paul LePage, who’s looking to roll back some of the provisions currently setting his state’s goals fro increasing wind energy capacity:

LePage’s energy director, Patrick Woodcock, made recommendations Thursday to rewrite the state’s 2008 Wind Energy Act, shifting focus from growing wind energy capacity to lowering electricity costs and making sure Maine sees an economic return on its wind energy investments.

The Maine Wind Energy Act, a priority of LePage’s predecessor, Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, sought to expedite wind energy development in Maine. The law zoned much of Maine’s Unorganized Territory as suitable for wind development and set goals for the state to have 2,000 megawatts of wind energy capacity by 2015, 3,000 by 2020 and 8,000 by 2030.

Maine’s wind energy capacity today is about 435 megawatts, according to the Maine Renewable Energy Association.

“We are not going to be meeting that goal,” Woodcock said of the 2,000-megawatt threshold by 2015. “I think that it’s an unrealistic goal, and there should be consideration beyond that of whether megawatt capacity installed is really the best metric of our wind energy policies.”   Continue reading, here….

May 8

Manitoulin

Island dentist refuses to treat wind turbine supporters

Tip of the hat to Wind Concerns Ontario

Michael Erskine — Manitoulin Expositor — May 7, 2013

MANITOULIN—The decision by a Gore Bay dentist to refuse service to Henry Panamick, a member of the M’Chigeeng First Nation band council, over the council’s support of wind power led to Chief Joseph Hare calling an emergency meeting of the First Nation’s governing body to investigate the incident and to decide what, if any, response was called for by the band.

Dr. Bill Studzienny has since announced that his embargo extends to both municipal and band councillors who support wind development on Manitoulin Island.

During the M’Chigeeng council meeting, Mr. Panamick described his visit to the dentist to the council, how he made an appointment, was told to come back at 2 o’clock (“I just figured they were really busy,” he said). When 2 o’clock arrived, Mr. Panamick said he was ushered into a small room by Dr. Studzienny, where the dentist informed him he would not be working on his teeth. “He said, ‘Henry I can’t work on you today’.” recalled Mr. Panamick. “I said ‘Oh, that’s alright,’ figuring it was because it was because they were too busy.” Mr. Panamick said that he and his family have been a clients of the dentist for several years. “He then said, ‘it’s on account of the windmills’,” said Mr. Panamick. “I was still waiting for the punchline.’”

But it wasn’t a joke. Mr. Panamick then said that Dr. Studzienny informed him that the dentist was so upset that his hands were shaking too bad to work on his teeth. “I thought that would be alright, there are lots of dentists around,” said Mr. Panamick. “But before I left he said to me, ‘you people are very greedy.’ Well, I have a little temper myself,” continued Mr. Panamick. “But I kept my cool. I just went out and called Joe Hare.”

Mr. Panamick said that the reference to “you people” brought him back to an incident involving a racial slur while he was playing hockey. “That kind of racism stays with you,” he said. “When he said ‘you people in West Bay are very greedy,’ he is including all of the people of our community,” said Mr. Panamick. It was clearly the choice of the phrasing that had rattled the councillor and triggered his emotional response.

M’Chigeeng Councillor Robert Beaudin then relayed to the council how he had also called the dentist and was informed that the dentist would not work on his teeth either. Mr. Beaudin said the dentist told him that he should be ashamed. “He said ‘I don’t want you as a patient. Don’t call me anymore.’ And then he hung up,” recalled Mr. Beaudin.  Continue reading, here….

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 5

110930windfarm
5 Comments

A view on wind energy

Gerry Simpson — The Chronicle Journal — May 2, 2013

A number of years back, before wind farms were of interest or concern to me, I saw on television a true story about wind turbines.
In a small mid-western American farming community, an elderly couple operated a small farm. The woman admitted to having been pro-green energy.
When first approached by wind farm representatives, she welcomed them with open arms. When they discussed placing the turbines on her property, promoting the benefits to her and her husband, to the surrounding community and to the environment, she gave her blessing.
At this point in the documentary she broke down in tears confessing that it became the sorriest day of her life and the biggest mistake that she had ever made.
The couple took the camera crew for a tour.
It showed a school abandoned because students lost their ability to study and to concentrate due to the “thumping sounds” of the turbines. Students’ marks had been in a steady decline since the arrival of the turbines.
Next came a tour of adjacent farms abandoned with For Sale signs posted, all attributable to the presence of the turbines, their constant thumping distraction and shadow flicker interference.
The woman admitted that the only reason they continued to reside on their farm was because they couldn’t afford to leave.
Outside it was a bright, sunny day, but inside, the entire house was shrouded in an attempt to keep out the incessant turbine blade shadows that had become an everyday part of their life. In spite of having all of the window shades pulled shut, a constant shadow flicker permeated the room.
Out in the barn, windows had been boarded up in an attempt to stifle the turbine blade sounds and shadow flickers. The few cows they still had no longer produced the milk they once did. The chickens no longer laid the amounts of eggs they once did. As a result, their farming income had taken a turn for the worse.
The woman’s husband emphasized, “It is not like having a piece of machinery, an appliance with an on-off switch, something that if you tire of seeing or listening to you can turn it off and put it away. It is with you 24/7, until the day you die.”

May 3

Wind-turbine-effects-to-be-measured
3 Comments

Insurance Industry wary of covering farms with wind turbines after Collingwood ruling

Sarnia Lambton Independent — May 3, 2013

A local insurance broker says a recent decision to allow neighbours of wind farms to sue for lost property value may make it harder for farms with wind turbines to get liability insurance.

Greg Cameron of Cameron Insurance was one of the speakers at yesterday’s meeting held by CORE – Conserve Our Rural Enniskillen. CORE organized after three wind companies began moving throughout the area asking farmers to host wind turbines on their property. Up to 51 turbines are planned in the three projects

But Cameron is warning farmers they need to be careful about signing lease agreements because it may affect their insurance coverage.

Cameron says a recent Ontario Court decision in which a judge ruled property owners around a proposed development in Collingwood could go to court to look for damages to cover the devaluation of their property once the project was built.

Cameron says the insurance industry, which does not have uniform policies on liability insurance for farms with industrial turbines, is closely watching the situation. “As more and more turbines go up and more and more liability suits are presented, you will be able to tell the appetite of the insurance companies, whether they will cover farms (with turbines),” says Cameron.

“It is going to be harder.”   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….

Apr 30

711453946
1 Comment

Scotland — Wind farm policy aims to protect rural areas

Andrew Whitaker — News.Scotsman — April 30, 2013

PROPOSALS to protect large parts of wilderness and unspoilt land in Scotland from controversial wind farm developments will be unveiled by government ministers today.

The new guidance will include maps, drawn up by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), which will designate approximately 28 per cent of the country’s landscape as “wild land” making it more difficult to secure permission for wind farms.

Areas in the north and west Highlands, as well as parts of Tayside are likely to be among the wind farm-free zones unveiled by local government minister Derek Mackay in Dundee today. However, campaigners and the head of Holyrood’s energy committee have called on ministers to do more to halt the expansion of wind farms.

Kim Terry of the Communities Against Turbines Scotland, warned that wind farms would still be approved in large numbers outside the protected areas under the new planning regime.

She called for all areas of Scotland to be given the same protection, as she claimed developers would now focus on areas outside the wind farm-free zones.

Mr MacKay is expected to claim today that the shake-up of planning policy will improve the balance between the approval of turbines and protecting areas of beauty and wilderness land.

However, Holyrood energy committee convenor Murdo Fraser said that a “new approach” was needed to ease the pressure on parts of Scotland “under siege” due to the growth of wind farms.

Mr Fraser, a Tory MSP, said: “There is widespread public concern over the proliferation of wind farm developments. Fundamentally, what’s required is a new approach to energy policy that removes the development pressure from rural communities who feel under siege.”

Apr 26

1297405604415_ORIGINAL

U.S.- Environmentalists, Local Officials Oppose Wind Farms in Maryland

Bonner R. Cohen — Heartland.org — December 2012

Two wind farms in Maryland, one proposed and the other one already in operation, are running into stiff resistance from local authorities and residents, conservation groups, state officials, and the U.S. Navy.

Threat to Naval Radar

Plans to build a giant wind farm on 10,000 acres in rural Summerset County on Maryland’s Eastern Shore were put on hold indefinitely in early November after County Commissioners halted consideration of a proposed ordinance that would have allowed installation of turbines on local farmland.

In tabling the ordinance, county commissioners took into consideration a new study brought to their attention by officials at the Naval Air Station Patuxent. The study, performed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, outlines how large-scale wind-energy projects could interfere with radar systems at the base across the Chesapeake Bay in St. Mary’s County.

The proposed wind farm, a project of Texas-based Pioneer Green Energy, would have to be approved by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Maryland Public Service Commission. Fearing the Navy would ultimately block the project, county officials decided it would be pointless to green-light the wind farm.

Earlier in the year, the Maryland General Assembly passed a bill placing new restrictions on wind turbines located within a 46-mile radius of Patuxent Naval Air Station. The bill ends an exemption for wind farms smaller than 70 megawatts. Almost all of Summerset County falls within the 46-mile radius of the base.

Bird and Bat Deaths

Meanwhile, in the mountainous western part of Maryland, a coalition of eight conservation groups is rallying opposition to a 28-turbine wind project. The conservation groups say the Criterion Wind Project, located in Oakland, about 175 miles northwest of Washington, DC, is killing an unacceptable number of birds and bats.

In comments submitted to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), the environmental groups are seeking new limits on the operation of the Criterion Wind Project, a facility owned by Exelon Power. Criterion has requested an incidental take permit for the endangered Indiana bat from FWS.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) makes it illegal to “take” (kill or harm) wildlife listed as threatened or endangered by the federal government. An incidental take permit acknowledges that protected species can be accidentally or incidentally “taken” during the course of normal operations of a facility provided that its owner makes a reasonable effort to limit or minimize harm to a listed species.   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 21

lisa-thompson-swearing-in
1 Comment

MPP Lisa Thompson Defends Cheaper Wind Power

Peter Jackson — Bayshore Broadcasting — April 21, 2013

Lisa Thompson of Huron-Bruce says the Feed-In Tariff program is too expensive
The Progressive Conservative MPP for Huron-Bruce says provincial government must make sure alternative energy sources are affordable.

Her private member’s bill — the Ensuring Affordable Energy Act — was voted down in the Legislature last week.

Lisa Thompson says the Feed-In Tariff program must be done away with because power customers eventually will be hit in the pocketbook for unacceptable electricity rates.

That’s at odds with Leader Resources President Charles Edey who tells Bayshore Broadcasting News that British Columbia has brought in a feed-in tariff program to promote wind developments in that province.

Thompson believes paying municipalities to accept surplus power will just contribute to the province’s deficit position.

She points to the auditor general’s report and several studies that say Ontario has an electricity surplus for at least the next two years.

Thompson says the Green Energy Act is environmentally irresponsible because it allows turbine developments on the Niagara Escarpment.

She recalls environmental legislation brought in by the government of former Tory Premier William Davis in the 1970s that made sure the Escarpment was protected.

Apr 18

is9QUgQxdRig
1 Comment

UK — The Giant Global Wind Farm Scam — Video

This is a British video, but the story is EXACTLY the same in Ontario and all over the world.

 

Apr 17

Canadian_money__1389441cl-8

High wind and solar costs hurt consumers as well as the environment — Renewable power just too costly

Donald N. Dewees — Financial Post — April 17, 2013

In May, 2009, Energy Minister George Smitherman oversaw the enactment of his Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA). It required that Ontario electricity consumers pay high prices for certain kinds of renewable power, including 13.5 cents/kWh for wind and up to 80.2 cents for small rooftop solar. Four years later Ontarians are asking if they can afford such big premiums for renewable power over the 8 cent cost of existing power.

As an environmentalist and past Director of the Sierra Club of Ontario, I like renewable power. As an electricity consumer I don’t want to pay too much. As an economist, environmentalist and consumer I believe that we should pay more for renewable power but the premium should not exceed the value of the avoided environmental and health effects plus the value of the avoided greenhouse gas damage from fossil power displaced.

Since Ontario is phasing out coal by the end of 2014, renewable power will mostly displace natural gas, which burns quite cleanly — its effects are very small, worth less than 1 cent per kWh. How much do we want to pay to reduce greenhouse gases? In my work I use $25/tonne of CO2 as a low estimate and $100/tonne as a high estimate based on studies of the future damage from global warming. These yield a total health, environmental and CO2 saving between 1.1 cents/kWh and 4.5 cents/kWh. This is the premium we could pay for clean electricity.

Calculating the money we save by displacing natural gas generation with renewable generation is complicated. The operating cost of generation depends on electricity demand – when demand is high, for example on a hot summer afternoon, we run inefficient, expensive generation. When demand is low, at night or on weekends, we run only our most efficient,low-cost generation. Because wind may not generate during peak periods it does not displace much conventional capacity – we need gas generation in case the wind stops. Adding generation cost savings to the health, environmental and greenhouse gas values. I conclude that we should be prepared to pay from 6.9 cents to 10.9 cents/kWh for wind power in Ontario, much less than the current 11.5 cents.  Continue reading, here…..

Apr 17

1297404454555_ORIGINAL

Slash wind turbine subsidies, Hudak says

Jeff Bolichowski — The Standard — April 17, 2013

Blowing away subsidies for wind farms could help rein in skyrocketing energy costs, says Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak.

In a visit to a Smithville plant Wednesday, Hudak said his Progressive Conservatives are bringing legislation to Queen’s Park Thursday to axe the subsidies and hand wind farm planning back to cities. Hudak predicted those subsidies could contribute to energy costs spiking by 60% in the next few years.

But with the slashing of two gas plants in the greater Toronto area leaving taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars, Hudak said it’s critical to cut wind subsidies before the cancellation fees mount.

“That’s why we’ve got to stop now,” he said. “We’ve got to turn off the tap. Otherwise the costs are going to be even higher down the road.

“Our energy rates have gone from being some of the most attractive in North America to being some of the most expensive,” he said. Reducing those rates, he said, is key to creating more jobs.

“That means, quite frankly, that we can’t add on more expensive wind turbine projects, and we can’t have the kinds of waste of taxpayer dollars” like the cancelled gas plants, he said. Scrapping the Mississauga plant alone came with a $275-million price tag.

The Niagara West-Glanbrook MPP’s comments came as he toured the Stanpac plant in Smithville.

Slashing wind subsidies wouldn’t necessarily mean an energy shortfall, he said. “In reality, we have too much supply right now. We’re paying Quebec and New York to take excess energy off our hands.

“If you’re in a hole, you drop the shovel and stop digging.”

Hudak said the party’s Ensuring Affordable Energy Act is up for a vote Thursday. He portrayed the vote as a matter of jobs.  Continue reading, here…..

Apr 17

article-new-ehow-images-a06-g4-jf-start-church-affiliated-daycare-800x800
3 Comments

Parents Demand Protection for their Children from Wind Turbine emissions

Queen’s Park     —   April 16, 2013

 

“Premier Wynne, 550 meters is too close!”

 

A group of determined parents will arrive at Queen’s Park on Thursday morning April 18 at 11:30 to

demand a meeting with Premier Kathleen Wynne to discuss the risks to their children from industrial

wind turbines. The group is led by Shellie Correia of West Lincoln whose son Joey has Sensory Processing

Disorder.

 

“I met with Kathleen Wynne in my hometown just before Christmas when she was campaigning for the

leadership of her party,” says Correia. “I gave her many reports and a letter from Joey’s doctor and I

haven’t heard from her since.” Correia’s concerns and those of parents all across Ontario are for their

children, some with special needs such as autism and other issues who are at risk.

 

Dr. Chrystella Calvert is a behavioral Pediatrician and treats Joey. She agrees. “Noxious stimuli (or

unexpected, or unnatural stimuli) are a source of environmental stress that affect the human

brain…Wind turbines concern me, given my strong knowledge of neurobiology,” says Dr Calvert. “I as a

“normal brain” (or typical brain) individual would not want this risk to my mental health (or my

children’s’) in my neighbourhood.”

 

The vast 77-turbine wind project is slated for the area with massive 3 megawatt wind turbines, some at

exactly 550 meters from Joey’s home.

 

In her letter Dr. Calvert states, “Science has no evidence that this abnormal, incessant stimulus does not

have long lasting effects on the developing fetal child and adolescent brain. In a developed society like

Canada, we must advocate and protect the most vulnerable members.”

 

Non-consenting neighbours have filed complaints about the wind project in West Lincoln and are aware

that the government sponsored Research Chair from the University of Waterloo wants to use them as

part of a pre- and post- wind turbine study. The group says it is unethical to impose a health risk on a

community and then study it to see what happens.

 

Shellie Correia and the other parents at Queen’s Park tomorrow need answers.

Apr 16

david_suzuki_jwm_2691
5 Comments

David Suzuki: Health effects from wind power unfounded

David Suzuki — Straight.com — April 16, 2013

OPPOSITION TO WINDMILLS often centres on health effects, but what is it about wind power that causes people to feel ill? According to recent research, it may not be the infrasound from wind-energy installations but, oddly enough, the warnings from opponents.

For a study published in the American Psychological Association’sHealth Psychology journal, researchers from New Zealand’s University of Auckland showed readily available anti-wind-power film footage to 27 people. Another 27 were shown interviews with experts who said infrasound, such as that created by wind turbines, can’t directly cause negative health effects. Subjects were then told they would be exposed to two 10-minute periods of infrasound, but were actually only exposed to one.

After both real and “sham” exposure, people in the first group were far more likely to report negative symptoms than those in the second. In fact, subjects in the second group reported “no symptomatic changes” after either exposure. According to the researchers, “Results suggest psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints.”

Another study, which has yet to be published, shows people living near wind-power installations report more health problems during anti-wind campaigns. Researchers from Australia’s Sydney University found only 120 complaints from people living within five kilometres of the country’s 49 wind farms between 1993 and 2012. But 68 percent were from people living near five wind farms targeted by anti-wind-farm groups, and 82 per cent occurred after 2009, when wind-energy opponents started highlighting health scares in their campaigns.  Continue reading, here….

« Older Entries