Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Column By Barbara Ashbee - Canada Free Press - Wind Turbine Protest April 3

This is a fight to protect your property values and a fight to stop to rapidly climbing hydro bills and wasteful use of our money. Your voice matters!

Wind turbines April 3rd protest

Author
 

Rural Ontarians are fully aware of the negative impacts wind turbines and substations are having on families, animals, birds and the environment. This was demonstrated loud and clear in the fall election by voting out many prominent Liberal MPP’s, including the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of the Environment who governs wind projects.
There are 81 Ontario municipalities with motions calling to halt further wind power projects until adverse environmental and human health effects have been properly studied by an independent 3rd party.
  • Earlier this month, Dalton McGuinty claimed Ontario farmers were his biggest supporters for wind development. In fact: The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) representing over 38,000 farm members have called for a suspension of wind projects.
  • At the last ROMA meeting at the Royal York in Toronto, approximately 60 to 80 municipal members took unprecedented action by standing up and walking out on Dalton McGuinty as he took the microphone to address the municipalities.
  • The Canadian Federation of University Women is calling for a moratorium.
  • The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario is calling for a re-evaluation of the program.
  • Perth Dairy Producers support the OFA
  • Victoria Haliburton Federation of Agriculture supports the OFA
  • There are First Nations groups protesting the governments overtake of their land for industrial turbines.
  • In the legislature on March 8th, when Liberal and NDP members teamed up to vote down a motion for a moratorium tabled by a PC candidate, the entire gallery of spectators silently stood and turned their backs to the government. It was a potent message to our leaders and a first in our legislature.
This government needs to pause and take a breath.

They continue to approve new projects relying on one outdated review of literature and a Feb 2010 provincially funded 5-year initiative hiring a research chair to look into renewable energy that hasn’t even been started. This generous 5-year window will allow thousands of new turbines to be erected, further tearing up the environment and harming even more innocent families.

A 2011 Environmental Review Tribunal concluded, based on evidence submitted by 26 expert witnesses that wind turbines placed too close to families can cause adverse health problems. The question we need answered now is how far back do the turbines need to be placed to be safe? We know without question that 550 metres is not safe.

This is very serious. This is a government knowingly forcing harmful policy onto people and the environment.

As their unrelenting push for more turbines continues the McGuinty government using our money has paid outside jurisdictions including the United States, millions of dollars to take excess power being generated that we can’t even use.

Please attend the April 3rd protest in Toronto (Simcoe Park on Front Street, beside CBC building) and join this important province-wide effort to reclaim our fundamental right to live in a healthy environment and peace in our own home.

This is a fight to protect your property values and a fight to stop to rapidly climbing hydro bills and wasteful use of our money. Your voice matters!

Note: 

Wind Rally Reminder the GO Bus leaves at 7:19 am from the car pool lot at the corner of Hwy 115 and Cty Rd 10 on April 3rd...
In case the 7:19 GO Bus is full at Millbrook, there are two other easy GO options...
Below is a link to the Go Transit bus schedule for Bus # 90 which includes pick-up at the carpool lot located at the junction of Hwy 115 and Hwy 2... there are buses leaving at 8:25 and 9:25 am which hook up to the Oshawa GO train... arrival times 10:30 and 11:30 at Union Station. Several return times can be found in the link.
Another option... Manvers Community Wind Concerns are booking a bus. It will depart from the Pontypool carpool lot located at Hwy 115 and Porter Road at 9:30am. YOU MUST RESERVE YOUR SEAT THROUGH PAUL REID
Please call:
Paul Reid telephone number: 705 799-3230 or email: pwr.outriding@gmail.com
Cost: $20.00 return... a real bargain! An immediate response is needed in case a second bus is needed, so book your seat as soon as possible.

Friday, March 23, 2012

CBC Article - Ontario to cut rates paid for wind, solar power ( Is Whispering Woods Project Cancelled ?)

Ontario to cut rates paid for wind, solar power


Notes from article:

 - hydro bills will still jump 46 per cent over five years.
- lower FIT rates will kill some projects, profits will be severly decreased.
- FIT has caused huge damage to Ontario businesses and it has become a jobs killer.
- those (projects) with municipal support are more likely to proceed than those that don't (have it).
 
The Canadian Press Posted: Mar 22, 2012 2:24 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 22, 2012 4:34 PM ET

Ontario's Liberal government announced Thursday it would lower the premiums it pays for future wind and solar energy projects, but electricity bills will keep rising.

The province will drop the guaranteed rate for small rooftop solar projects from 80.2 cents per kilowatt hour to 54.9 cents, while larger solar installations will get between 34.7 cents and 44.5 cents a kWh.

The amount guaranteed for power from industrial wind turbines will drop from 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour to 11.5 cents, regardless of the size of the wind farm.

Ontario Power Generation, the government-owned utility, is paid 5.6 cents a kWh for nuclear power and between two cents and 3.5 cents per kWh for power from its hydro-electric facilities.

Residential consumers pay between 6.2 cents and 10.8 cents a kWh.

There were thousands of contracts approved during the first two years of the feed-in-tariff program at the higher rates that will last for 20 years.

"It will be no surprise that this review suggests prices go down, so prices will be going down," announced Energy Minister Chris Bentley.

"We expect about 20 per cent on average in solar and about 15 per cent on average for wind."

Green energy accounts for only about five per cent of the increase in electricity bills, said Bentley.

However, the government's 2010 fall economic update, which warned hydro bills would jump 46 per cent over five years, said green energy would be responsible for 56 per cent of that increase.

Industry insiders knew the premiums for wind and solar power would come down, but expressed concerns Thursday that the lower prices will kill some projects.

"We believe that this new price will prove extremely challenging for many projects and could prevent a number of them from proceeding," said Robert Hornung, president of CanWEA, which represents wind power producers.

"This is particularly true for smaller projects and new entrants to the industry, reducing the number of communities and the diversity of players able to contribute to and benefit from the government's ambitious objectives."

The Progressive Conservatives said the lucrative premiums paid for wind and solar power are making electricity unaffordable for families and driving companies out of Ontario, and called on the Liberals to cancel the feed-in-tariff program immediately.

"It would stop the high subsidies that have caused energy bills to skyrocket," said Opposition energy critic Vic Fedeli.

"We believe that the FIT has caused huge damage to Ontario businesses and it has become a jobs killer."

The Liberals pointed out Fedeli was mayor of North Bay in 2007 when the council voted to install solar panels on the roof of city hall, accusing the rookie Tory member of hypocrisy.

The New Democrats say if the price of renewables is coming down the province should scrap its plans to spend at least $33 billion refurbishing nuclear plants and building two new reactors and focus more on green energy.

"Why isn't he taking the next logical step, moving away from nuclear and committing to a renewable future for Ontario," asked NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns.

"If we don't do that we are going to face huge increases in our hydro bills. That needs to be recognized."

Groups such as Greenpeace and Environmental Defence also called on the Ontario government to abandon nuclear power in favour of wind, solar and other renewable forms of energy.

"The drop in renewable prices is proof that the Green Energy Act is a success," said Greenpeace spokesman Shawn-Patrick Stensil.

"Now the McGuinty government needs to allow affordable renewable power to fairly compete to replace Ontario's aging nuclear stations." (???)

Bentley also promised the province would give priority to new wind and solar projects that have local support, but stopped well short of giving municipalities a veto over new green energy installations.

"We've rejected a municipal veto. We'd have 440 different rules around the province," he said.

"What we have done ... is found the right balance to make sure that we can continue to bring on clean and green energy projects, but also making sure that those with municipal support are more likely to proceed than those that don't (have it)."

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario welcomed the government's announcement as a step in the right direction, but said the fact that the province retains the power to decide where wind and solar farms are located will "disappoint" some communities.

"AMO welcomes clarity on where renewable projects will not be permitted, such as on prime agricultural lands and subdivisions," AMO President Gary McNamara said in a release.

"The changes announced today should have the effect of gravitating green energy projects toward communities that support them."

The government will meet its goal of generating 10,700 megawatts of electricity from renewable sources by 2015 -- three years early -- said Bentley, and will review that figure next year to see if it should be increased to add more green energy to the power supply mix.

Contracts have already been signed for about 75 per cent of the 10,700 megawatts the province hopes to generate from green energy.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Article from Globe -Margaret Wente - Green Dream Fantasy

Ontario’s green dream was just a fantasy


Margaret Wente
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Mar. 15, 2012 2:00AM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Mar. 15, 2012 12:06PM EDT

The other evening I got a robo-call. It was an automated poll. The recorded voice told me to press “1” if I approved of wind turbines, and “2” if I disapproved. I pressed “2” – hard. So have a lot of other people in Ontario.

Across the countryside outside Toronto, wind turbines are spreading like a plague. They are being built over the strenuous objections of folks who live in rural towns, whose rights have been stomped on by the province. They’re chewing up birds. Worst of all, they’re chewing up billions of taxpayer dollars in the name of a green dream that’s nothing but a fantasy.

Our green energy strategy Premier Dalton McGuinty has heard the voters speak. In an effort to placate them, the government is going to trim its subsidies to wind and solar development and give the rural folks some say. The bad news is that these changes won’t affect the contracts already in place. Taxpayers will still be on the hook for soaring energy bills for years to come.

The green energy bubble is bursting everywhere. As governments confront the worst economic conditions in decades, citizens are revolting against energy costs that have been artificially inflated by green schemes. Nor are Canadians the only people who object to the despoliation of the countryside. In Britain, where the rural landscape is considered semi-sacred, Prince Philip has reportedly denounced the wind industry as “an absolute disgrace.” More than 100 MPs have written to the government demanding cuts to wind subsidies, which now amount to £400-million a year.

Mr. McGuinty insists that his green energy investments will launch a vast new industry in Ontario, whose products and expertise can then be exported to the world. But the world is losing interest. Besides, green subsidies don’t create jobs – they kill them. In Germany, where the government has invested heavily in renewables, high energy prices are forcing companies to close factories or move abroad. Germany has pumped more than €100-billion into solar subsidies, with disappointing results. Now it has announced that it will phase out support to the industry by 2017 – news that caused solar stocks to plunge around the world. Spain, which is in serious economic trouble, has also decided to stop subsidizing new alternative energy projects.

Everything Mr. McGuinty believed about alternative energy turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Today, despite billions of dollars of investment, the total percentage contributed by wind power to the global energy supply can be rounded out to zero, as wind critic Matt Ridley has pointed out. Wind power is not an efficient source of energy and never will be, because it always needs a parallel backup system for times when the wind doesn’t blow. With its hulking metal towers and tons of concrete footings, it isn’t even green.

Not long ago, the logic advanced by environmentalists was that dwindling supplies of cheap oil –along with breakthroughs in green technology – would soon make alternative energy look increasingly economical. Instead, vast new supplies of gas and oil – enough to keep us running for at least 100 years – are being unlocked by new hydraulic fracturing techniques. The United States has so much shale oil and gas that it could even become energy self-sufficient. The shale gas revolution is also good for the environment, because burning gas emits far less carbon dioxide than coal.

Brown energy – not green – is great for the economy. It is a massive job creator. The new energy boom will create hundreds of thousands of direct jobs, and could also kick-start a renaissance in manufacturing. A new report by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the National Association of Manufacturers says low-cost domestic natural gas will save $11-billion a year in U.S. manufacturing costs and create more than a million new jobs. To the distress of environmentalists, fracking’s biggest fan is Barack Obama.

It’s too bad that all this news comes too late for the people of Ontario, who’ll have to foot the bill for Mr. McGuinty’s green follies just as the province wrestles with horrific deficits and a bleak economy. Little old ladies on fixed incomes should pray for warm winters – and press “2.”

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Hudak seeks end to costly subsidies - PC leader’s bill tilted at turbines - London Free Press Article

PC leader’s bill tilted at turbines

GREEN ENERGY: Hudak seeks end to costly subsidies
By JONATHAN SHER, The London Free Press
Last Updated: March 7, 2012 7:24am

Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak. Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak will introduce a private member's bill Wednesday to scrap new subsidies for costly wind and solar farms.

While the bill wouldn't affect farmers with contracts for small green energy projects, proposed industrial wind and solar farms could face renewed local opposition and a questionable future.

Gone would be new subsidies that Hudak says are pushing electricity rates sky-high and choking economic growth.

"I worry about the impact (subsidies) will have on jobs," he told The Free Press.

Mega-projects already approved, but not connected to the power grid would face an uncertain future: Hudak's bill would require Ontario's energy minister to meet with municipal councils and to decide whether to do the hookups or cancel the contracts and pay penalties.

Penalties may be cheaper than adding costly green energy to an electrical grid with so much oversupply of electricity that Ontario sells it at a loss and even gives it away to avert an overload, Hudak said.

The Tory leader vowed in last year's election to scrap a Liberal tariff program that paid big subsidies to generate wind, solar and biomass power, far more than what consumers pay for electricity.

The top price paid is now 80 cents a kilowatt hour for small, rooftop solar arrays, while wind power is getting 13 cents a kWh, about three times the market rate.

The clash over wind made the Conservatives a popular choice in last year's election in rural Ontario, where opposition to industrial wind turbines runs high and which spurned the governing Liberals.

Premier Dalton McGuinty has taken steps to defuse critics, asking Energy Minister Chris Bentley of London to review the tariff program and promising last week to restore some role for municipalities.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Municipality wants $200,000 deposits for wind turbines - CBC Article

Note: There's already over 14,000 abandoned turbines in the States. No one wants the responsibility or the expense of dismantling them.

Mayor of Plympton-Wyoming says bylaw protects residents


CBC News Posted: Mar 5, 2012 8:50 AM ET


A Lambton County municipality is making sure it won't get stuck with the bill if developers walk away from industrial wind farms.

Plympton-Wyoming, east of Sarnia, passed a tough new bylaw that requires developers to deposit $200,000 for each wind turbine they want to build.

"We need to make sure that residents are not on the hook to rebuild roads or to take down turbines when the subsidies are gone and everybody takes off," said Marcelle Brooks is with Middlesex Lambton Wind Concerns.

Mayor Lonny Napper said council is just trying to protect its people in case developers walk away from the used turbines in 30 years.

"Some of these companies, they come in and some of their credentials may be a little weak and we don't want to be left holding the bag with a whole bunch of wind turbines out here," he said. "We feel we owe it to our taxpayers and we owe it to Ontario if they're dumped in our lap."

The biggest development proposed in the municipality is a 29-turbine installation by Suncor. That translates into $5.8 million dollars in deposits.

Plympton-Wyoming also passed a bylaw saying a turbine has to be 2 km away from a home. The provincial guideline is 550 metres.

Napper is not sure if the municipality can enforce the setback distance

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Turbines Threaten Endangered Bird Species - Canadian Press Article

By: The Canadian Press

PICTON, Ont. - A proposed wind energy project in Ontario's rural Prince Edward County has ruffled feathers with Nature Canada, which says the turbines would threaten several endangered bird species.
The location of the project at Ostrander Point, on land owned by the province, is "one of the most significant sites for migrating birds in eastern Ontario," the national conservation group says. Every year tens of thousands of birds stop there to refuel, drawn by the unique geography of the area on Lake Ontario's shoreline.

"While Nature Canada recognizes wind energy is an important green energy solution, wind farms in the wrong place can be bad for wildlife."

The group has suggested citizens tell the province's Environment Ministry to refuse the application by Toronto-based Gilead Power Corp. for the project.

The company says it completed several detailed studies that "confirm the project will not adversely impact wildlife and bird populations."

The nine-turbine facility will potentially provide power for about 5,600 homes per year, it says. Construction is planned for later this year if the necessary approvals are granted.

Prince Edward County, about three hours east of Toronto, is a growing tourist destination, with wineries and culinary attractions.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Good article From the Morrisburg Leader

Wind turbines taking over the landscape


News - February 8, 2012 Edition


DIXON'S CORNERS

“I realized that if people won’t even question the status quo when it comes to this issue, then it really requires further scrutiny and in fact would be a great reason to make a film,” said Laura Israel, director of the documentary Windfall.

In an effort to raise awareness and, perhaps, gain support from South Dundas residents not directly affected by Prowind Canada’s South Branch Wind Farm project, the South Branch Wind Opposition Group (SBWOG) held two showings of Israel’s award-winning film on February 5th at the DC Community Centre in Dixon’s Corners.

Windfall,” said Israel, “is not an exposé about wind energy; it is a story about the experience of a community and how it is affected.”

The film, just under the 90 minute mark, demonstrated how divisive this issue can be for a community and its people. Neighbours and friends who once worked together, socialized together, or prayed together are now not speaking.

Leslie Disheau, a resident of the Brinston area and one of the spokespeople for the South Branch Wind Opposition Group, said, “the similarity of dividing the community in the Brinston area is happening now. We are seeing it in our church communities - the United Church and the Christian Reformed Church - more so than in the general population.”

According to Bruce Albers, another spokesperson for SBWOG, there are several parallels between Windfall events in Meredith, New York and events currently transpiring here in South Dundas, Ontario.

Albers said, “the parallels between the film and our situation are many:

•a government body is forcing the turbines onto the community;

•a large portion of the population is against having industrial wind turbines in their community;

•local government is not representing the residents, but rather the proponent;

•the tactics of the wind industry are the same - sign the land owner in secret, position the product as a benefit to the environment, and as benign in terms of impact on health and property value;

•community division;

•both local governments have council members who have compromised objectivity due to their relationship with the proponent;

•residents are left to their own devices, having to band together to try and stop the project.”

“The divisiveness between members of the community is very real,” said Albers. Many people in our community are related, and those that are not related have worked together on each others farms as is common practice. As we (SBWOG) move forward and hold more meetings and events, more appearances at council, and more interviews in newspapers, the tension and divisions grow.”

SBWOG had hoped that more residents would turn out to watch the documentary. Unfortunately, the afternoon showing had only 25 visitors and the evening showing 10.

“I’m disappointed,” said Disheau, “there were people who said they were coming but did not. However, as one person in the afternoon audience pointed out, the division of the community and families has already begun.”

“People are not speaking out in fear of upsetting family, friends, neighbours and being seen as a troublemaker,” claimed Disheau.

“I foresee the death of our small community,” she continued, “ it is quite sad that both South Dundas council and Edwardsburg-Cardinal council have their heads in the sand and don’t want to see this issue.”

According to Disheau, “we were hoping this movie would have been part of a community open house hosted by the township, but that didn’t happen.”

“The movie supports our arguments and portrays the reality of what this kind of development does to a community. We employed it as a learning tool, but unfortunately the community didn’t take advantage of that.”

Local couple Cathy and Calvin Dentz, offered the following: “We think everyone who lives in SD&G and certainly those living in South Dundas should see the film, Windfall.”

“The documentary outlines the technical issues with these giant industrial machines, but, more importantly, we see how the town is divided,” said Cathy Dentz.

“The problem around here,” she continued, “is that most people either don’t know there is an industrial wind turbine planned for a field near them or they assume it won’t affect them. For us, we’ve heard the noise, we’ve seen the way these turbines dot the countryside in southern Ontario and we’ve heard sad stories about how they negatively impact the health of those living close by.”

Calvin Dentz, co-owner of Dentz Orchards and Berry Farm, said, “in Brinston and Dixon’s Corners, people have told us they don’t want a turbine in their backyard.”

“But,” he continued, “they are hesitant to say anything or even show up at a movie so as not to offend the farmers who are allowing Prowind to put the turbines up on their land. These landowners are their friends, their relatives and people they do business with.”

“Prowind never told the farmers their relationship with their neighbours would be changed forever when they signed contracts,” said Calvin, adding, “there are aspects of my farming operation that irritate my neighbours at certain times of the year as well as aspects of my neighbours operations that irritate me, but we all do our best to mitigate them.”

“When these industrial wind turbines go up they will be turning 365 days a year and there is nothing the landowner can do about them.”

“In the movie,” he continued, “we saw how neighbours who used to visit back and forth no longer speak to each other.”

“I have several farming friends in southern Ontario who are living with industrial wind turbines. Two of these families used to do everything together. Now they don’t associate because of the wind turbine issue in their community. It makes me sad that my friends no longer speak to each other.”

“The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture both came out recently asking for a suspension or slow-down of wind turbine development because they are sacrificing the social fabric of rural communities,” said Calvin.

“One similarity we saw with the movie that is happening here,” he added, “is that people are not aware who has signed contracts with wind developers.”

“We know more wind turbine projects are in the works for Hulbert and Hallville, but have no idea where exactly the industrial wind turbines will be built and neither do the people they are going to be built beside.”

“Like the people in Meredith, New York, it’s hard to actively engage against something you don’t know is going to happen in a field near you,” stated Calvin Dentz.

Only one member of South Dundas council, Councillor Evonne Delegarde, turned out for the film on Sunday.

In response to Windfall, Delegarde offered: “The film was worth the viewing to compare differences and similarities between the Town of Meredith and our Township.”

“The two main points that popped out to me were: one, the Town of Meredith council had complete control over whether a wind farm was permitted in their community and subsequently the fallout from that decision whereas the provincial government has controlled wind turbine projects throughout our entire province and no decisions have been made at the municipal level; and two, the negative impact on relationships between friends, neighbours, family members, and even the church communities is very evident in these two municipalities.”

“As I stated at our last Council meeting I have no problem in fowarding the SBWOG’s concerns on to our local MPP who was also in attendance,” said Delegarde. “During the question period following the movie, it was very evident that the Opposition Group still has many unanswered questions for the provincial government.”

According to Disheau, “people need to really educate themselves on the economics of this ‘Green Engery’. Every taxpayer should be aware of why they can’t afford to live in Ontario anymore.”

“This ‘Green Energy’ and the subsidies (wind, solar, bio) that go along with it will increase our hydro bills for the whole population,” said Disheau. “So this wind ‘farm’ may not be in Morrisburg or Iroquois, but you will be dearly paying for it and, yes, you will see those from the St. Lawrence River. They are that big.”

According to Albers, the opposition group has retained a lawyer and is pursuing funding in an attempt to present their case before the Environmental Review Tribunal. Disheau added that SBWOG is now a “legitimate incorporated organization.”

As for where this ‘fight’ will lead, Disheau was very clear, “I will never give up,” she said, adding, “you have to have hope that everything you do will have an outcome and know that your efforts are not in vain.”

For those interested in the documentary, trailers and more information can be found on the official website at www.windfallthemovie.com. In addition, well-known film reviewer Roger Ebert has reviewed the film on his website, www.rogerebert.com.

The final 20 minutes of the film focus on the turbine-filled Tug Hill, New York where Israel and her crew stayed at the Flat Rock Inn for four days. According to Israel, “I was trying to show what it is like to live there and never see a view without turbines in it.”

“When you look out of any window in the Flat Rock Inn, you see turbines. When you look in the rear view mirror of your car, you see turbines. When you look at a reflection in a puddle, you see turbines. When I closed my eyes to go to sleep, I saw turbines spinning.”

“They’ve taken over the landscape,” she added.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Major Blow to Industrial Wind Turbine Development !!! Toronto Sun Article

John Miner, QMI Agency
First posted: | Updated:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/20/farm-group-calls-for-turbine-halt

LONDON, Ont. - In a major blow to Dalton McGuinty government’s controversial green energy plan, the largest farm lobby group in Ontario has pulled the plug on its support for wind turbines.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which represents 37,000 farm families, issued a call Friday for the province to suspend wind turbine development.

OFA President Mark Wales said industrial wind turbines have split rural communities, pitting neighbour against neighbour.

“The situation is untenable,” Wales said. “It is taking away from what farmers do best and that is grow food and create jobs.

“We need to slow this down and put some calm out there and then government needs to resolve the issues.”

Ontario Energy Minister Chris Bentley expressed dismay at the OFA stand, coming one month after the farm organization issued a news release backing green energy.

“I’m surprised and a little bit disappointed,” Bentley said.

“Thousands of farmers are already participating in green energy projects, including wind, and many more are looking to participate.”

Bentley said the province remains committed to green energy and is looking to strengthen it. More than 3,000 individuals and groups have submitted comments to the government, including many from the farming community, he said.

“We are taking a look at those and we are determined to get clean, renewable energy into the province of Ontario and secure the jobs that help Ontario serve the world with green energy,” Bentley said.
With hundreds of the giant turbines under construction, the Liberal government has come under intense criticism from rural groups for taking planning control away from rural municipalities.

Several Liberal MPPs, including former agriculture minister Carol Mitchell of Huron-Bruce, were defeated in rural ridings where turbines were being installed, helping to deprive the Liberals of a third straight majority government in last May’s election. The environment minister, John Wilkinson, was also defeated.

In its position released Friday, the OFA listed issues its says need to be resolved before further wind turbine development is allowed. Among them were planning control of the projects needs to be returned to municipalities, the province must address health and nuisance complaints of rural residents, and a cap on the price paid for renewable energy at the peak price that will be paid for imports six years in the future.

Wales said technical solutions also need to be found before further development, such as how to store energy from wind turbines when it’s produced but isn’t needed.

Selling such energy to other jurisdictions at a loss just isn’t good economics, he said.
Jane Wilson, president of the anti-wind turbine coalition Wind Concerns Ontario, called the OFA move surprising and gratifying.

Wilson said the OFA, with its clout, will provide a boost to the coalition’s campaign.

“A lot of rural communities are being just ripped apart by this issue,” said Wilson, adding it indicates the new OFA executive is listening to its farm members.

But Jutta Splettstoesser, a Kincardine-area farmer and president of Friends of Wind Ontario, said she was shocked to read the OFA position.

“It was full of unfactual statements ... I’m so disappointed,” she said.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Ontario homeowners challenge wind farm with lawsuit - Ottawa Citizen Article

Sale of million-dollar home stalled, couple says, because of proposed wind farm next-door

By Lee Greenberg, The Ottawa Citizen January 18, 2012

TORONTO — The fight against wind power in Ontario is now formally pitting neighbour against neighbour following the announcement Wednesday by a couple that they are suing a nearby farmer who is proposing to host a half-dozen turbines on his land.

John and Sylvia Wiggins, 80 and 78, say they have been unable to sell their rural home in Stayner, about two hours’ drive northwest of Toronto, because of the proposed development. None of the allegations has been proven in court.

Their 1860 farmhouse, which sits on 48 acres of land and includes a horse stable, was listed at $1.15 million when it went on the market in June. It attracted intense interest for two weeks, until the proposed wind development was announced, says John Wiggins.

The wind farm would put three massive turbines, stretching 146 meters into the sky, as close as 550 meters to the Wiggins property. Three additional turbines would be placed within one kilometre of the house.

Real estate agents are obliged to disclose the proposed changes to perspective buyers.

The news killed all interest in the sale of his home, he says.

“Everyone is in a holding pattern,” says Wiggins’s real estate agent, Anita Lauer. ”They’re going to wait and see what happens.”

Wiggins says he feels he has “no choice” but to include Beattie Brothers Farms Limited, the landowners involved in the new project, in his $3.5-million lawsuit.

“We have a huge investment and certainly going into retirement we depend on that investment,” he said at a Toronto press conference Wednesday. “And all of a sudden we were losing a great share of that investment … Inasmuch as the landowner made the agreement with the wind turbine company, we feel they’re just as responsible. They knew, both parties knew at the time they made that agreement, that it would be detrimental to any property nearby, ours being the closest.”

Les Beattie, a cash crop farmer who owns the land in question, denies that the turbines have a big effect on rural property values.

“Any of the places where they’ve put them up it has not shown a devalue to the farms,” he said in an interview. “That’s what the bankers tell us. If there were some beside us, it wouldn’t affect our land value.”

The Wigginses bought their Stayner home, in an increasingly popular area with Toronto cottagers, in 2006.

The two families don’t know each other, according to Beattie.

The Wiggins case is one of roughly a dozen challenges to Ontario’s Green Energy Act. Many are led by lawyer Eric Gillespie with the involvement of Wind Concerns Ontario.

So far, the challenges have failed.

Gillespie says this latest case will be different because it will focus on property values, rather than the adverse health effects he says are caused by wind turbines.

He says it is also the first time a landowner has been named in such a civil suit.

The Toronto lawyer acknowledges the suit could have a chilling impact on landowners looking to strike lease arrangements with wind developers.

“It is certainly possible that it may,” he said. “It will be a matter of time before we know.”

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Ontario+homeowners+challenge+wind+farm+with+lawsuit/6015947/story.html

Monday, January 16, 2012

Letter to the Millbrook Times From Eva

We just celebrated beginning of the year 2012; it will be an eventful one and a difficult one as well because rural Ontarians have to defend their land from construction of the provincial government sponsored wind turbines which will turn the province into an industrial service corridor.


Here is a very simple, abbreviated reminder of what we will be dealing with.

Wind turbines, solar farms – fashion of the day, symbols of green and sustainable development. They are supposed to, magically, reduce CO2 emission (zero carbon?), keep global temperatures down, lower sea levels, and save polar bears from extinction – will they?

Each wind turbine requires 14 meters ( 30 feet ) deep foundation of 1000 metric tons of poured in concrete. To produce concrete, the limestone has to be heated to 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit using fossil fuels; to produce 1 ton of cement nearly

1 ton of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere where it traps heat, contributing to global warming. So each foundation is responsible for release of

1000 tons of CO2. Being so deep, some of them might affect ground water.

In addition to cement there is steel (335 tons), production of which generates vast amount of CO2 as well. There is copper (4.7 tons), mining of which pollutes water;

3 tons of aluminum (very high energy output for production); 2 tons of rare earth materials extraction of which creates enormous toxic and radioactive waste.

The footprint on the Earth in terms of energy use for installation and operation of each turbine is 20 years while the lifespan of one turbine is 20 years as well.

500 feet tall IWTs (Industrial Wind Turbines) produce power intermittently, often not at all, and rarely above 20% of the rated capacity. Therefore, fossil fuels back-up power stations are needed to avoid black-outs. In Europe, where wind farms exist for quite a few years, the CO2 emission went up 2%.

Each turbine requires 400 – 500 gallons of oil per year for maintenance. Oil spills and pollutes ground water.

There are access roads, masts, pylons and wires; all construction done by diesel guzzling heavy machinery.

10,000 turbines are planned for the province of Ontario.

There were cases when IWTs collapsed sending debris long distance, all over the landscape. They also catch fire which has to be let burn down since the firefighters do not have ladders long enough … What will happen in case of hurricane or tornado?

Most of the existing and proposed wind farms are or will be located in the world’s wildest, most beautiful and most untouched landscapes – deserts, moors, mountain tops and uplands, where the roads have to be built which means clear cutting large forest areas and destroying the environment. They are also located near bird sanctuaries and on migratory bird routes. Birds are being shredded by thousands by those enormous blades. The latest in the USA: the Federal government is proposing to grant a permit that would allow the developer of a central Oregon wind-power project to legally kill protected golden eagles (ironically, symbol of the country)

Wherever the IWTs are, most of the wildlife is gone and there are not that many places left where the remaining animals could survive.

They are located in the seas, oceans, lakes and rivers.

They are located in rural areas, right next to the houses.

People living in the vicinity of turbines complain of serious health problems but so far nobody, nowhere conducted thorough health studies to this effect.

Many worry about 40% - 50% property value drop in the areas of turbines; very often, those properties are all they have, lifetime investment…

Some have to abandon their houses.

The wind farms have really nothing to do with saving this Planet. It is a huge and profitable business, for the time being. Transalta (Alberta Tar Sands) is the largest owner and operator of IWTs in Canada; developers of nuclear power plants (Nextera, Samsung, Iberdrola, Exelon, First Energy, NRG, Xcel) are big players in the wind turbines plants and use government subsidies allocated for “wind development” to reduce their taxes.

As mentioned before – the lifespan of a turbine is 20 years, then what? Removal of a single, above the ground structure would cost $250,000 in today’s dollars – who will pay? They will be most probably abandoned, some of them already are.

The blades, each the length of the Boeing 747 are not recyclable and will remain at the site or in landfills for ever (Denmark is having a serious problem with decommissioned turbines). Concrete foundations will never be removed.

How “green” all these is?

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

World Health Organization - Wind Turbine "Annoyance" is a Negative Health Effect

Wrecking our heaven’


By Tori Stafford/The Whig-Standard
Updated 1 day ago

Notes from this article:

- "the World Health Organization as having defined "annoyance" as being a health effect."

- "sounds from wind turbines can cause annoyance and stress. This fact, Krogh said, has been acknowledged by the Canadian Wind Energy Association's president, Robert Hornung."




A dull buzz filled the small gymnasium of Amherst Island Public School on Sunday afternoon as more than 50 people gathered there to hear Carmen Krogh discuss the negative health impacts of wind turbines.

Krogh, a retired pharmacist who has held senior positions at a major teaching hospital and Health Canada, has spent much of the past three years volunteering her services to researching the health effects of living near industrial wind turbines. She is currently conducting Wind Vigilance for Ontario Communities, a self-reporting health survey, and she has formed the support network VOW, which stands for Victims of Wind.

In those three years, Krogh has met with and followed up with many of those in Ontario, as well as internationally, who claim to be suffering health issues caused by wind turbines.

Those in attendance at the information session came from across Amherst Island, where a 33-turbine wind farm has been proposed by developer Algonquin Power. The audience also included a number of Wolfe Island residents, who came to learn more about health effects from turbines, and to share their own experiences since the island is home to 86 turbines.

Krogh gave a Power Point presentation of slides, all looking at health definitions from agencies like Health Canada and the World Health Organization. The slides also gave information from a number of tribunals looking into the health effects of wind turbines across the country.

The underlying message of the presentation came down to the fact that, while the reporting of symptoms from those living in close proximity to windmills cannot be denied, it is still unknown what the mechanism is that causes the symptoms.

Krogh cited the World Health Organization as having defined "annoyance" as being a health effect.

"Clinically speaking," Krogh said, "the body responds to annoyance."

According to the American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association's joint panel review, Krogh said, sounds from wind turbines can cause annoyance and stress. This fact, Krogh said, has been acknowledged by the Canadian Wind Energy Association's president, Robert Hornung.

Krogh also cited the recent Wind Turbine Noise Conference held in April 2011 in Rome, and some findings from renowned acoustician, Dr. Bennett Leventhal.

Krogh reported that Leventhal found the noise annoyance caused by wind turbines can lead to sleep deprivation, memory and cognitive issues, vertigo and dizziness, and, finally, heart issues like rapid heart rate.
Krogh said there is not much known on why this happens, noting the symptoms could be physiological, psychological or both.

"Regardless of the mechanism (that causes the symptoms), it's still significant," Krogh said.

"Whether it's one or the other is not significant."

Krogh also cited her own anecdotal evidence, collected from people in areas where wind farms have been built.

Krogh discussed reports of headaches, sleep disturbance and driving difficulties close to turbines, and those that the "whooshing" amplitude modulation is actually louder inside a house than outside. The latter, Krogh said, caused one family to actually pitch a tent on their front lawn to avoid the annoying sounds.

But it was Krogh's story of a family who lived close to the Ripley Wind Power Projects in Huron-Kinloss Township in Bruce County, Ont., that surprised attendees most.

Krogh said the family was forced to move when a female member of the family, pregnant at the time, was told to do so by her doctor. According to Krogh, the woman had experienced several close calls with miscarriages, and her doctor felt it was best for her to leave the area.

This story drew gasps and disgusted sighs from the crowd, just before a lively question and answer period.

One Amherst Island resident asked Krogh what should be done from a health perspective before the turbines are erected. Following Krogh's response of at least getting a baseline physical done beforehand so you have something to compare to, a distraught Wolfe Island resident took the microphone.

After introducing herself, Janet White offered up her personal experience.

White expressed that she and her family had taken the steps Krogh suggested, but that it was of little assistance, as there are currently no studies being done on how the turbines are affecting Wolfe Islanders' health.

"We always talk about minimum set-backs of 550 metres. In our case, our neighbour's closest turbine is about 980 metres away, but what's overlooked is the fact that within two kilometres of that, we're surrounded by 32," White said.

"We're not just dealing with the closest one, we're dealing with the fact that we're completely surrounded and flanked by turbines."

White expressed concern for her two young children, and not knowing how their health was being impacted.

"We are lab rats in this green experiment, and nobody is studying my children. Nobody," a passionate White said.

"I'm very, very offended by our government's stance on this."

Krogh expressed sympathy for White's situation, and explained that one issue with studying adverse health effects is that of ethics. In order to study the impact, the subject would have to remain in their home, raising the ethical issue of risking further health effects.

White issued an appeal to Amherst Island residents just before the session came to an end.

"We need a champion that's going to step up there and speak loud and clear," White said, noting the Ontario government needs to address the concerns of those in the communities affected by approved wind farms.

"They don't care about us — they want to play the odds that we'll just go if we don't like it, that we'll just disappear somehow, and they'll be left here with all this prime real estate, and some old windmills.

"They'll have all of our land — All that land and property that you spent your whole lifetime to buy or to build so that you could have your final days in heaven," White continued.

"They're wrecking our heaven. Don't let them do it."



Friday, January 6, 2012

Opposition to MOE wind turbine study mounts

ENVIRONMENT: Lawyer says full information not provided

By Ellwood Shreve

Posted 9 hours ago
The Daily News - Chatham
 
The lawyer, who represented local appellants in the first Environmental Review Tribunal involving a wind farm, is disputing a study that concludes there are no direct health effects from wind turbines.

Eric Gillespie has sent a 12-page letter to the Minister of Environment, along with Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and Minster of Energy, on behalf of Wind Concerns Ontario, stating the study, released in mid-December by the MOE, does not provide full information on industrial wind turbines and health problems.

"If somebody just read the press release that came from the MOE, one might come to the conclusion that there's no reason to have any concerns about wind turbines," Gillespie said.

He points to expert testimony and evidence presented during last year's Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT), concerning the Kent Breeze Wind Project near Thamesville, held in Chatham, which says there are direct negative health impacts from the noise created by wind turbines.

Gillespie said the purpose of the letter is to document the fact there are widespread concerns both in peer reviewed published literature, and in the evidence and findings of the ERT.

"The tribunal ruling clearly is having a very widespread impact," he said. "It was the first recognition by an Ontario government body that industrial wind turbines can, in fact, cause harm to human health."

When asked if he expected that the MOE's study would have examined the ERT, Gillespie said it came as a real "surprise" to many people that the MOE didn't consider the findings of the ERT, "as part of moving forward on this issue."

Kate Jordan, MOE spokesperson, responded by e-mail that the ERT upheld the ministry's approval of the wind farm and ruled that the project can operate in a way that is fully protective of human health and the surrounding community.

"The ERT also recognized that Ontario's approach to setting standards for wind sound limits is consistent with not only the best available science on this issue, but with protective standards set by the World Health Organization," she said.

Jordan said the ERT ruled in favour of the government's protective renewable energy framework and the Ontario Superior Court also upheld the sound level and setback regulations Ontario has in place for wind turbines.

The low-frequency noise findings in the study were reviewed and validated by three independent experts in the field, she added.

Jordan said that while the study found the province's rules to control wind turbines noise are appropriate, it stated Ontario should continue to monitor technical developments and emerging regulatory policies introduced in other countries, with respect to low-frequency noise. She said the ministry is committed to doing this.

Hundreds of turbines are already operating around Ontario, but Gillespie said thousands more planned, adding it's important to many people to make sure future development respects some of the concerns that have surfaced.

Gillespie acknowledges the harm to human health caused by sounds emitted from wind turbines is "certainly not a universal phenomena," adding that many people living near don't have any problems.
Just like seasickness or motion sickness, not everybody is affected, he said.

However, Gillespie said the Australian government is acknowledging that some people do suffer adverse affects from wind turbines.

He said Australia is moving forward with a plan that would see "people who are adversely affected by the turbines having the option to relocate, but at the wind developer's expense."
eshreve@chathamdaillynews.ca
Twitter: DailyNewsES

TAG - Gillespie's full legal opinion is available at www.windconcernsontario.net. The MOE study is available at www.ene.gov.on.ca.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Wind Farms Blasted by Co-founder of Greenpeace

By Bob Boughner
Chatham News

Posted 12 hours ago

RIDGETOWN - Southwestern Ontario's flourishing wind energy industry came under fire Wednesday from the co-founder of Greenpeace.

Dr. Patrick Moore told more than 1,000 area farmers the industry destroys more jobs than it creates, and causes energy prices to climb for all users.

"The industry is a destroyer of wealth and negative to the economy,'' said Moore, speaking at the 19th annual Southwest Agricultural Conference at Ridgetown campus of the University of Guelph.

Moore, who now refers to himself as the "sensible environmentalist,'' said the solar bubble has burst and thinks the wind bubble is about to burst.

"I'm happy for the farmers who are receiving royalties for allowing the wind towers to be built on their farms,'' he said. "They deserve it - but the cost to consumers will continue to climb - partly because of rate increases and partly due to tax increases.''

Moore said there wouldn't be wind farms in southwestern Ontario if taxpayers weren't paying the bill.

"They are ridiculously expensive and don't work half the time,'' he said. "And no matter how many are built, they won't replace coal, gas or hydro or nuclear plants, because they are continuous and wind is not always reliable.''

Moore told his audience the wind energy industry in Spain has resulted in a 30% unemployment rate among people under the age of 30.

The speaker was also highly critical of the organization he co-founded, claiming it's counter-productive today from an environmental standpoint.

"The organization should at least base its positions on science,'' he said.

Moore said Greenpeace, launched in British Columbia, is now based in Europe. He spent 15 years with the organization chasing whaling boats, trying to stop the seal hunt, and protesting against hydrogen bomb testing.

He now serves as chair and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.

"I was against three or four things every day of my life for 15 years,'' he said. "I decided to become a sensible environmentalist and have spent the last 25 years doing just that.''

Moore described as "ridiculous,'' the claims by Greenpeace that chlorine is the devil's element and PVC is the poison plastic.

"Most of our medicines are based on chlorine,'' he said.

He blasted Greenpeace for opposing golden rice, which he said helps prevent blindness in as many as 500,000 children.

Moore took exception to the stance against salmon farming by both Greenpeace and Dr. David Suzuki.

"We have to recognize that poverty is the worst environmental problem today,'' he said.

bboughner@chathamdailynews.ca.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Niagara This Week Article - Residents demand more for turbines


Petition calls for 2km setbacks, full restitution of property value

When it comes to wind turbines, West Lincoln residents want more. Distance that is, between their homes and the massive, storeys-tall industrial wind turbines which are being proposed for their community.

John Dykstra and his wife Catherine Mitchell appeared before council Monday to talk about setbacks. Under provincial regulations, the minimum setback required for industrial wind turbines is 550 metres plus a maximum noise level of 40 decibels, a distance they argue is nowhere near enough.

“The computer used to establish Ontario’s wind turbine noise limits and safe setback distances was found to be flawed and inadequate,” Dykstra said during his presentation Monday. “Property owners who complained about noise and health issues and threatened legal action had the industrial wind turbine companies buy them out. These properties were then sold at a loss with a long list of disclaimers acknowledging that the wind turbine facilities may affect the buyer’s living environment.”

And so, Dykstra and Mitchell made two demands, backed by the signatures of more than 250 others in their rural community: a two kilometre setback from homes and 100 per cent restitution for property values.

The turbines proposed by Niagara Region Wind Corporation, which was approved under the province’s Green Energy Act to build a 230 megaWatt wind turbine farm in the West Lincoln area, are 179 metres high and, argued Mitchell, produce more low frequency sound. According to a Danish study, which Mitchell read from Monday, for a three MW turbine to remain within the 40 decibels noise levels, they would have to be installed at least 2,100 metres away from the nearest receptor.

“You can create any act that you want to, but you cannot take away the democratic rights of the people of this community,” Mitchell said of the Green Energy Act, which took decision-making powers away from local communities. “As taxpayers of the Township of West Lincoln, we are asking that our legal rights be respected and protected.”

Mitchell argued that governments, boards and agencies have a legal obligation in reviewing applications and making decisions to require and ensure that there will be no adverse effects and negative impacts on the health, safety, quality of life and well being of citizens, properties and the environment.

Turbines, said Dykstra, have been documented to have caused adverse effects — which by definition range from causing injury or damage to property or plant/animal life and causing harm or discomfort to people to causing health effects and impairing safety — in communities which already have turbines spinning power.

“Since no comprehensive, independent and peer-reviewed scientific study has been completed by the provincial government to determine that industrial wind turbine projects do not pose a risk to the community, the health of its citizens, property values and the rural environment, we are asking for a two kilometre set back from our residences and 100 per cent restitution of our property values,” Mitchell said in conclusion. “We want a legal guarantee that we are not assuming an unfair financial burden for this initiative.”

Mitchell and Dykstra requested the township forward their petition on to the province and, if need be, the Supreme Court. Ald. Sue-Ellen Merritt said she would support forwarding the petition through the proper channels, the ministries of environment and energy, but nothing more. Ald. Joanne Chechalk suggested the residents also forward their petition to upper levels of government on their own.

“I think it’s important that you send them on ... so that they hear from the grassroots community the discomfort that you have.”

Under new business, the town’s chief executive officer provided council with a brief update on a different wind turbine project — the 10 MW HAF Wind Energy Project proposed by IPC Energy and Vineland Power for the Caistor Centre area. Derrick Thomson noted that the proponents have met with township staff and would be appearing before council in the new year to provide an update.

Following the update, Merritt expressed her frustration over the process.

“People come here to tell us that we have a legal responsibility ... the control has really been taken out of our hands. I don’t like to say that, but it’s a reality,” she said. “It’s a frustrating process for us also.”

The petition was filed for information and staff are to report back on the request in a timely matter.



.



Thursday, December 8, 2011

We Have Enough Electricity, We Don't Need More Wind Turbines

Here are some important comments from North Gower-based risk management consultant Dan Scharf:


"So today, in Ontario, we have 30 per cent more generating capacity than we have need for - Because of the downturn, we simply do not need [extra] electricity for at least four years," said North Gower-based risk management consultant Dan Scharf, who added Quebec has more than enough power to meet Ontario's current and future needs anyway.

"We have the world's largest supplier of hydroelectricity a couple of hundred miles down the road, willing to sell it to us at approximately five cents [per kilowatt hour], and we are not even entering into an agreement with them," Scharf remarked with a tone of outrage. "And if that's not enough, folks, if you happen to be on the west end of Ontario, Manitoba's building a whole bunch of hydro as well. So this country is flush with power. We don't need wind turbines."

He asserted that anyone who believes in wind projects to consider the question: "What happens in Ontario if we don't build even one more turbine, what happens to our province?

"Nothing. We get cheaper electricity. That's what happens," he declared.

Scharf's main presentation highlighted the alleged safety risks of those employed in the wind industry, holding down what he deemed "McWind" maintenance and "low-level assembly" jobs.

"They're putting kids through paid-for programs in college right now to go up and do cleaning on blades on a 600-foot tower. One more little thing. This is an industry with one of the worst occupational health and safety records," he said, alleging the issue is suppressed by the sector. "People who work on these things are typically not well-trained, and strangely enough, many of them fall, many of them get hurt, and even get electrocuted - and it's just not talked about. Health and safety in the industry.

By "any statistical measure," the nuclear industry has a better safety measure than wind, he said. "You cannot come close to the amount of people that get hurt in the wind industry - as a person working in a plant, I'd much rather work in a nuclear plant than work on a wind turbine because it's just a safer place to work.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Letter from Tim Hudak - Restoring local decision-making

Restoring local decision-making


By Tim Hudak, mpp Niagara West-Glanbrook

Letters

Dec 06, 2011

I’ve always believed in local decision making. Families, small businesses and local governments know what’s best for their communities and should have a say in what goes on within their own boundaries.

So much of what I do as your member of provincial parliament is guided by your advice and the personal stories and experiences I hear from you. There’s no better way to understand how government policies are affecting families and businesses than hearing it first hand.

That was one of the reasons I continue to vigorously oppose the McGuinty government’s Green Energy Act. The Act effectively removed all local control over renewable energy projects, allowing industrial wind farms– some the height of 40-storey buildings– to be placed like pins in a pin cushion in communities without the approval of local councils or residents.

There are two such wind projects planned for West Lincoln and Wainfleet, one of which will be the largest wind farm in all of Canada. Despite strenuous objections from local families and municipal councils, those plans continue to plough ahead.

To date, 79 municipalities across Ontario– including West Lincoln and Wainfleet– have passed resolutions or moratoriums opposing wind farm projects in their communities. Our Ontario PC Caucus attempted to do the same in the Ontario Legislature in April 2010, but sadly our efforts were defeated.

To me it makes no sense that you have a say in where a local hot dog stand or Tim Hortons goes in your neighbourhood but not 40-storey industrial wind turbines. It’s a right our Ontario PC Party campaigned on restoring, and we continue to fight on your behalf to give you a voice.

I was pleased to join West Lincoln Mayor Doug Joyner and Wainfleet Mayor April Jeffs at a rally outside Queen’s Park recently in protest of these massive wind projects.

That same day, inside the Ontario Legislature, we debated a Private Member’s Bill called The Local Municipality Democracy Act, which was introduced by my Ontario PC Caucus colleague Todd Smith, MPP for Prince Edward-Hastings. The Bill would have ensured local families’ concerns on industrial wind farms were no longer ignored.

While I voted in favour, and my Ontario PC colleagues voted in favour, regrettably both the Liberal and NDP members chose to vote against letting local residents, businesses and municipal councils have a say in where these massive construction projects are located.

It wasn’t the first time our efforts to restore local decision making powers were thwarted in the Legislature, and it most certainly will not be the last time they hear from us on this issue.

The approach being taken today by the McGuinty government is arrogant. It’s unfair. It’s undemocratic. And we’re going to continue to fight to put a stop to it.

The Ontario PC Caucus will continue to be the voice of concerned communities until they once again have a say in what happens in their own neighbourhoods.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Toronto Star Article - Liberals’ green energy strategy blasted by auditor

(Finally, someone in power is stepping in to stop this incredibly expensive scam, that all residents of Ontario will be paying for).

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1097169

Robert Benzie and Rob Ferguson

Queen's Park Bureau

Haste makes waste.

Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals’ fast tracking of green energy projects will cost electricity ratepayers more money in the long run, says Auditor General Jim McCarter.

In his 460-page annual report to the Legislature released Monday, McCarter castigated policies that were a cornerstone of McGuinty’s re-election in the Oct. 6 vote, including Grit claims of 50,000 green jobs being created.

The auditor general found billions of dollars in solar and wind projects were approved without appropriate oversight, including and regulatory and planning procedures.

“While this helped these projects get off the ground quickly, their high cost will add significantly to ratepayers’ electricity bills in the future,” McCarter told reporters Monday.

He urged the government and its agency, the Ontario Power Authority, to conduct a “cost-benefit assessment of the progress made to date” in order to “strike an appropriated balance between the promotion of green energy and the price of electricity in Ontario.”

Hefty subsidies of cleanly generated power have helped McGuinty’s government create 20,000 jobs in the sector with another 30,000 expected by the end of next year.

Of those 50,000 posts, however, the auditor general concluded 30,000 are likely to be short-term construction jobs.

“A majority of the jobs will be temporary. The 50,000-job projection included new jobs but not those jobs that would be lost as a result of promoting renewable energy,” the report said.

As well, McCarter found the feed-in tariff program (FIT), which pays a premium to generators of green electricity, will add $220 million a year to hydro bills.

The controversial Samsung deal, which will pay the South Korean consortium $110 million over 20 years over and above the already hefty FIT premium in exchange for $7 billion in investment, was done with “no formal economic analysis … to determine whether the deal was prudent.”

“Neither the OEB (Ontario Energy Board) nor the OPA was consulted about the agreement,” the report said.

“We noted that the normal due diligence process for an expenditure of this magnitude had not been followed,” the auditors noted.

“We expected but did not find that a comprehensive and detailed economic analysis or business case had been prepared.”

On the debt-retirement charge ratepayers have been forking over on their electricity bills to cover the old Ontario Hydro’s residual stranded debt since 2002, McCarter said the government needs to come clean on how much is still owed given that $8.7 billion has already been collected on an original amount owing of $7.8 billion.

The provincial Electricity Act requires the government to reveal the debt from “time to time” and that time is now, McCarter urged.

“The minister (of finance) should make a formal determination of the residual stranded debt in the near future and make this determination public.”

The debt charge was an issue in the recent election with Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak claiming the debt has been retired and promising to take it off hydro bills.

But the finance ministry said in its response to the auditor general that it estimates the debt retirement charge must remain in place until “sometime between” 2015 and 2018.

It’s hard to pin down the amount left because the calculation includes forecasting future revenues from Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One, whose profits have been “lower than expected” by factors such as cost overruns on OPG’s massive Niagara tunnel project to create more hydroelectric power from the famous falls.

Kerry Adler, chief executive of solar energy company SkyPower Ltd., said the auditor-general’s analysis was too narrowly focused on dollars and cents, and not on the health benefits of renewable power.
“The auditor-general may be looking at the price of electricity, but is he looking at the savings of lives, and health savings, as a result of shutting those coal plants? I’m not sure he has,” he said.
Adler said that while renewables have received policy support, they’ve created new jobs in the province. He compared that with the province loaning millions of dollars of support to the automotive companies to preserve manufacturing jobs.

Kristopher Stevens of the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association said the auditor-general should have compared the price of renewables with the price of competing forms of energy going forward.

The cost of new and refurbished nuclear plants is still unknown, he said. And the cost of natural gas, which is also used to fuel power plants, can be volatile.

With files from John Spears

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Funny Article

( I came across this article which I found quite amusing. I've put the funnier parts in italics and added some comments in brackets. I'm glad I don't have to write for the pro wind industry )

Wind Turbines and Health

december 03, 2011

When I became the acting medical officer of health for Chatham-Kent, little did I know that I would be swept headlong into controversy about harnessing the wind energy right here in our backyard.
Wind Turbines and Health
Three years ago, I was asked to help make sense of the conflicting information the local council was receiving about the effects of wind turbines on human health.

I researched the topic extensively and found no scientifically credible evidence that wind turbines eroded human health. I was then asked to produce a more extensive report that was issued by the Chatham-Kent Health Unit. Since then I have been asked to speak on a number of occasions about wind turbines and health, and I have collaborated on an international panel review on the topic with some of the biggest names in audiology and occupational health.

It is admittedly a complicated topic that has been made more complicated by the huge amount of misinformation that has been circulated. Wind turbines do not produce unique sounds in terms of intensity or characteristics. The sound intensity is virtually the same as what is found in normal urban environments. (The turbines are being placed in rural areas, not urban areas or towns, that's why we choose to live out here, to get away from noise! And tell me what hums and makes whoosh whoosh whoosh sounds non stop for twenty years ?)
 
There is also no convincing scientific evidence of an epidemiologic link between wind farm sound exposure and health problems. (However there are many indirect health problems and consequences, including stress and anxiety).
 
 However, a very small number of people believe otherwise; they've attributed illnesses of all kinds to wind turbines. There is no doubt that some people find the low level swishswish sound of wind turbines annoying. And these people claim that annoyance itself is a health effect, since annoyance can lead to stress and too much stress is bad. (That's what we have been saying ! Stress and anxiety is a contribiting factor to the health and well being of all persons ! Do we not have the right to good health?)
 
However, by such criteria, living anywhere in a town or city is a threat to health. (Turbines are being placed in rural residental areas, not in towns or cities. What man made threats to health are there if you currently live are in the countryside ?).

Wind power opponents continue to make claims about sickness caused by turbines, which they call "industrial" wind turbines, as that sounds more threatening. ( Sorry but a structure that is 40 storeys high with blades having the wing span of a 747 jet, making non-stop noises is "industrial". If you have you been to Wolfe Island, you will see that the farm fields have  been turned into an Industrial nightmare. )
 
However, 10 reviews, including reviews by Ontario's chief medical health officer, the Australian government, the Sierra Club and McMaster University have confirmed that there is no evidence of direct adverse health effects from wind turbines (sure the towers and blades may not fall on your head, but ask them about indirect health affects such as stress) when sited to comply with Ontario's noise regulations.
 
Furthermore, all the power generation alternatives except solarenergy are clearly worse than wind turbines in terms of health and environmental effects. That's especially true of coal-fired generating stations. According to a study prepared for the Ontario government, coal plants cause nearly 250 deaths and more than 120,000 illnesses (such as asthma attacks) each year in the province. (Yes, but you cannot can't stop the majority of coal generated smoke from the US from blowing into Ontario !).
 
So while I am sympathetic to concerns raised by local residents and agree that any projects must be sited in a way that minimizes impact on local residents, (well this is nice to hear) when it comes to energy choices for healthy communities, I am confident that we shouldn't be tilting at windmills. (Hyprocritical - you cannot call these windmills, they are wind turbines. Windmills are the historic pretty structures found in farmlands in Holland. Don't confuse the two.)

Dr. W. David Colby is acting medical officer of health in Chatham-Kent, and associate professor at the University of Western Ontario's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry.

IPPSO FACTO (Magazine of the Association of Power Producers of Ontario). November 2011, Volume 25, Number 5

By Dr. W. David Colby, www.awea.org/

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Queens Park Rally / Protest - Thursday December 1 at 12 Noon

There will be a rally/protest for outside of Queen’s Park on the same day as the PC private member’s motion regarding the return of power to municipalities to be put forward on Thursday Dec. 1st.

Please arrive at Queen’s Park for close to 12:00 noon. Eric Gillespie and others will be speaking. A number of PC representatives will be out to support the rally at 1:30. It’s important that you come and support the effort the PCs will put forward on your behalf in the afternoon.


Those who are interested in attending the presentation of the motion in the gallery can do so at 2:30. Let’s make some noise outside and then sit quietly while the PCs take a turn at making noise inside!

You may need to prearrange for a security pass for the gallery. Please send a note to Shawn to arrange for a security pass: sdrennan@hurontel.on.ca

Those who would prefer to keep vigil with signs outside are welcome to do that as well.

Rural Ontario sent a clear message at election time! Don’t let up now. Make time to come and make sure all know that we will continue to stand up for our health, homes and community!

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

McGuinty to listen on Tory MPP's wind farm bill - Canadian Press

The Canadian Press
Date: Monday Nov. 28, 2011 4:46 PM ET

TORONTO — Premier Dalton McGuinty is promising to listen to a Progressive Conservative who wants to restore local powers to oppose green energy projects.

Tory Todd Smith has introduced a private member's bill that would give municipalities more say over new wind and solar projects.

He says many of the projects are being built over the objections of local residents.

McGuinty says he'll listen to see if there's anything his government can do to strengthen the program and ensure that communities feel they have a real say.

But he says it will also be very challenging to secure international investment if every Ontario community has different rules on green energy projects.

Smith says the bill would remove a section of the Green Energy Act that stripped municipalities of their decision-making powers.

He says he's hoping the New Democrats and some Liberals will support the bill, because many of the municipalities they represent are clamouring for the change.

Even if both opposition parties support the bill, it may never become law.

The minority Liberals still control which bills come up for third and final reading, and may decide to block it even if it passes second reading.