Enercon E-101 Turbines – Higher Sound Power Levels – Proof to MOE

Incomplete Response – EBR #012-0613
By Bonnie Tuson
 (documents following the letter)
Ms. Garcia-Wright,
Regrettably, I find myself in the position of having to write back yet again.  That is because most of the questions I asked in my email of January 8, 2013 were not addressed in your response to me (attached).  I have my also attached my email to you for you to re-read and consider as I am still expecting a response to those questions.
Specifically, I ask for an explanation regarding your earlier correspondence in which you indicated that the MOE would not be considering the documents sent to you regarding other wind developments that show a higher sound power level than what has been reported by the Niagara Region Wind Corporation (NRWC).  You stated that there are differences and I asked for an explanation as to what those differences are.  Neither of those questions was answered.  I also asked whether the MOE would also be dismissing the additional documents showing evidence of the higher sound power level as well but that was not answered either.
In your most recent letter (also attached), you indicate that the MOE requires the sound power levels be guaranteed by the manufacturer and that they be included in the Noise Study Report.  There is no such guarantee in this application yet the MOE saw fit to deem it complete.  Why is that?   We have provided you with a variety of documentation from other wind developments using this particular wind turbine as well as a document from Enercon itself demonstrating the higher sound power level. That Enercon documentation is not included in the NRWC application so I question how you can state that the MOE requires that it be included.  Clearly you did not require that.  Please provide an explanation for this oversight.  It seems very odd that the Enercon documentation that you claim you require is provided to you by residents of this community rather than the company making the application.
The only documentation in the NRWC report is for a 99m wind turbine which as you know, is much smaller than the wind turbine that is actually proposed for use.  In countless instances throughout the reports, the NRWC references wind turbines of 124m and 135m reports so I fail to understand why the height is not confirmed until the technical review.  Clearly, this presents a significant gap and I require an explanation as to why the MOE would choose to accept the application as complete.
You are already in receipt of 16 documents indicating that the sound power level of the Enercon E-101 is 106 dBA.  Recently, a resident of our community obtained the attached 4 documents directly from Enercon.  These documents once again raise the question of why the NRWC reports only a sound power level of 104.8.  The test report completed by Kotter Engineering Consultants does not represent the worst case scenario that is required by your ministry.   Regulations require that the 104.8 rating be rounded to 105.0 which is the nearest whole number and then the variance of +/-1 must be applied. Enercon’s own documents support that conclusion.  As mentioned in previous correspondence, research by residents of this community showed that only the NRWC claims that the sound power level is lower.   We found absolutely no data to support that claim.  NRWC reports show that even at 104.8, there are at least 10 non-participating receptors that will be subjected to a noise level of 40 dBA.  At the true sound power level of 106.0, there will be many receptors in excess of the permissible limits.  I would also like to point out that in a letter to a resident of this community, Mr. Steve Klose advised that the sound power level is an inherent property of a wind turbine.  It does not change.
Suspiciously, the NRWC application did not include the conversion sheet for wind turbines of the height that they propose to use nor did they include the attached Enercon data sheet for the E101.  The conversion sheet provided by Enercon shows that the 104.8 sound power level is achieved at only 2,859kw which of course, begs the question of what the power level is at 3 MW.  Also missing was the data sheet provided by Enercon that shows the reduced rated power modes for the E-101.  It clearly shows that at reduced power levels, the company cannot meet the 230 MW contract.  These documents are readily available from Enercon and MOE must explore the reasons that the NRWC did not include them.
You also failed to address my questions regarding the 3dBA variance.  Please review my earlier questions and supply an explanation.
My question regarding the claim of a 104.8 sound power level and the regulations requiring that it be rounded to the closest number was also not addressed.  Please provide an answer to that as well.
I appreciate that you have forwarded the German court case to Mr. Klose.  I will be expecting a reply from him.  As you may or may not know, Enercon is in the process of determining how to adapt their turbines based on this decision.
I am appalled and frightened at your statement that REA applications are “usually” conditional to an acoustic audit after the facility is constructed.  You indicate that the sound power levels will be checked post-construction to determine if they were suitable.  Is that not akin to “closing the barn door after the horse has bolted?”  Your comments in this regard do not support the MOE’s claims that applications are diligently reviewed to ensure that the health of Ontarian citizens is protected.   The MOE’s rather lackadaisical approach to approving is evidenced by testimony at several recent Environmental Review Tribunal(ERT) hearings.  At the recent ERT hearing for Armow Wind, one of your own supervisors (Heather Pollard) confirmed that the MOE has no expertise with health effects, that hundreds of noise complaints for wind developments in the area have been received and that the MOE does not shut down wind turbines in excess of the permissible limits following the acoustic audits you speak of.  At the ERT hearing for Wainfleet Wind Energy yesterday, another of your supervisors (Vic Shroeter) confirmed that in the absence of expertise regarding parachuting, he chose to approve the application. I’m sure you can understand why the public has no faith in the MOE’s claims of diligence or in the acoustic audits that you may or may not conduct post-construction.  Once again, I will remind you that Ontario has no experience with 3MW wind turbines and it is incumbent upon you to take any and all precautions with this application prior to approval.  That includes careful consideration of the documents supplied to you in respect of the other wind developments that utilize this size and type of wind turbine.
Please get back to me on both the questions that have not been answered as well as on the new questions and concerns raised.
Thank you.
Bonnie Tuson


Letter Response_Ms. Bonnie Tuson_Dated January 23, 2014 (2)

E-101 OM I KCE 213121-02.01_english_Extract (6)

E-101 OM I KCE 213121-02-02_english 135m

SIAS-04-SPL E-101 OM I 3050 kW Rev1_3-eng-eng (2)

SIAS-04-SPL E-101 Red Rev1_2-eng-eng (4)


Bavaria, Germany Will Set New Distance Rule For Wind Turbines 10xH

28.01.2014 11:59 Uhr 28/01/2014 11:59 clock

Distance control for wind turbines: Stage win for Seehofer

Von Moritz Kircher From Moritz Kircher

Munich. Prime Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) has reached an important stage victory in the battle for wind power in Bavaria. He had long been advocating that the distances between establishments and residential areas are enlarged. Until the 9th April,  the federal government wants to present a bill that makes this possible.  A further expansion in Bavaria is thus considerably more difficult.

Ministerprdent Bavaria Horst Seehofer (CSU) has prevailed with the distance control for wind turbines. Photo: AP + +

 Ministerprdent Bavaria Horst Seehofer (CSU) has prevailed with the distance control for wind turbines. Foto: dpa Photo: AP

With the so-called countries in the Building Code clause the provinces should be given the opportunity to decide their own distance control for wind turbines. If it goes to Seehofer, the distance between the wind turbine and residential building is to be set at ten times the height of the plant. That would be about two kilometres in modern wind turbines.

Critics of the height-related distance usually seen in the end for the expansion of wind power in Bavaria.  In the past three years, regional plans have been developed in which priority areas for wind turbines are reported.  After courier information from the 18 regional planning organizations Bavaria remain from these surfaces almost nothing left, should the distance rule actually happen as planned by the prime minister.

It is still unclear whether exceptions to the distance control will be possible. Seehofer had repeatedly indicated to make this possible if all citizens are agreed locally, plans to build wind turbines.

Article from Germany here.

Protesters must be right to right wrongs

Brian MacLeod  January 23, 2014 Sudbury Star

PSSSTTTT Read the comments following the article.  Notice how the citizens are far more knowledgeable and enlightened in regards to a certain celebrity than the dumbed down media.

In the late 1980s, Lois Gibbs — who had played a leadership role in forcing a government cleanup of the Love Canal chemical mess in Niagara Falls, N.Y., a decade earlier — gave some advice to a fledgling protest group in Acton that was fighting a move to use a local quarry as a dump for Toronto’s garbage.

Have your science in order, she told them, but don’t depend on it. Make political activism your most important tool. You must embarrass the government politically. You must make politicians uncomfortable in their seats, and you must be impossible to ignore. Once you have the ears of the people, you’ll have the ears of the lawmakers. Then, show them your science.

Gibbs used a photograph of a toilet overflowing with effluent as an indelible image. Then, protesters began showing up at events with toilet seats around their heads wherever politicians were present.

Her group’s efforts were so successful it led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund.

Gibbs was a young mother trying to protect her family. She had credibility, which is the currency of good protesters

Read the rest of the article here.

Divisional Court January 23, 2014

Cheryl Anderson

This report only deals with the first part of the day today.  The PECFN counter appeals and cross appeals and the intervener South Shore Conservancy was completed in the late morning and the afternoon was devoted to the APPEC appeal.  Your PECFN contingent wended their weary way home after lunch.

Chris Paliere, legal representative for the SSC spoke first.   Mr. Paliere gave a succinct and direct analysis of the legal issues SSC has with the ERT ruling.  Pointing out that in order for the endangered species permit to be granted expertise should be expected from the MNR.  Mr Paliere asserted that there was no evidence that the permit granting was anything more than a paper process.  The Tribunal had the expertise to interpret broad undefined terms in the Green Energy Act and the Renewable Energy Approval.  The Tribunal therefore was correct in only considering that the ESA permit was in effect.  Therefore the conclusions reached by the Tribunal must be accepted.

This argument was countered by Mr. Wayland (correct spelling this time) and Mr. Hamilton for Gilead.  The arguments centre on whether the ESA permit to kill harm and harass supersedes the Renewable Energy Approval of the project.  In other words, the ERT cannot deny the project because the ESA permit is in place – and since the MNR has given permission to kill harm and harass endangered species then the ERT cannot find serious and irreversible harm to a species.  Mr. Paliere was adamant that there are two separate issues and that the situation amounted to “poly-centric decision making”.

The PECFN cross appeal dealing with our contention that the ERT did not properly consider the evidence showing serious and irreversible harm to the Birds and Alvar was begun by Natalie Smith, who presented the facts in the case.  Eric Gillespie carried on with the legal arguments.  There was a discussion started by Justice Nordheimer regarding the damage done to Alvar by the Department of National Defence use of the areas of the South Shore in the early 1950’s for munitions testing.  Eric’s assertion that the DND damage was minimal was countered by both Sylvia Davis for the MOE and Mr. Wayland for Gilead.  They were trying to say that the damage by the munitions testing was in some way analogous to the damage that would be caused by wind turbines and roads.  Following from the argument was the assumption that when the IWT’s were removed after twenty years the Alvar would regenerate similar to the regeneration after the munitions testing.

According to Eric’s submission, “in dealing with the issue of birds the Tribunal failed to provide and interpretation of scale”.  In other words if there are many birds of a species that is abundant on the site then chances are that there will not be serious and irreversible harm to that species.  However, if there is a bird or a few birds of an endangered species on the site then the chances of severe and irreversible harm to that species become greater.  The Tribunal ruled, in spite of excellent witness testimony to the contrary, that PECFN did not prove serious and irreversible harm to birds as a result of the IWT project.  Eric’s submission was that if the Tribunal had taken “scale” into consideration their decision would have been to deny the project on that basis.

As you can see these legal arguments can become complicated and sometimes are really best left to legal minds to interpret.  Suffice it to say that Eric and Natalie were pleased at the end of the day with the way their arguments were received by the Court.

We will have to wait to see if the Divisional Court will let the ERT ruling re: Blanding’s Turtles stand and if they will reverse the ERT ruling on the Birds and Alvar as requested by PECFN.

Thank you as always for your continuing support as we fight to save Ostrander Point.
Cheryl Anderson

Germany’s energy revolution on verge of collapse

Fred Pearce January 2014 New Scientist

Germany’s energy revolution has gone sour, as have its efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “Energiewende” policy aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2020, mostly by closing coal-fired power plants and boosting renewable energy. Yet in 2013, coal burning soared to its highest level for more than 20 years.

Then, last week, economy and energy minister Sigmar Gabriel said he will slash wind and solar subsidies by a third, to cut rising energy bills. Subsidies for renewables currently cost German consumers €23 billion a year.

Merkel is also shutting down Germany’s nuclear power plants, its largest source of low-carbon energy. This means emissions, which had fallen by 27 per cent by 2011, are now on the rise.

Germany’s energy revolution has gone sour, as have its efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “Energiewende” policy aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2020, mostly by closing coal-fired power plants and boosting renewable energy. Yet in 2013, coal burning soared to its highest level for more than 20 years.

Then, last week, economy and energy minister Sigmar Gabriel said he will slash wind and solar subsidies by a third, to cut rising energy bills. Subsidies for renewables currently cost German consumers €23 billion a year.

Merkel is also shutting down Germany’s nuclear power plants, its largest source of low-carbon energy. This means emissions, which had fallen by 27 per cent by 2011, are now on the rise.

Germany’s energy revolution has gone sour, as have its efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “Energiewende” policy aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2020, mostly by closing coal-fired power plants and boosting renewable energy. Yet in 2013, coal burning soared to its highest level for more than 20 years.

Then, last week, economy and energy minister Sigmar Gabriel said he will slash wind and solar subsidies by a third, to cut rising energy bills. Subsidies for renewables currently cost German consumers €23 billion a year.

Merkel is also shutting down Germany’s nuclear power plants, its largest source of low-carbon energy. This means emissions, which had fallen by 27 per cent by 2011, are now on the rise.

Read the rest of the article here.

Wainfleet mayor takes aim at rising hydro rates

Wainfleet Mayor April Jeffs Rob Houle January 21, 2014 St Catherine Standard

April Jeffs is ticked off at rising electricity rates.

The Wainfleet mayor asked fellow regional councillors Thursday to support her motion to ask Premier Kathleen Wynne to “take immediate action” to prevent rate hikes forecast to rise 42% over the next five years.

“I’m presenting this motion … more as a resident and small business owner,” Jeffs said after presenting her motion to council. “I do think it’s something we can all agree on, we’re already in a strained economy and these increases are negatively impacting our residents and businesses.

“With small to medium (sized) enterprises being the backbone of the province and comprising a large portion of Niagara businesses, it’s absolutely crucial that these rate increases stop.”

Read rest of article here.

Divisional Court January 22, 2014- Going Down a Rabbit Hole

Cheryl Anderson

Interested observers continued to give up their personal time to attend the Divisional Court hearing today.  About 40 people attended.  It is wonderful how many people have been willing to come from the County in the middle of the week to support PECFN.

Sitting in the Court one begins to wonder about the whole process.  PECFN is here to defend the decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal is not in Court.  The Ministry of Natural Resources is not in Court and yet the decision of that ministry to allow species at risk to be killed, harmed or harassed at Ostrander Point is being discussed at length.  The Tribunal was a creature of the MOE and yet the MOE trying to prove that the Tribunal made the wrong decision.  Shouldn’t the MOE be supporting its own creation?  Myrna asks “Are we going down the rabbit hole here?”

The Gilead and Ministry of Environment lawyers spent the morning discussing whether the Environmental Review Tribunal’s decision was in conflict with the Environmental Protection Act and why there was no evidence given about the numbers of Blanding’s turtles at Ostrander Point, the amount of vehicular traffic or the potential increase in vehicular traffic if the project is approved.  Throughout, the 9 turbine Industrial Wind Turbine project at Ostrander Point was described as a” Public Infrastructure Project”.  As you can imagine, this description made the majority of the observers gag!  The next topic was the suggestion that the Tribunal should have considered alternatives to the project – i.e. made a provision that the roads be closed to the public and offered to approve the project with that condition.   Again there was protracted discussion about the relationship between the ERT and the ESA permit issued by the MNR.

Eric Gillespie spent the afternoon responding to the arguments of the MOE and Gilead.  At this juncture we have to say a very special “Thank you” to Natalie Smith.  Natalie spent the fall analysing the ERT decision and preparing for the counter appeal by Gilead and the MOE.  She has been at Eric’s side throughout and provides the extra knowledge to make sure that we are successful in defending the appeal.

Justice Nordheim put a little wrinkle in the proceedings when he asked Eric to show him where in the ERT analysed the difference between “serious” and “irreversible”.  He wanted to be able to follow the ERT’s reasons for coming to the decision that the Gilead project would cause irreversible damage to the Blanding’s Turtles at Ostrander Point.  Of course, Eric and Natalie were able to find several instances in the decision that showed the analysis of the ERT and how they came to the decision to turn down the Gilead project.

The appeal continues tomorrow morning at 9:30.  The APPEC appeal is scheduled for Thursday afternoon.  I will report on the final few hours of the PECFN appeal tomorrow evening when I get back to the County.

Thank you to everyone for your continued support and for the encouraging messages.
Cheryl Anderson

Turbines Topple Property Prices

Dolan Nolan – January 22, 2014 – The Kerryman (North Kerry)


PROPERTIES are already losing value in Finuge because of plans to locate ten massive turbines there, locals claimed at a protest meeting on Monday night.

One house sale collapsed at the last minute as buyers were about to sign on the dotted line immediately after controversy flared up over the plans by Stacks Mountain Windfarm Ltd.

Locals say they are in no doubt the sale of a house closed to the planned windfarm site collapsed because buyers didn’t want to own a home in an area that could be dominated by the massive generators.

Up to 200 people attended the public meeting in Finuge on Monday night at which anger over the plans was palpable. The vast majority of people living in the Ballyhorgan area of Finuge are fiercely opposed to the windfarm as they fear the planned 157-metre turbines would impact on their homes, cause noise and shadow flicker and affect health.

One Banemore woman who attended the meeting told how shadow flicker from a turbine behind her home is ‘constant’ and likened the noise from the turbine to a ‘plane’ in evidence that hit locals hard on Monday.

It’s expected that hundreds of individual objections to the plan will be lodged in the coming weeks as Finuge prepares for a fight locals believe will have lasting implications for all of north Kerry. HUNDREDS OF objections will be lodged by Finuge locals as part of the community’s first formal move in its fight against plans to erect giant wind turbines in the low-lying rural area.

Anger was palpable at a massive public meeting in Finuge on Monday night attended by up to 200 locals fiercely opposed to the plans which are currently before Kerry County Council.

Company Stacks Mountain Windfarm Ltd hopes to erect the ten tallest wind turbines ever seen in the State – at a height of 157 metres – in the heart of the farming community. The turbines, labelled ‘monstrosities’ by locals on Monday, would dwarf even the Great Pyramid in Egypt as well as Dublin’s Spire.

Locals say the visual impact of the turbines would utterly transform the attractive community – officially a heritage village – devalue homes, cause noise pollution and ‘shadow flicker’ and lead to a general deterioration of the quality of life in the community.

And many are now of the feeling that north Kerry is being ‘sacrificed’ by local government to supply the county’s windenergy requirements with large tracts of populated areas categorised as potential windfarm locations – from the Stacks Mountains over to Lerrig Lough in Kilmoyley.

“These things are going to be huge,” committee member Anne Quilter told Monday night’s public meeting at Dromclough National School. “Bird’s big wheel is forty metres tall, these will be four times the size of that going up here.”

Anger was also directed at the apparent downgrading of large parts of north Kerry, including Finuge, as being of ‘no scenic value’ under the new County Development Plan (CDP). “That makes me angry. I chose to come here and make my life in north Kerry,” Ms Quilter said.

“The CDP suggests that Kerry should produce one third of the nation’s renewable energy, to do that they are going to locate most of the windfarms in north Kerry…we have to fight this,” Ms Quilter said, also rejecting claims the development would result in jobs: “This is going to decimate our community.”

Clinics are to be held all week in Dromclough school where the windfarm committee will help people fill in objections. Chairman Gerry Doyle is urging locals to ring Kerry County Council planners to ensure the plan is validated as quickly as possible as no objections can be lodged before then.

The five week deadline for objections is meanwhile ticking down.

Among the most forceful evidence of windfarm impact heard on the night came from Banemore woman Shirley Thornton who said that shadow flicker and noise had reduced her quality of life. “I actually have these at the back of my house..the shadow flicker is constant coming in and the noise is like planes flying overhead.”

Locals in the Irremore side of Finuge said they can hear the Banemore windfarm – two-anda-half miles from their homes.

But the committee are optimistic at the outset of the fight. They are receiving guidance from a similar group that succeeded in blocking a wind development in Offaly.

The committee also revealed its plans to launch large balloons to the height of the turbines in an event designed to give people a real idea of the scale of the proposed development as well as to garner more publicity for their cause.

Visit Link to find original story: