Mature Trees marked for removal for transmission lines for the Niagara Wind Project.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Acoustic Engineering Investigation into Airborne and Ground-Borne Pressure Pulses from Pacific Hydro’s Wind Turbines at Cape Bridgewater

Waubra Foundation Definitive Document
1 February, 2015

A Simplified Explanation of the Findings, Previous Research, and the Consequences

1. Background

• Turbines create “waste energy” in the form of airborne pressure waves (sound) and ground-borne pressure waves (vibration).
• Noise is that part of the sound frequency spectrum which is audible, but “noise” is also defined by psychoacousticians as “unwanted sound”.
• The strength (sometimes expressed as a loudness in the case of noise) of the sound is measured in decibels (“dB”).
• The wavelength of individual sound waves is a measure of the distance between the peaks of the pressure waves. The speed of sound divided by the wavelength gives the frequency of the sound and is expressed in hertz (Hz).
• Where the frequency of the sound waves is below 20 Hz, the distance between the waves is relatively long, and the general term for this portion of the frequency spectrum is known as infrasound. Infrasound is only audible at very high levels (dB). However it can be damaging to the human body at levels well below audibility.
• Impulsive infrasound from a variety of industrial sources has long been known to have the potential to be harmful to humans, especially with chronic exposure. For example, human and animal studies have shown infrasound directly causes both physiological stress, and collagen thickening in a variety of tissues including cardiac valves, arteries, and pericardium which themselves lead to a variety of cardiovascular diseases.
• Infrasound persists for much greater distances than audible sound and, unlike audible sound, penetrates well insulated building structures (including double glazing) with ease; and often increases the impact by resonating within the house, like a drum. This occurs, regardless of the source of sound & vibration energy. Penetration of buildings and amplification via resonance can also occur from sound and vibration from natural sources such as earthquakes and thunder.
• Standards for wind turbine noise pollution in Australia are set in audible decibels (“dBA”) outside houses. Use of dBA excludes accurate measurement of frequencies below 200 Hz, including both infrasound (0 – 20 Hz) and low frequency noise (20 – 200 Hz). These Standards do not require infrasound (either within or outside homes) to be predicted in planning submissions nor to be measured in the required compliance testing to the planning permit noise conditions. Most jurisdictions do not require wind turbine generated low frequency noise to be predicted or measured either (unlike other sources of industrial noise). In fact most noise measuring instruments and microphones are unable to measure accurately in the infrasound range, especially below 8 Hz., and some Standards explicitly specify the use of equipment which cannot measure infrasound.

read more:  http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/acoustic-engineering-investigation-at-cape-bridgewater-wind-facility/

Ontario electricity customers pick up the tab for unneeded power development, again

$1.5 million paid out already today for curtailed wind power

The huge, 100-megawatt North Kent 1 wind power project proposed by the Samsung-Pattern Energy consortium was posted yesterday on the Ontario Environmental Registry. The announcement comes despite the Ontario Auditor General’s report in 2015 that Ontario has a significant oversupply of electrical power, and that Ontario ratepayers are paying too much for “renewables.”

In just the first eight hours today, the day after the announcement for North Kent 1, the Independent Electricity System Operator or  IESO curtailed about 11,000 MWh of wind generation alone.  It could have provided power for 1200 average households; instead it has cost Ontario electricity ratepayers $1.5 million … for nothing.

The power developers claim the power produced from this project during its 20-year agreement with the province will generate “electricity equivalent to the annual electricity needs of 35,000 homes.”

read more: 

Abstract: Governor Andrew Cuomo, who supports an energy quotaforcing New York to buy half of its energy from qualifying renewables by 2030, does not see the problems that would be caused by coating Upstate, Central and Western New York with sprawling, low-output, intrusive, bird-unfriendly wind turbines. All would be paying for the high upfront costs of the unneeded investment, including additional power lines that will be necessary to run the intermittent, unreliable wind energy from rural New York to New York City. Fortunately, the people are fighting back with proposed ordinances against wind turbines. This is not only good for residents and the environment, it is good for ratepayers across the state and taxpayers across the nation. (Part II tomorrow will overview Ohio’s wind turbine siting debate.)

The New York towns of Yates and Somerset are faced with the prospect of up to 70 massive turbines, 600–630 feet tall, which would tower over everything else. The project by APEX Clean Energy, Lighthouse Wind LLC, now has to deal with the implications of a new 54-page bylaw by Somerset that could well prove to be insurmountable.

Yates has already unanimously rejected the project. Stated Town Supervisor James Simon: “It puts the political and municipal opposition all in a monolithic setting.Both towns, both counties, both boards of health, Sen. Ortt, U.S. Congressman Collins, they’re against this project.”

Enter Somerset’s strongly placed and well researched proposed bylaw. The WIND ENERGY zoning bylaw is being viewed as thoughtful and detailed.  Here are some of our favorite inclusions or clauses (at times paraphrased or variously quoted). (The entire bylaw proposal, to be revisited Feb 1, is here.)

The preamble states the importance of what communities have faced with industrial wind proliferation:

read more: Master Resource,By Sherri Lange — February 2, 2016

With more wind turbines coming to Ontario, there has been a lot of talk about what happens when it comes time to take down the towers. While the provincial government may put the onus on wind project developers to pay for teardown, it’s far from certain they’ll be able to collect if a company goes bankrupt — which could mean taxpayers are on the hook, says a Toronto-based environmental and municipal lawyer.

“Many of these companies are relatively small or based outside of Canada and that creates what appears to be a real risk as there will be no pocket you can go to 20 years from now when a cleanup is actually required,” says Eric Gillespie, who has represented landowners and municipalities with wind turbine concerns.
It’s anybody’s guess who would end up paying for decommissioning — the landowner, the municipality, or provincial taxpayers, he says.
Farmers shouldn’t underestimate what it takes to remove a single turbine, Gillespie warns. The nacelle — the central hub containing the generator — is 80 to 100 metres in the air and weighs as much as 70 tonnes. “It’s not something where you just call your neighbour and ask him to bring his tractor over.”
While Ontario costs are yet unknown, world-wide decommissioning has ranged from $30,000 to $80,000 per turbine. Continue reading Who ponies up for wind turbine teardown? →

Huron Perth Landowners Association – Press Release – January 11, 2016 – UPDATE

There have been construction liens registered on property profiles in the St Columban Wind project for the past 9 months. Four construction liens and four court actions are still registered for $30 million.

This story first rose to attention in early 2015 when a landowner was reviewing his parcel register at Service Ontario in conjunction with obtaining his Crown Land Patent. He was surprised to find a demand debenture for hundreds of millions of dollars registered on his parcel registry at Service Ontario. In June 2015, while checking parcel registers for the St. Columban Wind Project of 15 turbines, it was discovered that two construction liens had been registered in the amount of over $2 million.

In October 2015, after reports that the liens may have been removed, Dave Hemingway, a reporter for the Landowner Magazine, checked again and discovered that there were now six construction liens on the properties valued at over $32 million.

In addition, there were certificates registered for three Superior Court Actions regarding three of the liens.  That number had risen to six court actions when checked again on November 16, 2015. At the time, one of the Superior Court Actions named as defendants: 21 leaseholders, four wind companies, one bank, as well as two Farm Financial Corporations, and two credit unions. Mr. Hemingway learned on January 4, 2016 that two small liens for approximately one million each have been deleted so far leaving four liens amounting to $30 million.

“It appears that the banks are now concerned about the liens as, of course, we have learned, they do not like to be second or third in line when securing loans or mortgages,” said Mr. Hemingway. “Some bankers are still saying they will consider loans to leaseholders after they have checked with their bank’s legal department. However, according to reports, other banks are refusing loans for some farm operations due to the liens. Landowners are wondering, “Why haven’t the wind companies paid their contractors?”

Mr. Hemingway added: “If landowners are approached to sign a wind turbine lease, they may want to read the fine detail and seek appropriate legal advice before signing any documents. People should keep in mind that government subsidies could be reduced in the future as has happened in other countries. If so, will the wind company be able to pay their debts? If not will the Landowner be on the hook? Will the property have to be sold?”
Background Information on Construction Liens  

• The Construction Liens Act (1990) helps ensure labourers and contractors are paid in full for their work.
• The property owner is ultimately responsible for paying the costs of all improvements to property, including in cases involving the construction of a wind turbine on the property.
• The wind developer pays the leaseholder for the use of his property to erect a turbine for electricity production on the leaseholder’s land for up to 50 or more years. The leaseholder agrees to let the turbine company use his land for their purposes.
• In cases where the wind company has not paid contractors for their work, contractors may put a lien on the physical assets of the property until payment is received. The developer may pay off the liens; however, if contracts are not paid in full then a contractor could force a sale of the property in order to ensure payment.
• If the contracts are not paid, the leases could be sold to another company that could pay off the liens and possibly own both the turbines and the leases.
  The leaseholder or farmer is unlikely to be able to sell his land until the lien is paid. This could tie up a property or farm in court battles for months or years.
• As well the property owner may have legal bills to get the liens off the property register and be able to sell his/her property.

Contact for additional information and media interviews:

Dave Hemingway
Past President – Huron Perth Landowners Association
Reporter –  Landowner Magazine
Tel. 519-482-7005             Email davehemingway@gmail.com

via Ontario Wind Resistance