The landscape of Lake Superior has visually unmatched vistas and unbelievably gorgeous landscapes. The Group of Seven spent many years trying to capture the soul of its glorious majesty and its splendors are recorded on countless canvasses. However, nothing they painted can ever match the reality of its wonder. Now it is a prime location for industrial wind installations.
This is the site for Bow Lake Wind Farm.
Read about March of the Wind Turbines: Wind Farm Development in Northern Ontario
The Mothers Against Wind Turbines Inc., currently has White Pine’s available for purchase!
If you would like to purchase, please send us a message!
There’s no question that over the past 2 decades, there’s been a heightened awareness for the environment. One of the more important areas is how we obtain electricity. One of the proposals has been in the form of Industrial wind turbines.
We feel there’s a better way to answer the question of how to retain a reasonable quality of life with a view to enhancing the environment that we could all mutually benefit. We feel trees are the answer and wherever you may reside, you can participate.
Here are some of the reasons trees are a superior way to enhance the environment over industrial wind turbines;
1) Trees absorb CO2 and release O2. An acre ( .405 hectares) of trees will absorb enough CO2 to offset a city driven car for a year, while producing enough O2 for 18 people per day. IWT’s can do neither.
2) IWT’s have a large initial carbon footprint before becoming operable. Trees start their work right away with no initial carbon footprint.
3) IWT’s have within their components, many detrimental compounds detrimental to the environment. Turbine blades contain bisphenol A, a known carcinogen and the hubs contain gear oil that has high levels of mercury. Trees, of course, are without these issues.
4) Trees are superior to IWT’s when it comes to preventing erosion, providing shade, providing habitat for birds and attracting many other forms of wildlife. IWT’s in fact enhance erosion, kill bats and birds and provide no attraction to wildlife.
5) IWT’s are infinitely more costly than trees, trees require no electricity to operate and are for the most part, maintenance free. Trees have proven to enhance property values and provide years of enjoyment no matter if you live in a rural or urban environment.
6) IWT’s require to work in tandem with other power generators. While we’ve essentially eliminated coal as a source of generation, gas plants have come on line to replace coal and to act to back-up wind generation. In order to do this, gas plants run in the most inefficient way possible and in the final tally don’t substantially reduce emissions at all. Trees of course require no gas plant backup and can help reduce heating and cooling costs.
We listed here just a few of the benefits of trees. We can replace IWT’s with trees and accomplish our goals for a better environment. This is the REAL green movement.
WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO News release
The year-late report from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) on the effect of wind turbines on Ontario property values is nothing more than a self-serving exercise by bureaucrats to serve their government masters, says Wind Concerns Ontario.
President Jane Wilson, who consulted with real estate appraisers and finance professionals, commented that “the reality is, as anyone knows, no one wants to live near a wind turbine. But the government doesn’t want the voting public to know more about the negative effects of what they’ve done with their wind power program. So, the bureaucrat assessors at MPAC took their time, and came up with the answer the government wants—no impact on value.”
Instead of using comparison to actual sales as real estate appraisers do, the assessment staff at MPAC used a mathematical methodology called multiple regression analysis. “Unlike actual comparisons to sales, this type of analysis can be manipulated to get the ‘right’ answer,” Wilson explains. “They left out sales before 2008, they only studied turbines of a certain size, and they completely excluded homes that have been abandoned and purchased by the wind power developers.”
The MPAC study also does not include properties that are listed for sale but never sell. “You can’t measure what didn’t happen,” Wilson adds.
The purpose of the study was to justify MPAC’s refusal to add wind power developments as a factor in assessing property value, although the corporation does factor in other less desirable features such as quarries, garbage dumps and other industrial facilities.
“Taxpayers paid for this study which will now doubtless be used by their own government against them, as they seek re-assessment of their properties, or even go to court for lost property value,” Wilson said.
Read more from WCO.
Richard H. Podolsky Tuesday April 08, 2014 – North American Wind Power
In response to a precipitous decline of the lesser prairie-chicken (LPC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced on March 27 that it is listing the species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under the ESA, a “threatened” designation means the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. Threatened-species status represents a step below “endangered” and, as such, carries fewer restrictions.
Nevertheless, the listing of any species under the ESA has immediate and long-term implications for both energy and agriculture interests. And because the LPC resides in the wind-rich lands of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, rest assured that listing will impact wind developers now and until the species recovers and is de-listed or it goes extinct.
Why the fuss?
According to FWS Director Dan Ashe, “The lesser prairie-chicken is in dire straits.” Last year, the range-wide population declined to a record low of 17,616 birds, an almost 50% reduction from the 2012 population estimate. This once-abundant relative of the greater prairie-chicken, greater sage-grouse (GHG) and other “prairie grouse” species has been reduced by an estimated 84-90% from its historical levels as a result of the human-induced degradation of its preferred habitat. And with land-use pressure from energy development, and agriculture and urbanization on the increase in the West, the prognosis for LPC remains bleak.
Historically, LPC were common in sand sagebrush-bluestem and within shinnery oak-bluestem vegetation types. Currently, LPC are most common in dwarf shrub and mixed grasses on sandy soils, as well as in short-grass or mixed-grass habitats on loamy or clayey soils. In Colorado and Kansas, LPC are typically restricted to sand sagebrush communities dominated by sand dropseed, side oats grama and blue grama. Recently in the northern fringe of its range, LPC have moved into mixed-grass prairie and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) fields. And although all these vegetation elements are important to LPC, the thing they need more of than almost anything else is what is increasingly in short supply – large and contiguous expanses of undisturbed habitat. In order for LPC to sustain viable populations, it is estimated they need contiguous units of their preferred habitat that are a minimum of 25,000-50,000 acres in area, or coincidentally, about the size of an average wind farm in the Great Plains. A century ago, the heath hen, a New England relative of the LPC, went extinct due to similar cumulative impacts resulting from destruction of its preferred habitat.
As early as next year, this same ESA-listing scenario may play out with another increasingly rare western bird, the greater sage-grouse (GSG). However, the impact of that listing will be even more far reaching because GSG will be listed as an endangered species, as opposed to threatened species for LPC. Also, GSG and their preferred habitats are found in 11 states, as opposed to five states for LPC.
Death from above
While habitat quality and habitat size are critical, LPC live in such mortal fear of being preyed upon by hawks and eagles that they will abandon otherwise-suitable habitat simply because it contains an elevated perch that a bird of prey may someday land on and hunt from. This means that vertical structures of almost any kind, be it a wind turbine or telecommunication tower, will render otherwise-suitable habitat unusable by LPC. Studies have indicated that LPC habitat is also degraded by proximity to roadways, buildings, and oil and gas fields.
The upshot of these ecological proclivities is that, according to the FWS’ LPC Conservation Plan, once a site has been designated as LPC habitat, it is recommended that “avoidance buffers” be established between such sites and the following human impacts: 300 feet to the nearest gravel road; 600 feet to the nearest distribution line or residential building; 900 feet to the nearest oil or gas pad; 1,800 feet to the nearest transmission line; 2,250 feet to the nearest paved road; and 3,000 feet to the nearest wind farm, commercial building or tall telecommunication tower.
These large buffers were derived from careful scientific study of the observed responses of LPC to these various land-use features. The proposed buffers are particularly large for wind farms and telecommunication towers because studies showed that LPC were particularly sensitive to them. These 3,000-foot buffers will invariably result in fewer turbines and tall towers in areas that also host LPC populations or their preferred habitat.
Reducing the impact to wind developers
Due to a special deal struck in 2013 (under section 4(d) of the ESA), the regulatory impact to wind power companies from formal ESA listing will be somewhat less than it would have been otherwise. Yet, by no means will it be “business as usual” for wind power in any of the states that host remaining populations of LPC. Specifically, the special 4(d) rule will allow the five states to continue to manage conservation efforts for the species under the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ (WAFWA) range-wide conservation plan.
The WAFWA conservation plan was developed by a consortium of experts from all five states and with input from a wide range of stakeholders. Regarding the special 4(d) WAFWA deal, Ashe said, “Working through the WAFWA range-wide conservation plan, the states remain in the driver’s seat for managing the species – more than has ever been done before – and participating landowners and developers are not impacted with additional regulatory requirements. We expect these plans to work for business, landowners and the conservation of prairie-chickens.”
Credits for the good, debits for the bad
Under the WAFWA Mitigation Framework, a metric system of debits and credits has been established whereby land-use actions that result in an impact to LPC and their habitats will generate debits, whereas land-use practices that result in impact avoidance or improvements to LPC habitat will generate WAFWA credits. In doing so, WAFWA is providing opportunities for both the exchange and conservation banking of debits and credits.
The bottom line
The listing of the LPC as a threatened species is the inevitable result of a century or more of cumulative human impacts. Therefore, wind companies considering developing or investing in any project site that may support LPC or LPC-preferred habitat are advised to conduct all requested pre-construction site assessments, perform all post-construction monitoring, report any bird fatalities to FWS as required by law, and proactively engage in the WAFWA Mitigation Framework. It is particularly vital to hire certified ecologists who know LPC ecology, have worked in the states where LPC reside, and are intimately familiar with endangered species biology, WAFWA and the ESA.
Dr. Richard H. Podolsky is a certified senior ecologist who specializes in endangered species biology and is CEO of Avian Systems, a biological consulting firm that conducts bird and bat surveys. Podolsky can be reached at podolsky©att.net or (207) 475-5555.
Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture
Original Article Here: http://nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.12826
By John Spears Toronto Star
Blanding’s turtle is in trouble again: An Ontario court has cleared the way for a wind farm that an environmental tribunal says will threaten the turtle’s habitat.
The modest reptile had stood in the way of a wind farm at Ostrander Point in Prince Edward County.
But a divisional court panel ruled Thursday that the environmental tribunal made six errors of law in reaching its conclusion that the wind farm would cause “serious and irreversible harm” to the turtle.
The court restored the decision by provincial officials, allowing Gilead Power to proceed with the project, which would erect nine big wind turbines on the site.
It was a bitter blow to local nature and conservation groups. They had argued the wind farm – and the increased traffic associated with it – would harm not just the turtles, but also birds, bats and the rare “alvar” ecosystem at Ostrander Point.
The court sided with Gilead. Read rest of article.
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
December 16, 2013 – Donegal News – Scotland
A mother of two teenage children who lives only 500 metres from a wind turbine at the Corkermore site where a rotor blade broke of in last week’s storm, has for the first time spoken publicly about wind farms.
On reading the comments in the Donegal News last Friday from Cllr John Boyle that their was ‘no danger’ from the sheared blade, Ms Carol Duddy contacted this paper.
She got planning permission for her home six years ago in the Corkermore area when there was no mention of erecting wind turbines.
“Cllr Boyle said the turbines were no problem for the neighbours – he wasn’t speaking for me and I live closest to one. I am not happy with the noise and the flicker effect and I am particularly concerned that a blade could brake off. What would have happened if it had hit someone or my house?
“We have seen a turbine collapse and if one of these did it would not be far from my back door,” Ms Duddy said.
She contacted Donegal County Council after the blade broke off last week and was told it had nothing to do with them.
“I am very annoyed and they are looking to erect another four of these turbines – my house actually vibrates.
“Up until now I have said nothing as I just wanted to keep the peace but now I want to know who is answerable if something happens. I rang the windfarm operators and the Health and Safety Authority and no one has come back to me,” Ms Duddy concluded.
Read Original Article Here: http://donegalnews.com/2013/12/my-house-actually-vibrates-from-wind-turbine/
The original story of the blade breaking: http://donegalnews.com/2013/12/wind-turbine-blade-breaks-off-near-killybegs/
Dec 6, 2013 Bishop Hill
Via Angela Kelly comes this message from acoustician Mike Stigwood, who sets out the state of play on excess AM noise from windfarms. It looks like surrender from the developers.
Recent research presented at three planning inquiries that were conducted in September, October and November (Starbold, Bryn Lleweln and Shipdham – decisions awaited) have hopefully exposed the misconceived arguments made by the industry’s acousticians, which have successfully avoided controls over wind farm noise impact for many years.
After more than 4 years of smoke screens, obfuscation and erroneous objections raising unrealistic concerns and placing barriers in the way of necessary controls over the wind farm noise called “Excess Amplitude Modulation”, industry acousticians have finally admitted a planning condition is “necessary” and “reasonable”. Excess AM is now shown to be neither rare nor only causing minor effects as claimed over the last few years, arguments that have successfully blocked planning controls leaving many communities exposed to serious noise impact. Research by ourselves and the Japanese have exposed this as a common and serious problem. Read rest of article here.
And a link to a company that is studying wind turbine noise:
Mothers Against Wind Turbines Inc. 