Category Archives: fighting big wind.

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)

Jan8MOE

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

Committed Citizens Can Change The World

people unitedTurbines Not As Benign As Promised            Susan Smith  Niagara This Week    January 14, 2014

It was recently found in the German Supreme Court that the Enercon Wind Turbines are performing much louder and with potentially greater harm to people than previously determined. The Enercon turbines, E82, height 124 meters and E101 height 135 meters (with blades 183.5 meters or 602 feet in height) are proposed for the 77 Industrial Wind Turbines in the Niagara Regional Wind Corporation Project in West Lincoln. These turbines are among the tallest in the world.

The World Health Organization guarantees that we should be able to live without the negative effects of noise which can interfere with communication, annoy our psychophysiological systems, effect our productivity and social behaviour and cause noise induced hearing impairment. Are we going to have such guarantees with the planned project in West Lincoln?

Children living and attending schools within the proposed wind turbine project will be exposed to low frequency noise, acoustic noise, mechanical noise and infrasound. Children with asthma, Asberger’s syndrome, epilepsy, bronchitis, autism, ADD, ADHD, CAP are more greatly affected by extraneous noise. These children may have more sleeplessness, headaches and jaw issues. It may be more difficult for them to comprehend in reading and process mathematics if turbine noise interferes with their learning.

Many of the children at non-participating homes will be close to the minimum 550 meters from a turbine. Host farmer children, according to information from the NRWC project, may be living much closer than 550 meters from an IWT. This will mean that host children may live in homes much closer to wind turbines than the current Ontario guidelines allow.

Read the rest of this excellent article here.

Bavarian Prime Minister Seehofer imposing 10 x h regulation for windturbines

Bavarian Prime Minister Horst Seehofer has put a halt to any further construction of “monster windmills”, as he calls them, in the German State of Bavaria. A new rule is to be imposed that all turbines must not be within a distance of 10 times the height of the turbine to an inhabited structure.  Two hundred metre model turbines will now have to be built at least 2km away. There are currently 600 wind turbines in Bavaria with plans to have 1500 built.  He has noted that in their new concept there will be significantly less built.  With this 10-H regulation, wind power in Bavaria will be dead, as was noted by Green leader Ludwig Hartmann.  And not a moment too soon.  Lucky Bavarians.  Maybe Prime Minister Seehofers’ counterpart here in Ontario, Premier Wynne, should see these articles and get inspired!

Sorry some of  these articles are in German, you will have to use Google translate.  Enjoy!

Prime Minister Seehofer slows the development of wind turbines after violent civil protests in Franconia.  http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/bayern/Windkraft-Zwangspause-veraergert-Teile-der-CSU-id28074622.html

Wind turbines should not come too close to houses.  http://www.br.de/nachrichten/windkraft-windraeder-seehofer-100.html

Adios Energiewende.  http://www.merkur-online.de/aktuelles/politik/seehofer-erlass-gegen-windkraft-3217052.html

Windpower blocked in Bavaria: Opponents feel vindicated. http://www.mainpost.de/regional/bayern/mosaik;art16683,7872996

CSU Stops expansion: Wind power in Bavaria on the brink: http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/bayern/CSU-stoppt-Ausbau-Windkraft-in-Bayern-auf-der-Kippe-id28313722.html

Seehofer wants to tighten spacing requirements.  http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3DStromversorgung%2Bin%2BGefahr:%2BCSU%2Bwill%2Bschnellen%2BBau%2Bvon%2BErsatzkraftwerken%26nord%3D1%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D904&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&u=http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2014-01/energiewende-Bayern

Seehofer sabotages the Energiewende. http://www.newscron.com/render/1253798/72690177#.Us2xeCuEi70

By the end of the month Ilse Aigner wants to deliver a presentation as the new distance regulations for wind turbines are to be applied in practice.  This time they will probably coordinate closely with Seehoferhttp://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/energiestreit-in-der-csu-seehofers-schwierigste-mission-a-942515.html

Compensation is sought from blocked windturbines in Bavaria.  http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.mainpost.de/regional/bayern/Blockierte-Windraeder-Aiwanger-fordert-Entschaedigung%3Bart16683,7880267&prev=/search%3Fq%3DBlockierte%2BWindr%25C3%25A4der:%2BAiwanger%2Bfordert%2BEntsch%25C3%25A4digung%26nord%3D1%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D904

Press Release – Mothers Against Wind Turbines – December 17, 2013

Mother Speaks Out: ‘My house actually vibrates from wind turbine’

December 16, 2013 – Donegal News – Scotland

NIMBY-171x300

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/

Windweasels abandon off-shore turbines….due to sharks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-25364699

Well, isn’t that interesting.  That is one solution that I never even considered.  Windweasels, as shark bait.  Sounds like karma to me.  Instead of wind sharks, quietly circling communities….we have real sharks, circling the land-sharks.   Now we know how to get rid of the unwanted wind-pushers, when they come into our communities…..Just tell them to scram, or we’ll EAT them!!!  LOL!

That is some SMART METER!!!! Letter by Karen

Dear Minister Chiarelli,

I have taken your advice to heart and made sure my energy literacy meets with the latest knowledge and understand of my electricity bill by reading all of the latest instructions posted on all of your recommended websites as well as using all of your calculations according to your math.  Somehow my cup of Tim Horton’s coffee seems to cost me more.  Could you please let me know where you get these special deals at Tim’s?

Honestly I really do agree that we should focus on conservation.  I have done that to the point where I actually decided to leave my house and live outside of the Province where I can use the same amount of electricity, but at a much lower rate. That should really help conserve electricity in Ontario!  Unfortunately I did have to leave minimal electricity on so my pipes would not freeze over the winter.In spite of all this conservation, when I received my first bill, it was still a shocker.  Perhaps I need a little more instruction from you personally. 

I am sending you some details so that you can do your math magic and make everything more comprehensible. First off, even though this SMART METER was installed on the pole near my house where the old meter used to be, my bill informed me right at the top:

“We read your meter XXXXX054 on November 22, 2013     053313.4500
We read your meter on October 24, 2013                      -052377.1380
The difference in meter readings                                   000936.3120

Metered usage in kilowatt-hours (936.3120×1)=936.3120 kWh “Wow! 

That is some smart meter to compute all of that. Now from the meter reading the bill also tells me that since summer rates are effective until October 31, according to my meter reading I am receiving 7 days of the “summer rate” and the remainder is billed at the “winter rate”.This smart meter also seems to know exactly how to split up the usage of 936.312 kWhours between ON-Peak, Mid-Peak and Off-Peak rates as well as the amount of kWhours used on summer rates and winter rates. 

That is some SMART METER.  And, even though my bill says Hydro One read my meter, there was not even a person that had to come to the house physically to check on this. 

I guess SMART METER knows best!

Now I won’t bore you with the details of the breakdown.  Suffice it to way I really work on conservation when my off-peak is only half as much as my on-peak and Mid-peak is less than half of my on-peak.  I could of course persevere and use ALL my electricity during off-peak leaving much more available for all those factories that need it during the daytime on-peak hours, especially since all those turbines generate power at night when we can’t possibly use all that power and have to beg others to please take it “cheap”.   Of course then my pipes would freeze, especially in the winter when global warming still does not keep daytime temperatures above freezing.

So when I add up all the various prices charged for electricity and look at my total bill, I discover that the Delivery charges, the Regulatory charges and the debt retirement charge along with HST are 2-1/2 times as much as what I pay for electricity.  Incidentally the bill is not as SMART as my SMART METER.  I had to total this up on my calculator.

Now, isn’t it nice, the Ontario government is taking 10% of my bill from some other tax payers (not me hopefully) that have been added to Ontario’s treasury via revenue streams and giving me this as a credit on my bill!  That almost pays for that miserable HST!  Now for some reason when the last rate adjustments were made it left something stranded that I didn’t have to pay for right away, so there is this little $11.39 amount left hanging there at the end of my bill.  This seems to be on every bill, but it does not tell me when it will stop or when I finally have to pay or get this adjustment???  Perhaps I have to go through all my bills and figure this one out. While I am informed that this is Real-Time Billing Payment Plan with $0.00 remaining, it still extends $11.39.   I don’t think you could answer this just off the top of your head?My bill also has little * to make sure I understand that there is electricity lost somewhere along the wires.  It really does not tell me how much, but that this is accounted for in the delivery charge so I just have to trust you and Hydro One on this.  The charges I am told are fixed, but not ALL fixed and some are variable depending on how much electricity I use. 

Do you perhaps know how the breakdown is calculated?  And then I am certainly relieved that a) the electricity costs billed to me are the part that is subject to competition, and b) that the regulatory charges help to maintain the reliability of the grid, include costs associated with funding the Ministry of Energy (which surely includes your salary and your pension) considering all the hard work you are doing in trying to make us energy literate, not to mention that although no one consulted me to see if I am in agreement, but

I certainly am contributing via my bill payments to infrastructure (I am assuming all the poles, wires, transformers, etc.) and not least of all the wonderful renewable energy programs which even though we can’t use all that electricity that renewable energy provides we should be proud to make our contribution – even if we now have to pay extra for a lot of these to be shut down do not produce electricity.  That last part will no doubt help preserve a few bats and eagles from being sliced up.I certainly hope you can tell me how I could conserve better, or even if I used NO electricity, would I still have to pay to nevertheless maintain Ontario’s infrastructure, power lost on the lines before it never got to my house, and certainly to keep all the blades spinning on those big towers that produce electricity that is not needed and have to be shut down, but so these companies don’t lose any money and might leave Ontario or go bankrupt, we still have to keep paying them to not produce electricity. 

I guess all those charges would still be on my bill – did I hear somewhere this was a global adjustment assumingly factored into the delivery charge?    It does not really mention that term on MY bill.If you have a problem answering my questions perhaps you could first refer to advice you may not have read yet.  You could link in to these and you might find them helpful since it states you are firmly in charge of our hydro bills:http://ep.probeinternational.org/2013/12/12/parker-gallant-minister-of-energy-bob-chiarelli-firmly-in-control-of-our-hydro-bills-2/or if all else fails, perhaps you will find some experts here:http://freewco.blogspot.ca/2013/12/energy-planning-in-ontario-who-do-we.htmlI am certain Parker Gallant has written quite a few letters and columns that surely would augment the recent suggestions made by Ontario’s Auditor General.Then again, I was just reading the China’s renewable energy seems to have problems with both solar and wind on life support.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/12/09/why-chinas-renewables-industry-is-headed-for-collapse/Perhaps you feel that China needs help from Ontario and your long term energy plan has backed off nuclear and wants to include lots of wind and solar. 

That certainly is generous and the some 130 wind turbines recently added within several of projects newly approved should help out with China’s production /sale problems.  No doubt China will extend their gratitude and certainly your advice on how all the people of Ontario should better manager their power consumption are also grateful to you for your generous advice.If Ontario has a problem with revenue streams, certainly the World Bank will stand by to help and the IFM is known to also give good advice on how to better manage our consumption of everything. 

Perhaps they would like to take part in the next Webinar.  They might help better than all those engineers that worry too much about engineering and science.  They perhaps can certainly help with financing all those new projects.

With best intentions, Your faithful contributor in Taxation
and without malice

Karen Breitbach

PS—Not for me, but all those people who save on electricity by not using their clothes dryers during the winter,  do you have a good advice on how best to handle frozen clothes?

Approval halted on two Wainfleet turbines | Welland Tribune

WAINFLEET – 

Two days after a controversial decision by Wainfleet township council to use taxpayers’ money to fund a private company’s legal battle against wind turbines, the company behind the turbines has been ordered to halt construction on part of its development.

The order came from an environment review tribunal, which decided Thursday the renewable energy approval for two of Wainfleet Wind Energy’s five industrial wind turbines should be put on hold until the appeal by Skydive Burnaby is heard.

On Oct. 7, the Ministry of the Environment gave Wainfleet Wind Energy an REA to move forward with the project. Two weeks later, however, lawyers for Skydive Burnaby owners Mikel and Tara Pitt appealled, saying that two turbines planned to be within 1.7 km of their facility would be detrimental to their business.

In her decision Thursday, tribunal executive chair Lynda Tanaka said the motion for a stay of the renewal energy approval for the two turbines was granted until the appeal is decided. The tribunal is scheduled for three weeks in January.

“I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but I’ll definitely take it as a win,” said Tara Pitt. “It wasn’t an easy road getting here, but I’m definitely happy.”

Wainfleet Mayor April Jeffs, who has continually fought against having turbines built in the township, called it step in the right direction.

“Even if it is just for the two, it’s such a positive step forward,” she said. “It’s a breath of fresh air to see the province recognize how this will affect a business in our community.”

Tom Rankin, the president of Rankin Construction, which is a partner in Wainfleet Wind Energy, said the stay isn’t much of a setback.

“At that site we have the road built, the concrete foundation is built and we had the crane up, but we weren’t going to put up the tower until the new year anyway,” he said. “We have the critical work done we wanted to do. So I’m not happy about the decision, but it’s not the end of the world.”

Jeffs, meanwhile, defended a decision Tuesday to have the township pay $40,000 of Skydive Burnaby’s legal bills.

Though it wasn’t originally on the council agenda, a procedural bylaw was waived to allow Tara Pitts to make a presentation to council requesting the money. She said the idea for the public support came from Lambton county council making a similar decision recently.

“It was time sensitive because our original understanding of what our legal fees would be and what they ended up being were two different things,” Pitts said.

Jeffs, Ald. Betty Konc and Ald. Richard Dykstra voted in favour of granting the funding while Ald. Ted Hessels voted against the idea. Ald. David Wyatt wasn’t at the meeting.

“I don’t think it’s our right to use taxpayer money,” said Hessels. “It’s not really Wainfleet’s case anymore. It’s a private thing.”

He said he’s concerned with how it might look that a decision was made Tuesday night without the public knowing it was being discussed.

“We haven’t heard from the people on which way to go. You know there’s opposition to it,” he said.

“Personally I’m against what the turbine people are doing, but I wasn’t going to use my constituents money to fight it.”

Jeffs said she knows not everyone will agree with the decision.

“I’m sure we’ll hear from people about it, but that’s fair. I stand behind it. We had to decide and I think it’s a good decision,” she said. “It’s tough because Wainfleet has a small budget and $40,000 is a lot here.”

dan.dakin@sunmedia.ca

 

Approval halted on two Wainfleet turbines | Welland Tribune.