Category Archives: Government Misrepresentation

Cancel the Green Energy Act

mean energyDear Mr. Ford,

I am writing to you and your esteemed colleagues requesting that the new PC majority government repeal the Green Energy Act with the swiftest possible speed.  I know you have railed against this misguided piece of legislation.  Indeed, your estimate of its low caliber is echoed by Pierre-Olivier Pineau, Associate Professor and Electricity Market Expert, University of Montreal HEC Business School, who opined that “Ontario is probably the worst electricity market in the world.” (https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/03/30/ontarios-high-electricity-prices-crush-business/#2a8c5ab44587)

As you know, this Act has been a disaster on many fronts – its inability to effect the desired reduced CO2 emissions, its harmful effect on the environment, its negative impact on the economy and our electricity rates, its stripping of municipal planning and zoning rights, and importantly, its deleterious impacts on rural residents who only want a safe and quiet place to enjoy their homes and properties.

1. Tweaking the GEA is folly, as the very Act is based upon faulty foundations – that the wind is free, clean, and always blowing somewhere.  This myth fails to take into account that wind is unpredictable, non-dispatchable, unreliable and inherently intermittent.  When added to a power grid designed entirely around dispatchable sources, it leads to grave system instability.  As renewable energy sources are added into the mix, their impact is exacerbated by an inability to match loads (demand) with supply, as supply would be increasingly and inconveniently dictated by phenomena like the weather (and sunset).  The green mantra also fails to acknowledge the requisite concomitant use of fossilk fuels (particularly, gas) run in an open cycle, stop and go, inefficient mode like the Don Valley at rush hour. And it fails to deal with the vast stretches of weather system patterns and the transmission requirements necessary to connect with Dorothy in wind-blown Kansas.

https://www.masterresource.org/droz-john-awed/21-bad-things-wind-power-3-reasons-why/

2. Furthermore, mere enforcement of GEA regulations is an insipid approach.  The regulations fail to include infrasound, low frequencies, high frequencies, amplitude modulation, stray voltage, vibration, the trespass of shadow flicker, the destruction of prime agriculture lands, disturbances to water wells, impact on livestock and wildlife harm/harassment/ kill/displacement, among other winning features of IWTs.  Nor does it address the legality of gagging lease holders from discussing health impacts, thereby precluding public safeguards.  Moreover, the existing regulations regarding acoustic testing and monitoring, when implemented at all, are cumbersome by design, rarely feasible, and statistically dishonest.

3. The only honourable approach to addressing the Green Energy Act is to cancel it.  In a Financial Post article entitled “Yes, Ontario’s Liberals can cancel their terrible renewable power contracts—and they should do it now”, (Lawrence Solomon, September 2016) argues for “cancelling Ontario’s odious renewables contracts”.  He writes:

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-yes-ontarios-liberals-can-cancel-their-terrible-renewable-power-contracts-and-they-should-do-it-now#comments-area

Mr. Solomon’s argument is further substantiated by the case of Trillium Power Wind Corporation v. Ontario (2012):

https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.tlaonline.ca/resource/resmgr/toronto_law_journal_2012/toronto_law_journal_-_novemb.pdf

Furthermore, in the Supreme Court case, Wells vs Newfoundland, 1999, the Judges’ decision states (Paragraph 48):

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1730/index.do?site_preference=normal

Mr. Ford, many rural residents have been holding on for a June 7th PC win as their last hope in dealing with the adverse living circumstances imposed upon us by the McGuinty-Wynne dynasties.  I encourage you to repeal this disastrous Green Energy Act and return our homes and our pastoral farmlands to their idyllic pre-GEA state.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Citizen.

Green Energy’s Canadian Black Eye

wynne-hockey
Ontario’s Liberals lost official party status in the recent June 2018 vote for the provincial elections, under former Premier Wynne’s leadership.   Energy policies and rising electricity rates were a hot button election issue.

Struck by a Hockey Puck: Renewable Energy’s Big Canadian Black Eye

Renewable Energy World|June 8, 2018|By Chris McDermott

Everybody loves renewable energy, right? That’s what surveys tell us with global support for renewable energy consistently polling above 80 percent.

But don’t tell that to the people of the Province of Ontario, Canada. On June 7, the electorate handed a stunning defeat to its Liberal Government after 15 years of reign. The election winner: Conservative Doug Ford, brother of Toronto’s infamous crack-cocaine smoking mayor, Rob Ford. The issue in the forefront of voters’ minds: sky high electricity prices.

Ever since the Ontario Government invoked its Green Energy Act in 2009 to transition away from coal power to wind and solar energy, electricity prices have risen a whopping 75 percent. In Ontario, electric bills have become as frequent a topic of water-cooler conversation as apartment rents are in Manhattan or San Francisco.

Without question, on every measure of ratepayer protection Ontario is an egregious case of how not to design a renewable energy program:

Most Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) rates set not by competitive bidding but instead by Government decree at levels as high as $C 80.2 cents ($US 62 cents) per kWh for 20 years
No mechanism to automatically adjust FIT rates downward as capacity deployment thresholds were reached
Domestic Content requirements that raised domestic equipment prices above global average selling prices
A rule that ratepayers still provide FIT payments for energy even when energy production is curtailed
An allowance of five years after FIT contract execution for facility construction, creating windfall gains for developers as equipment costs declined while preventing ratepayers from participating in any of those savings.
How did Ontario get their renewables policy so wrong?

READ REST of ARTICLE

Paying to Grease the Wheels of Justice

Falmouth wind turbine 4.jpg

Falmouth wind litigation winds down

By Christine Legere |May 31, 2018 |Cape Cod Times

FALMOUTH — An eight-year legal battle between the town and residents who live near two controversial wind turbines at the municipal wastewater treatment plant off Blacksmith Shop Road has been brought to a close with the recent settlement of three remaining court cases involving monetary damages.

The town’s insurer paid the 10 complainants named in the suits a total of $255,000, according to Town Counsel Frank Duffy.

Eight litigants agreed to settlement amounts in March and have already been paid. Linda Ohkagawa, Kathryn Elder, Brian Elder, Todd Drummey, Terri Drummey, Robbie Laird, Mark Cool and John Ford each received $22,500.

While those amounts fell short of their legal expenses, the group decided to accept the payments.

“It was not wanting to pay any more for the grease to turn the wheels of the justice system,” Cool said. “Everybody was so tired.”

Diane and Barry Funfar agreed to a settlement amount last week as part of a separate nuisance complaint and will be paid in about a month. Each was awarded $37,500, for a total of $75,000.

That award won’t balance the financial books for the couple, who had to remortgage their home three times to cover the cost of their attorneys during years of court hearings.

READ REST OF ARTICLE

Mothers March Against Industrial Wind

DSC04218The mothers and their children took a walk on May 27, 2013 protesting the Summerhaven Wind project that was under construction at the time.  We marched together providing a record and demonstration of our non consent to the wind project. It also spiked a lot of interest from the Ontario Provincial Police and wind project security.   The police decided they needed to be present with a marked police escort and their undercover members.

Mothers Against Wind Turbines remains firm in giving a thumbs down to industrial wind.  We have not remained silent.  We will not remain silent.  No still means no.

Ontario Wind Resistance posting May 2013: Mothers March to Say NO!

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

“What am I Paying for?”

paying bills 1

The Cost Of Generating Electricity in Ontario

A key question at the top of my Hydro One electricity statement is “What am I paying for?” According to Hydro One the charge includes:

1) The cost of generating the electricity used – ‘the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) sets the cost and the money collected goes directly to the electricity generators.’

2) The delivery – ‘money collected by Hydro One to build, maintain, and operate the electrical infrastructure which includes power lines, steel towers, and wood poles covering 960,000 sq km’

3) Regulatory charges – the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) uses this money to manage electricity supply and demand in the province.

4) HST – harmonized sales tax

5) 8% Provincial Rebate.

In Ontario we can generate power from three nuclear power plants, 45 hydro generating stations, 30 gas plants, 38 industrial wind turbine installations, 5 solar installations and 5 biofuel generating stations. The website gridwatch.ca provides an hourly overview of power generated, Ontario demand and imports and exports.

The Cost of Electricity Generation in Ontario –

GENERATOR

TYPE

UNIT COST/ MWh (1) OUTPUT / HR

(2)

OUTPUT / DAY COST / DAY COST / YEAR (3)

+ constrained

Power

HYDRO $ 62.00 /

MWh

 3143 MW /hr    75,442

MWh / day

$ 4,677,379

/ day

$ 1,707.243

Million / year

NUCLEAR $ 77.00 /

MWh

7551.5 MW/hr 181,236.6

MWh / day

$13,955,218

/ day

$ 5,093.66

Million / year

WIND $ 159.00 /

MWh

 765 MW / hr  18,353

MWh / day

$ 2,918,057

/ day

$ 1,065.09

Million / year

NATURAL GAS $ 188.00 / MWh   489 MW / hr   11,736

MWh / day

$ 2,206,368

/ day

$ 805.324

Million / year

SOLAR $ 513.00 /

MWh

  45 MW / hr    1086

MWh / day

$ 556,872

/ day

$ 203.258

Million / year

BIO FUELS $ 236.00 /

MWh

  37 MW / hr     884 MWh /

day

$ 208,718

/ day

$ 76.182

Million / year

 12,030.5 MW

/ hr

$24,522,612

/ day

 (1) Total Electricity Supply Costs Source:Power Advisory p.16 https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/RPP-Supply-Cost-Report-20180501-20190430-correction.pdf
(2) IESO Generator Output by Fuel Type Monthly Report 2017
http://reports.ieso.ca/public/GenOutputbyFuelMonthly/PUB_GenOutputbyFuelMonthly_2017_v12.xml
(3) Cost per Year is for power produced so payment for constrained power must be added to the cost.

According to the IESO we have a total installed capacity of 36,853 MW of power that could be produced per hour if all generators were running flat out. To allow for maintenance and emergencies the IESO forecasts capability at peak demand rather than using total installed capacity. The forecast capability at peak demand for Ontario is 26,704 MW/hr, which is the production of power generation we count on.

The demand for power fluctuates with time of day, day of the week, weather conditions, and season. In 2017 the average hourly demand for power was 12,031 MW per hour. Therefore, we have tremendous capacity in the Ontario power system.

It is further complicated because not all generators are equal – nuclear, hydro and gas are reliable baseload generators that can be ramped up or down. But wind and solar are unreliable, intermittent and only produce power when the wind blows and the sun shines.

To accommodate a fluctuating supply considerable flexibility exists in the system. We pay for production, but we also pay for generation that is constrained or held back from the grid. Some generators are underutilized, and we pay them to sit idle and provide backup.

Using the information provided by the Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO):

The least expensive power Ontario generates is HYDRO. Our cleanest, greenest, cheapest renewable energy costs $62.00 per MWh. The Ontario Hydro power generating system has a total installed capacity of 8480 MW per hour potential production, with a capability at peak demand of 5786 MW / hr. On average the output from the Hydro generating system for 2017 was 3143 MW/hr. Although we only used 54% of the capability of Ontario hydro generation plants (the rest of the time we ran the water over the dam) Hydro provided 26% of our hourly generation of power in Ontario in 2017. The Hydro supplied to the electrical grid cost $1.707 billion dollars in 2017.

The second least expensive power generated in Ontario is NUCLEAR which cost $77.00 per MWh. Nuclear is the work horse for Ontario providing more than 63% of the power produced in this province. The average hourly output for 2017 was 7551 MW per hour. Costing $5.093 billion dollars per year.

Ninety percent of the power produced in Ontario is from Hydro and Nuclear and we underutilize both these systems to accommodate wind and solar energy. The daily cost for Hydro and Nuclear power produced is $18.6 million dollars per day or $6.8 billion dollars per year.

The total unit cost for WIND power is $159.00 per MWh produced (two and one-half times the cost of hydro and double the cost of nuclear). Wind has an installed name plate capacity of 4213 MW/hr but is an intermittent and unreliable energy source and only provided 765 MW per hour or 6% of the hourly generation of power for Ontario in 2017. Using the installed capacity wind energy should be providing 35% of the power production of this province, but due to the unreliable nature of wind the production could be 0% so nineteen gas plants were built since 2003 to back up wind and solar. The daily cost of wind energy that was produced was $2.9 million dollars per day or $1.065 billion dollars per year. This does not include the amount paid for constrained wind energy so under-represents the actual cost.

If we add in the cost of constrained wind which was 3.396 million MWh in 2017 and pay that out at $120.00 per MWh then the cost increase for constrained wind in 2017 was $407.5 million. The total cost of wind energy for 2017 then is closer to $1,065 + 407.5 = $1,472.5 million dollars or $1.4725 billion dollars per year.

The total unit cost for NATURAL GAS is $188.00 per MWh produced. Because natural gas is used as a back-up power for wind and solar the demand fluctuates hourly and again we have an energy source that is also paid when constrained. The gas plants are capable of producing 10,277 MW/ hr but only produced 489 MW/ hr in 2017. So we operated the gas plants at 5% of their potential! The daily cost of natural gas energy that was produced was $2.2 million per day or $ 805 million per year plus cost for constrained natural gas.

Constrained natural gas is paid $10,000.00 per month per potential MWh of production. So with a potential production of 10,277 MWh X $10,000 X 12 = $1,233,240,000 per year. The total for natural gas would be closer to $2,038.24 million dollars per year or $2.038 billion dollars.

The elephant in the room is definitely SOLAR weighing in at $513.00 per MWh produced (eight times the cost of hydro!) The contribution of roughly 1000 MWh per day is minimal but the cost is phenomenal at just over $0.5 million per day. A cost of $203 million per year. Again, we have not accounted for the huge amount of solar energy that is embedded in the local distribution systems eg small solar installations and panels mounted on your house. So the cost of solar is grossly under-represented, probably to keep us in the dark.

If the embedded solar is indeed 2,300 MW of installed capacity (using 13% as the potential production) we have an additional 299 MW/hr solar to pay for. At $513.00 per MWh that would be an additional 299 X 24 hr per day X $513 = $3.693 million per day or $1.348 billion dollars per year. So, the total cost of solar could be closer to $1.551 billion per year. ($1.348 +$0.203)

Only 10% of our power is produced from wind, solar and natural gas, made possible by underutilizing our nuclear and hydro power generation. The total cost for wind energy in 2017 was upwards of $1.4725 billion dollars plus solar at $1.551 billion dollars plus natural gas at $2.038 billion dollars for a total of $5.062 billion dollars!

That final 10% of the power generated in Ontario is probably costing us closer to $5 billion dollars – over 40% of the total cost of the generation of electricity in this province! And we still need to include the cost of the delivery charges, the regulatory charges and the HST!! Waste, waste and more government waste as we pay for duplication, underutilization and huge government subsidies for the generation of power in Ontario.

Catherine Mitchell – a concerned citizen

Current_Supply_Mix-Tx-18MO
Image Source: IESO Ontario’s installed generation capacity (*Note that these figures do not include generators that operate within local distribution service, except for those that participate in the IESO-administered market. Most solar facilities in Ontario are currently connected to the distribution system. )

Wind Turbine Nuisance: a lawsuit against the Ontario Minister of the Environment

do no harm 1

May 25,2018|André Fauteux| La Maison Saine et Ecologique

(original article in French- Translation via Google Translate)

A group of Ontario citizens personally sued a minister for violating the Environmental Protection Act, allowing wind turbines to undermine their sleep and health, while respecting the limits allowed for audible noises. This law prohibits “discharging a contaminant into the natural environment or allowing or causing it to occur if the release causes or may cause a harmful consequence”. It “means bodily injury, loss of life, loss of use or enjoyment of property and loss of money”.

On April 30, Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) served on Chris Ballard, who heads the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), to attend court on the 17th. may. A judge will then decide whether or not the Attorney General of the province must lay charges.

Through the Access to Information Act, WCO obtained copies of more than 4,500 citizen complaints sent to the Ministry between 2006 and 2016, many of which had had to abandon their homes that had become unlivable. “Since the MOECC did not respond to thousands of reports of excessive noise from wind turbines, which affects the sleep and health of Ontario families, we had no choice,” said in a statement. organization, nurse Jane Wilson. According to her, “citizens report not sleeping for days, weeks, even months. Sleep disorder is linked to other health problems, such as high blood pressure and diabetes. In 2015-2016, the Ministry responded to only 7% of complaints and only to those living within 1,500m of wind farms, according to WCO. According to Ms. Wilson, the Ministry is not enforcing its own regulations to ensure that the noise level does not exceed 40 decibels dB at the nearest dwelling. “It does not respond to complaints and relies on operators who measure only the average noise in dBA. They ignore other types, including low frequencies (infrasound). ”

Scientific controversy

Health Canada has already published a study on wind turbine noise and health in 2014. Among its findings: “No statistically significant relationship was found between measured blood pressure, or resting heart rate, and exposure. to the sound of wind turbines. In addition, “the researchers did not establish a link between the noise levels of wind turbines measured outdoors, near the residences of participants, and the effectiveness of sleep, the rate of awakening, the duration of awakenings, the total time of sleep or the time needed to fall asleep “.

Findings contested by Carmen Krogh, a former Health Canada employee who has been investigating industrial wind turbines since 2007. “In rural areas, it is very difficult to obtain a statistically significant number of cases. In addition, we can estimate exposure levels, but it takes time to know the effects, “says the author 1 of various scientific articles on the subject.

In 2007, Carmen Krogh found that installing giant wind turbines in Ontario was a great idea, to replace nuclear and coal plants with renewable energy that does not pollute the air and does not contribute to climate change. A retired pharmacist, she naturally investigated whether industrial wind turbines could harm health. “I thought I would not be involved in this file for long,” says the former director of a hospital pharmacy who was also a consultant and employee of Health Canada and former editor-in-chief of the Compendium of Products and Specialties used by professionals who prescribe drugs in Canada.

For the past eleven years, she has been volunteering for wind energy, writing scientific articles and advising individuals, businesses and various levels of government. A former director of pharmacy at a hospital, Ms. Krogh was also a consultant to Health Canada’s Prescription Drug Administration and a director of its Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency. In addition, she is the former editor-in-chief of the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties, which is used by professionals who prescribe drugs in Canada. She believes that the burden of proof of safety must rest with industry, just as in the pharmaceutical field. “When a wind project is contested, citizens are always asked to predict the future and prove that wind turbines will hurt them. Because of product differences, evidence of causality is rare in the health field in the absence of a biological mechanism. In the pharmaceutical sector, manufacturers must prove the safety of their products or an acceptable risk / benefit ratio. And doctors, nurses and citizens can file complaints. Thus, over-the-counter doses of ibuprofen were reduced significantly, to 200 mg, because the patients complained of unexpected adverse reactions. ”

Similarly, when it comes to industrial pollution, you always have to focus on people’s reactions to exhibitions and read independent studies, Krogh insists. In 2007, she found that installing giant wind turbines in Ontario was a great idea, to replace nuclear and coal-fired plants with renewable energy that does not pollute the air and does not contribute to climate change. But his inquisitive mind made him discover that installing them near homes could be harmful. “I have studied the symptoms declared at the international level and the points in common are remarkable. When people talk about the same sleep and cognitive problems in Japanese and other languages, it’s very convincing. Another thing that is very convincing is that those who leave their homes intermittently feel better and that their symptoms reappear when they come home. In all cases, the installation of wind turbines was the only major factor that had changed in their environment before the onset of symptoms … I have never heard of a developer of wind turbines ask if residents were sensitive noise or had pre-existing medical conditions and special needs. For example, children with autism are more sensitive to blinking. ”

Ms. Krogh is particularly interested in infrasound. These inaudible vibrations, whose oscillation frequency is less than 20 hertz, are related to a host of symptoms ranging from headaches to insomnia, through acoustic pressures, tinnitus, nausea and dizziness. “The teratogenic congenital malformations of the heart and brain due to infrasounds worry me. In particular, I asked Health Canada to provide me with details about female military pilot helicopters regarding the effects of pulsed propeller noise, which is like large fan blades. I never receive answers from the Ministry. These are important considerations. Already in 2007, a hundred German doctors sounded the alarm by advocating the precaution in infrasound.

According to toxicologist Magda Havas ( an interview she gave us ), an Ontario expert in electromagnetic pollution and a professor at Trent University, industrial wind turbines generate five types of pollutants: audible noise, inaudible noise (infrasound) , the stroboscopic effect caused when the blades shade the sun, stray currents in the ground accentuated by the water table and the interference of high transient frequencies (dirty electricity). These circulate in the air and on the domestic current and are caused by wiring errors as well as the power supplies of electronic devices. Carmen Krogh comments, “I often wonder if people are not exposed to both noise and electrical pollution. The symptoms are dramatic because they are doubly stunned. ”

Ms. Krogh said that sensitivities to pollution vary from one individual to another. “Those who move to rural areas dream of silence and are often very sensitive to noise. But every wind turbine is the equivalent of a factory. I feel that the wind turbines were installed very hastily, without knowing what would be the safe distances and the noise levels. There are some 700 industrial wind turbines in Ontario and the province requires wind farms to be located at least 550 m from homes.

In 2012, the Society for Wind Vigilance , an advisory body of which Mrs. Krogh is a member, recommended that industrial wind turbines be installed at least 2 km from any residence, as required by the Haut-Saint-Laurent RCM. Montérégie. “But some people report adverse effects up to 5 km. It is difficult to recommend a safe distance because the exposure changes constantly and varies depending on several factors, including the terrain and density of the wind farms. The power and height of wind turbines increase with the years. The blades are longer and the experts say that the slower rotations make the sound inaudible. The direction of the wind and the disposition of the wind turbines must also be taken into account. Some are aligned while others are crescent-shaped or circle-shaped. ”

For his part, US professor of internal medicine David R. Lawrence recommends holding wind turbines at least 4-6 miles (6.5-10 km). He and his wife live as much as possible in their basement since two wind turbines were installed 500 m from their home in Connecticut. He also says he also treats several patients who suffer from insomnia, pain and pressure in the head, balance problems, the brain in the heat, pressure bumping into their chest and heart rate problems. “My wife is experiencing all these symptoms, and closer to the antennas,” he wrote in a 2016 submission to the Wisconsin Public Utilities Board. Her symptoms go away when they are not in operation or she walks away at least 2-3 miles (3.2-4.8 km) away. ”

Diagnosis criteria for adverse health effects in the vicinity of wind turbines

Original Article

Ontario Blind, Deaf & Dumb to Turbine Effects & Violations

 

house surrounded by wind turbinesThe following is from a presentation by Anne Dumbrille, Chair of CCSAGE at the Annual General Meeting held at Bloomfield Town Hall, Saturday, May 5, 2018

SOURCE: CCSAGE

Welcome everyone, special welcome to our MPP Todd Smith, Acting Mayor Dianne O’Brien and Councillor Steve Ferguson.
I am giving an update on what is happened in Ontario regarding turbines in the last year.   The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – not always in that order.
Good
Slide 3

  • In 2017, the media has been more outspoken about adverse impacts of turbines e.g.,
  • Two major networks, Global News and Radio-Canada, carried multi-part investigative reports this past year. The three-part Global News feature spurred questions in the Legislature and forced the then-minister to act on noise complaints for several Huron County families.
  • Fraser Inst. Publication Mid- April. They published Understanding the Changes in Ontario’s Electricity Markets and Their Effects criticized the GEA, speaking to it causing high energy costs, losing manufacturing jobs, and not improving the environment.
  • Auditor General criticized Liberal accounting practices re energy costs, fair energy plan; it was well covered in major newspapers

Slide 4
Noise from turbines consists of audible and low frequency noise/ infrsound –these affect brain waves but may be inaudible.

  • A team at University of Waterloo has created a special chamber in which infrasound can be produced, in the hopes that health researchers can determine unequivocally effects of infrasound at levels produced by turbines on people.
  • Australian Court (similar to our ERT) linked wind turbine generated LFN and infrasound noise with possible diseases including hypertension and cardiovascular disease, possibly mediated in part by disturbed sleep and/or psychological stress/distress – it found an established association between annoyance (used as a medical term) and some diseases that result from prolonged stress. They say effects of LFN include motion-sickness-like symptoms, vertigo, and tinnitus -like symptoms.

It was also established that the current method adopted by windfarms to measure noise (including in Canada) — the dB(A) scale, is not suitable for the task, as it does not measure the lower frequency range. The dB(A) scale averages out the sound levels, masking the highest levels and rate of change of noise that could be causing harmful health side-effects.
This is consistent with what the UK noise association said in 2006. 12 years ago.
MOECC still will not address infrasound.
Slide 5
The Environmental Commissioner’s office wrote a report criticizing the government for approving 100% of turbine company permits to kill harm and harass endangered species.
Slide 6
But – BAD they followed that up with one that makes superficial and false statements on the health impacts of wind turbines. She says there is no link between wind turbine noise and health effects — based on ERT conclusions. She does not say that it is next to impossible to win an ERT appeal on health. She said that noise impacts are controlled through setbacks and noise limits in the REAs.
What of the over 4500 records of health/noise complaints filed by people living near turbines in Ontario with the government since 2006? And the out-of-compliance turbines. This is important as if the local turbines are built, they may not be noise compliant.
Slide 7
Bad-Turbines have been out of noise compliance with poor-to-totally lacking government response:
Port Elgin has one (Unifor) turbine – and have been complaining for years about the noise. Finally MOECC said that noise testing did show that it was out of compliance. A noise abatement protocol has to be put in place. The engineering report was filed with the MOECC in January, and then to the wrong Municipality in March – and finally to those affected. There is to be repeat testing in June–if it is out of compliance again -then what? Unknown.

Complaints regarding the Huron-Bruce Turbines in K2 Wind power project led to noise testing a year ago. Turbines were found to be out of compliance with Ontario regulations (April 2017). Since then, MOECC has done nothing.

Kincardine area has made multiple noise complaints over years, have been told testing is ongoing, but somehow, the tests are never completed, and the problem continues. In December they were told by MOECC that nothing was being done. And MOECC will not respond to complaints during an audit. The audit process started in December 2011 and is still not complete.

Slide 8

  • Last summer, a Brinston area resident wrote to Minister Murray about the complete lack of response to her reports of excessive noise (she has had to sleep in her basement on occasion because of the noise and vibration). An officer telephoned her and said:
    • Ministry staff were completely unprepared for wind turbine noise complaints.
    • They still don’t really know what to do.
    • They “lost” her records — even though she had so many reports that the MOECC actually installed equipment and did noise measurement for several days.
    • Last, it was too bad they lost everything pertaining to her situation and reports but it didn’t really matter, she was told because “You’re the only one complaining.”
    • With thousands of noise complaints recorded with the government unresolved, MOECC still refuse to acknowledge the problem, and refuses to look for causes.

Slide 10

  • Good: The MOECC finally admitted previous guidelines resulted in underestimating the noise at nearby homes – the modelling used to predict these impacts was wrong.
  • Last April 21, MOECC released a new protocol intended for “assessing noise from wind turbines that have already been built. It is used by industry and ministry staff to monitor compliance.” And compliance documents are to be publically available.
  • The result of non-compliance is: 1 – Remodel turbines; 2 – conduct a receptor audit at worst affected receptor from that turbine –or mitigation is required

Slide 9 Bad: However:

  • Still no recognition of low frequency noise. And, it hasn’t resulted in any effective changes.
  •  Still – when WCO complained about the lack of response regarding noise and lack of a posted compliance report, they were told that the report cannot be posted as the turbine company’s documents are incomplete. (The turbines had been running for 3 years)

Slide 11

  • Although the government knows the modeling done by wind companies is wrong, they are allowing 5 new large-scale wind projects to follow the old guidelines. If they followed the new guidelines, about 3/4 of these turbines would have to be relocated or removed as they are predicted to be out of compliance with the new noise guidelines. At one project 11 of 12 would be out of compliance.
  • So in January, 5 affected communities filed a JR application against MOECC as surely, Ontario regulations and directives that limit the amount of noise any residence in the province should have to be followed. The claim is – transition provisions were put in place by the ministry to allow those wind turbine companies to use the old regulations without having to provide evidence that they were unable to comply with the new noise modelling guidelines (Dutton Dunwich, North Stormont, La Nation, and Wallaceburg)

Slide 12
Brilliant:

  • Wind Concerns Ontario taking Minister Murray to court May 18 for violating the Environmental Protection Act for permitting noise that causes adverse health events. According to WCO Access to information requests, of 4500 complaints noise/sleeplessness and other health-related effects received, few were followed up – only ~7% in 2015-16.

Slide 13
Ugly

  • In SW Ontario, in an area with sedimentary rock similar to that here, during and after IWT construction, well contamination has been reported – such that some wells are completely clogged, some failed simultaneously from pile-driving during construction. Some have not used their well for 4 years.
  • Before and after tests sent to Laboratories in Michigan show an exponential increase [in] turbidity among the affected wells, including [a] large proportion that can be attributed to black shale particles that are known to contain heavy metals, including uranium, arsenic and lead.
  • An ERT had warned that water wells in that area could be damaged.
  • A professional geologist said: the relationship between the installation of wind turbines and the contamination of wells is obvious. When you have a [pure] water source for years and [transforms] a few days after the construction of an industrial facility. You do not have to be a genius to see that there is a link of cause and effect.
  • He had agreement from geoscientist and geological engineer.
    The project’s owner claims it has nothing to do with the problem.

MOECC’s response — While there’s been an admission that wells have indeed been contaminated, contamination can only be attributed to “unidentified factors.” They maintain that pile-driving activities associated with wind turbine development are not to blame. This conclusion was based on evaluations prepared by the power developer’s consultant.

MOECC say that you should only test your water for bacteria.

Quinte Region Proposed Source Protection Plan Version 8.1 Aug 2012: Section 2.4: “Due to the shallow soil conditions, the entire Quinte area was identified and mapped as a highly vulnerable aquifer. This designation was a direct result of the ease with which a contaminant can move into the underlying fractured bedrock aquifer.” 

Slide 14

  • In 2017 alone, reported in the media:
  • 181 accidents.* Note that there is massive underreporting. RenewableUK confirmed that of 1500 wind turbine accidents and incidents in the UK alone between 2006 and 2011, only 9% are on the global report. So there may have been more like 1800 accidents.

*  http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/fullaccidents.pdf 

But it gives information on a cross-section of accidents: –

  • Of the 181, there were 17 fatal accidents, 13 injury accidents, 16 blade failure (blade or partial blade throws, travelling up to 1 mile), 24 fires, 14 structural failures (storm damage, tower collapse), 19 transport – related (biggest cause of public injury/fatalities, e.g. ram through a house, turbine parts falling off).

Slide 15

  • Turbine collapse in Chatham-Kent January
  • And in Germany, bits of blade travelled over 500 m –yes, the distance to neighbouring houses by Ontario regulations.

Slide 16
CONCLUSION

  • MOECC, MNRF – Apparently – still blind, deaf and dumb regarding turbine effects and violations
  • All rules and regulations can be broken for the precious GEA
  • Compliance is only met only if citizens fight (and pay) for it
  • Feds (Health Canada, Environment Canada) – no better

Green Energy Black Water

6_Brooks_Water_2crop_700_461_c1_c_c_0_0_1
THE BROOKS FAMILY CAN NO LONGER DRINK OR WASH WITH WATER FROM THEIR WELL. | PHOTO: THE CHATHAM VOICE

Green Energy, Black Water
Living in the footprint of industrial wind turbines.

Posted Apr 9, 2018 Christian Courier / by Jessica Brooks / in Media & Culture

In the article “Renewable Energy’s Dilemma” (CC Jan. 22), Candice Goodchild introduced the perspective of a grassroots group in Chatham-Kent, Ontario called Water Wells First. This group was formed to protect the sensitive aquifer in the area from vibration damage caused by the construction and operation of industrial wind turbines (IWT). I am a member of that group, and I would like to share my story with you.

My family and I live inside the footprint of the North Kent Wind 1 (NKW1) project, built in the northeast part of Chatham-Kent, Ontario. The wind farm is built and managed by Pattern Energy (out of Texas) and Samsung (out of Korea). We live on an acre of land, surrounded by farmland. We have enjoyed quiet country living that included an unlimited supply of good, clean water from our well. However, last summer, during the construction of the NKW1 project, our property was surrounded by three pile drivers. The particular style of construction for industrial wind turbines requires the use of piles to support the foundations. In this case, 18 to 24 piles are used for each of the 34 wind turbines in this project. Three turbines were erected within one kilometre of our house.

Pile driving began on July 27, 2017. The next day, while my husband was in the shower, the water stopped running. Upon investigation we found that the sediment traps we had installed on our water line were choked with thick, black sediment – something we had never seen before.

Chatham-Kent sits on a unique geological bedrock formation called Kettle Point Black Shale. The aquifer that feeds hundreds of wells in Chatham-Kent is shallow and quite fragile. It rests on that black shale, trapped in layers of glacial sediment. Black shale is known to naturally contain lead, mercury, arsenic and uranium.

In 2012, the East St. Clair wind project was constructed in northwest Chatham-Kent, which has the same black shale formation as other areas of the county. Many well owners in the area experienced the same black water we found in our well.

Health hazards
Investigation by private citizens and scientists hypothesized that the vibration from pile driving and the operation of wind turbines had disturbed the aquifer under the East St. Clair project, causing the release of sediments into the aquifer. As a result, the water turned black from the shale particles. When the NKW1 project was to begin, farmers and residents from the area mobilized to inform government officials about the potential danger to the aquifer from pile driving. This became the group Water Wells First. Our warnings and pleas were ignored, and construction began.

Today more than 20 wells within the footprint of the NKW1 project are experiencing black water. Many of these families had received water tanks from the wind company, which was required by the Renewable Energy Act permit – an alternative water supply in the case of any well issues during construction. Our family has had a tank on our property since the first weekend of August. It froze during the coldest winter days, and ran dry when there were delays in delivery, or when the hose leaked. At the time of writing, we have been informed that the tank will removed from our property by the end of March…

Read article

We aren’t stupid.

 

egg

Today I attended the @WaterWellsFirst press conference. The egg shown in the picture was prepared with the contaminated well water that the Province says is safe to drink. Would you eat this egg @Kathleen_Wynne ? #healthhazzardstudynow pic.twitter.com/4TJXeSKcoq
— Mayor Todd Case (@ToddCaseLKM) April 11, 2018


Never assume|The Chatham Voice|April 11, 2018

The people of Chatham-Kent aren’t stupid and it makes us a little angry when the powers that be assume we are.

The news this week about the EBS Geostructural Consultant blog that had a key phrase removed regarding the company’s advice to Hydro One about using micro-piling methods instead of deep piling to avoid “potential for driven pile installation to cause issues with nearby active water wells” is disturbing on so many levels.

First, the advice to Hydro One is proof at least one government agency used alternative methods of pile-driving to avoid disturbing area water wells, with the blessing of the Ministry of the Environment, as the blog states.

Second, it refutes the claims by the North Kent One wind farm that there couldn’t possibly be any connection between deep pile driving methods used to construct the turbine foundations and the complaints of sediment contamination in several water wells in the project area.

And finally, removing the line referring to water wells doesn’t make us “unsee” the information. We now know at least one government agency – Hydro One – sought advice on how to construct towers with the least impact to area wells and went with that advice, keeping in line with the company commitment to “identify and evaluate environmental risks to ensure that hazards are eliminated or controlled” as it states on its website.

So asking us to disregard what we read because it wasn’t being “used properly” and expecting us to believe this advice is not in any report to Hydro One is utterly ridiculous and, frankly, insulting.

If Samsung and Pattern are going to stick to their assertion their construction methods couldn’t possibly be the problem for well owners, and if the environment ministry and municipal officials are going to buy into that when other sources say otherwise, it is time for us all to demand better from our deciison makers.

The well owners have been dealing with dirty water for long enough. We need to start questioning why the environment ministry and the municipality are letting the turbine companies dictate what we consider unsafe for our rural residents, and why these well owners have to fund their own investigation into the potential carcinogenic sediment in the water the government insists is safe to drink.

And because our chief medical officer of health says so isn’t a good enough reason. Until the governments – local and provincial – step up and demand answers from an unbiased third party, we will continue to be treated as naïve sheep who need to be neither seen nor heard.

Yeah, we don’t think so.

The Chatham Voice

Council needs to protect Residents

a - WindFarm_6Letter to Editor published April 6, 2018| Opinion: North Country Now

To the Editor:

My wife and I live south of 72, in Hopkinton. We are totally against the North Ridge Wind Project and the expansion south of 72.

Do I feel the wind law is strict enough? No, but there has already been enough compromises on our part.
Time after time the majority of residents have voiced they are against this project.

And, yes, we all know what we signed and do know what a PILOT is, so please stop insulting our intelligence and insinuating that these signatures are not legal residents.

I commend the three women on Hopkinton town board for wisely listening to the majority of your constituents and the Wind Advisory Boards recommendations.

Unfortunately, I question if the two men on the board have drank the Kool-Aid.

One’s dad is a lease holder so ethically must recuse himself and the other being Hopkinton’s fire chief and Avangrid publically stating thousands of dollars ear marked for the fire district, appears he may have some ethically questionable motives and perhaps he should also recuse himself.

A no brainer: Guaranteed 100 percent assessment. If you own a shack or a mansion — we each pay the same assessment. This company has a lot more money than any of us and if this is such a good financial deal for our town, lets guarantee that by making them be fair to each of us.

Pay your full 100% assessment like we all do!

When all is said and done and Avangrid has packed their bags and “gone with the wind,” we will still be here. We have thrived for over 200 years and will continue to thrive.

As our elected town representatives: Will you be able to hold your head high knowing you took your position to represent and protect the majority of the towns people in the highest regards?

Robert Blum

Hopkinton, New York

More about: North Ridge Wind Farm