Cheryl La Rocque – Freelance Health Columnist – Amherst, Nova Scotia
Category Archives: Government Misrepresentation
Changing the Public Perception: Industrial Wind Energy Has VERY High Costs with VERY low Benefits
An article which digs deeper into the question about what the “Grassroots” issues are and potentially “What we NEED” to be addressing in the debate about Siting of a Turbine vs Fundamental Benefits for all…
Excerpts from the Article ring true for the Mothers Against Wind Turbines…Although the distance of people from the turbines is a significant issue for those currently suffering…the FACTS remain that:
Industrial Wind Turbines:
— They will not solve our energy issues (e.g. they most certainly do not reduce our dependence on imported oil).
— They are not, and never can be, a viable substitute for conventional energy sources (e.g. because they are not reliable, have no Capacity Value, are much more expensive, etc.).
— They will not solve our environmental problems (e.g. contrary to popular perception, they do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in any meaningful way, due to their inherent limitations as an energy source).
Should we pursue the path to change the public perception of wind energy and call into question the fundamental viability of it? I say yes.
Read original article here: http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/eric-bibler-to-the-grassroots/
Current schedule for St Columbian/Julian Falconer
The ERT for St Columban starts Monday, Sept 23 at 10.00 am. at Brussels Arena Community Hall.
Below please find list of witnesses.
Monday -motion- Jim Murray being allowed in to give evidence
-opening statements
-Ryans and Dixons evidence
Tuesday-Barb Ashbee
-Sandy McLeod
Wednesday-Nicky Horton
-Michauds
Some time Wednesday or Thursday there will need to be time
set aside for HALT to give evidence.
Thursday- Oliveria
Rick James (full afternoon)
Friday- Tomlinson
Toronto (Tribunal venue)
Tuesday October 1 Denton Miller (acoustician)
Dr. Baines
Wednesday October 2 Dr. Moore
Hose Menendez
Attention Wind Developers – You may have some WILLING Hosts!!!
Niagara Regional Council – September 19, 2013 – Anita Thornton
After a few hours of uncertainty, the council chambers erupted into jubilant celebration and angry accusation. With a vote of 16 Yeas and 11 Nays Tom Rankin and the NRWC lost their attempt to rescind Councils decision to support Wainfleet and West Lincolns “Not a Willing Host” designation.
Shellie Correia opened her presentation with a rebuttal to Mr. Rankin’s previous council speech. Her points included how the Niagara Region was already the Green Capital of Canada due to the fact that Niagara Falls is the “cheapest and greenest” energy of all while expressing how water spill is occurring to displace the un-needed wind energy being produced in Ontario. She also expressed how in Germany there are over 700 anti-wind groups, while hundreds more are across Europe.
Marianne Kidd, from Mothers Against Wind Turbines, focused her presentation on “Why Wind is a BAD deal for the Niagara Region”. After talking about how 8 “Skylon Tower” sized turbines would be surrounding her home if the NRWC project is approved, she went into more details regarding the Ontario Auditor General’s report and Property Value reductions. Of importance was the fact that from 2008 -2012, Ontario Residential electricity consumers are paying almost 20% more than there were 4 years ago.
Francesco Macri, brought the Councilors attention to how Premier Kathleen Wynne’s thrown speech invited municipalities from across Ontario to declare themselves “Not a Willing Host”. He stated, “Clearly this statement also means local municipalities and their citizens have a right to declare themselves unwilling hosts for large projects that conflict with local needs and wishes. The issue raised in the Motion before you is not the viability of alternative energy, but the viability of local democracy”.
Mervin Croghan, CEO of NRWC and Randy Rahamim Spokesperson for the NRWC, presented a lack luster argument as they attempted to persuade council reminding them about all the money they have been throwing out to the Niagara Region. It was also noted that West Lincoln refused their Vibrancy Money offers. They stated throughout the evening that this designation was perceived as Niagara Region itself not supporting Green Energy and was understating the importance of this industry in the Niagara Region. As an example, German turbine manufacturer, Enercon, was delaying their investment to build a concrete form manufacturing plant in Port Colborne due to the perception it was not a supportive region. Like Randi Rahamim correctly stated “perception is reality”.
The uncertainty of the outcome of the evening was a nail biter. Several council members including Zimmerman, Badawey and Mayor Sharpe of Welland were staunch supporters of Tom Rankin and his delegation. However,as the motion was voted on Mayor Sharpe voted “No”.He stood by his belief,”If you fail to protect the democratic rights of the citizens of West Lincoln and Wainfleet, then you will fail to protect the democratic rights of the citizens in your communities.”.It was stressed throughout the evening how many jobs would be created and how the influx of cash and investment would filter into the local economy and businesses.
Mayor April Jeffs questioned the number of jobs that would be created and argued that most of those manufacturing jobs were for a temporary interim. Croghan said that they would hire at least 100 employees as permanent positions once the project was complete. That number seems questionable as the Erie Shore Windfarm with only 66 turbines employs only ten.
Mayor Joyner kept bringing up the elephant in the room: the 2011 auditor general report that clearly and concisely reports how the REA is not good for “Ontario”.
“No thorough and professional cost/benefit analysis had been conducted to identify potentially cleaner, more economically productive, and cost-effective alternatives to renewable energy; such as energy imports and increased conservation.” (AGO, 2011:97)
Later in the evening, after the Motion was rejected, Debbie Zimmerman from Grimsby brought forward another motion to declare the Niagara Region a Willing Host. This motion would encompass the entire Niagara Region; however the only 2 Municipalities where there were Wind Turbines proposed have declared themselves “UNWILLING”.
Are the constituents in the remaining Niagara Regional municipalities also willing have turbines in their backyard? If so, maybe the NRWC and Mr Rankin could work with those communities to move their projects there.
Terence Corcoran: Ontario’s power disaster
Financial Post – Terence Corcoran | 19/09/13 | Last Updated: 19/09/13 5:43 PM ET
Peter J. Thompson/National PostTerence Corcoran: “The new premier, Kathleen Wynne, appears to be coasting through the power issue, issuing directives and installing ever more megawatts of wind power at huge cost.”
For almost five years FP Comment has inveighed against the Ontario government’s profoundly uneconomic and costly electricity regime, a dictatorial and monopolist system that uses taxes and subsidies to greenify the power system of the largest provincial economy in Canada. As I wrote in 2009: “In the midst of a major economic meltdown, and with looming budget deficits totaling more than $18-billion, now might not be the best time for the government of Ontario to be embarking on a crushing new green energy policy that could add billions to the province’s electricity costs. But Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is nothing if not immune to the folly of his own righteous policies and the fiscal crisis he faces as a result.”
Since then, via former Canadian banker Parker Gallant’s ongoing series — Ontario’s Power Trip — along with reports from consultant Tom Adams and many others, the growing absurdity of the regime has been detailed and documented on this page: Rising costs, market distorting feed-in-tariffs, subsidies to wind and solar, exports of power to New York at below cost — not to mention the $1-billion scandal over cancelled gas plants.
The burden on the economy has yet to be fully measured, but the cost to consumers is easy to identify. In 2007, the all-in retail price of electricity was 10.38 cents per kilowatt hour. Today, the price for the same electricity is about 15.5 cents — a 50% increase imposed on consumers despite a recession that saw economic growth fall along with electricity demand.
Related
That the Ontario Liberal government has been able to dodge this giant policy folly is mystery of sorts, although perhaps no surprise given the squishy Liberal bias of the provincial media. The new premier, Kathleen Wynne, appears to be coasting through the power issue, issuing directives and installing ever more megawatts of wind power at huge cost.
Maybe a new report from the C.D. Howe Institute by an independent consultant will light a fire. The opening sentences of the report, by A.J. Goulding of London Economics International, describes vast scope of the Liberal folly:
The province’s power sector today has an electricity oversupply, a mismatch between generator capabilities and supply needs, rising prices for final consumers and a lack of cost transparency, along with a record of volatile, often contradictory, policies. Consequently, private-sector electricity generators are unable to justify investment in the system without some form of government-backed contract.
While various provincial governments have announced laudable goals over the years, their failure to implement either sound planning or rely on market principles has meant that Ontarians are not getting electricity at the lowest possible cost. Projections suggest that Ontario residents and businesses will be paying substantially higher electrical bills over the next decade than if the provincial electricity system had instead relied on combined cycle natural gas turbine electricity generation,even when the potential costs of buying greenhouse gas emissions credits are taken into account. As well, Ontario’s Feed-in Tariff program, under which the province has contracted for extensive wind and solar power for some years into the future, will increase generation and transmission costs, further hiking electricity prices.
This SNAFU-like description should alert all to the perils and mass disfunction of Ontario’s existing power system. In his report, A New Blueprint for Ontario’s Electricity Market, Mr. Goulding notes that in New York State, where electricity is gas-generated, the cost of electricity has edged down (see graph below). The generated cost of electricity (including surcharges) in Western New York moved close to 40 cents a megawatt hour at the end of 2012, while the Ontario generated price (including surcharges for wind subsidies etc.) rose to near 80 cents. How can an economy be competitive when basic electricity rates are double those of a neighbouring state?
For a full description of the Ontario fiasco, I highly recommend Mr. Goulding paper. He also recommends a wholesale reform of the system. Whether all of his prescriptions should be adopted is a matter for a debate that is totally absent in a province that desperately needs a radical deconstruction and renewal of its electricity system.
Original Article Here http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/19/terence-corcoran-ontarios-power-disaster/
Stop the Appeal – Save Ostrander Point PECFN – Sign Petition!
You may not be aware that the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists won their appeal to cancel the wind project at Ostrander Point. The ETR ruled that the Blanding Turtle would be harmed irreversibly and therefore overturned the Ministry’s decision.
Unfortunately our Ministry of Environment and the wind company, Gilead, are appealing the ETR’s ruling. It is back to court.
Cheryl Anderson of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists created this petition in response to the outrageous appeal by the Ministry of the Environment (and the developer) of the ERT decision to protect the Blandings turtle at Ostrander Point from industrial wind development. We must protect the South Shore of PEC.
The ERT decision must stand. We all know how important this issue is, and together we can do something about it! Please sign right now and pass it along to friends and relatives.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Save_Ostrander_Point_In_Prince_Edward_County/?erlqsfb
Last Day to Comment on Ontario’s Longterm Energy Plan – September 16th, 2013
Sick of Higher Electricity Bills?
Want to tell the Liberals that you don’t want to pay for Wind Turbines which aren’t producing electricity?
Demand to see proof of a cost/benefit analysis.
Please remember that the deadline for submitting comments is Sept. 16, 2013. http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/ltep/
Before sending your comments, it might be a good idea to read the document called “Making Choices:
Reviewing Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan” which can be accessed on the Registry page on the lower right side, document #2. This document gives an overview of the present energy system with all its forms of energy and is an easy read. It has the questions that they want our input on, under “For consideration” at the end of each section but please don’t limit yourself to just what they ask. Also, tell them what you want to say about the energy system. Please follow the directions below:
1. Google: Environmental Registry
2. Registry No. 011-9490
3. Click on “Submit Comment” and fill in your name, address, etc. and comments.
4.Please reference EBR Registry # 011-9490 at the start of your comments.
5. Choose “Save” when done and it will send your comments.
6. Scroll to bottom and “Print.”
If you have family/friends/neighbours who would be interested in sending in comments but don’t use a computer, please give them the mailing address that’s on the Registry page. Below are some facts from the “2011 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, Chapter 3, Electricity Sector – Renewable Energy Initiatives” that you’re welcome to cut and paste into your comments.
This Report explains the “renewable rush” story with all its losses/costs to us. It will also open your eyes as to how the Minister of Energy/gov’t. issues energy directives taking away much of the “authority” of the Ont. Power Authority experts and limiting the independent Ont. Energy Board’s role of protecting the consumers with respect to overall cost-effectiveness in the electricity sector.
As Esther Wrightman said: “We all have the power to make change. Persistence pays eventually.”
2011 Annual Report of the Auditor General
1. “Although the Ministry consulted with stakeholders in developing the supply-mix directives, the Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP), and the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, billions of dollars were committed to renewable energy without fully evaluating the impact, the trade-offs, and the alternatives through a comprehensive business-case analysis. Specifically, the OPA, the OEB, and the IESO acknowledged that:
• no independent, objective, expert investigation had been done to examine the potential effects of renewable-energy policies on prices, job creation, and greenhouse gas emissions; and
• no thorough and professional cost/benefit analysis had been conducted to identify potentially cleaner, more economically productive, and cost-effective alternatives to renewable energy, such as energy imports and increased conservation.” P.97
2. “On the other hand, renewable energy sources, particularly wind and solar, cost much more than conventional energy sources. Accordingly, electricity bills are projected to rise even further as more renewable energy projects start commercial operations in the next few years.” P.93
3. “In November 2010, the Ministry forecast that a typical residential electricity bill would rise about 7.9% annually over the next five years, with 56% of the increase due to investments in renewable energy that would increase the supply to 10,700 MW by 2018, as well as the associated capital investments to connect all the renewable power sources to the electricity transmission grid.” P.89
4. “In particular, RESOP, (Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program) which offered very attractive contract prices to renewable energy generators, received overwhelming responses…” P.103″Although continuing the successful RESOP initiative was one option, the Minister directed the OPA in September 2009 to replace RESOP with a new standard-offer program called Feed-in Tariff (FIT), which was wider in scope, required made-in-Ontario components, and provided renewable energy generators with significantly more attractive contract prices than RESOP. These higher prices added about $4.4 billion in costs over the 20-year contract terms as compared to what would have been incurred had RESOP prices for wind and solar power been maintained.” P. 104
5. “Many other jurisdictions set lower FIT prices than Ontario and have mechanisms to limit the total costs arising from FIT programs.” P.90
6. “… the FIT contract has a unique feature that offers renewable energy generators an “Additional Contract Payment” to compensate them for any revenue lost as a result of curtailment instruction. Accordingly, electricity ratepayers still have to pay renewable energy developers even when those generators are not producing electricity during periods of curtailment. “ P.107
7. “Given that demand growth for electricity is expected to remain modest at the same time as more renewable energy is being added to the system, electricity ratepayers may have to pay renewable energy generators under the FIT program between $150 million and $225 million a year not to generate electricity.” P.91
8. “Reducing renewable power can be an efficient way to reduce supply. Wind generators can be brought on-line or off-line quickly – an ideal characteristic to address surpluses. Although this helps to address the degree to which the electricity system is overloaded, it may not result in cost savings because if the IESO instructs wind generators to shut down under a surplus-power situation, the generators still get paid under the FIT program.” P.113
9. “In 2010, 86% of wind power was produced on days when Ontario was already in a net export position. Although export customers paid only about 3¢/kWh to 4¢/kWh for Ontario power, electricity ratepayers of Ontario paid more than 8¢/kWh for this power to be generated. Based on our analysis of net exports and pricing data from the IESO, we estimated that from 2005 to the end of our audit in 2011, Ontario received $1.8 billion less for its electricity exports than what it actually cost electricity ratepayers of Ontario.” P.112
10. “Reducing hydro power can be done by diverting, or spilling, water from hydro generators. The IESO informed us that although the magnitude and timing of spill activities have not been well documented, Ontario spilled water to reduce electricity supply on 96 days in 2009 and 10 days in 2010. Because the overall cost to produce hydro power is often lower than that of all other types of power, reducing hydro power to “make room” for wind and solar power is an expensive mitigation strategy to reduce surplus power, particularly as hydro, wind, and solar power are all considered renewable energy sources.” P.112-113
11. “Wind generators operate at 28% capacity factor but have only 11% availability at peak demand due to lower wind output in the summer. Although the average capacity factor of wind throughout the year was 28%, it fluctuated seasonally, from 17% in the summer to 32% in the winter. Our analysis also indicated that wind output was out of phase with electricity demand during certain times of day. For example, during the morning hours, around 6:00 a.m., wind output usually decreased just as demand was ramping up. Throughout the day, demand remained high but wind output typically dropped to its lowest level for the day. During the evening hours, around 8:00 p.m., when demand was ramping down, wind output was rising, and it remained high overnight until early morning. This somewhat inverse relationship between daily average wind output and daily average demand was particularly pronounced in the summer and winter months.” P.111
12. “The OPA informed us that because viable large-scale energy storage is not available in Ontario, wind and solar power must be backed up by other forms of generation. This backup power is generated mainly from natural gas, because coal will be phased out by the end of 2014. The backup requirements have cost and environmental implications. For example: The IESO confirmed that consumers have to pay twice for intermittent renewable energy – once for the cost of constructing renewable energy generators and again for the cost of constructing backup generation facilities, which usually have to keep running at all times to be able to quickly ramp up in cases of sudden declines in sunlight levels or in wind speed. The IESO confirmed that such backups add to ongoing operational costs, although no cost analysis has been done.” P.113
13. “According to the study used by the Ministry and the OPA, 10,000 MW of electricity from wind would require an additional 47% of non-wind power, typically produced by natural-gas-fired generation plants, to ensure continuous supply.” P.91
14. “Although gas-fired plants emit fewer greenhouse gases than coal-fired plants, they still contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The Ministry has not yet quantified how much backup power will be required from other energy sources to compensate for the intermittent nature of renewable energy, and accordingly has no data on the impact of gas-fired backup power plants on greenhouse gas emissions.” P.119
15. “In recent years, there have been growing public-health concerns about wind turbines, particularly with regard to the noise experienced by people living near wind farms. In May 2010, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health issued a report concluding that available scientific evidence to date did not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects. However, the report was questioned by environmental groups, physicians, engineers, and other professionals, who noted that it was merely a literature review that presented no original research and did not reflect the situation in Ontario. We also noted that only a limited number of renewable generators were in operation in Ontario when the report was prepared in spring 2010, a few months after the launch of the FIT program.” P.119/120
16. “the Ministry confirmed that it had not estimated the potential job losses and the cost per renewable-energy-related job in Ontario.” P.118
LINK TO Ontario Comments – http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/ltep/
Greens Tell Australia That They Don’t Care What The Voters Say
Those faux-green losers are going to care, soon enough!!!
After the prime minister-elect instructed his department on Sunday to begin drafting the legislation to abandon the carbon-pricing scheme, business groups lined up to urge parliament to respect his government’s mandate.
Key state governments said that cutting the tax would provide huge relief to the cost of running services, with Queensland Treasurer Tim Nicholls declaring that the Senate was “there to protect the rights of the states and the states don’t want Labor’s carbon tax”, adding that the impost would hit new projects in the coal and liquefied natural gas-rich state.
With Labor and the Greens threatening to deadlock the plan in the current Senate, the Abbott government could have to wait to negotiate with newly elected senators who take their seats in July next year, or otherwise call a double-dissolution election.
Carbon delay ‘to cost billions’, warns business | The Australian
Labor lied to create the tax, and now…
View original post 180 more words
Wind energy biggest loser as Abbott sweeps to power
By Giles Parkinson on 9 September 2013
It appears the reign of the eco-nuts has come to an end in Australia. We should be cautiously hopeful that the new Abbott government will bring an environment of sanity and common sense that seems to have been lost of late. I am so jealous. One day (soon) I hope they’ll be writing similar stories about us crazy canucks.
Clearly, the mood has turned. Three years ago Australians voted to save the planet, make love and then shoot the lights out. Now they want to axe the tax, trash the turbines, did up coal – and then go down with Palmer’s remake of the Titanic.
Entire article found here: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/wind-energy-biggest-loser-as-abbott-sweeps-to-power-15389
And on a more lighter note…..
Climate Science Exploited For Political Agenda
TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 28, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
another excerpt from this journal
Lindzen writes: “Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions. How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy?”
and this
Escape from climate alarmism will be more difficult than from Lysenkoism, in Lindzen’s view, because Global Warming has become a religion. It has a global constituency and has coopted almost all institutional science. Nevertheless, he believes “the cracks in the scientific claims for catastrophic warming are…becoming much harder for the supporters to defend.”
To read the full article ……
Mothers Against Wind Turbines Inc. 