Category Archives: Green Energy

There is good money and there is bad

siemens-indiana-672x372To the Editor:

The proposed industrial wind turbine “farm” is not welcomed by the majority of the people. It will inhibit our view of the sky, cause health problems for people and animals, and cost this community, and surrounding communities a fortune in lost property values and revenue.

At a recent town hall meeting in Hopkinton, one of the contract holders stated, “Where is National Grid based?” This was in response to the issue of Iberdrola being out of Spain. Well, this was the most pathetic attempt at drawing a parallel that I’ve heard, so far.

Dear Mr. Contract Holder, National Grid does not require me to erect anything on my property that robs my neighbors of their health and property values. National Grid does not sneak into our community, like a snake in the grass, to pit me against my neighbors to further their subsidy mining. National Grid is providing a necessary evil, I’d love to be off grid.

I could go on, but I want to tell you about the woman who spoke before him. She stood up to tell us how she needed this contract to pay her taxes. Her tax burden was too heavy. She went on to talk about how the house across the road from her had been on the market for three years and hadn’t sold.

Maybe it’s because her property, directly across the road is contracted to house industrial wind turbines? And that’s part of disclosure to potential buyers. Could she possibly have her Iberdrola blinders on too tight? There are a lot of elderly people in our community. They will be passing on, who’s going to buy their properties with industrial wind turbines hulking over them? And you, Mr. and Mrs. contract holder, what if no one wants to buy or inherit your property when you pass on. God willing, my husband and I will be alive for another 50 years or more.

We don’t want to deal with your shortsightedness. Some of you are very near the end of your lives, at least statistically. When you’re gone, people will either lament your passing, or want to forget what you did to our community. Will your families want to be associated with the so and so’s of Hopkinton/Parishville, who destroyed the quality of life for an entire community, to make a buck?

Finally I’d like to state that we don’t hate people for their mistakes, and implore the same from you. If you’re a contract holder, you have most assuredly made a mistake. Iberdrola is a $44 billion company. Blindsided, you were no match for them. It’s a mistake we may have made, if we were in your shoes. We have seven children, five still living at home. Money is important, and fun! But there’s good money and bad money.

Whether God allows this project to come to completion or not, all of us need to put our differences on this matter aside and rise above the mess that Iberdrola has brought to our community.

Jim and Angela Spear

Parishville, New York

Published- North County NowMarch 16, 2017:  http://northcountrynow.com/letters/opinion-put-differences-aside-wind-tower-matter-say-parishville-couple-0194077

Wynne’s 50 billion dollar ‘mistake’

elephant in the roomPremier Wynne’s $50-billion elephant – Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives

Do a Google search of “premier wynne+elephant in the room” you get 1,140,000 hits while a search for just “premier wynne” only gets 486,000 hits. The word “elephant” has been used by Ontario’s premier on a number of occasions. For example, the “elephant” popped up at one of the expensive Ontario Liberal Party fundraising dinners a year ago where she declared, referring to the provincial deficit, “So while some want to characterize Ontario’s deficit as the elephant in the room, I think a panda is the more appropriate metaphor,” she said. “Truly, Jia Panpan and Jia Yueyue [visiting pandas at the Toronto Zoo] were adorable. But the pandas are leaving Ontario in 2018, and in 2017-18 our deficit will be gone, too.”

The “elephant” has returned for her government in the form of high electricity prices but instead of cute little “pandas,” Premier Wynne was forced to call them her “mistake”!

Let’s look at that elephant now.

The recent release of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) 2016 annual report provides enough information to allow one to figure out exactly what created the elephantine mistake and where to point the finger. To do that we will compare the results of 2016 to 2009* and show the cause of the above market climb in electricity prices.

Price Comparison

IESO’s (Independent Electricity System Operator) data discloses the cost of electricity generation in 2009 was 6.22 cents/kWh or $62.20 per megawatt hour (MWh) or $62.2 million/TWh (terawatt hour) and in 2016 was 11.32 cents/kWh or $113.20/MWh or $113.2 million/TWh. The increase from 2009 to 2016 represents a jump of 82% in only seven years and in simple terms, is a jump of 11.7% annually.

Using the above prices to show the full cost of electricity generation in those two years is accomplished by multiplying total generation by the cost per TWh so:

Total generation 2009: 148 TWh X $62.2 MM= $9,205 MM

Total generation 2016: 149.5 TWh X $113.2 million = $16,923 MM

(Source: IESO)

That means an increase of $7,718 million (+83.8%) in the raw cost of the commodity-electricity.

Finding the “mistake”

Why did the cost jump 83.8%?

Let’s start with the generation produced by OPG who, according to their 2009 annual report generated 92.5 TWh and 78.2 TWh in 2016. Bruce Nuclear in 2009 generated 35.7 TWh and in 2016 they generated 46.1 TWh. Collectively OPG plus Bruce generated 128.2 TWh in 2009 and that represented 86.6% of total generation (148 TWh) by all generators that year. In 2016 the collective total was 124.3 TWh which represented 83.1% of all generation (149.5 TWh) in that year as reported by IESO.

Costing the generation

2009

For OPG: The costing of generation coming from OPG is a relatively simple task requiring only their gross revenue for the year divided by the generation they reported. For 2009 gross revenue was $5,640 million for the 92.5 TWh delivered making the all-in cost $61 million/TWh.

For Bruce Nuclear: The reported price paid to Bruce was $65.90/MWH. So, for the 35.7 TWh they generated, the gross revenue generated was $2,352 million or $65.9 million /TWh.

The combined costs of $5,640 million from OPG plus the $2,352 million from Bruce was $7,992 billion to produce 128.2 TWh making the combined cost per TWh $62.34 million or 6.23 cents/kWh.

As noted above, total costs for all generation reported by IESO for 2009 was $9,205 million meaning $1,213 million ($9,205 million less OPG/Bruce combined of $7,992 million) was spent to acquire the 19.8 TWh generated by the other private generators, making their costs per TWh $61.3 million or 6.13 cents/kWh. (Note: 9.8 TWh was generated by OPG’s coal plants in 2009.)

2016

For OPG: As noted above OPG in 2016 generated 78.2 TWh and their gross revenue was $5,653 million making their generation cost per TWh $72.3 million (7.23 cents/kWh). Included in OPG’s gross revenue was a $207 million payment for hydro spillage of 4.7 TWh due to SPG2. (surplus base-load generation).

For Bruce Nuclear: Bruce in 2016 generated 46.1 TWh at a reported cost of $66 million/TWh making so gross revenue was $3,043 million including the cost of steaming off almost 1 TWh due to SBG.

The combined costs of $5,653 from OPG plus the $3,043 million from Bruce was $8,696 million to produce 124.3 TWh making the combined cost per TWh $70 million or 7.0 cents/kWh.

Cost of the “other” generation

The all-in costs for generation for 2016 was, as noted above, $16,923 million. If one deducts the combined costs of OPG and Bruce Nuclear for their generation in 2016 ($8,696 million) the balance of $8,227 million went to pay for the 25.2 TWh produced by other generators. Simply dividing the $8,227 million by the 25.2 TWh creates a cost per TWh of $326.5 million or 32.7 cents/kWh. ***

Had the 25.2 TWh cost ratepayers $70 million/TWh, or the same as the OPG/Bruce Nuclear generation combination (25.2 TWh X $70 million = $1,764 million), Ontario ratepayers would not be on the hook for the $6.9 billion in excess costs! ($8,227 million – $1,764 million= $6,932 million or the very high $326.5 million/TWh)

In just one year’s data, compared to 2009, we have located many of the reasons for higher electricity costs. The Premier now claims $50 billion was needed to invest in transmission and generation but her “mistake” was in not seeing the costs would go up more than 83%, principally related to the acquisition of intermittent, unreliable renewable energy from wind and solar!

There may be even more elephants in this particular room.elephant in the room 2

*The choice of 2009 is related to the Legislative passage of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA) in the Spring of that year creating the FIT and MicroFIT programs and subsequent acquisition of renewable energy at above market prices.

**Surplus Base-load Generation is simply anticipated “base-load less Ontario demand”.

***The per TWh cost reflects the FIT contracted generation for industrial wind turbines, solar panels, bio-mass along with curtailed wind, conservation spending, the cost of selling our surplus power to other jurisdictions at only 15% of its cost, etc. etc.

READ AT:  https://parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/premier-wynnes-50-billion-elephant/

 

GoodBye to Peace & Quiet

quiet

“When I first came inside, it almost sounded louder inside than outside.” Yes, it does. It’s like living inside a drum.

I sat in my living room reading this article last night with painfully throbbing ears and a headache, due to turbine noise that penetrates through the walls of my house. The noise kept me awake until 3 a.m. I had to write a reply to the tripe that was published in the OBSERVER (Feb. 19).

I bought my home to reside, because of its semi-secluded, quiet and peaceful nature. There is a river across the road from me and wooded area that surrounds me. I enjoyed listening to the river and birds, which is about all I ever heard, until a wind farm was erected around my property. There is a never-ending, jet-like sound that rips through my property and house. There is nothing natural about the noise that comes from these turbines and they are loud! The peaceful existence I once enjoyed here has been stolen from me!

EDP Renewables and the town of Chateaugay’s Jericho Rise Wind Farm was planted too close to my house. There are four 482-foot turbines approximately 1,800 to 2,600 feet from my home. The industry standard for turbine “setbacks” from residences are ridiculously too close.

Much of the time, sound levels at the west and south side of my home is above the allowable 50 dBA which the town of Chateaugay has deemed to be acceptable and legal. The lower frequency dBC levels for sound, or infrasound, are not even taken into account. According to acoustic engineering experts, dBC sound levels have a much higher pressure rating than dBA readings. This noise is detrimental to human health and is well documented throughout the world. I am living proof. The noise inside and outside of my home is a completely menacing nuisance.

I am not a “naysayer.” I am living with these behemoths that surround my property. In fact, I have been living with wind turbines from an older wind farm approximately 3-4 miles from me for the past 6 1/2 years. About 7 months out of the year, due to leafless trees, I can see 15 of them from my front porch. They really don’t bother me. I can’t say I like them, but I can’t hear them either.

I was never an opponent of wind power. I am a science teacher of 11 years and teach about sound and alternative energies. It is in the state curriculum. I even went to an all day wind power teacher’s workshop to get a better understanding of wind energy eight years ago. The wind industry has been setting us up for a fall a long time ago.

By the way, standing directly underneath a turbine is the quietest place to listen to them. Stand back 500, 1000, 1500 feet and downwind from them, and if you still think they are not loud, then you must be deaf. If anyone would like to come to my home in Chateaugay to get a true experience of what these monsters sound like, you are welcome to visit. A town councilman from a neighboring town was here yesterday and he said, “When I first came inside, it almost sounded louder inside than outside.” Yes, it does. It’s like living inside a drum.

As far as a tax base for your community is concerned, there will be none. They will not pay any business property tax whatsoever. The wind farm company will cram a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Program down your throat. The county, town and possibly school district will receive a pittance compared to what the wind developer receives in government subsidies. This is how they can afford to build these wind farms.

The absurdity of saying that birds will just fly around the towers is also ridiculous. Birds of prey are looking down to the ground for food, not what’s in front of them. Migratory birds are flying in excess of 40 miles per hour. They do not have the ability to just stop in mid-air and fly around.

Putting “hope and trust” in the wind company is dangerous. I have made many complaints to EDP Renewables and Chateaugay about the nuisance noise. They have been to my house once to take a sound test. It was taken on a day with 2-3 mph wind speeds, and in between my house and garage which blocks all of the south wind. The town engineer said the reading was 38.5 dBA.

Folks, it is not a far stretch from 38.5 dBA to over 50 dBA when the winds are from the west or south in excess of 12 miles per hour. I know, because I have been taking my own sound level readings since Jan. 1. The town and EDP Renewables said they would be taking multiple tests. Two days later, with no notice, town board members popped into my backyard at 9:30 a.m. with a sound meter. I wondered what they were doing here, because it was a legal holiday and again, practically no wind. They acted as though they didn’t realize I was home. They didn’t even knock on my door.

They stated they would be back. Just before they left, one town board member stated, “We wouldn’t want these in our backyard either.” I called the town supervisor later in the day and asked to be notified 24 hours in advance and that I want to be present when these tests were done. They have not been back since. It has been almost two months. I have been lied to and ignored.

During this time, I was introduced to a well credentialed acoustic engineer through a friend. He sent me data on what a proper sound test should include. I have continued to call the EDP Renewable complaint hotline. They were supposed to take more tests last week. I sent EDP Renewables operations manager, town engineer and town supervisor data from the acoustic engineer about what I would be expecting for a proper sound test. I am being ignored once again. So, if anyone thinks that the process of developing a wind farm (before, during or after) is honest and trustworthy, you really should be talking to people that are living in the middle of a wind farm.

Please, do not be fooled by any wind farm company! Also, if you are a non-participating landowner, do not sign their “Neighbor Agreement.” You will lose all your rights (on, under, over, around, etc.) as a property owner. If you have any of the problems I am experiencing right now, you will lose the ability to do or say anything to anyone about it. It is a “gag order” for a very small annual payment.

In closing, I need to say that I gain nothing by writing this. It is only to help those that may be in danger of having to live with a wind farm near their home.

Kevin Sigourney is a resident of Chateaugay, which is located in Franklin County in northern New York near Massena.

Published in Observer March 12, 2017:  http://www.observertoday.com/opinion/commentary/2017/03/once-turbines-arrive-say-goodbye-to-peace-quiet/

Behind the scenes at Premier Wynne’s news conference

wind-blown

Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives

March 8, 2017

While the Premier was promising relief for Ontario electricity customers (and blaming lots of other people), more proof of the government’s mistakes was occurring …

The press conference and press release on March 2nd for Premier Wynne’s announcement on reducing electricity bills by 25% took a full hour — she and Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault hung around to answer questions from the media.

The speech and the press release were a mea culpa — she apparently hadn’t noticed rates had climbed and referred to those high rates as the “elephant in the room.” She laid the blame on all previous governments in her answers to questions, for example:

Decades of under-investment in the electricity system by governments of all stripes resulted in the need to invest more than $50 billion in generation, transmission and distribution assets to ensure the system is clean and reliable.

The decision to eliminate Ontario’s use of coal and produce clean, renewable power, as well as policies put in place to provide targeted support to rural and low-income customers, have created additional costs.

If the premier was genuinely interested in the cause for high electricity bills she could have looked no farther back than her immediate predecessor, Dalton McGuinty. Premier McGuinty brought Ontario the Green Energy Act and the misinformed, unfounded belief that getting power from industrial wind turbines and solar panels, while paying at price multiples of other available reliable power, would work!

Those wind turbines and solar panels were generating power out of phase with Ontario demand even during her news conference, for which ratepayers are paying as much as 80.2 cents a kilowatt hour (kWh).

During the news conference hour, Ontario ratepayers consumed 17,300 megawatt hours (MWh); 85% of that consumption was provided by nuclear (10,000 MWh) and hydro (4,900 MWh). The balance came from gas, wind, solar and biomass. The average generation cost of nuclear and hydro generation was about $59/MWh (5.9 cents/kWh) and $191/MWh (19.1 cents/kWh) for the 15% provided by gas, wind, solar and biomass. The former costs include the “water tax” on hydro generation and the “decommissioning and fuel disposal” costs of nuclear whereas the latter does NOT include the cost of curtailed wind, idling costs of gas plants or the costs of moving those two gas plants from Oakville and Mississauga to save Liberal seats during the McGuinty era!

Also during that hour, Ontario exported 1,075 MWh to Michigan and 1,203 MWh to New York. Those 2,078 MWh (20% of Ontario’s demand) were sold to our neighbours at an average of $11.38/MWh (1.14 cents/kWh). The exports cost about $202,000, under the contract terms, yet resulted in just $23,000 of revenue to offset that cost. Ontario ratepayers picked up the loss of $179,000.

In fact, for that whole day, “net exports” hit Ontario’s ratepayers with a cost of $2.4 million.

Admitting she made a “mistake” while blaming decades of previous “governments of all stripes” is not a solution. And the 25% reduction in bills isn’t real, either: Premier Wynne is kicking the can down the road and laying the burden of her mistake on taxpayers. She still doesn’t appear to have the political courage to admit she, Mr. McGuinty and their governments made a mistake believing the environmental non-government organizations who persuaded them to believe in a green dream that has now, negatively affected all ratepayers in the province, driving away jobs in the private sector.

The herd of elephants is still in the room. Premier Wynne should start clearing them out by cancelling all wind and solar contracts that have not put a shovel in the ground!

Source: Behind the scenes at Premier Wynne’s news conference

CANCEL WIND AND SOLAR CONTRACTS!!!

Deniers in Wind Industry

hear-no-evil

The human health consequences of manipulated measurements

Science deniers in the wind industry

By: Helen Schwiesow Parker, PhD, LCP

Like the tobacco industry before it, the wind industry has spent decades vehemently denying known harmful consequences associated with its product, while promoting its fraudulent feel-good image. Dismissing or denying the serious health impacts of industrial-scale wind turbines is wishful thinking, akin to insisting that tobacco is harmless because we enjoy it.

The problem with wind energy is not just its costly, subsidized, unreliable electricity; the need to back up every megawatt with redundant fossil-fuel power; or its impacts on wildlife and their habitats.

Infrasound (inaudible) and low-frequency (audible) noise (slowly vibrating sound waves collectively referred to as ILFN) produced by Industrial-scale Wind Turbines (IWTs) directly and predictably cause adverse human health effects.  The sonic radiation tends to be amplified within structures, and sensitivity to the impact of the resonance increases with continuing exposure.

These facts have been known to the wind industry and the US government since the 1980s when it became a ‘hot topic,’ with numerous studies presented and published by acousticians working under grants from the Departments of Energy, Defense and NASA. The wind industry response?

Deny the science.  Insist that “what you can’t hear can’t hurt you.” Claim that “neighbors will get used to it.” Measure only outside dwellings, and allow only noise measurements in the field that reflect the relative loudness perceived by the human ear, while drastically reducing sound-level readings in the lower frequencies that are known to cause problems……….

Read More: http://canadafreepress.com/article/science-deniers-in-the-wind-industry

 

Bat remedy hearing concludes

brown-bat

Simcoe-Grey MPP Jim Wilson demands to know why wind power developers get a remedy hearing on endangered bats when harm has been proven. Minister Murray replied he would have to resign if he intervenes in the independence of the Environmental Tribunal process but it is the Green Energy Act that allows wind projects to be approved. Under the Green Energy Act the Minister has authority to intervene.  The Minister to resign over the harm caused by wind projects?  What an interesting idea!

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Turbine Hearing Concludes

Collingwood | by Catherine Thompson  

yet more submissions in long-running case

A hearing to do with a wind turbine proposal near Stayner took one day instead of three.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed WPD Canada to have a Remedy Hearing to present ways to reduce harm to natural heritage, mainly the Little Brown Bat.

The hearing, held in Collingwood council chambers, was originally to start on Monday, but that day was cancelled because a witness was unavailable. The hearing, on Tuesday, heard from three witnesses.

Dr. Scott Reynolds, presenting for WPD Canada, via Skype, says they would slow down the turbine speed when bats are in the air in an effort to decrease the number of bat deaths.

The second witness, Susan Holroyd, a wildlife biologist specializing in bats, appeared by Skype, on the appellant, Preserve Clearview’s side.

The third and last witness was Ecologist Sarah Mainguy, also for the opponent’s side. She told the hearing there are huge uncertainties in this application such as the number of bats and their exact route in the areas of the turbines. She added that the mitigation suggestions from WPD Canada are not good enough.

Witnesses and lawyers could not comment on the hearing proceedings, but Chuck Magwood of Preserve Clearview, was in the audience.  He says he agrees with their witnesses that one dead Little Brown Bat, which is an endangered species, is too many.

WPD has until March 31st to make written submissions, the opponents have four weeks to reply and then another two weeks for WPD to rebut the reply, taking the latest round in the turbine discussions to May 12th.

Magwood says he expects a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal in June.

READ AT: http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=91434

 

Wind Power is an attack on Rural America

farm-and-turbinesBy: Robert Byrce  February 27, 2017

Urban voters may like the idea of using more wind and solar energy, but the push for large-scale renewables is creating land-use conflicts in rural regions from Maryland to California and Ontario to Loch Ness.

Since 2015, more than 120 government entities in about two dozen states have moved to reject or restrict the land-devouring, subsidy-fueled sprawl of the wind industry.

The backlash continued last month when a judge in Maryland ruled that the possible benefits of a proposed 17-turbine project did “not justify or offset subjecting the local community to the adverse impacts that will result from the wind project’s construction and operation.” The judge’s ruling probably spells the end of an eight-year battle that pitted local homeowners and Allegany County against the developer of the 60-megawatt project.

Objections to the encroachment of wind energy installations don’t fit the environmentalists’ narrative. The backlash undermines the claim – often repeated by climate activists such as 350.org founder Bill McKibben and Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson – that we can run our entire economy on nothing but energy from the wind and sun. Many of those same activists routinely demonize natural gas and hydraulic fracturing even though the physical footprint of gas production is far smaller than that of wind. Three years ago, the late David J.C. MacKay, then a professor at the University of Cambridge, calculated that wind energy requires about 700 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a fracking site.

house-and-turbines-1
Rural residents are objecting to wind projects to protect their property values and viewsheds. They don’t want to live next door to industrial-scale wind farms. They don’t want to see the red-blinking lights atop the turbines, all night, every night for the rest of their lives. Nor do they want to be subjected to the audible and inaudible noise the turbines produce.

Even in California, which has mandated that 50% of the electricity sold in the state be produced from renewable energy sources by 2030, there is resistance to wind power. In 2015, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ban wind turbines in L.A.’s unincorporated areas. At the hearing on the measure, then-Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said the skyscraper-sized turbines “create visual blight … [and] contradict the county’s rural dark skies ordinance.”

In New York, angry fishermen are suing to stop an offshore wind project that could be built in the heart of one of the best squid fisheries on the Eastern Seaboard. Three upstate counties – Erie, Orleans and Niagara – as well as the towns of Yates and Somerset, are fighting a proposed 200-megawatt project that aims to put dozens of turbines on the shores of Lake Ontario. As in California, New York has a “50 by 30” renewable-energy mandate.

Outside the U.S., about 90 towns in Ontario have declared themselves “unwilling hosts” to wind projects.In April 2016, a wind project near Scotland’s famous Loch Ness was rejected by local authorities because of its potential negative effect on tourism. Poland and the German state of Bavaria have effectively banned wind turbines by implementing a rule that allows turbines to be located no closer than 10 times their height to homes or other sensitive areas.

The defeat of the Maryland wind project came as a relief to K. Darlene Park, a resident of Frostburg and the president of Allegany Neighbors & Citizens for Home Owners Rights. “We were up against an army of suits,” she told me. “It’s like a brick has been taken off our shoulders.”Park’s tiny group relied on volunteers and a budget of about $20,000 as it fought the turbines all the way to the state’s public service commission.

Neither the communications director nor the CEO of the American Wind Energy Assn., which spends more than $20 million per year promoting wind power, would comment on the rural opposition to wind turbines. Their refusal isn’t surprising. If the wind lobby – and their myriad allies at the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups – acknowledges turbines’ negative effects on landscapes and rural quality of life, it would subvert their claims that wind energy is truly green.

Just as problematic for the industry’s future: to increase wind-energy production to the levels needed to displace significant quantities of coal, oil and natural gas will require erecting more – and taller – turbines (new models reach to 700 feet). But the more turbines that get installed, and the taller they are, the more nearby residents are likely to object.

Wind energy simply requires too much territory. That means we can’t rely on it for major cuts in emissions. Indeed, the more wind energy encroaches on small towns and suburbs, the more resistance it will face. That resistance will come from homeowners like Park who told me, “We feel this renewable energy push is an attack on rural America.”

Robert Bryce is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author, most recently, of “Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong.”

READ AT: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-bryce-backlash-against-wind-energy-20170227-story.html

Federal Government abandons wind project on Nova Scotia’s Sable Island

sable-island-horsesThe harsh environment of wind swept Sable Island located off the shores of Nova Scotia famed for its wild horses has claimed the demise of wind turbines. The turbines  are coming down. Sharing a place in the history of the island known as a graveyard for hundreds of shipwrecks  on the Atlantic. The toll now includes five failed wind turbines.

SableIsland postcards2.indd

By Aly Tomson   The Canadian Press    Sunday February 19. 2017

HALIFAX—The harsh conditions and extreme isolation of Sable Island has forced Ottawa to abandon a wind project on the iconic crescent-shaped sandbar — more than 15 years after it launched the initiative.

Parks Canada said wind turbines do not meet the needs of the windswept Nova Scotia island, famous for the wild horses that have roamed there since the 18th century.

“The wind turbines were part of a … project to reduce Sable Island’s dependence on fossil fuels, and were chosen based on the renewable energy technology that existed at that time,” the department said in an email statement about the million-dollar, overbudget initiative.

“Since then, there have been considerable advancements in the field of renewable energy systems.”

Dubbed the Graveyard of the Atlantic, some 350 vessels have wrecked on the island’s shores and hidden reefs since the mid-1700s. It is home to hundreds of namesake horses that have become synonymous with its romantic and untamed image.

Environment Canada launched the pilot project in 2000 — which would have seen the five wind turbines generate energy onto the grid of the island known for its shifting sand dunes and fragile environment.

But when Parks Canada took over management of the 40-kilometre-long island when it became a national park reserve in 2013, the wind turbines were not functioning.

“The project faced several delays due to the environmental sensitivity of the site and wildlife concerns, as well as the isolated and harsh conditions,” the department said, adding that the turbines were fully installed and running in 2006.

“Unfortunately, technical problems continued due to the harsh conditions and the inability to adapt the technology to the operations of the other infrastructure at the site.”

sable-island-horses-2

READ MORE  AT: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/02/19/federal-government-abandons-wind-energy-project-on-nova-scotias-sable-island.html

Tree Cutting Penalty. A Licence to Kill?

Cedar-Point-Trees-cut-3-1024x768.jpg
Site of unauthorized clear cutting that occurred during construction of Cedar Wind. Lambton County, Ontario

Taking down trees even those under provincial protection is occurring in multiple wind projects and punitive fines are less than a tap on the wrist for offenders.  Cedar Wind construction removed trees and the cost was a mere pittance.

Niagara Wind destroyed well over 7 000 trees including individual trees  estimated to be centuries old including tree species at risk.

1297813168809_ORIGINAL
Old growth tree one of many removed for Niagara Wind. West Lincoln, Ontario

Presentation on trees removed  at Niagara Wind:  https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1widGvicaK-VA1XXB4xC1OBtMlWopYG281sa94LKdktY/edit#slide=id.p3

WPD Wild Turkey Road
Clear cutting for wind development on ecological sensitive and protected Oak Ridges Moraines (head waters location supplying greater Toronto area)

 

Lambton landowner handed $6,000 fine in high- profile woodlot clearing case

By: Barbara Simpson  Sarnia Observer  Published: February 15, 2017

If trees are illegally cut in a woodlot and a fine of a few thousand dollars is handed out, is that enough to deter a landowner from clear-cutting again?

That’s the question several Lambton County politicians are raising after learning the details of the penalty the county leveled at a landowner for removing more trees than permitted during the construction of a Cedar Point wind turbine in 2015.

The high-profile case of clear-cutting – which involved an acre of trees in Lambton Shores – resulted in a fine of $6,000 for the private landowner. That amount was paid in full to the county in early 2016.

While mistakes are bound to happen, Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley said Wednesday the dollar amount of the penalty was not “punitive.”

“In James Bond, they say it’s a licence to kill. This is a licence to cut.”

READ AT: http://www.theobserver.ca/2017/02/15/lambton-landowner-handed-6000-fine-in-high-profile-woodlot-clearing-case

Toolkit for Turbines

house-surrounded-by-wind-turbines“Pressures to stop (new) wind energy production in Ontario have increased significantly since the controversial GEA. “

Opposition to wind turbines is facing a growing resistance not just in Ontario but globally. The acceptance and excitement over using an alternative way to generate electricity has  given way to the bitter nightmare  faced by abutting residents who are adversely impacted by these massive and intrusive structures. Courts worldwide are increasingly rendering decisions to compensate families and individuals who have been harmed.

The Toolkit document opines (give it a read and try not to choke on the obvious) as to why a few (smaller) turbines in a less densely populated rural area will meet with less resistance than clusters of hundreds (increasingly larger machines) placed adjacent to towns and settled areas.   It is suggested that entering into a more intimate relationship with wind development will mitigate the harms of not being able to give consent.

This is a false and misleading conclusion as landowners who host wind turbines have given witness that they too were harmed even when money was received.

“The ultimate goal is fairer and much less divisive turbine facility siting outcomes when governments and communities themselves decide that turbine development is the policy path they wish to pursue.”  Toolkit for Turbines: Wind Energy Development in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada

Harm from wind power will not be remedied with the stated goal. The document fails to address a fundamental flaw in reasoning- which is to examine if turbines justify the negative documented outcomes. Simply put the wind turbines are not fit for purpose. To continue to pursue an energy policy that accepts inflicting harm on a few without remedy and without proven benefits for the greater good is wilful blindness.

protest_02_72cd1___gallery
Protesters demonstrated in Oakville where Premier Kathleen Wynne was the guest speaker at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon.