Turbine snaps in half in Chatham-Kent, MPP calls for halt of wind projects
‘The blade is wrapped around the bottom of it and the engine is on the ground’
By Dan Taekema, CBC News Posted: Jan 19, 2018
A wind turbine in Chatham-Kent, Ont. has snapped in half, leading to calls from one area MPP to halt area wind projects.
The turbine in Raleigh Township, near the corner of Drake Road and the 16th Line, collapsed on itself Friday.
“As we were getting closer you could see in the distance that it was snapped in half .. it’s actually one of those ‘Oh my goodness [moments],” said Chatham-Kent Ward 2 councillor Karen Herman. “I was so surprised to see something like this. The blade is wrapped around the bottom of it and the engine is on the ground.”
No injuries reported
The Turbine is owned by TerraForm Power. The company confirmed one of its turbines collapsed Friday and that crews are investigating the cause.
“The issue did not cause any injuries or impact to the broader community,” wrote spokesperson Chad Reed in a statement emailed to CBC News.
Chatham-Kent’s Fire and Paramedic Chief Bob Crawford said the turbine has been disconnected from the grid.
“With safety being a priority, workers are currently putting up safety fencing around the broken turbine and Chatham-Kent Police are also present,” he added.
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex MPP Monte McNaughton shared a photo of the mangled turbine on Twitter and used it as an opportunity to renew calls to stop two upcoming wind projects in the area.
“The Liberal government should put a halt to the Otter Creek and North Kent projects immediately, put a moratorium on them so we can look into the safety issues of turbines,” he explained.
Minister of Environment & Climate Change, @ChrisBallardMPP: 17 families in Chatham-Kent cannot drink their well water and today, this from one of your local wind turbine projects. I again call for an immediate moratorium on North Kent & Otter Creek wind projects. #onpoli #ckont pic.twitter.com/AEXsXmDwld
— Monte McNaughton (@MonteMcNaughton) January 19, 2018
Rutland Herald| Letter to Editor|December 28th, 2017
A recent Rutland Herald editorial, entitled “Powering up,” concluded that we need to move with urgency toward the renewable power of the future. While that is correct, the editorial goes on to complain that “old ways” of thinking dominate the discussion in Vermont. At issue: the editorial then proceeds to propose “old ways” to move us forward.
When it comes to energy development in Vermont, the industrial wind industry leads the “old way” pack. Wind operators and developers have been living off federal subsidies since the early 1990s and have been wreaking havoc in Vermont for just as long. It’s time to boot them out of the state and employ creative Vermontsized energy solutions.
The editorial employs the “old way” strawman tactic when citing the arguments of industrial wind opponents. Legitimate concerns of Vermonters are minimized when the only argument acknowledged against ridgeline destruction is to mock “the exquisite timidity of those who grieve over birds killed by wind turbines.” It’s a cheap shot that does nothing to advance the conversation.
We should instead be talking about the entire range of problems industrial wind development brings to Vermont: mountaintop dynamiting, destruction of intact eco-systems, stormwater runoff, habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, noise and health impacts to neighbors and wildlife, safety risks, community division, aesthetic degradation, tourism, property devaluation, and, yes, impacts on birds, bats, and even bears.
We should also talk about what does and doesn’t work. As environmentalist Suzanna Jones recently told us, “Despite the platitudes of its corporate and government backers, industrial wind has not reduced Vermont’s carbon emissions. Its intermittent nature makes it dependent on gas-fired power plants that inefficiently ramp up and down with the vicissitudes of the wind. Worse, it has been exposed as a renewable energy credit shell game that disguises and enables the burning of fossil fuels elsewhere.”
The editorial expresses concern about mass extinction facing numerous species around the globe. Bravo! Then let’s protect the ecosystems that will enable those species to migrate, adapt and survive and abandon the “old way” of thinking that allows our ridgelines and forest habitat to be destroyed by energy developers and their energy sprawl. As wildlife biologist Sue Morse tells us: “New England’s ridgelines will play an increasing and integral role as global climate change forces countless species of plant and animals to seek new habitats in which to adapt and survive.”
The editorial call for an improved large-scale infrastructure capable of transmitting intermittent power from remote, industrial-scale wind plants is another “old way” solution; rural areas are sacrificed to enable our unsustainable wastefulness. Treasured areas like the former Champion Lands, once valued for their ecological significance, become collateral damage. Large-scale transmission from rural to urban areas is a misguided “old way” use of our resources.
There is both wind and sun in our urban areas (Lake Champlain Wind Park, www.champlainwindpark.com) anyone?). We should be supporting renewable development in already-developed areas while protecting undeveloped areas.
We should also be emphasizing community scale generation facilities sited in the communities that they serve. This would reduce energy loss over lengthy transmission lines, improve system reliability, and preserve our vital wildlife habitat. This is the Vermont-scale approach that is in tune with Vermont values.
Some view turbines on distant ridgelines as a visible sign of our commitment to climate action. They’re wrong. A closer look shows that those turbines are exacerbating the very climate impacts that we wish to avoid. Industrial wind plants are putting money in the pockets of investors, developers and a few landowners, but they’re not addressing the very real and pressing problem of climate change.
The industrial wind lobby is fond of saying say we need to make sacrifices. We do. But where those sacrifices come from, whether or not they’re effective and, most certainly, who profits and who loses from them should shape our solutions. We need to change the way we live, we need to stop being so wasteful, and we need to support solutions that actually work. We need to invest in unsexy work of weatherization, efficiency and demand reduction. We should support renewable development in already-developed areas and prevent new development in resource rich areas. We should be focusing on the least destructive renewable technologies and develop microgrids around community scale generation.
Yes, we need to sacrifice, but that doesn’t mean sacrificing our natural resources. It means changing the way we live and protecting the earth. All of it.
Noreen Hession is a retired engineer, community organizer and environmental activist who lives in the Northeast Kingdom.
Emmetsburg News| Letter to Editor|December 27th, 2017
Body Reflex affected by Industrial Wind Turbines
Residents, visitors and sensitive passerby, your daily life will be gravely impacted by the proposed 170 to 198 Industrial Wind Turbines 24/7 constant blinking, constant shadow flicker, constant noise, constant vibrations, constant electro-magnetic energy emissions because your body reacts to the overstimulation. You do not choose to react. The miraculous body has an autonomic reflex similar to the knee jerk response. The body PCO2 Respiratory Reflex becomes affected.
The Pre-Construction Analysis provides evidence this specific Palo Alto?County Industrial Wind Project will affect our health. Removing any doubt. Sadly, you will be robbed of health.
The PCO2 Response Reflex in humans means automatically your body processes react to exposure. You have excessive CO2 and the brain and lungs hyper-ventilate. The autonomic nervous system reflex becomes affected leading to brain lesions over time in the brain stem. The adverse evolutionary problem affecting respiratory control has been studied since the 1980’s through brain MRI.
Since 1988, Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira from Lusofona University, Portugal has been studying and clinically caring for patients who reside in close proximity to Industrial Wind Turbines from around the globe. The same causative link are found in in patients living in Industrial Wind Turbine Projects in Japan, Finland, Spain, New Zealand, Russia, China, Canada, US; wherever.
Unfortunately, wind does not stay on the private property line. Acoustical trespassing of harmful emissions intrudes upon anyone in electro-magnetic energy wave. Concerned citizens, I care about your health, feel free to contact me for more information.
Dr. Alves-Pereira presented these findings to the Minnesota Legislative Energy Commission on?October 19, 2017 and I shared them with the Board of Supervisors prior to their vote on 10/24/2017. Shockingly, none of the Supervisors read the pre-construction evidence presented on this project.
Question period saw a lively exchange of Christmas poetry with wind turbines issues being raised in Ontario’s Parliament:
Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is for the Premier:
Wind turbines still go up against a town’s will,
Just like the Grinch ignoring councils,
this gives Liberals a thrill,
They swear that the turbines are all science-based.
But will she admit real noise pollution proves
that’s just not the case?
Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic
Development and Growth.
Hon. Brad Duguid: ’Tis the session before Christmas
And I note with much joy,
The kids in our land
Will enjoy plenty a toy.
Our unemployment rate
Is the lowest in years.
This Christmas we may
Even enjoy a few beers—
from grocery stores, nonetheless.
And so we wish you all
The best of the season,
And hope that next year
The opposition will engage with more reason.
The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?
Mr. Rick Nicholls: “Wind turbines must go,”
but the Liberals ignore
The demands of the people, as they loudly implore.
In the Alley of Carnage, the snow piles so high,
But the need for a barrier will they always deny?
Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s still the session
And it’s almost done.
It’s nice to spend time in this House
And even have fun.
We may be opposed to many an issue,
But when we leave this place
We will miss you.
Let us focus this session
On those that are in need,
And let us work together
So Ontario can still lead.
Source: Hansard Ontario Dec.14.17
Ontario’s Opposition Party “Twas the last QP before Christmas Break”:
A successful goal setting retreat was recently hosted by Mothers Against Wind Turbines (MAWT) and West Lincoln Glanbrook Wind Action Group (WLGWAG). Participants came from wind action groups,area residents and other interested stakeholders. Under the skilled guidance of Facilitator: Georgina Richardson a meeting of the minds occurred. Helping those of us negatively impacted by industrial wind turbine sort through chaos, set mutual goals and put into place action plans on how to move forward and what to leave behind.
The fight is far from over.
By: Catherine Mitchell-
A Concerned Citizen
Opinions expressed are of the author
September 25th, 2017
In times of greatest need it is always wise to know whom you can call on. The same applies to the electricity system and it is rather telling what was produced by each generator type in our hour of greatest need. The ‘Peak Demand’ for electricity in 2017 in Ontario occurred on September 25, 2017 at 5:00 PM.
Ontario can produce power from nuclear, natural gas, hydro, wind, solar and biofuel energy generators and the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) is responsible for the management of the resources in the system. The following chart looks at production from each fuel type during the peak demand at 5:00 PM Sept 25, 2017 to determine the adequacy of resources to meet the demand.
Generation Capacity (MW/hr) / Capability @ Peak / Output/Sept 25, 2017
|Fuel Type||A Total Installed
|B Forecast Capability @Peak
Jan – Aug 31
|D Sept 25,2017
|Sept 25, 2017
|Nuclear||13,009 MW||11,537 MW||7548 MW||9690 MW||48%|
|Total||36,853 MW/hr||26,704 MW/hr|| 12,023
IESO report – 18 Month Outlook: An Assessment of the Reliability and Operability of the Ontario Electricity System from October 2017 to March 2019: http://www.ieso.ca/en/sector-participants/planning-and-forecasting/18-month-outlook Page 17 -Table 4.1 provides (A) total installed capacity and the (B) forecast capability @ outlook peak.
To keep the lights on, refrigerators running and industry rolling in our hour of greatest need on September 25, 2017 at 5:00 PM we needed 21,786 MW of power. The Ontario power generators produced 20,345 MW of power and we imported 1,441 MW from Manitoba and Quebec. (It seems like natural gas generators could have been ramped up an additional 1,500 MW per hour without exceeding the IESO forecast capability at peak, but we imported power instead.)
Nuclear, one of the baseload generators for Ontario, did most of the heavy lifting and came through producing 9690 MW of power or 48% of the power produced in Ontario. This is higher than the average yearly production of 7548 MW/hr but less than the maximum capability of the nuclear plants.
Hydro – our baseload renewable energy source – produced 5135 MW of power from a potential of 5786 MW. So we were using 89% of the potential production from our cleanest, greenest, cheapest energy source. The average hourly demand from hydro is 3207 MW/hr and generally we spill water over the dams and waste that renewable energy resource. But in our hour of greatest need hydro provided 25% of the power produced in Ontario.
Natural gas, another baseload power generator that can be quickly ramped up or down, provided 5268 MW of power in our hour of greatest need. Natural gas is definitely our BFF (best friend forever). According to the IESO gas plants are capable of producing 8,371 MW of power each hour, yet on average the natural gas plants produce 417 MW of power each hour. From January – August 2017 the gas plants operated at 4.9 % of their potential!! This means that they are being underutilized and sit idle the majority of the time. But on September 25 at 5:00 PM the gas plants provided 26% of the power produced in Ontario.
And then we get to the contribution of the energy of the future – wind and solar!
The total installed nameplate capacity of all the industrial wind turbines in Ontario is 4213 MW. So the IWT’s should have made a significant contribution. But in our hour of greatest need the total power produced from all the IWT’s installed in Ontario was 67 MW!!! This represents a total contribution of 0.3% of the power produced in Ontario. Power that was required to keep the lights on, the refrigerators running and the industry rolling. Solar made a bigger contribution of 85 MW or 0.4% of the power produced in Ontario.
To understand the limits of wind power, the late Glenn R. Schleede, formerly Vice President of New England Electric System, Executive Associate Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Senior VP of the National Coal Association in Washington and Associate Director (Energy and Science) of the White House Domestic Council says it best: “Wind turbines have little or no ‘capacity value’ because they are unlikely to be producing electricity at the time of peak electricity demand. Therefore, wind turbines cannot substitute for conventional generating capacity responsible for providing reliable electricity to customers.”
According to Schleede, the true capacity value of a wind turbine or ‘wind farm’ is generally less than 10% of nameplate capacity and often 0% or slightly above — simply because, at the time of peak electricity demand, the wind isn’t blowing at a speed that will permit the turbine to produce any or much electricity. Claims of wind turbine capacity value have been exaggerated by wind industry officials and lobbyists, and by regulatory agencies. As we are finding out in Ontario – industrial wind turbines generate a minimal amount of electricity.
Wind and solar are both intermittent so we can not ramp them up or even depend on them for power because they only produce power when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.
Wind and solar certainly let us down in our hour of greatest need!
Some photos recently shared to Mothers Against Wind Turbines
“We want to be able to be outside of our home when it’s calm,” Huffman told commissioners at a hearing in Palmerston North on Wednesday.
“We want to be able to open our windows and not hear the whine… or the roar.
“We want to be able to open our windows at night.”
On a still day in the countryside, there could be “whining, roaring and grinding so intrusive that we don’t want to be outside”.
The first time Huffman heard the Te Rere Hau farm, it woke her up. She wondered what her husband Graham Devey was doing. “What was he doing in the barn that was causing such a racket?”
Neighbour of Te Rere Hau wind project located in New Zealand