Queen’s Park needs to start listening to the people who are being affected by this scam!!!
The Honourable Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Energy
Victor Fedeli, PC Energy Critic
Peter Tabuns, NDP Energy Critic
Steve Dyck, GPO Energy Critic
As our political representatives in charge of making decisions about Energy, I beseech you to pay attention to what is happening in the real world and not to what comes out of the marketing machine of the wind energy lobby at Queen’s Park.
Although originally in favour of wind energy, I am now opposed to large scale wind projects that are sited too close to homes and in environmentally sensitive areas. I believed the claims of the wind industry – that it would deliver us from the effects of carbon pollution, that it was free – there for the taking, and that it was “green”. In 2005 when I first heard there were “wind farms” planned near our home in the County and that there was…
View original post 703 more words
K. Wynne is part of this organized crime scam, it is time to shut them all down!!!
Excerpts from a letter by Melancthon Mayor Bill Hill to Premier K. Wynne, dated August 13, 2013.
Speaking about Dufferin Wind Power and wind power development.
“The reason they can do this, is again because of flawed Legislation passed by your Government.”
“It does appear that your government has chosen to favour foreign owned wind power developers, over the interests and livelihood of Ontario farmers.”
Read letter: Melancthon Letter
Fracking is one million times better than wind energy. Wind is over-priced, intermittent, destroys the environment, makes neighbours sick, divides the community,takes away democratic rights, and does NOTHING to eliminate climate change.
I get a bit worried when I find myself agreeing with Cameron, Osborne and Davey (Ed Davey, that is, the Lib-Dem “Energy Secretary”). It doesn’t happen very often. But it they seem to be right on shale gas.
The Tory Party, like other parties, has been somewhat taken aback by the concerns, indeed outright opposition of Middle England, as represented by the good people of Balcombe in Sussex, to a rather small scale drilling project adjacent to their village. Taken aback, too, by the way that the “usual suspects” of opposition to almost any infrastructure development, the Swampies of this world, have descended on Balcombe, and have been welcomed (albeit with some understandable trepidation) by local residents. This is doubly bizarre, since the particular well in Balcombe is for conventional oil, not fracking, and is no different from a number of similar wells that are operating in the county without…
View original post 720 more words
More proof of the futility of the windscam.
The adage that you can’t keep a good man down applies in spades to Angus “The Enforcer” Taylor.
The wind weasels have been running a campaign to undermine Angus – including laughable claims made in the Fin Review last week that he’d been privately “slapped down” by energy policy lightweights, Greg Hunt and Ian “Enron” Macfarlane. Nice try – boys.
The wind industry is also trying to slam Angus as “anti-renewable” – like it’s a “crime against humanity”. No – Angus isn’t “anti-renewable” just “anti-intermittent, unreliable, heavily subsidised WIND POWER”. On the contrary, here he is at the National Rally setting out how REAL base-load renewable generation runs through his veins :
And a greentard named Ferrara also tried taking a few pot shots at Angus, but clean missed his mark. Oops….
Unfazed – The Enforcer calmly drew his .44 Magnum and returned fire . *. *. *…
View original post 1,003 more words
May I correct this shortcoming using data from my own studies, since all costs will have to be paid by customers?
Wind generation adds a number of extra costs for customers because of its geographical location in the north of Great Britain, and its intermittency.
The extra costs comprise additional transmission circuits, extra losses, costs of flexing and standby of thermal or hydro plant to accommodate intermittency, and capital costs of back-up gas turbines to contain the risk to security of supply.
Compared with an optimum plant mix of gas turbines and nuclear, the proposed 28GW of wind generation will cost the 25 million Great Britain households about £16 billion per annum extra, which will amount to £725 per annum per household.
If only two-thirds, say, of GB wind was connected to a Scottish system, and that part of the £16bn had to be shared between 2.5 million Scottish households the costs would be unbearable, and English and Welsh customers would be under no obligation to continue paying these large subsidies.
The suggestion of Scottish Renewables to add further to these costs by providing more pumped storage and interconnection capacity does not seem reasonable unless, of course, the wind companies are prepared to pick up the costs.
The turn-round efficiency of pumped storage (including transmission) would only be about 70 per cent; and interconnection would incur significant transmission and conversion losses.
The country needs to see the results of properly structured and supervised Total Power System Cost studies to provide transparency on these issues. It would appear that Sir Donald has good reason to express his concerns.
National Grid Group
[Following is a comment (slightly edited) submitted to the Whig Standard recently by Ian Dubin, who was qualified as a presenter and expert witness in the Ostrander Point ERT appeal. He is a civil / geotechnical engineer with additional qualifications in law and environmental impact assessment, and with decades of experience in the field of environmental protection.]
I was very pleased to see the Ostrander Point Environmental Review Tribunal Appeal decision. I am especially happy that my small contribution apparently helped the ERT to determine that the proposed Industrial Wind Energy project will cause unacceptable harm to the natural environment, in particular the Provincially threatened Blanding’s Turtle. This is a milestone decision – and I can only hope it helps open the door to more successful appeals against Industrial Wind Energy in Ontario.
However, this is a very narrow victory and I was less pleased that appeal evidence of other…
View original post 1,107 more words
Fellow APPEC Members:
On August 2 APPEC filed a Notice of Appeal to the Divisional Court of Ontario challenging the Environmental Review Tribunal’s decision on human health. Due to the long weekend the board delayed issuing the news release below until today.
The grounds for appeal of all ERT decisions are perceived errors in law. APPEC’s Notice (attached) states: “ The Tribunal erred in law and/or acted unreasonably by failing to apply the appropriate standard of proof in assessing the Appellant’s evidence, and thereby misinterpreting and misapplying the criteria established under section 145.2.1(2)(a) of the EPA.” Specifically, it erred in finding that that the evidence did not establish a causal link between wind turbines and either direct or indirect serious harm to human health at the 40 dBA limit or at 550-m setbacks.
Despite filing an appeal by the statutory deadline, the board continues to review the grounds because this is another expensive legal undertaking and carries with it the liability for costs. Gilead Power, in its Notice of Appeal, is seeking costs from the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists. The APPEC board therefore wants to be fairly certain of the potential for a positive outcome and especially of APPEC’s capability to oppose all wind development in the County. Since an appeal on health applies to every Ontario wind project, it is part of APPEC’s strategy in fighting wpd.
The next stage of the appeal process requires APPEC to clarify its legal arguments within 30 days. During this time the board will be consulting further with our lawyer as well as watching the progress of other relevant Ontario legal cases, two of which involve a Canadian Charter of Human Rights challenge.
In making a decision to proceed with the appeal the board would find it useful to hear from APPEC members. Please reply with your own views this week so the board can gauge the extent of member support.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 6, 2013
ALLIANCE TO PROTECT PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY
Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County appeals Environmental Tribunal Decision on health
Picton, Ontario/ The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) announced today they have filed an Appeal to the Ontario Divisional Court of the recent Environmental Review Tribunal Decision (ERT) on serious harm posed to human health by a wind turbine development at Ostrander Point, in Prince Edward County.
According to APPEC legal counsel, Eric Gillespie, this Appeal is based on alleged errors in law found in the ERT July 3, 2013 Decision on APPEC’s Appeal of the Renewable Energy Approval issued to Gilead Power by the Ministry of the Environment.
For more information please contact: Ian Hanna (416) 988-4007
May 28, 2013 – Paul Crowe
Wind energy presents a troubling issue for environmentalists. A true environmentalist is expected to support certain things, yet they are split on this issue. It’s what happens if you label something “green” instead of examining it carefully with serious and open questions. It also presents an opportunity for everyone to see you don’t have to think like a group, you can have a healthy concern for the environment without accepting some set list of beliefs that all environmentalists supposedly share. This may be the best thing that has happened for a very long time to advance clear thinking about the environment and it may open up a whole new set of ideas and solutions where people sometimes at odds can begin to agree. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?