“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

United In the Fight

Retreat 2018

On Saturday May 12, 2018 the second annual retreat was held at Silverdale Hall in West Lincoln, Ontario.  Topic for the day long event was community action against the negative impacts of wind power.  This gathering has quickly become our place to network, share information, meet old friends and make new ones. Under skilled guidance of Georgina Richardson the day built on work accomplished and explored  paths going forward.   Attendees worked hard reviewing and goal setting while developing  and setting into motion action plans.

The battle remains about protecting our homes, families and communities from realized negative consequences due to wind powered generation facilities. The fight has brought together so many people who remain united and committed in seeking justice.

The fight is far from over.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 

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

Wind Turbine Damage Closes Access to Road

Wind Turbine Damage Closes Access to Bruce Road 20

Bayshore Broadcasting|Tiverton | by Kevin Bernard|May 8, 2018 

Repairs are ongoing, and should be finished this week.

page_WIND_TURBINE_DAMAGED_2018_PHOTO_BY_WILL_SQUARE_PATERSON

Those high winds last Friday that knocked down tree limbs and power lines, also damaged a wind turbine at Bruce Power.

Gusts of about 100 km/h rolled in off Lake Huron around 3pm that day, and one of the tips on a turbine was broken.

Bruce Power Manager of Communications and Media Relations, John Peevers says as soon as the issue was noticed, the 5 wind turbines jointly owned by Bruce Power and its partners were turned off.

Bruce road 20 was also closed in the area of the Visitors Centre, which is close to the turbine that was affected.

~~~~~~~~

“The turbines remain idled while workers investigate whether the 4 others are safe, and while repairs are done to the one wind turbine.

Peevers says Bruce road 20 remains closed and won’t likely open until later this week.”

READ ARTICLE

 

Where is MOECC? Blanding’s Turtles face imminent harm

Windlectric Defies Its Own Turtle Protocol – Blanding’s Turtles Endangered

Posted May 6, 2018  on FaceBook by: Association to Protect Amherst Island 

“Windlectric (AQN-T) was advised of the presence of a nesting Blanding’s Turtle on Front Road on Amherst Island in immediate proximity of collector installation. Instead of stopping work in accordance with its own protocol, the company continued to install collector lines, transport cement and use heavy equipment.

Honourable Chris Ballard, Minister MOECC, has been requested to require compliance and protect endangered species.

Blanding’s Turtles nest at maturity and live to be 70 to 100 years. The loss of one turtle or one nest devastates the species.

The ERT decision says:

The ERT in its decision understood the grave harm to the population of Blanding’s Turtles and said without equivocation:

[325] Additionally, the Tribunal finds that the mitigation measures incorporated as conditions of the REA have all but eliminated the potential for turtle mortality and have minimized the potential for indirect impacts to habitat during the construction phase. The construction window of November 1 to March 31 for those portions of the Project closest to the coastal wetlands, and the window of September 1 to March 31 for the remainder of the Project, will ensure that construction takes place outside the period during which turtles are active outside of their resident wetlands. Additionally, in the rare event that a turtle remains active during construction, the Tribunal is satisfied that the exclusionary fencing to be used, mostly on private agricultural land, will ensure that turtles are not able to access construction areas.

[337] Despite having made this finding, due to the uncertainty around the location of temporary areas of flooding and water bodies, and recognizing that there is a chance that a turtle may nest on an access road while Project staff are not present and nests may remain hidden from view, the Tribunal makes two recommendations as follows:

a. that no access roads be used during any flooding events during the active season for Blanding’s Turtle in order to ensure that should any turtles be present that they are given time to vacate the access road before Project staff use it; and

b. that no road grading take place during the nesting season for Blanding’s Turtles in order to ensure that any road-side nests are unharmed as a result of grading activities on access roads.

[338] The Tribunal is of the view that these two additional measures will add an additional layer of protection in the unlikely event that a turtle finds itself, or nests, on an access road.

Windlectric Inc. has violated the timing restrictions every business day since April 1 and most recently has worked on Sunday.

What say you Robert Wright and Justin Duncan?”

To contact Minister Chris Ballard ,MOECC (Minister of Environment & Climate Change):
Email: minister.moecc@ontario.ca
Phone:   416-314-6790
Mail: Ferguson Block 11th Flr, 77 Wellesley St W, Toronto, ON M7A 2T5

Wind Warning & Broken Blade in Ontario

High winds raced bucking and veering across Ontario and lead to high wind warnings.   A wind turbine blade failure was reported in Huron County.  The trailing edge of the turbine blade was  seen detaching itself when the alert was raised.  The wind project was built in 2002 consisting of 5 Vestas V80.

The failure happened during high winds experienced on May 4, 2018.  Local wind speed monitor at the location (about 10 km west of the failure site) showed a maximum of 27 m/sec at 7 metres elevation.

Wiarton weather station showed 10 metre wind speed max as SW 53 km/hr, gusting to 82 km/hr (23 metres per second)

Goderich weather station showed 10 metre wind speed max as 51 km/hr, gusting to 78 km / hr (22 metres per second)

Adjacent roadway to the turbine was reported as closed. It was not clear if any pieces of the blade were on ground at the time the photos below were taken.

Wind turbine damaged near Bruce Power Visitors Centre|By Troy Patterson, Kincardine News and Lucknow Sentinel|Friday, May 4, 2018

Note the failure of the turbine blade as the edge becomes detached in the following photos. 

 

Minister served with summons on violation of the EPA

SleeplessGirl
“We had no choice” : Wind Concerns Ontario on taking legal action regarding wind turbine noise reports

NEWS RELEASE

Citizens’ group charges Environment Minister with violation of Environmental Protection Act

May 1, 2018, Toronto, 10:00 EDT – The president of Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO), a volunteer-led coalition of 30 community groups and many Ontario families, has filed a private prosecution against the Honourable Chris Ballard, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), for violating Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act (EPA).

Private prosecutions are important tools in empowering private citizens to hold those persons in power to account.

The EPA prohibits anyone from permitting the “discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment, if the discharge causes or may cause an adverse effect.” Adverse effects listed in the EPA include “an adverse effect on the health of any person,” “harm or material discomfort to any person” and “loss of enjoyment of normal use of property.” (Section 14 subsections 1 and 2)

“We don’t take this step lightly,” says Jane Wilson, WCO President and a Registered Nurse, “but with the MOECC not responding to thousands of reports of excessive noise from wind turbines, which is affecting sleep and health for Ontario families, we had no choice. These are examples of adverse effects that Minister Ballard should not be permitting to continue.”

WCO recently received MOECC documents under a Freedom of Information request that showed thousands of unresolved reports of noise, many with staff notes about sleep disturbance and health impacts. Between 2006 and 2016, there were more than 4,500 recorded reports, 35% of which contained staff notes about adverse health effects; between 2015-2016, the MOECC response rate to the reports of excessive noise was less than 7%.

“Citizens report going without sleep for days, weeks, even months,” said Wilson. “Sleep disturbance is linked to other health problems such as high blood pressure and diabetes. Mr. Ballard, as steward of environmental protection in Ontario, is responsible for allowing this environmental noise pollution to continue.”

On April 30, 2018, Mr. Ballard was served with a summons to appear before the court on May 17, 2018.

CONTACT: Jane Wilson  president@windconcernsontario.ca

www.windconcernsontario.ca

READ MORE @ Wind Concerns Ontario: Ontario Environment Minister served with summons on violation of the Environmental Protection Act

I don’t want to be a Warrior

AR-180427467Living near municipal wind turbines has residents on guard

By Mary Whitfill| The Patriot Ledger | April 27, 2018

“Ellen Andrew-Kasper says she struggles to stay awake when she drives because of lack of sleep; David Kennedy leaves home to avoid headaches caused by the flicker of light and shadow through his windows, and Valerie Vitali thought she was having neurological problems from the same light and shadow flicker.

The three South Shore residents have only one thing in common: they live within a mile of a wind turbine.”

…….

““I don’t want to be a warrior,” Vitali said. “I just want to be a person who has lived here for 37 years and has a right to some peace and quiet.”

READ ARTICLE

Protecting our children from Industrial Wind Power Emissions is our first priority!

%d bloggers like this: