Ontario Highlands Friends of Wind Power

When tears are not enough

2012-03-02T15:04:00.000-05:00

Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group Withdraws ERT Appeal

On March 1, 2011 the appellant, in the second Renewable Energy Approval (REA) appeal to have come before the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT), withdrew its appeal. Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group was appealing the REA that had been granted to Zephyr Farms Ltd. for their Brooke-Alvinston Wind Farm project in the County of Lambton.

As usual, each side in the case have different interpretations of what happened in the proceedings and what the rulings mean.

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP, who were counsel for the REA holder, made the following points on their environmental law blog :

In Reasons for Decision on a motion brought in Ontario’s second REA hearing released on February 29, 2012, the ERT confirmed that medical records of an REA Appellant’s lay witnesses who claim serious health effects due to proximity to wind turbines would appear to be highly relevant to an REA Appellant’s case.

The ERT further confirmed that:

1) all such medical records must be provided at the 3 week disclosure point set out in Appendix A to the ERT’s Rules, so that the other Parties can determine if they need to include other witnesses, expert or otherwise, along with their statements, at the 5.5 week disclosure point;

2) that specific, relevant facts, such as the location where each lay witness lives in relation to a turbine project, information about each wind turbine project, measured noise levels at each location, and the specific symptoms and particular medical conditions suffered by each individual, must be stated in the summary of evidence due at the 3 week disclosure point as well;

3) the ERT’s rules provide that lay witnesses are only permitted to give testimony with respect to facts as they observe them and are not permitted to express opinions on medical diagnoses or the causes of disease; and

4) the usual way of presenting opinions on medical diagnoses or the causes of disease is through qualified medical experts who are familiar with the medical histories of the individuals and knowledgeable about the etiology of the disease those individuals suffer from.

In other words, if one side or the other is calling a lay witness (someone without relevant credentials) they must also present corroborating evidence from qualified experts.

To date, there has been no communication from Eric Gillespie, counsel for the appellant, regarding the ERT Decision. However, Harvey Wrightman, of the Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group, provided a statement to Wind Concerns Ontario.

Wednesday, February 29, the ERT released a decision that has been very helpful for understanding what appellants need to bring before the Tribunal in order to be successful.

1) The Tribunal confirmed that the testimony of residents is important and will be accepted.

2) The Tribunal has indicated that certain additional documentation will assist them in making their decision. It is much better to have a clear directive from the Tribunal before the hearing rather than at, or after the full hearing has taken place.

It is clear that it will not be possible to obtain and organize documents for witnesses prior to the start date of the Zephyr appeal, which is currently scheduled for March 7^th. While we have an impressive staff, they cannot perform a Biblical miracle - i.e., produce in 6 days all the 23 witnesses' medical records for the past 10 years.

As a result, after consulting with the research team and counsel, the appellant, Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group Inc. has decided to withdraw the current Zephyr appeal.

In a subsequent entry, we'll condense what the Directors of the ERT had to say about this.

Anti windfarm astroturfers exposed in Parliament

2012-02-27T21:54:00.000-05:00

John Murphy MP

This story comes to us from Australia where the Independent Australia has conducted an investigation into the Australian Landscape Guardians and the Waubra Foundation. Dr. Sara Laurie, of the Waubra Foundation, attended the 2010 Society for Wind Vigilance symposium in Kingston, Ontario.

Here's how Wikipedia defines the term astroturf:

Astroturfing is a form of advocacy in support of a political, organizational, or corporate agenda, designed to give the appearance of a grassroots movement. The term is a derivation of Astroturf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.

The story uses the speech of John Murphy MP in the Federal Parliament House of Representatives dated February 15, 2012 (Hansard)

Independent Australia

February 17, 2012

The New South Wales government has already taken the scientific evidence for granted on coal seam gas extraction but, like its Liberal counterpart in Victoria, seems intent on standing in the way of businesspeople who want to develop wind power to feed into the electricity grid. Despite the lack of any evidence to support any harmful effects of wind farming, the New South Wales government has given the power of veto to anyone living within two kilometres of a proposed wind farm. These governments seem to have been unduly influenced by climate change deniers and sceptics, in particular the Australian Landscape Guardians, whose stated philosophy is to safeguard the landscape from ‘inappropriate development’.

In an article published on the Independent Australia website on 24 July last year, investigative journalist Sandi Keane assembled some of the publicly available information on the opaque Landscape Guardians.

They are modelled on the British Coastal Guardians and Country Guardians, who are associated with the nuclear power industry in the United Kingdom. In their opposition to wind farms, the Landscape Guardians do not mention the landscape but have discovered a previously unheard of medical condition that they call ‘wind turbine syndrome’. They claim that wind farms cause sleep problems, headaches, dizziness, nausea, exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, depression, tinnitus and concentration problems, and, astonishingly, they cause children to refuse to go to school. It’s the truth!

The Landscape Guardians have set up a front called the Waubra Foundation, which is not based at Waubra but opposes the Waubra wind farm. Its so-called medical director, Sarah Laurie, a non-practising, unregistered doctor living in South Australia, claims that infrasound from wind turbines causes these problems. Most of my constituents at times suffer from almost all of these symptoms, although there is no wind farm anywhere near my inner-city electorate. Simon Chapman, Professor in Public Health at the University of Sydney, says that these symptoms are experienced by millions of Australians.

It is important to note that the Waubra Foundation is a powerful, well-resourced and growing anti-wind-power lobby group. Peter Mitchell, founder and Chairman of the Waubra Foundation, helped set up and fund the Australian Landscape Guardians. He is also spokesman for the Western Plains Landscape Guardians. Another director, Kathy Russell, is Vice-President of the Australian Landscape Guardians, Vice-President of the Victorian Landscape Guardians and spokesperson for the Western Plains, Mount Pollock Landscape Guardians and the Barrabool Hills Landscape Guardians. Yet another director, tycoon Tony Hodgson—as the Murdoch press calls him—helped fund the campaign against the Collector wind farm in New South Wales, just up the road from Canberra, and he is involved with the Booroowa Landscape Guardians to stop a $400 million wind farm proposed near Rugby and Booroowa in the south of the state. The Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge, the former Howard government minister, is also a director.

Sandi Keane found that the foundation has no physical address in Waubra and indeed appears to have no local Waubra residents on its board. The address is a post-office box in South Melbourne, the same address as that of the Australian Landscape Guardians and Peter Mitchell.

The Landscape Guardians are well-known climate sceptics and deniers linked to the Liberal Party and the Institute of Public Affairs. They have a particularly close association with the IPA’s Australian Environment Foundation, which is more interested in logging trees than conserving them. The Institute of Public Affairs has been giving its opinion on climate change for decades now on behalf of its supporters—Billiton; Western Mining; Caltex; Esso Australia, a subsidiary of Exxon; Shell; and Woodside Petroleum—and it also receives funding from Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd.

While the Waubra Foundation appears unconcerned about the landscape of wind farms, its only agenda is the so-called ‘infrasound problems’ caused by wind turbines. Peter Mitchell successfully objected to the number of turbines proposed for the Stockyard Hill wind farm near Beaufort in Victoria. He also successfully had them removed from the ridge that he could see from his property. Sandi Keane found also that Peter Mitchell has interests in the fossil fuel industry. These include as founding chairman of the Moonie Oil Company Ltd and chairman or director of similar companies including Clyde Petroleum plc, Avalon Energy Inc., North Flinders Mines Ltd and Paringa Mining & Exploration plc, most now delisted on the Australian Stock Exchange.

According to Lowell Resources Funds Management Pty Ltd, Mitchell’s experience is derived from over 25 years involvement in companies that explored for, developed and financed gold, uranium, coal and base metal mines, oil and gas fields and pipeline systems in Australia and overseas. He has been chairman of Lowell Pty Ltd, the ultimate parent company of both Lowell Capital Ltd and Lowell Resources Funds Management Pty Ltd, a specialist fund investing in emerging mining and energy companies, since taken over by Future Corporation Australia Ltd.

Paul Miskelly, who represents both the Australian Landscape Guardians and the Taralga Landscape Guardians, worked for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, for 32 years and gives talks on nuclear power. Climate scepticism is the stock in trade of the Landscape Guardians. Randall Bell, president of the Victorian Landscape Guardians, said in the Melbourne Age on 3 July 2010 that claims the earth is warming are scientifically unreliable and that the idea of man-made climate change is headed for the Y2K dustbin. But we do not see the Landscape Guardians campaigning alongside Lock the Gate, the New South Wales Farmers Federation and the Greens to halt the destruction of some of the best agricultural land in New South Wales and Queensland by coal seam gas miners. We do not see them campaigning in Victoria against Premier Ted Baillieu’s decision to reopen Victoria to brown coal mining. Farmers on the best agricultural land in Gippsland now face losing their farms to dirty, inefficient brown coal mining. Is an open-cut mine a preferable landscape to a wind farm, where food can continue to be grown?

As with the Landscape Guardians, there is no information about funding or sponsorship of the Waubra Foundation. Yet money seems to be no object for its websites, campaigners, advertising, travel and media monitoring.

As I said earlier, in the Boorowa area a $300 million wind farm is being proposed. At Rye Park the Epuron energy company wants to build 80 to 110 turbines, which will generate power for 90,000 homes. But, as Sandi Keane found, there is someone with a property near Yass whose influence on governments and public opinion is huge. Besieged media boss Rupert Murdoch owns Cavan, a substantial rural property in the grazing country nearby. No other media group in Australia has run a more distorted and dishonest scare campaign about wind farms than the Murdoch group. The district of Yass has in the planning stages a larger proportion of wind farms than elsewhere in Australia. These are planned at Bango, 25 km north of Yass; Birrema, 30 km west of Yass; Rye Park, 25 km north-east of Yass; and the Yass Valley itself. There are wind farms at Caroll’s Ridge, Conroy’s Gap, Coppabella Hills and Marilba Hills.

In 2010 Family First’s own climate change sceptic, Senator Steve Fielding, initiated a Senate inquiry into so-called turbine sickness. The report was released last year. The Senate inquiry found no proof of a direct link between wind farms and the so-called wind turbine syndrome. The submission of the National Health and Medical Research Council concluded that there is no published scientific evidence to support adverse effects of wind turbines on health.

Professor Peter Seligman of the Melbourne Energy Institute also gave evidence to the inquiry. Professor Seligman spent most of his working life working on the cochlear implant. He has a PhD in electronic engineering. He understands infrasound better than most. He told Sandi Keane that the level of infrasound at the beach is far higher than that from wind farms. Beyond 360 metres the level of infrasound emitted from a wind farm, typically between one and 20 cycles per second, is below the ambient levels near a beach and below that in the central business district of any city. On the other hand, we are all subjected to far higher internally self-generated natural infrasound levels, which clearly are not a problem.

The Victorian Department of Health indicated that it had examined both peer-reviewed and validated scientific research and concluded that ‘the weight of evidence indicated that there are no direct health effects from noise.’

Dr Sarah Laurie’s evidence included evidence from Nina Pierpont, an American general practitioner who claims to be an authority on wind turbine syndrome. Pierpont is the author of a self-published book containing descriptions of the health problems of merely 10 families—that is, 38 people—in five different countries who once lived near wind turbines and who are convinced that turbines made them sick. Medical experts in Australia have said that, given that there are about 100,000 turbines around the world, her sample is too small to have any scientific value. There were no scientific controls, and the symptoms described were common in any community. Dr Laurie also tried to appeal against a proposed wind farm at Allandale East in South Australia. Her appeal failed on the basis of the same evidence from the medical community. Gary Wittert, a professor of medicine at the University of Adelaide, said there was no credible evidence that wind turbines have adverse effects on health. A recent parliamentary inquiry into wind farms in New South Wales dismissed Pierpoint’s study, particularly since her findings were not published in a peer reviewed journal. In its submission to the Senate inquiry the group Doctors for the Environment also agreed ‘there is no convincing evidence in the scientific literature of direct physiological effects occurring at sound levels commonly associated with modern wind turbines’. The building of the Waubra wind farm provided an injection of $58.4 million to the local economy through the economic activity associated with 160 local jobs. Ongoing employment from those jobs at Waubra adds a further $7.79 million each year to the local economy. These figures have been generated by the City of Ballarat using REMPLAN modelling.

Kate Redwood, a director of Hepburn Wind, said the strategy used to get community support in Daylesford included monitoring noise at those houses within two kilometres of the turbines. This successful strategy has led to the formation of a new organisation called Embark, which offers advice on the management of community projects. As a result of the Senate inquiry, public health authorities will keep up the monitoring and the wind industry will continue to improve its modelling and community relations. I commend the bills to the House.

Bird expert threatens ducks

2012-02-22T13:08:00.002-05:00

Here's an interesting piece of irony. Dr. Scott Petrie was featured in a CBC article "Wind turbines threaten swans, says bird expert", where the article states:

Dr. Scott Petrie said building industrial wind farms in Grand Bend, Ont., will scare the birds from their annual migration stop.
He said the province isn't considering how the 250 turbines proposed for the area will affect wildlife.

He is quoted as saying the same thing in this article almost seven years ago when the Erie Shores project was in the planning stages:

E.T. (Ted) Whitworth, Councilor Ward 1 of Norfolk County in attendance at the function commented on recent objections put forth by biologist Dr. Scott Petrie from the Long Point Waterfowl and Wetland Research Fund and representatives from Bird Studies Canada to wind turbines in Norfolk. Dr. Petrie said at a recent Norfolk County Council meeting that, in his opinion, wind turbines in the Messiah’s Corners area would alter the path of tundra swans that use the area as a staging (feeding) area on their migratory route. Councilor Whitworth said, “I’ve lived here all my life and never seen a dead swan . . . the Bird Studies Canada building that’s a 3 story, 100’ long, glass walled giant would kill more birds than a wind turbine.”

Two years after construction, there have been no swan injuries at the Erie Shores project. In fact, a report by ornithologist Dr. James Ross, showed a thriving bird population.

Apparently, Dr. Petrie is an avid hunter (he even lists "hunter" on his resumé) and was featured in a segment of Canada in the Rough.

Thomas will be joined on today's hunt by Tim Brandt of Federal Premium Ammunition, with them will also be internationally acclaimed waterfowl biologist Scott Petrie. Scott heads up "Long Point Waterfowl Research", he and his group have significantly contributed to the health and future of waterfowl and waterfowling, not just in Long Point but throughout North America. Our Ontario duck hunting adventure begins with a wonderful public land hunt at Long Point with Thousands of ducks on the water and in the air, and winds up at the historic "Turkey Point Company" hunt club, as we take part in a traditional wetlands duck hunt with "Ducks Unlimited Canada" past president "Dr. Duncan Sinclair".

Renewable energy developers are required to perform an Environmental Impact Study prior to receiving an authorization to proceed. In contrast to Dr. Petrie's assertions about wind turbines and birds, the developer of the wind farm in Grand Bend, Northland Power, is undertaking a number of studies as part of its application:

Field studies are ongoing to confirm the presence, significance, sensitivity and abundance of wildlife and wildlife habitat, including:

o various bird surveys;

o bat habitat surveys;

o dens, tracks and scat surveys;

o amphibian call surveys;

o turtle and snake surveys;

o incidental observations; and,

o targeted species at risk surveys.

An Environmental Impact Study will be completed to identify potential impacts and recommend mitigation measures to minimize impacts.

If required, a permit or permits under the Ontario Endangered Species Act will be

obtained.

Consultation will be undertaken with relevant First Nations and Métis communities

These studies, in turn, are subject to scrutiny by the public during a review period plus by the Ministry of the Environment.

**************

Has anyone performed an environmental assessment of the slaughter of millions of birds by hunters such as Dr. Petrie? Or whether shooting at them as they are resting during their migration might "scare the birds from their annual migration stop" (to quote Dr. Petrie).

Marubeni to build floating wind farm off Fukushima

2012-02-20T18:56:00.001-05:00

The Kamisu wind farm that survived the tsunami

Here's a sequel to the story about how the Kamisu wind farm survived the tsunami that destroyed the Fukushima nuclear power facility. Once a few transmission lines were repaired, the Kamisu wind farm was back on line providing much needed power.

It's also a good example of how the Japanese government has turned to renewable energy rather than nuclear energy in the future.

Windpower Monthly

James Quilter

February 12, 2012

Marubeni plans to start developing the wind farm in March with the aim to build it off the coast of the Fukushima Prefecture.

The project will be supported by the Japanese government via the reconstruction budget from last year's tsunami. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Nippon Steel Corp and Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding are also involved.

Last year, Marubeni acquired a 49% stake in Gunfleet Sands from Dong Energy. It marks Marubeni's first stake in an offshore project.

In September, Japan’s trade ministry said it was planning a ¥10-20 billion ($130-260 million) project to develop a floating turbine in the deep waters off the northern coast.

Japan hopes to develop a 1GW floating offshore project off its northern coast by 2020. The announcement follows the passing of a renewable-energy bill in the upper house of Japan's parliament.

There is sound reasoning behind Japan’s push for offshore wind. When the tsunami struck, the Kamisu near-shore wind farm on Japan's east coast withstood the magnitude-nine earthquake and contributed vital electricity in the aftermath of the disaster.

Kamisu is located 40 metres off Ibaraki prefecture and is comprised of seven 2MW Fuji Heavy Industries wind turbines.

Steckle supports green energy

2012-02-19T22:01:00.000-05:00

This Letter to the Editor of the Goderich Signal Star is from Mr. Paul Steckle, MP for Huron-Bruce from 1993 to 2008.

We need better, cleaner ways of producing power

Goderich Signal Star

February 15, 2012

Paul Steckle Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor:

All communities will, from time-to-time stumble into an issue that causes division and I think it is fair to say that an issue currently dividing our community is the question of the size and appropriateness of building a sewage treatment plant. Questions of cost and the rate of anticipated growth in our community seem to cause much hand wringing and frustration for everyone. These are difficult questions and, as a result, people on all sides of the issue tend to speak with passion and apparent authority. I agree that expenditures of this magnitude require the utmost of scrutiny but I would also suggest that issues impacting on future ratepayers likewise require strict attention. Accordingly, it is not the treatment plant that has caused me to put pen to paper.

Today I would hope to weigh in on the subject of renewable energy, particularly wind power. For the sake of clarity, I make no claims to be the definitive authority on the subject but, I do believe that we must collectively look at our indiscriminate use of energy. If we continue in this pattern we must find better and cleaner ways of producing the power that we need to run our homes, cars and places of business. Sequestering of carbon is essential over the long term but, in the meantime, the current debate does nothing to bring us closer to understanding the issues at hand. Concerns, real or imagined, become real unless rebutted by reliable sources. I may or may not be that reliable source but, I wanted to take a moment to address a few concerns.

A) Wind turbines kill birds. I have heard this claim thousands of times but, the National Audubon Society tells us that wind turbines are, in all likelihood, responsible for the death of approximately two birds per year. More birds die on my kitchen window than that. When I was in Ottawa, I watched almost daily as birds met their end on the walls and windows of high-rise buildings. Are we to truly believe that windmills are that much of a threat?

B) Strobe light/flicker effect from turbine blades is bothersome. How do people in urban centres live with all the changing variations of light? From street lights and headlights, to neon and flashing signs, light is everywhere. Most reasonable people know that a wind turbine is no more offensive than any other source of light that we already see each day.

C) Turbines are noisy and offensive to the eye. In a word… rubbish. The setback requirement for current turbine construction is 550 metres based on a maximum allowable sound limit of 40 decibels (dB). I have personally visited a number of turbine sites and would concur that nothing close to 40 dB was audible at 550 metres. Aesthetics are a personal matter. I saw this in 1985 with the construction of a new power line from the Bruce Nuclear through Huron County. The plan had many people upset and, as the Warden of the County that year, I listened to every conceivable argument as to why we shouldn’t allow the lines through our backyard. Think for a moment, try and recall the last time someone spoke negatively about power lines in our community. The power lines haven’t changed, only time. Windmills are no different.

D) Turbines diminish land values. In response I would ask, based on what? Probably the best source of data on this would be the real estate people. In the Kincardine and Chatham-Kent areas (areas with a longer history of turbines), realtors will tell you that land values have actually gone up… including the land surrounding towers.

E) Negative health concerns. In October of 2009, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health issued a memo stating that, while some people may find the noise from turbines annoying, a comprehensive review of the relevant medical science found no evidence of noise induced human or health effects caused by wind turbines.

These are but a few of the arguments I hear regularly but, despite these contrary opinions, wind energy is strongly supported by all respectable polls. In July of 2010, IPSOS found that 80% - 90% of the population in Ontario felt that way. Of the remaining 10%, less than 5% strongly objected to wind turbines.

Empirical or casual knowledge is never the best premise from which to judge any issue, particularly one as complex as renewable energy. Wind power is here to stay and, like the power lines of 1985 which have been all but forgotten, we have choices to make. Let us see wind turbines as a positive step towards a greener future for our children. After all, the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago but the next best time is right now.

A green energy supporter,

Paul Steckle

(Member of Parliament, Huron-Bruce, 1993-2008)

A Bluewater Taxpayer

FUD in Listowel

2012-02-16T19:43:00.000-05:00

The following letter was submitted by Gary Zavitz on February 12 as a Letter to the Editor of the Listowel Banner. It was in response to this editorial and this editorial that documented the witch hunt that is going on in the area, seemingly aided by the Banner. As of this date, the Letter has not been published.

Referring to the Feb 8 article in the Listowel Banner, it was discouraging to read of the events at the North Perth council meeting last week where a wind energy person was invited to speak to local council, yet was met with verbal and physical abuse, resulting in him being hurried out the door. How ridiculous and narrow-minded it was not to have heard the speaker out on his point. Agree or disagree, it was an opportunity missed not to have set the stage for an important community debate on wind energy facts, rather than the same old fear, uncertainty and rhetorical doubt pandered by those opposed to this form of renewable energy.

It should be recognized that Ontario is in the midst of updating its ancient electricity system and will need a variety of robust power sources. This will include clean wind energy, which can be planned, built, managed and serviced by local talent, a net-new source of income for the local economy, not to mention tax revenue. The debt retirement charge we pay on our power bill – an unfunded liability currently at $13.4 billion which does nothing to build new electricity capacity - is not the result of solar and wind, but cost overruns in big ticket projects dating back a few decades.

My group, Friends of Wind Ontario understands that wind energy is relatively new to most Canadians. The subject matter and resulting community impact can be complex and that questions and concerns must be addressed with verifiable facts. We are like all Canadians who abide by the rules of democratic government and believe in the fundamental right of citizens to be informed and to have the opportunity to express their opinions with respect to any local developments, regardless of their views. We recognize that dialogue around the important issue of our local and regional energy future must be based on respect for all opinions and no one should be fearful of others when addressing this important topic.

Thousands of farmers and rural landowners and dozens of municipalities in Ontario are actively participating in wind energy and other renewable energy projects. The resulting jobs will be a boon to the local economy, especially for my area, hit hard by a downturn in manufacturing and having one of the highest levels of unemployment in Canada. I live just west of London and within a few years, the family house where my family has lived for over a century will be mere minutes from a planned wind farm. I am consulting regularly with the local councils and the developer on this project and can confidently say I have little concern if any, on these plans as the project moves forward.

Review of studies gives turbine debate needed balance

2012-02-14T18:48:00.001-05:00

This is a Letter to the Editor from Paul Masotti. Paul Masotti is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Community Health and Epidemiology. He received his PhD from the University of Texas School of Public Health and his BA from Queen's University.

The Kingston Whig-Standard

February 09, 2012

Paul Masotti: Letter to the Editor

Conclusions of story not supported by public health agencies and medical community

I read the story "Wrecking our heaven" (Jan. 9) with interest and a feeling of being let down.

This article could leave readers with the conclusions that windturbines cause ill health and are a health risk to the unborn. These conclusions are not supported by the available research and are not supported by public health agencies and the medical community. If the objectives of the Whig-Standard include both reporting and informing your audience about a health issue, I would argue that the paper failed. Possibly the following will provide what I believe is the needed balance.

Working with team members from the local public health agency, we completed a review of the international literature to find out what is known about windturbines and potential health effects. We improved upon similar studies by broadening our scope to include documents from community-based organizations, peer-reviewed scientific journals, grey and self-published research, government and industry technical guidelines, and noise and health research done in other settings.

It is correct that there are few good quality research studies that evaluate potential health effects from exposure to windturbines. This has resulted in a variety of case series and self-reporting studies with problems that would earn them a failing grade in a university-based research methods class. The designs of these studies could not be used to reach a cause-and-effect conclusion (for instance, that exposure will likely result in ill health).

At this point, it may help to present two examples (one is the Ontario self-reporting study) with different methods and different results. I will follow these examples with some of the results and take-home messages we generated based upon our review.

In a study of 725 Dutch residents, Van den Berg et al., (2008) evaluated factors associated with windturbine annoyance, how they perceived the windfarm, and self-reported health. Strengths of the study included the large number of participants (725) who were randomly selected from 50,375 residences, and placing people in one of four increasing noise exposure groups ranging from 25 to 45 decibels. (Note: in evaluating whether something will cause ill health, we would generally expect more of the something, such as noise, will result in more frequent or severe illness.)

A major strength was the "masking" of the study, so subjects did not know the focus was on windturbines, and an analysis of people who declined to participate.

A main study result was that health effects -- chronic disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, migraines, psychological distress, stress and difficulty falling asleep -- were not associated with windturbine sound levels. The results did indicate that both sleep interruption and "annoyance" were associated with increasing noise levels. However, an additional and interesting finding was that the people who lived in the highest noise category, 45 decibels, were less annoyed than those in the lower noise locations. Additional research revealed that people in this category were receiving financial benefits from the operation of the windturbines.

In the self-reporting survey, adverse health effects with industrial windturbines and the need for vigilance (2010), Krogh, Gillis, Kouwen distributed health survey contact flyers to people who lived near windfarms. The flyers included statements such as victims suffering from adverse health effects. People who responded were provided with a survey that included a symptoms/ illness list where they could check off symptoms they believed appeared or worsened after the windturbines were made operational. People also provided the distance to the nearest windturbine.

Problems with this study that make the results questionable include allowing people's opinions about windturbines to influence their identification and participation in the study; allowing more than one person per residence; and using a symptom check list versus asking them to report symptoms. In addition, the language in the flyers and the report clearly indicated a lack of scientific objectivity.

A main result in this study was that 80.3% (106 of 132 people) reported adverse health effects they attributed to the windturbines. Given the language in the flyers, one interesting result was that 26 people reported no health effects. To address this, we looked at the average distance from the nearest windturbine between the ill-health and no-health-effects groups as an approximation of noise level exposure, since decibel levels were not provided and knowing that noise levels decrease over distances.

The report indicated that there was a 4.5-metre average difference between the two groups (820.6 metres away from a turbine for the ill-health group and 816.1 metres distant for the group reporting no ill health). If this were a well-conducted, large-sample study, this insignificant difference would suggest that both groups were exposed to the same noise emissions and consequently that health differences between the two groups are not related to noise from the windturbines.

The research suggests these take-home messages:

The windturbine and health research, research on windturbine noise emissions, and supporting evidence from the noise and health research do not provide evidence and do not suggest the likelihood that windturbine noise that meets government guidelines will result in ill health. The research does indicate that self-reported differences in subjective health complaints between people exposed or not exposed to noise are dependent upon the person's perceived control over the noise and were independent of the noise level itself.

The World Health Organization has described annoyance as a health effect, and the windturbine research indicates that as windturbine noise increases, higher percentages of people report being very annoyed. This research also indicates that the percentage of people who become fairly or highly annoyed is low (6.7% at 37-40 decibels; 15% at 40 decibels) and that other subjective individual factors that equally explain annoyance include: whether one can see the windturbines, fear, culture, ability to control the noise, clinical and sub-clinical mental health issues, perceived importance and financial benefits. Given this, we cannot say the annoyance is the result of the windturbine noise alone.

The case series and other studies that are highly reported on the Internet cannot be used to reach conclusions of cause and effect and most had significant methodology problems that decrease confidence in results and conclusions.

We need to decide what noise levels we will permit under different conditions and based upon good health evidence. As part of this, there is need of a formal complaint-resolution mechanism that can provide effective remedies for people exposed to levels that exceed the guidelines. This should involve sound measurements at the residences and a predetermined resolution process that includes shutting down the windturbines under some conditions.

I would like to finish with results from a study that seems relevant to the last sentence in the Jan. 9 article: "They are wrecking our heaven. Don't let them do it."

The grounded theory study by Pedersen, Hallberg and Waye, (2007) evaluated people's perceptions of windturbines and the purpose of land. An interesting result of this study was the identification of two different groups of people. One saw the countryside as a place for economic growth and where one must accept disturbances typical of the countryside such as: flies, odour from farms, and (in that study) also noise from windturbines. The second group placed more value on their home environment as a peaceful, quiet place where they create a home versus the home being just a place to live.

Those in the second group were more likely to feel the windturbines were an intrusion and to express feelings of anger, uneasiness, fatigue and negative emotions, and this affected wellbeing and quality of life. They also were more likely to believe they did not have enough input or influence regarding the planning of the windfarms and that they were misled regarding the impact of the windturbines on them.

My question is this: would this discussion be taking place if the windturbines were the same size as telephone poles?

Paul Masotti Kingston

I am sick of anti-wind propaganda

2012-02-12T13:56:00.000-05:00

Here's another great cross-post from Paul Gipe

Wind-works.org

February 8, 2012

By Paul Gipe

Yes, anti-wind hysteria has made me sick. I got queasy in my stomach when I thought of the 150,000 wind turbines operating worldwide and still no epidemic of death and disease had yet broken out despite the sickening anti-wind hype in the English-speaking world. I worried myself sick that a new black death would strike Germany and Spain who together have one-third of the world's wind turbines. I fretted even more that Europe would collapse in panic and mayhem from its 100,000 wind turbines, many now operating for decades.

Why then are Germans, Danes, and Spaniards not falling by the thousands to dementia and disease? Are they made of sterner stuff? Or is it simply that they don't speak English and can't read all the propaganda fostered by the anti-renewables lobby.

It is the anti-renewables lobby--it's not just anti-wind anymore, they're after solar too--that makes me sick.

It made me sick to learn a few days before the Ontario, Canada election that the Power Workers Union was caught with their metaphorical pants down. It seems that the pro-nuclear, pro-coal lobby group was uncovered funding an anti-wind, and anti-renewables campaign of commentary in newspapers, on the radio, and on the internet.

I felt a lot better after the disclosure forced this unethical campaign to close its doors--at least for now.

I am feeling much better now too, after learning that a disgruntled citizen sued an anti-wind group in Ontario for violating the province's election laws by openly endorsing an anti-wind candidate.

I am nearly cured after learning that a newspaper sued an American anti-wind group for flagrantly violating their copyright, stealing, and then editing the newspaper's articles to suit the group's agenda.

So, the prognosis is good. I am feeling much better that reason will ultimately prevail--even in the English-speaking world.

People divide people - not legislation

2012-02-11T10:38:00.000-05:00

Simcoe.com
February 08, 2012
Robert Knox Letter to the Editor

Here's the original article.

Editor:

In his recent opinion piece, our MPP, Jim Wilson, says the Green Energy Act is dividing Ontario. It isn't. People divide communities not legislation, particularly if the legislation provides opportunities for people to provide input, to object to submissions and to appeal decisions, as is the case with the Green Energy Act.

Mr. Wilson, who is an experienced, knowledgeable, and principled legislator knows this is so. Mr. Wilson also knows that municipalities never had the authority to decide where turbines and solar panels can go, anymore than they can establish their own building codes, ignore provincial public health and education regulation, or determine policies for electrical generation and distribution.

Municipalities can decide where hot dog stands go, but a hot dog stand is not part of a provincial wide electrical system. Even hot dog stands have to respect clear municipal bylaws approved by the appropriate provincially established authority and impartially applied, provincial health regulations, provincial building codes and provincial commercial rules.

Most of Ontario's operational wind projects were approved before the Green Energy Act was in place. Municipalities participated in their development by applying Provincial rules, overseen by Provincial regulators including the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Energy, the Ontario Energy Board and Hydro One Networks Inc.

What's changed? Nothing, except now we have clear and consistent province-wide rules and oversight and approval processes for renewable energy projects.

Wind opponents who use misinformation and disrupt legitimate community consultations divide communities. Stigmatizing foreign owned developers divides communities.

Robert Knox

Collingwood

And here's the reference to the original Jim Wilson opinion piece.

Ontario’s power glut means possible nuclear plant shutdowns

2012-02-10T08:26:00.000-05:00

Surplus base-load generation (SBG) has become an issue lately. It occurs when Ontario's "must run" electricity sources (predominantly nuclear and hydro but also wind and solar) exceed Ontario's minimum demand. SBG typically occurs on weekends or late evenings when Ontario's tie-lines can't export the surplus.

The IESO has formed a committee (SE-91) to find solutions to the problem. Their initial proposal was a band-aid approach to curtail wind production during periods of SBG. The root cause of the problem, of course, is that Ontario's nuclear capacity has gradually grown even as the province's demand has flattened. Fortunately, Paul Murphy, the CEO of the IESO, has the vision and courage to speak out against the nuclear lobby.

The original article is here.

The Ottawa Citizen

February 6, 2012

Ian MacLeod

OTTAWA — For at least eight hours Monday, Ontario is once again forecast to produce more electricity than it consumes, and the recurring glut has one top energy executive warning of temporary nuclear power plant shutdowns.

“We have largely been able to avoid nuclear shutdowns to deal with the (surplus) conditions but this may not be the case in the near future,” Paul Murphy, head of the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), recently told an industry gathering.

His comment is raising questions about Ontario’s plans to boost nuclear power as the province’s chief source of energy.

Nuclear-generated power supplies about 57 per cent of Ontario’s electricity. Based on the province’s assumption that demand will grow moderately over the long term, multi-billion-dollar projects are contemplated for new reactors and refurbishments of existing ones.

The problem is, unlike wind and some other forms of power production, nuclear reactors can’t easily be turned off when demand for electricity drops.

Returning them to full operating status can take two to four days and sometimes longer, making nuclear the least flexible portion of the supply mix at a time when demand is increasingly finicky.

And since electricity can’t be stored and must be used as soon as it is generated, the resulting “surplus baseload generation” in the system has to be exported to neighbouring provinces and states, usually at a bargain price, until the IESO can rebalance supply with demand.

In some cases, “negative pricing” is required. Ontario electricity producers shelled out $35 million in the first six months of last year alone to get neighbouring jurisdictions to take surplus power, up sharply from the same period in 2010, when negative pricing amounted to $4.2 million.

The supply surpluses have become increasingly common since 2005 and are expected to continue for at least a few more years, said Murphy.

Yet some surplus periods, which are forecast based on weather predictions and historic patterns, sometimes only last for a few hours.

“We need to find alternative ways to address (surpluses) to avoid using a multiday nuclear shutdown to address surplus conditions that could last for only a few short hours,” said Murphy.

“Given the potential of quick swings from surplus to shortage, those actions could have greater consequences in the future if the shutdown nuclear unit is not available by the time we need it again.”

Last June 8, for example, he said Ontario was exporting “everything we could to keep supply in line only to declare an energy emergency alert just 12 hours later. Demand climbed to the point where we were using every available megawatt in Ontario to meet that demand.”

Murphy’s remark about potentially and temporarily shutting down power reactors casts doubt on some fundamental assumptions of the province’s energy planning, says Mark Winfield, an associate professor in the faculty of environmental studies at York University.

“Given the province is theoretically committed to building a new nuclear plant and is considering refurbishment decisions on Bruce B (reactors), the implication is, one, you shouldn’t be adding supply on that scale and, two, if you’re going to add supply, it probably should be supply that you can turn off when you don’t need it,” says Winfield, who also co-chairs the school’s Sustainable Energy Imitative.

“It’s the IESO whose job it is to have their finger on the pulse of the system and also to be looking ahead (and it is) basically saying that potentially some pretty fundamental assumptions underlying planning for the system for the past decade need to revisited.”

Contributing factors to the excess supply include the global economic slump, consumer and industry conservation measures. and the Ontario economy’s transition away from manufacturing and resource-processing.

Seasonally, the situation typically worsens in spring and fall, when furnaces and air conditioners are turned off, and spring runoff forces hydro facilities to “spill” the water rather than store it for peak periods.

Additional factors will be the return to service of two refurbished reactors at the Bruce generation station near Kincardine and the increasing quantities of renewable energy coming on to the grid under Ontario’s Green Energy Act.

Canada moves to 6th place globally for new installed wind energy capacity in 2011

2012-02-09T15:10:00.000-05:00

Here's a press release from CanWEA:

=====================

Global wind energy grows by 21 per cent despite economic challenges

Canada moves to 6^th place globally for new installed wind energy capacity in 2011

Ottawa, Canada, February 8^th, 2012 – Canada ranks 6^th globally in terms of new installed wind energy capacity and global wind power capacity grew by 21 per cent in 2011, according to annual statistics released by the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). The wind industry installed a record level of just over 41,000 MW of new clean, reliable wind power in 2011, bringing the total installed capacity globally to more than 238,000 MW at the end of last year. Today, about 75 countries worldwide have commercial wind power installations, with 22 of them already passing the 1 GW level.

Canada’s wind energy industry enjoyed a record year in 2011 with approximately 1,267 MW of new wind energy capacity added to provincial grids, representing an investment of $3.1 billion and creating 13,000 person-years of employment. Canada ended 2011 with a total of 5,265 MW of wind energy installed capacity – placing Canada 9^th globally for cumulative capacity. In 2011, new wind energy projects were built and commissioned in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.

“Wind energy in Canada enjoyed a record year in 2011, surpassing the 5, 000 MW milestone. Canada, and in particular Ontario, is emerging as a very competitive destination for wind energy investment globally. Maintaining that position will require continued commitments to aggressive targets for wind energy development and a stable policy framework. As Canada continues to renew its electricity generation resources, wind energy will play an ever-increasing part in delivering reliable, economic and clean electricity”, said Robert Hornung, President of the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

Canada’s wind energy industry is on pace to easily surpass 10,000 MW of total installed capacity by 2015
2012 is expected to be another record year for wind development in Canada with approximately 1,500 MW of new developments expected to come online in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. With similar or higher levels of growth expected over the next four years, Canada’s wind energy industry is on pace to easily surpass 10,000 MW of total installed capacity by 2015 – keeping the country on track to meet CanWEA’s national WindVision target of supplying 20 per cent of Canada’s electricity needs by 2025.

Wind by the numbers

- Canada is the 9^th largest producer of wind energy in the world with current installed capacity at 5,265 MW – producing enough power to meet about 2.3 per centof Canada’s total electricity demand.

- Canada enjoyed a record year in 2011 with the addition of 1,267 MW of new wind energy capacity to provincial grids, representing an investment of $3.1 billionand creating 13,000 person-years of employment.

- 2011 was also a record year for new wind energy installations in Ontario with more than 500 MW

installed by the end of year.

- More than 5,000 MW of wind energy projects are already contracted to be built in Canada over the next five years.

For Canada’s current installed capacity, click here: http://www.canwea.ca/images/uploads/File/NRCan_-_Fact_Sheets/canwea-factsheet-economic-web.pdf

For global wind energy statistics, click here: http://www.gwec.net/fileadmin/images/News/Press/GWEC_-_Global_Wind_Statistics_2011.pdf

Iowa considering feed-in-tariffs

2012-02-08T08:38:00.000-05:00

This is a cross-post from Paul Gipe. Paul is probably the world's expert on feed-in-tariffs. His website lists the feed-in-tariff programs of over 50 countries. It's also a great place to become educated about wind power and view pictures of wind turbines, old and new, large and small.

Wind-works.org

February 07, 2012

Paul Gipe

Senators in the heartland state of Iowa have introduced a modest feed-in tariff bill into the state legislature.

The move is the first serious effort to introduce a system of feed-in tariffs anywhere in the US during the current legislative session.

Introduced by four Iowa state senators representing the majority party and one senator from the minority party, SF 225 calls for a limited system of differentiated tariffs for renewable power plants less than 20 MW in size.

Senators Daryl Beall, D-Fort Dodge; Joe Bolkcom , D-Iowa City (Chair of the Senate Ways & Means Committee); Robert M. Hogg, D-Cedar Rapids; Hubert Houser, R-Carson; and John P. (Jack) Kibbie, D-Emmetsburg introduced SF 225 to "encourage the development of utility-owned and customer-owned alternate (sic) renewable energy production facilities."

The proposal is modest even by US standards, limiting the amount of new capacity under the program to half of retail load growth.

Yet there are several novel aspects of the Iowa proposal. While not a proposal encouraging local ownership specifically, SF 225 does limit program participation only to projects with a majority of ownership within Iowa.

More significant, however, SF 225 is the first major effort to introduce wind tariffs differentiated by wind resource intensity in the US. SF 225 directs the Iowa Utility Board (IUB) to determine the wind tariff at each project site based on the "wind speed at the project location". This requirement is unheard of and if implemented would catapult Iowa to the forefront of modeling wind tariffs in North America.

To qualify for contracts

Projects must be in Iowa,
51% of the ownership must reside in Iowa, be a cooperative, or be a school district in the state,
Have arranged financing, and
Have interconnection agreements in place.

Below is summary of SF 225 program elements.

Program cap: 50% of retails sales "growth"
Project size cap: 20 MW
Program review: every two years
Contract term: 20 years
Tariff calculation: cost of generation plus utility's regulated rate of return
Differentiation: by technology and project size
Wind tranches:

<500 kW
>500 kW<20 MW

Wind resource differentiation: tariff determined for each representative site
Solar PV tranches:

<20 kW
>20 kW<20 MW

Biomass from crop and Ag waste, & Hydro tranches:

<500 kW
>500 kW<20 MW

Reporting requirements: annual
Administration: Iowa Utilities Board

The Senate's Commerce Sub-committee will hear the bill Thursday, 9 February, 2012.

OFA stance could hurt farmers

2012-02-06T21:13:00.000-05:00

Orangeville Citizen
February 02, 2012
Wes Keller

The article can be found here.

A lthough there may be “no scientific evidence” of direct harmful effects in peer-reviewed literature of large scale wind farms, there is a lot wrong with the way in which the Ontario Government has acted as the gatekeeper of their approvals, according to the stance taken by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), in seeking a halt to development pending further studies.

Hearkening back to the development of Phase 1 of the Melancthon wind farm, there was some opposition but nothing compared to that of the present. In fact, there was virtually no opposition at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing into the Melancthon portion of Phase 2 – after the parties agreed to a set of guidelines for public involvement in approvals.

Back then, OMB hearings were the virtual rule for wind farm developments. The affected public, via the local municipal government and the OMB as an adjudicator, was the gatekeeper.

But this meant approvals came slowly, even though the Provincial Policy Statement favoured them, and Premier Dalton McGuinty had pledged to power Ontario with alternative energy, including wind, to replace remaining coal-fired generators.

Hence the Green Energy Act (GEA), a statute that took away the municipal control and virtually excluded the public from deliberations.

The GEA did clarify setback rules. The initial Melancthon development had turbines as close to residential receptors as 300 metres (three football fields in the Canadian Foodball League). These were generally increased to 400-450 metres in Phase 2, thanks to local negotiations and the OMB.

The GEA did hike them to 550 metres, said to be the most stringent globally.

One might think that the GEA’s precautionary setback rule, if that’s what it is, would allay any fears of ill effects from turbines. Maybe it would have, had the GEA not stripped away – usurped – all power of municipal governments and the public.

Now the OFA is demanding a halt to wind farm development pending further studies of their effects on human health. It says the “invasion” of wind turbines is tearing rural municipalities asunder.

Maybe so: Melancthon, with the most turbines of any Canadian municipality apart from Wolfe Island, said so some time ago, its council seeking a cap on the number of turbines any municipality should host, based on an area formula. Mayor Bill Hill apparently said so in a conversation with the minister of Energy or Environment, but was told it was up to him to overcome any community rifts.

Dufferin County’s major industry is agriculture. The agricultural industry nation-wide is somewhat depressed In although there are signs it is recovering. For struggling farmers, the $6,000 or so annual income from each turbine must be a godsend.

Opposition to farming practices is nothing new in this area. We have seen opposition to the location of barns, based on odours, and to the age-old practice of “the manure pile” being in place over winter for spreading in the spring – hence the Nutrient Management Act.

New and costly rules have been foisted upon farmers, largely by former city dwellers enjoying rural homes and/or vacation retreats.

This is an agricultural area, not a retirement community. Someone at Mulmur council years ago took exception to a reference to the township as “cottage country.” Memory of the meeting is dim, but it might have been then-reeve John Newton who adamantly insisted it was “farm country,” as opposed to a vacation township.

In recent months, we have seen a groundswell of at least province-wide support for the preservation of prime foodgrowing acres – notably last September’s Foodstock in opposition to creation of a mega-quarry in Melancthon.

Yet there is opposition to the enhancement of farm income via the erection of wind turbines – including the latest by the farmers’ own organization, the OFA.

Is the OFA being realistic? I don’t think so. I think it would tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater in its stance.

Instead, what is needed is a return of local planning controls to local governments, with recourse to the OMB for anyone not in agreement with local decisions.

In addition, the rules on development should include settlements of some kind with legitimate complaints of existing residents within, say, a kilometre of any new installation.

The problem might be definition of “legitimate complaint.”

Weak point, SHOUT!

2012-02-05T16:38:00.000-05:00

The Multi-Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group (MMWTWG) is a collection of anti-wind advocates. Their membership includes a number of municipal officials and citizens dedicated to stop wind turbines in south-western Ontario. While there may have been a semblance of balanced participation in the beginning stages of the group, that is not the case now. Pro-wind participants have left in frustration and the minutes of the Group's meetings demonstrate a clear anti-wind bias.

On January 25, 2012 they published a document called "Concerns of Municipalities Posed by Wind Turbines". A copy can be found, tellingly, on the Ontario Wind Resistance web site. It was contributed courtesy of Bill Palmer, one of the authors and, according to press coverage, a member of Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO). Another author, Keith Stelling recently published an article on the WCO web site.

To date, the document has been presented to the Ministry of Energy but the current intent appears to be to present it to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) prior to their annual conference.

What follows is a top-line critique of their submission:

A. Lack of Transparency in Calling for Input to the Feed In Tariff Review

The FIT review had been talked about during and after the election and was announced on October 31, 2011. The day after the announcement, it was published on the windconcernsontario website. The posting still exists today on the successor website ontariowindresistance. 2900 people responded to the online survey and there were 150 written submissions.

And the MMWTMG claims that they were left in the dark.

B. Adverse Health Effects

The WWWTMG "are disgusted that the province refuses to look into the identified concerns – whether caused “directly” of [sic] “indirectly” it is clear that the concerns arose with the placement of the wind turbines."

What they fail to mention is that the University of Waterloo School of Public Health (under the direction of Dr. Bigelow and Dr. McColl) is conducting a study into any health issues. Here's a quote from Dr. Bigelow:

“By including nursing professionals and other specialized health expertise on the team, we’re hoping to use clinical and biological markers of stress to examine the association of exposure to wind turbine noise with sleep disturbances, fatigue, headache, depression, and other psychophysiological problems.”

In addition, a large number of independent, solidly peer reviewed studies are, and have been available for some time.

On the other hand, Ian Hanna, chairman of WCO, has urged all people to boycott the study.

C. Community Well Being

The notion of wind dividing the community has been overblown (pardon the pun). There is one side that demonstrates, interferes with public meetings and generally pursues all sorts of aggressive activist activities. Then there is the silent majority who don't use the same tactics and feel intimidated by the aggressors.

The solution proposed by MMWTMG is to eliminate any possibility of others in the community to legitimately use their property, i.e. to vanquish those who want and/or support wind turbines. How does that create well being in the community? Does anyone really believe that there is any solution acceptable to MMWTMG that would allow wind turbines in their municipalities?

D. Municipal Income

The basic tenet of taxation is that it is related to services required by the asset or individual being taxed (i.e. roads, schools, etc.) Turbines require no, or very little, ongoing services by the municipality. As a project is proceeding through its permitting stages, municipalities charge permit fees which more than recover the costs of evaluating the permits - in most cases much more. Is this opportunism or the creation of barriers?

However, as part of a good neighbour policy, most projects have included amenity agreements in recognition that the municipality has to share its tax with the school and county which provide even less servicing.

This demand for more tax is just a ploy to place another barrier in front of wind turbines and further proof that there is no solution that would satisfy the MMWTMG.

E. Community Safety

Icing, fire and other risks have been well evaluated as part of project permitting and they are miniscule. There has only been one fire incident in Canada in the last ten years and there was no collateral property or personal injury. There have been no reported ice injuries or damage in Canada.

In contrast, the community doesn't seem to worry about trees and poles on country roads where there are many more instances of personal injury and property damage after ice storms. There are news reports on this topic every year in the municipalities included in the MMWTWG. And how many car fires or pole mounted transformer fires have occurred every year in those municipalities?

This section is a clear example of MMWTWG using FUD (the well know technique of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). How about some facts about one alternative to wind? There are a little over 400 nuclear reactors in the world. Three of them had meltdowns. There are 150 nuclear propelled navy ships. Three of them had meltdowns. How many people were injured, killed or nearly killed?

F. Deviations from Regulations

Obviously, if a turbine has been improperly located, mitigation should be applied either by curtailment or transitional aid. Any complaints to date have been investigated and, in practically all cases, found to be in compliance.

The Ministry of the Environment (MoEnv) has ruled on the tonal penalty, using professional acousticians, but apparently that's not good enough for the MMWTWG. It's pretty clear that even sound-free turbines would still be resisted by them.

G. Environmental Impacts

The MMWTWG has been misled by the Auditor General's report. The Ontario system regularly carries more operating reserve for its system than the capacity of the entire wind turbine fleet. There is no incremental environmental impact from adding a bit of wind into the mix.

As part of every project, an environmental review is performed by independent professionals who assess wildlife impact and measure it later. Turbine layouts are modified based on their recommendations and that is why the follow-up audits rarely show any impact. There have been one or two situations where the MNR has required ongoing surveillance and possible mitigation (e.g. Wolf Island) but it's quite rare.

This doesn't stop the MMWTWG from using the FUD word "threatened" and asserting that impacts have occurred, but without citing examples.

H. Adverse consequences of Feed-In-Tariffs (FIT)

The MMWTWG dedicate half of their submission to this issue, obviously written by Bill Palmer, a former nuclear engineer. Nuclear energy and wind energy are "natural" enemies in an electrical system because neither one can be economically dispatched (i.e. turned off or on when desired). The nuclear industry wants to push wind right out of what they think is "their" system. And, of course, Mr. Palmer was part of that system.

The issue of wind versus nuclear deserves its own blog entry or series of blog entries. Suffice it to say that energy from wind is cheaper than that from a new nuclear plant and may even be cheaper than energy from a refurbished nuclear plant. Plus, wind costs are declining and nuclear costs are escalating.

*******************

Finally, an note about the tone of the MMWTWG. What to you think of the following words being used in a submission to an Ontario Ministry or the Association of Municipalities Ontario:

"absolutely unacceptable"

"we are disgusted"

"immense harm is being done to rural Ontario"

"immediate cessation of the illegal practice"

"our children and neighbours are our community assets!"

It sounds a little bit like the famous annotation in the margin of one of Churchill's speeches; "Weak point - SHOUT!"

PJM and GM run trial charging from renewable energy

2012-02-03T21:12:00.000-05:00

Here's a cross-post from Glen Estill's blog. It describes yet another way that Ontario could manage electrical demand during times when we have an abundance of renewal energy.

Glen Estill's wind-blog
January 29, 2012

PJM – the regional transmission operator for Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland has an interesting trial underway with charging of the Chevy Volt, the plug in hybrid from General Motors.

The system operator will monitor the output from the region’s renewable energy sources, and when surplus is available, will send a signal to General Motors. General Motors will then relay the signal on to the Chevy Volts connected to the system via their On Star system, and tell those vehicles to beginning charging their batteries. It shows forward thinking both by PJM and GM.

I like the fact that it is using existing technology – the On Star system, that is standard with the Volt. This makes such a system insanely cheap to implement.

Of course if the system operator can send signals for when renewable energy is available, they could act on almost any parameter, such as when power is in surplus from any source, or when power is cheapest. The renewable energy aspect of this is mainly for public relations – system operators need more tools to allow them to manage both times of surplus and shortage of power, and this is a powerful and very low cost tool.

PJM is showing great foresight in looking into this now. There are still some unknowns about electric cars. How many will there be? How much power can the average one take? How many cars are plugged in when the signal is sent? Gathering information now will help them greatly as the number of electric cars proliferates. They will also learn how to quickly implement systems, and standardize software interfaces to accommodate new electric car makes and models.

The Ontario IESO has talked about an emerging problem of surplus baseload generation (SBG). This is when generation in the province exceeds demand (including exports). As we bring on more inflexible refurbished nuclear plants, that can’t be shut down easily, the problem is likely to get worse. Of course, if you can shift demand to times of SBG, you could solve the problem. Using electric cars is just one solution, but one that will become more important as the electric car fleet increases in size.

The Chevy Volt stores 16 kWh fully charged. If an average Volt requires 10 kWh to be topped up at the end of the day, then 100,000 Volts would require 1 million kWh, or 1000 MW of generation for an hour. This is equal to 70% of Ontario’s wind fleet, or equal to the output of 2 of the Pickering units. This is not a trivial amount. And 100,000 Chevy Volts is only a little over 1% of the vehicle fleet in Ontario, and less than half the current fleet of hybrid vehicles. In addition to the Volt, there is the Nissan Leaf, which stores 24 kWh, and another 10 plug in electric vehicles coming to the market in the next year or two. 1% may be conservative.

The bottom line is electric cars offer interesting potential to buffer times of surplus power on a system. If this is added to using dams to store water when surplus generation exists, either in Ontario or neighbouring hydraulic based Quebec and Manitoba, or switching on hot water heaters, and other innovative load shifting techniques, the problem of SBG can be addressed. It would be good if the IESO would begin their own trials with GM.

Health effects and windturbines

2012-02-02T08:19:00.000-05:00

Simcoe Reformer
January 31, 2012, Page:4
Chris Ollson & Loren Knopper

There is considerable debate about the relationship between windturbines and reported human health effects.

Despite the fact that many studies have been conducted worldwide to examine this relationship, the debate here at home is filled with misinformation. This makes it difficult for the public to determine which claims can be validated by scientific evidence and which cannot.

We have recently published a peer-reviewed paper Health effects and windturbines: A review of the literature, the purpose of which was an in-depth review of the scientific and popular literature on the issue.

While we concluded that noise from windturbines can be annoying to some, we found no research to date that demonstrates a causal relationship between windturbine noise and health effects.

In fact, variables like personal attitude and what someone sees (i. e. if they can see a turbine from their home) are more related to annoyance than noise from turbines.

In other words, it appears that it is the change in the environment that is associated with reported health effects and not a turbine-specific variable like noise.

Overall, health and medical agencies agree (including Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health) that sound from windturbines is not loud enough to cause hearing impairment and is not causally related to adverse effects.

Based on these findings, we encourage the public to make up their own mind on wind energy based on reputable and validated studies.

Please go to: www.ehjournal.net/content/10/1/78to see the paper in its entirety.

Chris Ollson, Ph. D. and Loren Knopper, Ph. D. Intrinsik Environmental Sciences

Minnesota Wind To Be Stored By Manitoba Hydro

2012-02-01T11:20:00.000-05:00

This is another terrific cross-post from Glen Estill

Wind-blog.com

January 31, 2012

Glen Estill

An interesting story crossed my screen this morning. Minnesota is going to buy electricity from Manitoba’s hydroelectric system. Part of the agreement allows them to send energy from Minnesota wind north to Manitoba, to allow Manitoba to store that energy behind their power dams.

Minnesota is one of the leading States in supplying their power from wind. Minnesota has over 2700 MW of wind capacity, much of it located on the Buffalo Ridge in the south west corner of the state. They have almost double the installed capacity of Ontario, and their total consumption is a little over 40% of Ontario’s. So they get a lot more of their power from wind than we do – more than 4 times as a percentage of supply. They have been doing it longer, so they have more experience integrating it with other power sources. And that is why this agreement is significant. They realize that one of the least cost ways of storing is to use existing hydro dams.

The agreement calls for the purchase of 250 MW of electricity from water power for 15 years, beginning in 2020. And it allows Minnesota to export power when they have surplus from their wind facilities.

Ontario also borders Manitoba. But Manitoba is a long way from Ontario’s big load centers. It is costly to use Manitoba to store our wind energy during times of surplus, at least if new transmission needs to be built. Ontario has only small connections to Manitoba today. Ontario can use its own hydro resources to store a lot of wind today, but in times of surplus, it would make the most sense for Ontario to use the existing storage available in Quebec. They have multi year storage capability. Even better, the Province of Quebec is a winter peaking jurisdiction, exactly when the wind is strongest. Quebec could use Ontario’s wind when their water flows are lowest, saving energy behind their dams, to sell back to us when Ontario’s summer peaks occur. This would use existing power dams, and existing transmission – we have over 2000 MW of connection to Quebec already. This is enough to transmit all of Ontario’s wind production, should it all be in surplus at any point.

It is time for the government or the IESO to begin the discussion.

What's next -opposition to barns?

2012-01-31T10:13:00.001-05:00

Ontario Farmer -
January 31, 2012, Page:A8
Wayne Hopper

Dear editor:

I am in quite a conundrum. I have just received my GFO renewal for $220.35. I usually support the OFA but if they are going to take a stand against windmills I will have to re-think this. Is the next thing they are going to take a stand against pig barns and dairy barns? It still seems to me that the people against windmills are suffering from "no chequeitis". Did the people against windmills ancestors try to stop the big hydro transmission lines? I am not for or against windmills. I am for freedom and am not opposed to change.

Wayne Hopper, Brussels

A complaint about OFA's wind stand

2012-01-31T10:13:00.000-05:00

Ontario Farmer
January 31, 2012, Page:A8
Dick Netherway

Dear editor:

I wish to lodge a serious complaint against OFA president Mark Wales who is quoted in the press as opposing windturbines. He is clearly not well-informed on this issue and had absolutely no right to make public statements without first canvassing the membership. I am a longstanding OFA member (2933067) and an advocate for green energy policy including windturbines and I am incensed by what amounts to a serious blunder on the part of President Mark Wales.

Dick Netherway, St. Catharines

Reader "shocked and disappointed" over OFA stance against turbines

2012-01-31T09:49:00.001-05:00

I am shocked and disappointed by the OFA stance against windturbine development on farm land in the province.

Several years ago the farmers and landowners along the Bruce to Milton electrical corridor asked the OFA to undertake action to study the impact of these power lines on farm land values.

We were not against the new corridor but our land was being expropriated so that Bruce Power could get electricity to the market. We simply wanted fair value for hosting one of the world's largest electrical corridors and a fair study as to the economic impact of this new line on our existing land.

The OFA sat on its hands and did nothing, except to tell us what we already knew to hire a lawyer. The only person who offered any help was the lady who runs the Hanover office of the OFA.

Why is the OFA suddenly so concerned about windturbines? Their comments about electrical costs make no sense when they did absolutely nothing about the 180km power line with over 400 towers that cost taxpayers over $700 million.

Everyone wants to point a finger at somebody else, but as long as we all use electricity, we are going to have to figure out how to generate cleaner electricity. Farmers know best the impact of hot weather and low rainfall when we see crops fail and a lack of snow cover dry out the land.

Coal generation has to go because our climate is changing. Hydro electric dams create huge watershed issues including the flooding of farmlands. Nuclear powered electricity reduces carbon emissions but now we have to find a storage place for all that spent fuel and that will cost a lot of money

In an idyllic make believe world, the electricity that runs our homes, businesses and lights would happen without any impact to the air, land or water. We don't live in that world.

We all live on the same planet and to do nothing about global warming or acid rain is just pushing a problem to our children and their children. I propose that we hold a moratorium on windturbine talk for five years and then revisit and measure the economic and environmental benefits.

Why five years?

Well that was about the same amount of time that it took for my parents generation to fight WWII -imagine the world we would live in if that generation had decided that saving the free world wasn't worth their time or sacrifice.

Dennis Threndyle Elmwood

Council's stance on wind project doesn't represent everybody

2012-01-31T06:53:00.000-05:00

County Live.ca

January 26, 2012

by Nicole Kleinsteuber

This blog entry concerns Prince Edward County and the County Sustainability Group. For original article click here.

 Local wind supporters addressed council Tuesday night requesting they defeat a motion to submit a series of concerns to the Ministry of Environment and Gilead Power.

“We do not find it to be relevant to the original motion, reflective of sound science or representative of the greater good,” said John Thompson, past president of PEC Federation of Agriculture.

The motion states the municipality believes Ostrander Point is an inappropriate site for the proposed wind farm and should not be approved for a list of reasons. Concerns ranged from unresolved adequacy of the proposed setbacks of turbines from residents homes to infrastructure having negative impact on birds, wildlife and the environment.

Rob Williams, a member of the County Sustainability Group agreed with Thompson when he addressed council. The local group wants the community to adopt green initiatives, including windmills.

“Informing the ministry of the municipality’s belief is one thing,” said Williams. “Requesting that the belief that Ostrander Point is an unsuitable site must be addressed to the satisfaction of the County of Prince Edward is quite another. It blocks any opportunity for the ministry to grant approval.”

Williams said most of the reasons in the motion have not been critically evaluated by council or staff and are rife with subjective complaints.

“Exaggerated localized threats to humans and wildlife are given prominence yet the far greater threats from climate change, against which clean sources of renewable energy like wind are our primary defence, are completely ignored,” said Williams.

Williams said the concerns are a thinly disguised attempt to circumvent the approval process and impose a municipal veto on any approval decision by the ministry.

“It is a direct challenge to the ministry’s authority,” said Williams. “It will severely compromise the credibility of council as a reasonable partner and hence diminish council’s stature and influence in future ministry decisions.”

“I’m quite intrigued by the information that we received saying that this is a disguised attempt to circumvent the approval process and impose a municipal veto,” said councillor Robert Quaiff. “Absolutely, that was the complete intent. It was for this municipal council to take a line and draw it in the sand and all declare once and for all whether or not we support the industrial wind turbine location at Ostrander Point.”

Councillor Jamie Forrester wanted to know how councillor Quaiff came to the conclusion that the entire municipality is against the Ostrander Point location.

“I’m not quite sure how we can make that assumption one way or another,” said Forrester. “There hasn’t been any surveys with results backing up the statement.”

Councillor Bev Campbell agreed that the introductory paragraph should be rephrased.

“That paragraph doesn’t belong with matters to be addressed,” said Campbell. “We want Gilead and the province to provide us with mitigation measures to the items we’ve listed.”

Campbell said she wasn’t in favour of deleting the environmental concerns pertaining to the Important Bird Area, wildlife and endangered species. Campbell said the portion pertaining to negative human health impacts, reduced quality of life and noise emissions should be omitted from the list.

Councillor Brian Marisett said the sections about health studies should be left out.

“I don’t think it’s possible for a study to come out with conclusive proof that’s going to satisfy all of the residents regardless of what position they’re taking,” said Marisett. “I’ve heard this debate since 2002. Experts from this side and experts from that side on and on. Everyone is claiming that they’re the authority on the issue and I don’t think we’re ever going to get there.”

But councillor Terry Shortt disagreed, stating these are concerns from a portion of the community.

“They should be included,” said Shortt. “We have a divided community. Part of that community is in support of wind energy and part of the community is not.”

Council decided to amend the original motion to read the province and Gilead to provide mitigation measures for the following concerns.

“It’s some improvement,” said Thompson in an interview. “They’ve taken out the most offensive part. You can’t say the county doesn’t think that it’s an inappropriate site. It’s not possible to say it in all honesty. That information isn’t available.”

Thompson also requested council to bring in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s decision to suspend new feed in tariff contracts for wind until their issues are resolved into the debate. Thompson said there are inconsistencies in last week’s press release that said the OFA wants to suspend all wind developments across the province.

The concerns the OFA wants addressed surround the price to be paid for wind power, the inefficiency of wind energy, setbacks and induced currents, health and nuisance issues and the removal of municipal input for projects.

OFA President Mark Wales agreed the call for a suspension should be clarified.

“A lot of people understand what we’re saying and for those who don’t we need to clarify that point,” said Wales in an interview. “The OFA isn’t against wind energy. It’s time to put a pause on the process, don’t issue any new projects until concerns are dealt with. The projects that are in the works are going to go ahead.”

Wales said these issues have to be resolved to ensure the success of all projects.

Truthiness isn't good enough

2012-01-26T07:42:00.000-05:00

Enterprise Bulletin

Letter to the Editor

Robert Knox

January 24, 2012

“TRUTHINESS” ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH

Things were alittle tense in the Knox household when my wife read Kevin Elwood’s letterpublished in Friday’s (January 20) Enterprise Bulletin. Kate wanted to leaveimmediately for St Lucia so we could start spending the money that Mr. Elwoodsays I am earning from wind turbines.

Unfortunately, Ihad to tell her that Mr. Elwood just made that up.

I have nofinancial interest in any wind project. Never have. Other than receiving someremuneration for work done on wind turbine development in the last 10 years, Ihaven’t received a dollar from wind turbines.

Too bad. Investingin new, clean, renewable energy and helping farmers use their land for thispurpose is sensible and commendable. I just don’t have the financial resourcesto do it.

But I contributein other ways such as writing letters - probono by the way - debunking what wind opponents say about wind turbines.

Wind opponents saylots of things that are inaccurate, not true or sound true but aren’t. In otherwords, they indulge in “truthiness”.

Most of what Mr.Elwood says in his letter is in this category.

Mr. Elwood says thattwo colleagues and I established Chinodin Wind Power in 2002 to do the initialdevelopment work for what eventually became Canadian Hydro Developers’Melancthon/Amaranth project. This is true and we are proud of it.

We sold theMelancthon and the Plateau projects because we didn’t have the financialresources, experience, and expertise to complete large projects.

Mr. Elwood says windprojects are subsidized. They aren’t. They are financed through 20 year powerpurchase agreements. People pay for the power they consume.

Wind turbinesaren’t a disaster. They produced 2.6% of Ontario’s electricity in 2011. Ontario’sIndependent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO) says that wind generators areplaying an increasingly important role in meeting demand for electricity.

Wind turbines willprovide 5% of Ontario’s electricity needs in the next few years. How and why wouldthis create an “economic catastrophe” as Mr. Elwood says? This statement isbeyond “truthy”. It is unbelievable.

As long as windopponents keep saying things like this, I will keep correcting the record.

Mind you, theeditor may decide that EB readers have had enough of this dialogue and cut usoff.

Not a bad idea.

Robert Knox,

Collingwood

And here's the letter that kicked this off:

WHAT'S WITH LETTER WRITER AND TURBINES?

Ihave read the recent letter exchanges between Robert Knox and local residentsraising their concerns over wind turbine developments proposed in theircommunities with interest. I began to wonder, why is Mr Knox so quick to refuteany opposition to wind turbines? What's in it for him?

So,just as I did when I learned of wind turbines being proposed on land adjoiningto mine, I did some research. Well it is very obvious why Mr Knox is pro wind turbine. Turns out heis the forefather of wind turbines in the province of Ontario.

RobertKnox was a principal in Chinodin Wind Power. This is the company that initiallysigned up landowners for the Shelburne wind turbines now owned by Transalta.Chinodin sold the leases to Canadian Hydro Developers in 2004 for profit. MrKnox then went on to sign land owners and initiate the Maxwell Wind Farm underChinodin's name. This project, too, was sold to IPC for money.

Anyonecan quickly see why Mr Knox is quick to defend turbines.

Thisjust once again proves what I have learned to be the sole interest of allpersons participating in wind turbine developments: making money and lots ofit. Not protecting our environment or contributing to our economy they all goon about.

Everyoneis now learning that this grossly over-subsidised industry is not sustainableor a reliable replacement for present power generation and then to top it alloff it is very invasive to the communities it is developed in.

Ontario's Green Energy Act and wind turbines are adisaster without a disaster and leading us to an economic catastrophe inOntario.

SoMr Knox... drop your attack on great people like Lorrie Gillis, the board ofthe Collingwood Regional Airport, and others who are standing up and protectingthe communities they live in and the economies they support.

Ittakes a healthy sustainable economy to support the protection of theenvironment. We are spending our hard earned after tax dollars to do so with nohope of earning profit.

Looksto me like that's what's in turbines for you!

KEVINELWOOD
Commercial Pilot and Nursery
Grower
Clearview Township

CCO Calls for Moratorium on Car Sales

2012-01-25T13:00:00.000-05:00

It doesn't get much better than this.

Car Concerns Ontario (CCO) today called for a moratorium on sale of new cars, citing their danger to the health of citizens.

According to CCO, cars result in the deaths of over 2000 Canadians per year in traffic fatalities, killing more Canadians than are killed by homicides. “The impact of the use of automobiles on the health of our population is simply unacceptable,” said William Bouche, spokesman for CCO. “In addition to deaths, there are thousands of injuries.”

The CCO web site lists other concerns. Collisions with birds are estimated at over 5 million per year in Ontario. The negative impact of automobile exhaust was cited as a major source of air pollution. The use of food growing land to build roads to is a major concern. The impact on insect populations, the base of the food chain birds and bats in particular was mentioned as an area that desperately needs more study. Vibrations caused by passing cars are suspected to harm earthworm populations.

A main objection to cars was the sound they make. “Cars driving by can wake people up,” said Bouche. “They make a sound that carries for miles, and they are louder than the refrigerator inside a home.” Sleep deprivation has been associated with poor health.

Car Vigilance Ontario (CVO), a splinter group, goes further. “We all know that a certain percentage of the population gets car sickness. This is because the human body was not made to travel faster than 25 miles per hour, the speed of a thoroughbred racehorse. The long term health impact of the travel in cars has not been studied adequately. The precautionary principal dictates that we ban cars until these impacts are known,” said Carmen Corbeau, spokesperson for CVO. “We need to think about the children.”

The Mayor of Sanguine Shores, Joe Bruce, agreed. “A substantial portion of municipal land is used for roads, yet cars pay no property tax at all. It is difficult to find funds to run a municipality when this subsidy for cars is funded entirely by towns and cities.”

Buzz Hargrove, former head of the Canadian Union of Auto Workers disagreed. “Cars have been in use on Ontario roads for over a century. And Ontario workers produce more cars than any other jurisdiction in North America. Someone has to speak for the workers, and the drivers. We can’t let government policy be beholden to the views of fringe groups.”

Tim Hudak, leader of the PC party blames cars on the government. “It is time to hold the McGuinty government accountable for cars, and the damage they cause. The subsidies have to stop. Ontarion’s can’t afford the cost to drive cars any more.”

Dalton McGuinty’s office issued this statement. “The car industry is the backbone of Ontario’s manufacturing sector, and creates thousands of jobs.”

Nobody addressed the issue of how people will get around without cars.

Ontario polls show support for wind

2012-01-25T07:53:00.000-05:00

Our last post highlighted a peer-reviewed poll conducted by CSIRO in Australia that showed strong support by the silent majority in spite of active anti-wind activities by a few.

Two polls conducted in Ontario say the same thing.

The first, conducted by Ipsos Reid covered all of Ontario in the summer of 2010. The key findings were:

Most Ontarians –in every region of the province –support the production of wind energy in their region of the province.

In fact, support for wind energy production remains high, even when the geographic location mentioned is “in your community”. Just three in ten say they wouldn’t want wind turbines in their community.

While a minority of Ontarians are aware of wind energy developments in their area, a majority of those living in the southwest corner of the province claim to be aware of these developments.

The main benefits of wind energy, unaided, are that it is cheap, good on the environment, clean and renewable.

The main drawbacks of wind energy, unaided, are that it is loud, ugly, needs wind and concerns over health issues.

Most Ontarians believe that cleaner and alternative forms of energy should be produced in Ontario, particularly since the BP oil spill. Ontarians want governments to support these kinds of initiatives, perhaps because most think wind energy would provide economic benefits and most believe it has less impact on human health.

Here's the data when people are asked if they support wind in their community. Click on the image to magnify it.

The second poll was also conducted by Ipsos Reid, but conducted in Grey Highlands, also in the summer of 2010. Seventy percent support wind in their community.

Admittedly, these polls aren't current but they still demonstrate a strong level of support for wind everywhere in Ontario, including at least one rural area.

Strong support for wind farms obscured, says CSIRO report

2012-01-24T07:59:00.000-05:00

Dr. Jim Smithman Photo: Stefan Moore

Sydney Morning Herald

January 18, 2012

Kelsey Munro, Ben Cubby

Article is here.

THERE is much stronger public support for wind farms than media coverage of the issue would suggest, because a ''vocal minority'' who oppose wind farms secure the majority of media and political attention, according to new CSIRO research.

A peer-reviewed study by Brisbane researchers investigated attitudes to nine wind farms in various stages of development in NSW, Victoria and South Australia, concluding there was a strong level of support ''from rural residents who do not seek media attention or political engagement to express their views''.

By contrast, more than half of all wind farm proposals had been opposed by members of the Landscape Guardian group, the report noted.

The CSIRO's deputy director, energy technology, Jim Smitham, one of the reviewers of the report, said it showed a disconnect between negative and conflict-oriented media coverage about wind farms and the attitude of a majority in the communities where wind farms were proposed or already operating.

''You find more media stories supporting the case against wind farms than those for it,'' he said. ''Whereas, going into the field and doing interviews at community level, they have different reasons but many of them support the wind farm; it just isn't as apparent as the people who are able to find a short sharp reason to reject it.''

Dr Smitham said wind farm developers that proactively consulted with communities and responded to their concerns had achieved far higher local acceptance of their projects.

The report, Acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia: A snapshot, by CSIRO's social research team, comes as the draft guidelines on wind farm development in this state are open for public comment.

The researchers conducted interviews with wind farm developers, councils, turbine hosts, community opponents and supporters of the projects in each of the nine locations.

Wind farm opponents cited negatives including poor consultation, visual amenity and noise, while supporters cited benefits including improved infrastructure such as roads and firebreaks, clean energy and better local job prospects, the report found.

The debate over noise and health impacts has been a key issue raised by opponents. A series of peer-reviewed studies have found no evidence that low-level sound from wind farms has made people sick, but some international studies included self-selected surveys in which people living near wind farms reported annoyance and interrupted sleep as a result of vibrations from the turbine blades.

The CSIRO report noted wind farms can create stress which affects wellbeing.

The Landscape Guardians could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Is MPP Bill Walker playing the role of judge and jury?

2012-01-21T08:35:00.000-05:00

This is a guest blog by Roger Short:

In an article published by the Meaford Independent on January 19th, recently elected MPP, Bill Walker has waded into the matter of wind power and who should have the control over review and permitting decisions.

In his role as MPP, he is required to represent all people in his riding, not, as this article suggests, just those who make the most noise.

If he dug a little more deeply, he would find independent surveys showing that there is solid support for renewable energy in the area and beyond.

Not only that, but there are lengthy and thorough processes which proponents must follow to get final approval for any potential project.

Opponents of wind power in organisations like Wind Concerns Ontario and others have, as their stated objective, the elimination of all wind turbines in Ontario. They have demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to achieve this goal, and their style and tactics have frequently silenced any and everyone who dares to challenge them.

Opponents never even recognise or engage such matters as the deaths and health bills from fossil fuels in general and coal in particular, nor on the Ontario nuclear record of never coming in on time or on budget for any project to date. Recent experience shows that on large refurbishing projects, expenses have exceeded estimates by $ billions as well.

Coming from the nuclear industry, Mr. Walker is probably fully aware of these facts, yet outcomes like these aren't addressed - and yet they affect all Ontarians.

The renewables business, with its clearly demonstrated job creating ability, new technology and potential to improve both local economics and local farmers, should be reviewed in an objective fashion by those who represent us.

No evidence of health problems from wind turbines

2012-01-21T08:18:00.000-05:00

Hull, MA

JANUARY 18, 2012, 7:40 AM

Wind Turbines and Health Hazards

By LESLIE KAUFMAN

There is no conclusive evidence so far that wind turbines are responsible for health problems ranging from balance problems to diabetes, an independent panel of health experts reports.

Associated Press

With turbine farms on the rise, complaints and lawsuits brought by communities where they have been placed have mushroomed. Apart from more serious ailments, residents have cited the swooshing of the blades as a factor in problems like disturbances in the vestibular system that affect the inner ear and balance.

So in Massachusetts, a state with its own share of wind farms, the state Department of Environmental Protection convened a panel of independent health experts to review the existing medical literature — still limited — on health effects related to wind turbines. The panel did not do its own research or focus on repercussions at a particular site. But a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies conducted near turbines in the United States and Europe, released on Tuesday, yielded these insights:

There is no evidence for a set of health effects characterized as “wind turbine syndrome.” The evidence collected so far indicates that the sounds beyond the range of human hearing range cannot affect the human balance system.

The weight of the evidence suggests no association between noise from wind turbines and psychological distress or other mental health problems.

None of the epidemiological evidence reviewed points directly to an association between noise from wind turbines and pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, other hearing impairments, cardiovascular disease or headache/migraine.

Scientific evidence suggests that the flickering shadows of the turbines do not pose a risk of causing seizures.

Kenneth L. Kimmell, the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, said the study seemed to present a clean bill of health for wind turbines — except on the issue of whether the noise causes “annoyance or sleep disruption.” The report suggested that the evidence for either was limited but that more study is needed, he said.

That finding is similar to one from the Oregon Public Health Authority, which released its own assessment of the health impact of wind turbines this month. That report indicated that the perception of the turbines’ noise was subjective yet could have an impact.

“There is some evidence that wind turbine sound is more noticeable, annoying and disturbing than other community or industrial sounds at the same level of loudness,” that study said. Wind turbines produce sounds that fluctuate in loudness and in type, which is generally considered more annoying than steady or constant sounds, the report said.

“Wind turbine sound levels may not decrease predictably at night, and could be perceived as louder and more noticeable at night than during the day,” the report said.

Mr. Kimmell said that the Massachusetts state government would await the results of a 60-day public comment period before proposing recommendations for regulating wind farms in the future.

Design of Health Study for Wind Turbines

2012-01-19T07:06:00.000-05:00

This is a cross-post from Glen Estill's Wind Blog

The opponents of wind energy claim that wind turbines make people sick. There are a few signs around that say “Health studies before wind turbines.” And of course this sounds very reasonable – it sounds “reasonableish”. This word is patterned on “truthiness”, which wikipedia defines as “a “truth” that a person claims to know intuitively “from the gut” or because it “feels right” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.”

But lets suppose we were to design a health study about wind turbines? What would it have to look like, in order to have meaningful results?

There would of course be a number of scientific standards that would need to be applied. Ideally you would use blind researchers, who ask questions and gather data without knowing what they are studying. This reduces bias in the answers. You of course need a control group. If 10% of the subjects in a test wind area have tinnitus (ringing in the ears), and this is the same as outside of the wind area, then it would seem unlikely that wind turbines are the cause. All of the medical conditions – tinnitus, insomnia, headaches, nosebleeds etc. – claimed by people living near wind turbines are conditions found elsewhere in the general population. It is only if the condition is significantly more prevalent near wind turbines that it would be significant. It is important that the study’s control group be similar to the study group in age, sex, rural location, ethnicity etc., to make the control group more comparable.

The symptoms of wind turbine syndrome claimed by the opponents of wind are all self reported. This poses a problem, since it means the attitude toward wind affects the person’s viewpoint, and the survey’s outcome. A self reported problem is something like insomnia, or a headache. A doctor can’t prove or disprove either of these – he has to rely on the the patient’s statements. It would be desirable to gather some objective health data, such as blood work, urine analysis, blood pressure etc. These are well known tools in diagnosing health issues.

The most important information that the study needs to gather is information on whether or not the subject’s family receives compensation from having wind turbines nearby. The anecdotal evidence from those in the industry, who have landowners who live among turbines, is that those who earn income from wind turbines don’t get sick. The antidote for wind turbine syndrome is money – which of course calls into question the medical validity of the syndrome. The anecdotal evidence is at least as strong as the anecdotal evidence presented by the opponents of wind. After all, there are hundreds of people who lease their land to wind projects in Ontario who don’t get sick, and hundreds of thousands around the world. A study that does not account for the money issue would lack credibility to the point of irrelevancy.

A study should of course refer to the health impact studies of other sources of generation. Many studies have demonstrated the negative health impact of burning coal, for example, and we still have uncertain consequences from fracking for natural gas, and 3 out of just over 100 nuclear plants operating in the world have had meltdowns. No source of power is without health issues. It is not wind or nothing. It is wind or something else.

Wind Concerns Ontario, the umbrella group for the anti winders, has asked their members not to participate in a health study. Yet they have asked for a health study to be done before any more wind is built. This of course reveals both their fears, and their true agenda. They fear the result of a health study, because they know that the health issue is tenuous at best, exaggerated in the extreme, if not made up altogether. And their true agenda is not to have a health study, but to stop wind turbines from being built at all.

Ontario anti-wind-power group accused of breaking election financing rules

2012-01-18T07:36:00.000-05:00

Who put up this sign and when did they do it?

Find the original story here.

January 17, 2012 00:01:00

Tanya Talaga

QUEEN’S PARK BUREAU

A prominent anti-wind-power group is under fire amid accusations it broke election financing by running a negative advertising campaign against Liberal candidates last fall.

Toronto resident Jude MacDonald and her lawyer Clayton Ruby have made a formal complaint to Elections Ontario, the non-partisan agency that runs and polices provincial elections.

They say Wind Concerns Ontario failed to comply with the Election Finance Act by allegedly spending over the $500 threshold on political advertising during the provincial campaign without registering as a third party.

MacDonald points to billboards that said, “Hudak In Turbines Out,” and a pro-Progressive Conservative speaking tour of 24 ridings carried out by the grassroots anti-wind group.

But John Laforet, former president of WCO, said the spending allegations are completely false and the complaint is “baseless.”

“The fact is, we did no advertising during the campaign,” he said.

WCO had “no budget” for advertising. “It’d be interesting to see what their concern is,” said Laforet, who also denied WCO put up the billboards. He left the organization late last year. Jane Wilson is the new president.

MacDonald is an activist, former journalist and a supporter of the NDP. She said she lodged the complaint because she is troubled by the influence groups such as Wind Concerns and the Working Families coalition of anti-Tory unions seem to have in Ontario politics.

“I believe in democracy,” MacDonald said. “How much money they (WCO) are spending, I don’t know. All I do know is they did have billboards, lawn signs, they had a number of events where they had what looks like professionally printed signs and that adds up.”

MacDonald, who helped launch the news web site Rabble.ca in 2001, said she first became aware of the on Facebook.

The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party believes the rise of third party advertising, in general, was a big problem during the election, said Alan Sakach, the PC party director of communications.

“We believe the biggest violation of election laws was the $9 million that Working Families, a front group for the Ontario Liberal Party, spent attacking our leader Tim Hudak and the Ontario PC Party,” Sakach said.

We were wrong on turbine noise, admit protesters

2012-01-16T08:28:00.000-05:00

Farmer David Dewes

This story comes to us from our friends at Yes to Renewable Energy in Australia.

Leicester Mercury

October 31, 2011

When they first heard there were going to be four giant wind turbines on their doorsteps, villagers feared the worst.

But now even some of the most hardened protesters have admitted fears over the noise have come to nothing.

The county's first commercial wind farm has towered over the countryside between the villages of Gilmorton, Ashby Magna and Dunton Bassett, near Lutterworth, since its construction in March.

Concerns over noise from the 410ft turbines prompted swift action from residents who campaigned against the project. However, after being in operation for almost a month homeowners have said they are getting used to the gentle "swoosh" of the giant blades.

John Phillips, 70, lives in Ashby Road, less than a mile from the wind farm. He said he was against the construction at first.

He said: "I went to all the protest meetings and I was against them from the start.

"But now, I must say they don't really bother me. I can't hear them and I can barely see them.

"It's like the industrial revolution all over again – people don't like change until it actually happens and they get used to it."

Kelly Gamage, 33, moved into her home in Gilmorton in July, and said she had no idea about the plans to build a wind farm there. She said: "It was a shock when we found out, we certainly didn't expect anything like this when we moved in.

"At first we didn't want them on our doorstep, but now they're up they're not doing any harm and there's no noise coming from them."

The turbines, which cost £1.8million each, stand between the three villages.

David Dewes, who owns Low Spinney Farm, after which the wind farm is named, said: "I think now the ice has been broken people are warming to them. Our home is very close to one of the turbines and the most we hear is a slight swooshing sound – some people have said it's quite calming actually."

The wind farm, which is connected to the National Grid, is expected to provide enough power for 5,000 homes.

It is estimated that it has produced 2.5 gigawatts of electricity since the blades began turning at the start of October.

Parish councils at Gilmorton, Ashby Magna and Dunton Bassett will receive £5,333 a year as part of the agreement with the developer, Broadview Energy.

Germany's community owned wind power leads the way

2012-01-12T08:03:00.000-05:00

This is a great example of how wind has become truly international. We, in Ontario, found this post on an Australian blog about an article written by an American about Community Wind Power in Germany, Canada and Minnesota.

Germany’s community-owned power leads the way

by Ben Courtice

International Community Power Conference Set for 3-5 July in Bonn, Germany; 51% of German Renewables Now Owned by Citizens

By Paul Gipe January 5, 2012 (reprinted from wind-works.org)

Germany, a country where 51% of the renewable energy generation is owned by its own citizens, will be hosting an international conference on community power 3-5 July, 2012 in Bonn, the former capital.

The conference will be held in the historic chamber where the world's first feed-in law was enacted, the former home of the Bundestag, Germany's parliament. TheStromeinspeisungsgesetz, literally the "law on feeding in electricity" (to the grid) was introduced by conservative Bavarian farmers frustrated with their utility's intransigence to connecting their small hydro plants with the grid.

The "feed-in" law was passed overwhelmingly by the conservative government of Helmut Kohl, and quickly ushered in a revolution in the way electricity was generated in Germany, spreading rapidly from Bavaria in the south all the way to the Danish border in the north.

Farmers, individuals and community groups could, for the first time, emulate their Danish neighbors by installing their own wind turbines and selling the resulting electricity at a hoped-for profit. These electricity rebels, Stromrebellen as they're called in German, began appearing all across the country, even in the former communist East Germany.

The Bonn conference is timely. Interest in community ownership of renewable energy generation is increasing not only in Europe but also in North America, following the launch of Ontario's groundbreaking feed-in tariff program of 2009. Ontario's policy specifically encourages community and aboriginal ownership of renewables. Currently 800 MW of projects, a full 20% of all projects in the Ontario program, are under contract, though not yet built.

Nevertheless, potential community ownership in Ontario and the existing 300 MW of community wind in Minnesota pale in comparison to community-owned renewables in Germany.

In 2010, 51% of the more than 50,000 MW of renewable energy capacity in Germany was owned by farmers or individual citizens. This represents a staggering $100 billion in private investment.

German farmers alone have installed 1,600 MW of biogas plants and 3,600 MW of solar photovoltaics (solar PV). For comparison, in 2010 there was only 60 MW of biogas plants and 2,200 MW of solar PV in the entire USA.

Citizen-ownership is a direct translation of the German term Bürgerbeteiligung. Though there is a long history of cooperative ownership in the English-speaking world, the concept of local ownership of energy generation is so novel today that the term "citizen" appears awkward on the tongue. Even in the land of Thomas Jefferson, the word "citizen" has fallen out of favor in preference to "individual".

It is ironic that it is non-native speakers of English who have begun to revive both the word "citizen" and its meaning. Travelers to Germany marvel at how "Jeffersonian" theBürgerbeteiligung movement has become in democratizing electricity generation, by literally placing power generation in the hands of the people.

German farmers, community leaders and entrepreneurs are not only democratizing electricity generation and renewable heat, but are also setting their sights on an equally ambitious prize, the transmission system itself.

The conference is being organized by the World Wind Energy Association (WWEA) and the German Wind Turbine Owners Association (BWE). Both organizations are longtime supporters of community ownership of renewable energy. Because it represents the thousands of individual owners of wind turbines in Germany, BWE has become the world's largest wind energy association.

With backing by federal, state and local government, the community power conference is expected to attract attendees from around the globe.

"If we want to reach 100% renewable energy supply," says Stefan Gsänger, WWEA's managing director. "We have to ensure that local communities benefit from renewable energy development and support projects in their vicinity. Community- and citizen-ownership models have a proven track record in achieving this objective."

Gsänger recently won the International Community Power Award from the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association for his work fostering "citizen" ownership of renewable energy.

Ben Courtice | January 12, 2012 at 9:51 am | Categories: community owned wind farms,community support for windfarms | URL: http://wp.me/pZAY0-zr

Wind opponents preparing to become sick

2012-01-11T09:05:00.000-05:00

In the last few months, a flyer appeared in the mailboxes of residents near the Plateau wind projects in Grey Highlands. Click on the image to view it full size.

The flyer is not signed but it does reference windvigilence.com, a website where there are pages and pages suggesting what symptoms you are expected to begin suffering.

Strangely enough, those types of suggestions have been proven to influence people to the point where they start to exhibit the symptoms. It's called the nocebo effect and has been observed with radio frequency sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, fluoridation, vaccination, etc.

Here's another article that shows how prevalent the effect is, even regarding the expectations of the food we eat. It also highlights a few historical examples:

● In a study in the early 1980s, 34 college students were told an electric current would be passed through their heads, and the researchers warned that the experience could cause a headache. Though not a single volt of current was used, more than two-thirds of the students reported headaches.

● Drinking water fluoridation was first introduced in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945. Calls began coming in to city offices from people complaining of sore gums and peeling tooth enamel. One woman even claimed that all her teeth had fallen out. These calls arrived in early January, when some press reports had stated that fluoridation would begin, but some weeks before the actual advent of fluoridation on January 25.

● Call it fear of spraying. In one study researchers spewed distilled water from planes over residential neighborhoods without telling anyone what the spray contained. The intent was to gauge public phobia of chemicals. Sure enough, the experimenters were soon deluged with complaints from frightened folks who claimed the spray was causing cows to abort, dogs to shed and children to get sick…

● A Paris household blamed three installed cell phone antennas in their area for causing headaches, nosebleeds and a metallic taste in the mouths of some residents. The one problem with this complaint—the antennas were never activated.

So, you'd think that the wind opponents would want to find a solid scientific basis on which to make their claims. The University of Waterloo has assembled a team of health professionals under the direction of Dr. Bigelow and Dr. McColl, professors at the School of Public Health and Health Systems:

“We’ve assembled a multidisciplinary team in order to carry out one of the first in-depth

clinical and epidemiological assessments on the human health effects of both audible and low

frequency sound from wind turbines,” explains Bigelow. “By including nursing professionals

and other specialized health expertise on the team, we’re hoping to use clinical and biological

markers of stress to examine the association of exposure to wind turbine noise with sleep

disturbances, fatigue, headache, depression, and other psychophysiological problems.”

This would appear to be exactly what wind opponents were looking for. However, in an email dated November 10, 2011 Ian Hanna, Chair Wind Concerns Ontario, stated:

Wind Concerns Ontario has become aware that Siva Sivoththaman PhD, the Research Chair tasked with the assignment of researching the potential adverse health effects of renewable energy mainly wind turbines, and members of his team have begun trying to survey rural Ontario residents and conduct noise measurement studies.

WCO strongly recommends that you do not participate in these activities.

Does that mean that this flyer and its results is intended to replace the University of Waterloo study? What data would you trust?

From coal to renewable energy

2012-01-08T05:47:00.001-05:00

This is a guest post from Jutta Splettstoesser:

I still remember the days when the truck dumped a big load of coal on the

pavement in front of my parents house and the whole family worked together to

shovel it into the basement. When we were finished we had the fine black dust

everywhere and needed a long bath. Nobody on the street where I grew up heats

with coal anymore - those days are over. I'm sure that when you ask my dad, he

will tell you that he now enjoys the comfort of his gas furnace. He has a big shop

where the coal used to be stored and the air is much better in the winter.

Every time I go back to Germany I see a lot of change even in just a short timeframe

of 2 or 4 years. Coming from the airport in Duesseldorf I saw in 2009 a lot

of solar panels installed on residential houses. I admired the large 100kw solar

installation across the road on the dairy farmers new hay and straw storage. 65%

of all the investment from German farmers go into renewable energy. The

renewable energy project have guarantied grid access and are prioritized. This

month my brother in law will install 38 panels on his house in Georgetown. When

we got together for Christmas he thanked me for sharing all my knowledge with

him about the Micro-FIT program and that I pushed him to apply for it. Tom

pointed out that Canadian citizens aren't informed enough about the existing

opportunities. How everybody can make a real difference to help to “turn that

corner” on greenhouse gases, toxic waste and other forms of pollution and be

part of the energy revolution is very positive and powerful. Compared to other

sources, wind-energy is an environmental winner. Wind energy is emission-free,

consumes no water, produces no waste, has no hidden health cost and is 100%

renewable.

As a teenager the odd wind turbine went up in our region but the first larger wind

parks were erected in Northern Germany. My dad keeps me updated on any

new development. He is and always was open-minded toward new technology

and energy options. For him things have to make economic sense and in the case

of renewables it does. More Germans are employed in the renewable sector than

in the auto industry. Dr. Hermann Scheer understood very early that by investing

into renewable energy we help the environment and the whole economy at no

extra cost. Since the German government decided on a new energy strategy

there will be more wind turbines built all over the country. My parents are very

ordinary citizens with a lot of common sense that are welcoming the wind turbines

into their backyard. They know of the study from the University of Kassel that

combined solar, bio gas and wind-energy and proved that it is possible to go

100% with renewable energy in the future.

“Any energy-planning conversations must begin with a commitment to robust

engagement and education, so that all those involved are well equipped to do

so, and so that the final products can be presented to-and ultimately supported

by-an informed Canadian public." (1)

When I read the CFFO (Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario) commentary this

week I asked myself when will people stop repeating widely discredited oil

industry backed reports attacking the value of “Green jobs”?

Who is taking the time and continues the educational process that Friends of

Wind Ontario started in 2011?

When do the Canadian farm organizations start a partnership and dialog with the

farmers who have the experience, knowledge and confidence in developing citizen

owned wind parks?

1. “Built To Last: A Successful Energy-Strategy Design Process” Marlo Raynolds, Senior Advisor, Pembina Institute and Advisor to Tides Canada Energy Initiative March 14, 2011 page 4

The intolerable noise of surf

2012-01-07T08:00:00.000-05:00

This is a guest blog from Richard (Dick) Hill, vacationing in the Turks and Caicos:

While vacationing on the beach at Turks and Caicos today, I carried out a test on the ambient sound levels. On my iPad I have two sound measuring programs. The sounds were recorded from our second floor balcony of the ocean surf at a reef which is around one mile away.

The SPL Meter registered an average of 64.7 db with a peak of 82.7 db.

The Volume Tester meter showed an average of 61.8 db with a peak of 96.3.

These sound levels are considered pleasant by the thousands of residents and visitors who live along the shores.

But, when compared to the Ontario wind turbine regulations of 40 db max at 550 metres, the continuous surf sound would appear like a large jet aircraft passing overhead.

Anybody who hears a wind turbine at 550 metres has concerns not related to the turbines.

Update

A reader suggested that I try to find a sound level in the resort as low as 40 db. I tried and failed.

The sound levels recorded for a one minute were:

SPL Meter in unit living room showed an average of 61.7 db with a max of 70.8 db and min of 50.8 db.

The Volume Meter in the unit living room showed an average of 58.1 db with a max of 91.0 and min of 54.6 db.

SPL Meter unit bath with closed doors showed an average of 57.7 db with a max of 62.1 db and min of 44.8 db.

The Volume Tester unit bath with closed doors showed an average of 48.5 db with a max of 70.5 db and min of 44.8 db

As it is very difficult to find a living location anywhere with sound level as low as 40db, it is inconceivable to understand how some individuals can hear a wind turbine at 500 metres let alone suffer any ill effects.

Pacific Breezes Part II

2012-01-06T11:40:00.000-05:00

This is the continuation of the guest blog by Roger Short.

So, how has Hawaii gone aboutits intent to get wind power and other renewables into its strategic plan?

1. Start with a clear goal in mind:

-Thestate's official position is to have 40 percent renewable energy sources,including biofuel, geothermal and wave energy, in place by 2030.

-Hawaiiis not alone in going this way. OtherIslands are looking to more ambitious goals up to 60% by 2030.

2. Be up front about expectations

-"Wemay not be able to guarantee better rates, but we can guarantee stablepricing,"

3. Don't ignore side benefits like reduction ofcoal and oil consumption.

4. Layout a timetable and the process,e.g.

-"Theproject developers expect to complete a final environmental impact statement inSeptember or October. The environmental study must addressquestions raised by members of the public, including concerns about noise."

-"The PlanningCommission is the county agency that would accept the project's finalenvironmental impact statement. Then, it must get state and county permitsbefore construction can begin."

5. Hold productive meetings that leadto good press support, such as this quote from the Maui News:

"Agood portion of the meeting was about the benefits of clean energy"

6. Monitor the impact of renewables,if any on their key business, tourism. There has been noimpact on tourism.

And here's a sample of the projects that have followed the above six steps and have been approved:

-HawaiiPUC has approved anagreement between First Wind and Hawaiian Electric Company forthe utility to purchase wind energy produced by the proposed 69 MW KawailoaWind Project on Oahu’s North Shore, 12/13/11.

-Maui Electric hasreceived approval from the Hawaii PUC on a 20-year contract forthe company to purchase wind power from Sempra Generation's Auwahi Wind projecton Maui, 6/16/11.

-Sempra Generationhas entered a 20-year contract --subject to PUC approval -- to sell wind power to Maui Electric from the AuwahiWind project on Ulupalakua Ranch, 4/7/2011.

-The Kahuku Wind projectcommences commercial operations, 3/24/11

A more complete list of the wind projects can be found at this site.

A new study hasfound that large-scale wind and solar projects can be integrated on Oahu'selectric grid, eliminating the need to burn approximately 2.8 million barrelsof low sulfur fuel oil and 132,000 tons of coal each year, while maintainingsystem reliability, 3/17/11

* * *

If only the citizens of Ontario wereto follow this shining example, the Province could be well along with its planstoo.

Where did 550m come from?

2012-01-01T19:26:00.000-05:00

Click on image for a larger view

The Ontario Green Energy Act included a provision for a minimum 550m setback from a wind turbine to a receptor (a receptor is a residence). Critics have claimed that the setback distance was just an arbitrary political decision. This article from Treehugger explains that the decision is actually based on good science.

Treehugger.com
December 15, 2011
Brian Merchant

Does your neighbor's humming refrigerator keep you up at night? Then a wind turbine in your neighborhood won't either. That's the takeaway from this nifty little graphic whipped up by GE (the company manufactures wind turbines and would benefit from the nonsensical stigma dropped). And while it doesn't forgive the company for being phenomenal tax cheats, it does provide a nice visual reminder of how innocuous wind turbines are. Click here for a larger version.

See, you've probably heard stories about homeowners complaining about how loud wind turbines are, or even been regaled with the spectacular nonsense that is W.T.S. (Wind Turbine Syndrome). And though the media jumps on stories like these -- backlash against new technology that's supposed to make our lives better! -- wind turbine noise complaints have been shown time and again to be dubious at best, and W.T.S. has practically been laughed out of the medical community.

No, these people are complaining about change itself, or about something they consider ugly, or that embodies, to them, a political ideology they do not agree with. Wind turbines must be built hundreds of meters from homes--at which distance they emanate a dull, nearly inaudible hum. In fact, if these people own refrigerators, that's probably enough to drown out the 'racket' ...

Pacific breezes

2011-12-28T15:31:00.000-05:00

Big Island, Hawaii

Courtesy Hawaiian Electric Light Company

This is a guest blog by Roger Short

Imagine idyllic Pacific islands where the wind is consistent, the climate is wonderful, tourism is its biggest business and where both the stable government and the island's citizens are in favour of renewable energy, particularly wind power.

A pipe-dream you might say - but such a place exists today.

Are there turbines up and running and are there more planned? You betcha!

Will there be significant work on the grid to accommodate the renewables? You betcha!

Will the existing coal and heavy oil fuels be replaced over time? You've guessed it!

Are developers, government and citizens working together to take advantage of this opportunity? Right again!

Have tourist numbers, real estate values and public health suffered? No!

How would these islands compare with Southern Ontario? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but, to most, there is no contest.

And where is such an impossible dream, you may ask?

The Hawaiian Islands of course.

More details to follow.

Reader Beware!

2011-12-21T09:19:00.000-05:00

This is a guest blog by Robert Knox

Go to the Ontario Wind Resistance web site, that isthe former Wind Concerns Ontario web site. Scroll down to the bottom of thepage. You will find a feed that appears to be connected to Ontario’s IndependentElectricity System Operator’s (IESO) web site. The feed reads as follows, withthe numbers changing hourly:

Ontario Wind Energy Production (IESO)

Total demand: 18250 MW (4:00 PMEST - Dec. 19, 2011) ** Total generation: 18978 MW (Dec. 19 - 15:00-16:00) **Excess generation: 728 MW ** WIND: 1003 MW: 5.5% of demand, 5.3% of generation,137.8% of excess generation

IESO Wind Tracker

If you click on the header it will take you to alink to a web site “aweo.org-Industrial Wind Energy Opposition” which turns outto operated by an American wind opponent, Eric Rosenbloom.

The “feed” is made to look like part of theofficial IESO web site but it is not. “Deceit” you cry. “Liar! Liar! Pants onfire” you mutter.

You would be wrong.

All the information about demand and generation iscorrect including the level of electricity Ontario’s system generated between3:00 and 4:00 PM on December 19, 2001. The difference is that IESO doesn’t monitor wind generationas a portion of “excess” or “shortfalls”. It is irrelevant. The IESO only caresthat the supply is there when Ontario’s consumers need it.

IESO balances the “[…] supply of anddemand for electricity in Ontario and then directs its flow across theprovince's transmission lines.” It doesn’t matter the source of theelectricity, only that the system is in balance. Of course, IESO carespassionately about “excesses” and “shortfalls” within the system.

So what’s going on?

Wind opponents, including OntarioWind Resistance, Wind Concerns Ontario and aweo.org-IndustrialWind Energy Opposition want you to believe that wind generation is a problem, that it is notreducing carbon emissions, that is effectively waste.

They also want you to think that,somehow, wind creates the “excesses” and “shortfalls”, that they wouldn’t existbut for wind.

Of course, that isn’t true.

What is true is what this site said recently: electricity produced by wind turbines ishelping to reduce carbon emissions from Ontario’s power system using a “fuel”that is totally renewable and costs nothing.

What’s wrong with that?

Nothing, but wind opponents don’twant you to know it.

The health issue from Oz

2011-12-19T08:00:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting story from Australia. It comes to us from Ben Courtice at Yes to Renewable Energy. The original article ran in Adelaide Now.

Oz and Canada have a lot of similarities and one of them is the issue of wind turbines. This article explores the notion that claims of adverse health effects are not necessarily the root cause of people's resistance to wind farms. It concludes by saying that a research project is warranted.

We agree. Ontario has such a research project under way at the University of Waterloo School of Public Health. It is headed by Dr. Bigelow and Dr. McColl; and includes a team of health professionals. Unfortunately, the Chairman of Wind Concerns Ontario has gone on record saying that nobody should participate in the study.

Spotlight on wind farm health woes

by:Chief business reporter Cameron England
From:The Advertiser
December 01, 2011 12:00am

THE Federal Government should fund a large research project to determine the impact of wind farms on health.

That's according to Nicoleta Raluca Dorobantu, a researcher at Adelaide's University College London.

While the negative health effects of wind farms are being cited as reasons to stop their development, there is no scientific basis for the claims and some evidence countering it, Ms Dorobantu says.

Ms Dorobantu is presenting her research in Adelaide today at the Royal Institution of Australia (RiAus).

She has examined the 1014 submissions into this year's Senate Inquiry into the Social and Economic Impacts of Wind Farms.

Ms Dorobantu found claims of adverse health consequences from wind farms were the most common reason for objections.

She said this argument had been confined largely to Australia, the UK and the U

Objections to wind farms operating for four decades in Europe had been focused mainly on impacts on property valuations, wildlife and landscape.

"Wind farms have been operating in Europe for a very long time ... I noticed that the main reasons for concern were their impact on property valuations, wildlife and the landscape," Mr Dorobantu said.

"The main issues of concern that I identified (in the Australian submissions) were actually related to the health concerns.

"This health issue was followed by procedural justice, so people were concerned about the way in which developers engaged with them over the lifetime of a project."

Ms Dorobantu said the health concerns had gained prominence just over the last couple of years, and were specific to anglo-saxon countries.

"In the rest of Europe, in Denmark, Sweden et cetera, the health concerns haven't been raised yet, even though the industry is maybe 40 years old," she said.

Ms Dorobantu said most of the concerns about health came from anecdotal evidence.

"There are some scientific peer-reviewed studies that actually contradict any direct link between wind turbines ... and the health effects on people living close by."

She said the government and industry should achieve a consensus on steps to scientifically research the alleged health impacts.

"I believe there should be a large, high impact research project to explore the issue and clarify all aspects related to this," she said.

Ms Dorobantu said there should be an investigation into groups opposing wind farm developments to ensure those objecting were impacted.

Her study also found people had concerns about the way wind farming companies communicated with communities on projects.

"There should be an investigation into that to see if all of these small opposing groups are actually genuine."

Ms Dorobantu is one of nine students from the inaugural University College London Masters of Science course who are presenting their research at the RiAus.

Who's who at WCO?

2011-12-18T14:00:00.000-05:00

Well, we promised you a follow-up to our post regarding the flare-up during and after the Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) Annual General Meeting (AGM). There was obviously some miscommunication during and after the event. We weren't privy to all the intrigue but it appears that some kind of schism occurred. This is not unusual, of course, in volunteer organizations.

First of all, a post by Parker Gallant on the weekend of the AGM was mysteriously removed within hours of being posted. His post was a blistering set of accusations against the Ontario Liberals. I'd repeat them, but they might be part of a libel suit and so I don't want to be seen as promulgating libel. Mr. Gallant is a member of the WCO Board and so the removal of his essay might be more about the schism than it might be about any legal challenges against WCO. However, we'll have to wait until the next year to see if his essay re-appears on the promised new WCO website.

Secondly, the windconcerns.com website has been replaced by Ontario Wind Resistance (OWR). All references to WCO seem to have been scrubbed. Frankly, though, it's a great re-branding and very much in keeping with the tone of the original website. It'll be interesting to see how the two websites evolve.

Does wind displace carbon dioxide emissions?

2011-12-17T08:00:00.000-05:00

Does wind displace CO2 in the electrical power system? Simple question.

On the surface, here's the simple answer:

Since electricity can't easily be stored, whenever wind blows (or the sun shines on solar panels or snow-melt cascades through a run-of-river hydro generator) then some other generating source must be throttled back. In Ontario, it's the job of the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to issue commands to various generators to maintain that balance. It's called dispatch.

Normally, the IESO will throttle back the generator with the highest variable price (called the marginal generator). It's critical to understand that the IESO uses the variable price, not the full price that would include capital costs. For renewable energy, that price is based on the generator's variable cost which is essentially zero in the short run. For fossil fuel generators, that price is based on fuel value.

Therefore, when a renewable energy generator ramps up, a fossil fuel generator ramps down. So, when wind goes up, coal or gas use goes down. After that, it's simple math to figure out the CO2 impact. And that's where you see claims that a KWh of wind displaces x tonnes of CO2. That's also why x is different for every jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction has a different coal/gas mix.

Now it gets slightly more complicated:

What is being displaced, coal or gas? If the IESO is optimizing the system purely on price to the consumer, the fuel most frequently displaced (at least historically) is gas because its fuel cost has been higher than coal. It's a bit of a toss-up right now. However, in Ontario, coal versus gas is less relevant because the government has intervened in a couple of ways.

1. In 2009, it placed a coal price adder on power generated from coal. The government owns OPG, so this was simple to do. The coal price adder was simply a form of carbon tax. The concept worked for awhile until the recession knocked demand down and the adder became an inadequate deterrent for OPG to not burn coal.

2. It then placed a CO2 tonnage limit on OPG with the limit dropping every year. At some point that declining tonnage limit was simply translated into a generator unit shutdown schedule.

So, clearly, coal was being taken out of the system. The number of TWh (a TWh is 1,000 GWh or 1,000,000 MWh) of energy from coal went from 23.2 TWh in 2008 to 12.6 TWh in 2010. [source: IESO]. It was replaced by new sources of renewable energy (predominantly wind at 2.8 Twh). Plus natural gas and imported hydro for the times when the wind doesn't blow. OPA contracted for a few 1000 MW's of natural gas generation and Hydro One built a 1100 MW tie-line to Hydro Quebec to accomplish this.

Simple math would suggest that the reduction of energy supplied from coal would exactly match the increase in energy derived from wind plus natural gas plus imported hydro. Not quite.

Now it gets complicated:

If you want to skip the details, just go to the end of this section to see what the experts say. Otherwise, here we go.

Claims have been made by many anti-wind or pro-fossil fuel advocates that all the theoretical displacement of CO2 is lost by the need to keep backup fossil fuel generators running. The argument typically goes like this:

1. Assume a 100 MW wind farm.

2. That wind farm will need a 100 MW gas turbine to back it up.

3. That gas turbine will cycle up and down in an inverse relationship with wind.

4. In doing so, it is typically running at a fraction of full capacity, where its CO2 output per kWh goes through the roof.

5. In some cases, at low wind speeds, wind actually causes a net increase in CO2 output.

Let's take this apart, line by line.

1. You don't have a 100 MW wind farm. You have a network of wind farms, rated in total at closer to 1500 MW, connected to an electricity system.

2. The 1500 MW wind network will need backup for the summer peak when wind is at its seasonal low. Solar will be at its seasonal high, though, so as solar expands, less backup is required. And if tie-lines to Quebec are strengthened, then even less backup is required. However, some gas capacity will likely be needed, especially since Pickering nuclear capacity starts coming off line in about 5 years.

3. The electricity system already has enough spinning reserve to cover the largest contingency in the system. In Ontario, that's the loss of a Darlington unit - roughly 900MW. Depending on the time of day and week, that reserve could be Ontario hydro-electric (Ontario actually has quite a bit of stored water), Ontario gas, Quebec hydro-electric via the tie-line; or gas turbines. Any variations in wind plant output will be handled by this and other reserves. The IESO has done this sort of balancing for years and they're very good at it. Renewable energy increases the variability somewhat, but it's manageable. After all, today, the variability in the output of wind is less than the variability in demand that occurs hour-to-hour during the day.

4. The only way that this concept comes off the rails is if the backup is unresponsive (this is called a low ramp rate). Hydro-electric is very responsive but there may be times when it's not available and thermal generation is required. Historically, only peaking gas turbines had that kind of ramp rate (and they were inefficient) but modern combined cycle gas turbines provide the necessary CO2 efficiency and high ramp rates. Tom Adams, the energy watchdog, used to worry about gas turbine ramp rates but he's revised his thinking (he's still against wind turbines, I believe, but he's changed the basis of his argument).

5. I think that I've proven that item 5 is impossible. If one wants further proof, though, just look at the hourly generation factors for gas turbines - at the unit level. You have to get beyond the IESO data and look at individual turbines. For example, Greenfield GS has a rating of 1005.0 MW, but it is actually composed of 3 gas turbines plus a steam turbine (the complex is called a combined cycle gas turbine, or CCGT). If you look at the output per turbine over the course of the day, you'll see that they typically come on at over 70% of each turbine rating, sometimes in sequence and sometimes all together. This is because the operators don't want to run at inefficient levels and because the IESO is able to dispatch it's turbine fleet as discrete units. In other words, they don't say "OK, everyone run at 30% output". Instead they say, "OK, you three run full out, you seven standby".

So, what's the answer?

If this explanation isn't sufficient, maybe the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) can help. The IEEE has collected numerous studies by utilities around the world and they all point to the same conclusion. In an article in the Power Engineering Society Journal, they demonstrate that only 4% of CO2 displacement is lost by a need for backup.

If you want to listen to more experts from Ontario's power system, go to Glen Estill's wonderful blog.

Would you know FUD when you see it?

2011-12-16T15:40:00.000-05:00

Collingwood Enterprise Bulletin
December 14, 2011
Letter to the Editor by Robert Knox

Click here for the letter.

On December 2, 2011 you published a colourful and impressionistic letter from Lorrie Gillis of Flesherton (What’s it Like). According to Ms. Gillis, people who find themselves living near wind turbines in rural Ontario are suffering terribly and are forced leave their homes.

Ms. Gillis is a wind opponent. She wants your readers to be afraid of wind turbines, uncertain about them and their impact on people and to doubt the government’s renewable energy policies and its commitment to the well-being of people in rural Ontario.

Ms. Gillis’s is using a standard propaganda tactic, known as FUD, to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt among your readers.

Her letter could be true but its not. It is just a story.

There is no evidence that wind turbines have any serious impact on people’s health. A recent Environmental Review Tribunal came to this conclusion based on a review of current evidence.

There are upwards of 3000 people living within 2 kilometres of Ontario’s 700 to 800 operating wind turbines without any problem. The same is true for thousands in other countries.

The fact is there is no scientific, medical, or technical evidence to support Ms. Gillis’s story.

Your readers should not believe me any more than they should accept Ms. Gillis letter at face value.

They should make their own judgement based on the reality of the wind turbines that are producing renewable energy for us now with positive impacts on the communities where they are located.

Who's who in the WCO zoo?

2011-12-13T20:38:00.000-05:00

Wind Concerns Ontario seems to have concerns about its webmaster. As of December 12, 2011 the site has been shut down. That's actually too bad, because we always admired its timeliness, its look and its comprehensive information (albeit from the dark side of the force). I believe that it was run by Maureen Anderson and she deserves credit for the dedicated work.

Initially, this message was posted:

********

Site will no longer be updated

Due to a threat of legal action, this site will no longer be updated. For more info, please contact:
wco-board@googlegroups.com

*********

Now, this message is posted on the link:

********

Site will be undergoing some changes

This website will be shut down as of December 15, 2011 for retooling. It will open up in the New Year under the domain http://ontario-wind-resistance.org
Bookmark the new address and I hope to see you then!

**********

Today, John Spears posted this item in The Star:

The Star

December 13, 2011

John Spears

The website of Wind Concerns Ontario, which lobbies against wind energy, has suspended operations because of mysterious legal issues.

The website has posted an enigmatic note stating: “Due to a threat of legal action, this site will no longer be updated.”

But Jane Wilson, the president of Wind Concerns, says there are no imminent legal threats hanging over the organization.

Wilson said in an interview that the website is run by a volunteer, who may have misunderstood some discussion at the recent Wind Concerns annual meeting.

Wind Concerns had been considering a more professional approach for its website in any case, she said.

“We’ll be going off air for a brief, brief time while we get a new platform going,” she said.

Wilson said she hasn’t spoken to the volunteer who runs the website: “I don’t even have her phone number.”

“I don’t know why she put on ‘the threat of legal action,’ because no one’s suing us,” Wilson said. “We’re not having any problems that way.”

The website volunteer had not attended the annual meeting, and had some questions about financial matters, Wilson said.

“It was suggested to her that questions about what had gone on at the annual general meeting was not something that should be on the website,” Wilson said.

“It was suggested that rather than making these questions more dramatic than they needed to be, she could discuss it with someone else.”

Wilson said the questions involved the cost of certain items, but wouldn’t elaborate.

*********

Searching for a possible reason for the mysterious and rapid shutdown, we took a look at earlier postings. Sure enough, there were two photos taken at the WCO AGM posted on Saturday, the day of the AGM, practically in real time. Based on the embedded data, they were taken on someone's Blackberry. The photos are shown here:

If you click on the photos, you can open them in your browser for a closer look. I can identify four individuals, I believe. How many can you identify?

What probably caused the most furour, though, was the Agenda slide that included an item that appears to say:

Emergen[cy] ..... to the agenda

(Eric G[illespie]

My interpretations are in [ ].

Mr. Gillespie has been involved with WCO in a legal capacity and so my interpretation is that they were going to talk about some form of legal emergency - pure speculation, of course.

And, if the webmaster is a volunteer, then does that mean that Ms. Wilson and others are something other than volunteers?

Inquiring minds want to know. More to follow.

Melancthon council seeks cap on wind turbines

2011-12-11T09:00:00.000-05:00

This sounds like a pretty sensible idea. We're assuming that Council is looking at an average density over the entire municipality, as opposed to one turbine per a specific square mile. Melancthon has approximately 120 square miles of land within its borders. Using the suggested rule, Melancthon would be able to restrict the number of turbines to 120. As the article highlights, they are currently host to 111 turbines with the possibility of a further 60.

We wonder what the landowners associated with those proposed turbines think about the idea? The population of Melancthon is approximately 3000.

Orangeville Banner

December 07, 2011

Bill Tremblay

How many turbines are too many for a municipality? That’s the question Melancthon council hopes the province will some day answer.
The township’s council recently approved a resolution asking the province to set a limit to the number of industrial wind turbines within a municipality.
“Somewhere, somehow, there has to be a system that says enough is enough,” Mayor Bill Hill said. “Hopefully, it opens a dialogue door.”
In search of support for the cap, Melancthon forwarded the resolution to its fellow Dufferin County municipalities, Grey County, the Inter-Municipal Turbine Working Group, as well as the ministers of energy, environment, municipal affairs and housing, agriculture, and Premier Dalton McGuinty. Mulmur and the township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh have supported the resolution.
Hill added council would seek an audience with provincial ministers at a conference this February.
“We’re trying to get some control back, or input back into this process,” Hill said. “We’ve tried many different things that haven’t worked.”
Melancthon is currently home to 111 turbines and as many as 60 more windmills may be constructed within the municipality.
“We’ve done our bit. Somewhere along the line there has to be some way we can say enough is enough,” Hill said.
The resolution asks for the cap to be based on a municipality’s size and create a one turbine per 2.5 sq. km restriction.
“It’s not really scientific, it’s based on a turbine per square mile,” Deputy Mayor Darren White said. “We tried to look at not limited too much area and not preventing too much future development.”
Industrial turbines require a setback of at least 550 metres. White said the turbines, combined with the setback, are limiting the opportunity for new development.
“If you look at an aerial map we are substantially covered already,” White said. “Every community needs to be able to grow.”
Hill added he would like to see the resolution included in the province’s review of the Feed-in Tariff program (FIT) that is currently underway.
The Ministry of Energy has issued a call to Ontarians to share their thoughts on the program.
Ministry of Energy spokesperson Paul Gerard said the FIT review would give municipalities’ opportunity to help shape the future of renewable energy in the province.
“The FIT review will consider local consultations,” Gerard said in an email. “The review will build on the success of the program and continue to ensure long-term sustainability, transparency and predictability for industry and investors.”
White, however, believes the province is not listening to municipalities’ concerns.
“They are not willing to talk about a cap or any planning authority for the townships whatsoever,” he said.
“I’m willing to sit down and talk to them and listen to their logic and they can listen to my logic. Hopefully, we can work from there.”

Carbon emissions - biggest jump ever recorded

2011-12-10T18:49:00.000-05:00

We try to keep the content on this blog targeted on wind issues - and specifically on wind issues in the Ontario Highlands. However, our belief in wind energy is based on a belief that the world is facing a carbon crisis. Every once in awhile, we run across a jaw-dropper that reminds us why we went down this road.

Today was one of those days.

Thanks to Climate Progress by Joe Romm for his story, and for the Global Carbon Project for the underlying data and analysis, and the NY Times for interpreting the data. It's the NY Times story that is repeated below.

Click on the image above for a larger image

December 4, 2011

Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

By JUSTIN GILLIS

Global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning jumped by the largest amount on record last year, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery.

Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.

The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe climate change in coming decades.

The researchers said the high growth rate reflected a bounce-back from the 1.4 percent drop in emissions in 2009, the year the recession had its biggest impact.

They do not expect the extraordinary growth to persist, but do expect emissions to return to something closer to the 3 percent yearly growth of the last decade, still a worrisome figure that signifies little progress in limiting greenhouse gases. The growth rate in the 1990s was closer to 1 percent yearly.

The combustion of coal represented more than half of the growth in emissions, the report found.

In the United States, emissions dropped by a remarkable 7 percent in the recession year of 2009, but rose by just over 4 percent last year, the new analysis shows. This country is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, pumping 1.5 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere last year.

The United States was surpassed several years ago by China, where emissions grew 10.4 percent in 2010, with that country injecting 2.2 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide emissions are usually measured by the weight of carbon they contain.

The new figures come as delegates from 191 countries meet in Durban, South Africa, for yet another negotiating session in a global control effort that has been going on, with minimal success, for the better part of two decades.

“Each year that emissions go up, there’s another year of negotiations, another year of indecision,” said Glen P. Peters, a researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo and a leader of the group that produced the new analysis. “There’s no evidence that this trajectory we’ve been following the last 10 years is going to change.”

Scientists say the rapid growth of emissions is warming the Earth, threatening the ecology and putting human welfare at long-term risk. But their increasingly urgent pleas that society find a way to limit emissions have met sharp political resistance in many countries, including the United States, because doing so would entail higher energy costs.

The new figures show a continuation of a trend in which developing countries, including China and India, have surpassed the wealthy countries in their overall greenhouse emissions. In 2010, the combustion of fossil fuels and the production of cement sent more than nine billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, the new analysis found, with 57 percent of that coming from developing countries.

Emissions per person, though, are still sharply higher in the wealthy countries, and those countries have been emitting greenhouse gases far longer, so they account for the bulk of the excess gases in the atmosphere. The level of carbon dioxide, the main such gas, has increased 40 percent since the Industrial Revolution.

On the surface, the figures of recent years suggest that wealthy countries have made headway in stabilizing their emissions. But Dr. Peters pointed out that in a sense, the rich countries have simply exported some of them.

The fast rise in developing countries has been caused to a large extent by the growth of energy-intensive manufacturing industries that make goods that rich countries import. “All that has changed is the location in which the emissions are being produced,” Dr. Peters said.

Many countries, as part of their response to the economic crisis, invested billions in programs designed to make their energy systems greener. While it is possible those will pay long-term dividends, the new numbers suggest they have had little effect so far.

The financial crisis “was an opportunity to move the global economy away from a high-emissions trajectory,” said a scientific paper about the new figures, released online on Sunday by the journal Nature Climate Change. “Our results provide no indication of this happening.”

Saskatoon says no health effects from wind turbines

2011-12-09T14:39:00.001-05:00

I found this story interesting, especially because it includes direct quotes from Carmen Krogh, member of The Society for Wind Vigilence, a group closely affiliated with Wind Concerns Ontario. I've underlined Ms. Krogh's comments.

Saskatoon wind turbine project sparks debate over possible health effects;

Canadian Press - Dec 08, 2011

SASKATOON - Saskatoon Light and Power has released reports by doctors and other experts saying there are no health effects expected with the Tall WindTurbineProject.

There have been public concerns expressed about windturbine low frequency sound, or infrasound, and shadow flicker, the visual effect caused by sunlight passing through windturbines.

Company spokesman Kevin Hudson says concerns raised in other parts of the world over windturbines and health are caused by sites with inadequate setback from residences.

But he says at a distance of 300 metres, the sound is no longer perceptible.

He says at the Tall Wind site, the nearest residences are half a kilometre away.

Saskatoon Light and Power admits that it will take nine years for the Tall WindTurbineProject to pay itself off, but says they are projecting $5 million profit on the following 11 years.

The Saskatoon WindTurbine Coalition held a public information meeting earlier this week, bringing in about 100 people.

Researcher Carmen Krogh spoke on the negative health impacts of windturbines.

Krogh classified most of the symptoms under what she called "annoyance," which she says results in stress and sleep problems, among other issues.

There's a sensation that people have a hard time describing, which is an internal vibration or pulsing in the body or different organs," said Krogh.

Krogh admitted that the evidence found in studies "didn't demonstrate a direct link" and acknowledged the scientific view that the symptoms are psychological.

"But that doesn't matter; these are still harmful symptoms," she added.

Did Ontario AG rely on discredited Exxon-funded study?

2011-12-06T20:26:00.001-05:00

Adam Scott

Environmental Defence

I was going to write about this, but Adam did a much better job. Adam rightfully says that the AG's report accords the oil industry reports a credibility that was manifestly undeserved. By doing so, the report seriously diminishes the AG's credibility - at least on this issue.

Environmental Defence
December 05, 2011
Adam Scott

Here's the post.

We are not in the habit of criticizing the hard-working Ontario Auditor General (AG), but were disturbed today to see his apparent reliance on a series of widely discredited oil industry-backed reports attacking the value of "green jobs".

Page 118 of the Ontario AG's 2011 Annual Report, released today, states that:

“A 2009 study conducted in Spain found that for each job created through renewable energy programs, about two jobs were lost in other sectors of the economy.”

While not properly referenced, it would appear the AG's report is referring to the infamous "Spanish Jobs Study" from 2009. The study was created by a libertarian think tank tied to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The AEI is partly funded by oil companies Exxon Mobil and the Koch Industries Inc – major funders of climate change denial campaigns worldwide.

The "Spanish Jobs Study" report didn’t actually show that any jobs were lost, but simply implied this through a highly discredited methodology. The U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory explains the false methodology here. The study has also been called into question by the Spanish Government itself, and the Wall Street Journal. The study’s author, Gabriel Calzada, was a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute’s climate change denial conference in 2009.

The Auditor General also makes reference to two other nearly identical ‘zombie studies’ using the same flawed methodology for Denmark, and the UK. Not one of these reports actually shows any evidence of real job loss.

These are reports mostly used by right-wing republicans and Fox news in the U.S. to discredit renewable energy policies and confuse the public. Their unfortunate inclusion in the Ontario AG's report accords them a credibility that is manifestly undeserved.

Bill 10, the Wind Turbine Abolition Act

2011-12-01T20:51:00.001-05:00

The Intellingencer

Bill 10, the Local Municipality Democracy Act, was introduced today as a private members bill by MPP Todd Smith of Prince Edward Hastings. It might as well have been called the Wind Turbine Abolition Act.

If you didn't know what the Bill was about, you might think that it was bringing democracy to those poor, small municipalities governed by dictatorial regimes or government appointees. In fact, it's a Bill that was totally focussed on two or three clauses in the Green Energy Act that govern the control of wind turbines and other renewable energy sources. The Bill was designed to firmly give that control to the municipalities, specifically those NIMBY municipalities that don't want wind turbines. Municipalities like Prince Edward Hastings, home to weekenders from Toronto and Ottawa - and MPP Todd Smith.

John Laforet, former President of Wind Concerns Ontario, posted a blog on the Huffington Post that seemed to read more like a personal biography or CV than a manifesto. And, why is Mr. Laforet the former President? On the day before the election he was the President. A few days later, he wasn't.

Here's an extraction from that blog:

The Green Energy Act has done a lot of damage to communities in rural Ontario. Neighbours aren't speaking, people are getting sick, citizens have been compelled to go to great lengths to resist the fundamentally anti-democratic approach. As a consequence, your government has only been able to approve 12 wind turbines under the regulations that the Green Energy Act brought in over two years ago.

This paragraph is internally inconsistent. Laforet blames the Green Energy Act for all sorts of damages (e.g. discord, sickness and civil disobedience). And yet he says that this has come from 12 wind turbines?

Sounds to me like symptoms of self-induced hysteria, not turbines.

If you want an in-depth description of how the Green Energy Act is actually stronger than the patchwork collection of municipal bylaws that preceded it, read this document from the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association.

Municipalities under the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEGEA) do have significant powers.

In fact with only 1MW of wind constructed since the Act was passed, those examining the facts should recognize that

large wind developments now in operation were developed under the old Planning Act.

The truth is that the province-wide Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) process is open and transparent, requiring a more rigorous and cohesive process than the red tape heavy patchwork approach of the past.

Unfortunately a few municipalities appear to be hiding behind the province politically, rather than using the

tools and powers provided by the GEGEA.

John Laforet closes his blog by saying:

Tens of thousands of rural Ontarians will be watching on Thursday, I hope for everyone's sake they will see their Premier standing in support of local democracy.

Apparently, there weren't too many people watching, even from MPP Todd Smith's party.

The Bill was defeated 45-32.

I don't have the underlying vote count by party but here was the seat count after the election:

Liberal 53

PC 37

NDP 17

Ontario Highlands Friends of Wind Power

When tears are not enough

Anti windfarm astroturfers exposed in Parliament

Bird expert threatens ducks

Marubeni to build floating wind farm off Fukushima

Steckle supports green energy

FUD in Listowel

Review of studies gives turbine debate needed balance

I am sick of anti-wind propaganda

People divide people - not legislation

Ontario’s power glut means possible nuclear plant shutdowns

Canada moves to 6th place globally for new installed wind energy capacity in 2011

Here's a press release from CanWEA:

Global wind energy grows by 21 per cent despite economic challenges

Canada moves to 6th place globally for new installed wind energy capacity in 2011

Iowa considering feed-in-tariffs

OFA stance could hurt farmers

Weak point, SHOUT!

PJM and GM run trial charging from renewable energy

Health effects and windturbines

Minnesota Wind To Be Stored By Manitoba Hydro

What's next -opposition to barns?

A complaint about OFA's wind stand

Reader "shocked and disappointed" over OFA stance against turbines

Council's stance on wind project doesn't represent everybody

Truthiness isn't good enough

CCO Calls for Moratorium on Car Sales

Ontario polls show support for wind

Strong support for wind farms obscured, says CSIRO report

Is MPP Bill Walker playing the role of judge and jury?

No evidence of health problems from wind turbines

Design of Health Study for Wind Turbines

Ontario anti-wind-power group accused of breaking election financing rules

We were wrong on turbine noise, admit protesters

Germany's community owned wind power leads the way

Wind opponents preparing to become sick

From coal to renewable energy

The intolerable noise of surf

Pacific Breezes Part II

Where did 550m come from?

Pacific breezes

Reader Beware!

The health issue from Oz

Spotlight on wind farm health woes

Who's who at WCO?

Does wind displace carbon dioxide emissions?

Would you know FUD when you see it?

Who's who in the WCO zoo?

This website will be shut down as of December 15, 2011 for retooling. It will open up in the New Year under the domain http://ontario-wind-resistance.org Bookmark the new address and I hope to see you then!

Melancthon council seeks cap on wind turbines

Carbon emissions - biggest jump ever recorded

Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

By JUSTIN GILLIS

Saskatoon says no health effects from wind turbines

Did Ontario AG rely on discredited Exxon-funded study?

Bill 10, the Wind Turbine Abolition Act

Canada moves to 6^th place globally for new installed wind energy capacity in 2011

This website will be shut down as of December 15, 2011 for retooling. It will open up in the New Year under the domain http://ontario-wind-resistance.org
Bookmark the new address and I hope to see you then!