Category Archives: Wind power

MPP Smith: end taxpayer support for wind farm environmental damage

24 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario, today. Todd Smith, MPP for Prince Edward-Hastings, rose in the Ontario Legislature yesterday with a question for Environment Minister Glen Murray. In lieu of the fact that the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal to rescind approval for a wind power development that would cause serious and irreversible harm to an endangered species, Smith said, would the Minister’s department now stop development on that site and further, stop aiding the wind power developer to destroy the ecosystem on the south shore of Prince Edward County? Minister Murray said he commended the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists for their activism (saying nothing about the hundreds of thousands of after-tax dollars spent by Ontario citizens to protect the environment form thew Ministry of the Environment), and offered to meet with the MPP on this issue. See the video of the exchange here.

Ontario wind farm halted by endangered turtles

21 Tuesday Apr 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Globe and Mail, April 21, 2015

A turtle that insists on crossing a road has put a stop to a massive wind-energy development in Eastern Ontario.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on Monday that a 324-hectare, nine-turbine wind farm proposed for the south shore of Prince Edward County puts a population of endangered Blanding’s turtles at risk of dying out in that region’s wetland. The risk is posed not by the wind farm itself but by 5.4 kilometres of roads to and from the site. Experts said the turtles, which range widely as part of their natural life cycle, would inevitably try to cross those roads, exposing them to vehicles, predators and human poachers.

The ruling restores an environmental tribunal’s 2013 decision that the wind farm, while not posing a serious risk to human health, would cause “serious and irreversible” harm to the Blanding’s turtle. That ruling had been rejected by Ontario Divisional Court partly because the tribunal did not know how many turtles live in the provincially significant wetland.

But the Ontario Court of Appeal said the number of turtles at risk does not matter. “The number of Blanding’s turtles, no matter what that number is, satisfies the criteria” for being deemed threatened and endangered, the court said in a 3-0 ruling written by Justice Russell Juriansz. It cited testimony from Frédéric Beaudry, a wildlife ecologist at Alfred University in New York State, that the number is “likely small.”

The Court of Appeal ruling means the case now goes back to the environmental tribunal to decide what should happen with the project, including whether an alternative plan can be permitted that takes the turtles into account. The company involved, Ostrander Point Wind Energy LP, had proposed at an earlier stage to close the road to public access.

The ruling is a setback for Ontario’s multibillion-dollar wind energy business. “It will mean that, in future, wind companies are going to have to pay attention to some of these environmental effects,” said Stephen Hazell, director of conservation and a lawyer with Nature Canada, which supported the suit launched by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, a local conservancy group.

Mr. Hazell added that other groups with concerns about the impact of wind projects in their own jurisdictions now have “a legal test that in some cases they may be able to meet.”

During the initial hearing, conservationists argued that the wind project would have adverse effects on a number of species, including migratory birds, but the final decision came down to the Blanding’s turtle alone because of its extreme sensitivity to human activity, particularly roads.

With a bright yellow throat, a gentle disposition and an expression that resembles a perpetual smile, the species makes a tempting target for poaching, even by well-meaning individuals looking for an unusual pet. But Blanding’s turtles usually die once they are captured or released in a different location.

Ponderously slow to grow and mature, females of the species generally do not reproduce until they reach 18 years of age. Even then, they may only lay eggs every other year. The turtle’s long life span offsets its slow replacement rate – adults may live 90 years or more – but only in places when individuals have a good chance of avoiding lethal encounters along the way.

“Losing a couple of females can, in the long run, do a population in,” said Dr. Beaudry, a world expert on the species.

He added that he had no doubt the turtles would be crossing the roads if the wind project went ahead, as they typically travel for kilometres from the places where they hatch in search of food or mates.

Blanding’s turtles are considered globally endangered. Small populations are found in scattered pockets from the American Midwest to Nova Scotia.

OWC editor’s note: counsel for the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists was Eric Gillespie, environmental lawyer based in Toronto. Ottawa Wind Concerns has Mr Gillespie’s firm on retainer.

Citizens’ group: Radiation Emissions Act in force for wind farms

16 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Here is a statement from a citizens’ group, Canadians for Radiation Emissions Enforcement (CFREE), which posits that wind turbines’ acoustic emissions are covered under federal law, the Radiation Emitting Devices Act.

The group has responded to the recently released report on wind turbine noise and health by the Council of Canadian Academies. Their full statement is available on CFREE’s weblog, available here.

An excerpt follows:

It is prescribed in the REDA [Radiation Emitting Devices Act]that if an importer or operator of a device such as a wind turbine is made aware of risk of personal injury or  impairment of health they must “forthwith notify the Minister” [of Health for Canada]. CFREE asks why wind developers did not follow this law seven years ago when people first reported problems to them about the impacts of the noise emitted from turbines operating in their vicinity.

“If developers had complied with the law and reported the complaints to Health Canada, investigations would have been carried out back then before the Green Energy Act. This could have advanced the understanding a long time ago and avoided risk of harm to those living close to these facilities” said Joan Morris, an epidemiologist and Chair of CFREE.

Economist: top 10 reasons why Ontario carbon tax is a bad idea

16 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Here, from energy economist Robert Lyman, a discussion of the recent announcement of a “cap and trade” arrangement for Ontario.

Various politicians and academics in Canada have recently called for the introduction of a carbon tax as a means of stimulating a reduction in greenhouses gas emissions. This is welcome news to provincial governments like that of Kathleen Wynne in Ontario that are desperate for new sources of funds. The central arguments for a carbon tax, in terms of economic theory, are that such a tax would create a price disincentive affecting the use of all fossil fuels sources of energy (i.e., oil products, coal, and natural gas) and that it would be more even-handed and economically efficient than the current complex system of subsidies, incentives, and regulatory mandates that are now used in almost every sector of the economy to discourage fossil fuel consumption and emissions. 

British Columbia, it is claimed, has already found success with a carbon tax of about seven cents per liter on gasoline. Allegedly, this caused gasoline consumption in the province to drop from 2008 to 2012, even as British Columbia economic performance overall was one of the best in Canada. 

Such arguments, in my view, are based on wishful thinking and poor understanding of the institutional context within which carbon taxes have been implemented. Here are ten reasons why imposition of a carbon tax in Ontario would be a very bad idea.

 

Read the full article here: THE TOP TEN REASONS WHY A CARBON TAX IS A BAD IDEA (long version)

 

 

No good reason for wind turbinesHydro One, electricity bills, wind power, wind turbines, cost of renewable, Ontario electricity bills, : says letter writer

16 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Provincial government, Hydro One both to blame for the mess

West Carleton Review

To the Editor:

Your April 9 edition of the West Carleton Review contained a number of articles and letters to the editor regarding our sad state of affairs with regard to Hydro in Ontario.

Hydro in the last century has become one of our essential services, and as the ice storm of 1998 demonstrated, our lives revolve around electricity to power everything in our homes and even the gas stations that fuel our vehicles.

However, in Ontario the distribution, sale and production of hydro is treated as a political spectator sport with boondoggles, lies, smart meter errors, overpaid employees and corruption being the order of the day.

Even the Auditor-General (AG) has taken this government to task regarding hydro, but the Minister, Bob Chiarelli, tries to shame the AG by stating that it is a complicated file and she doesn’t have the knowledge required to ascertain the problems at hydro, let alone recommendations on how to fix them, a fact that was quickly debunked when we found out that the AG used to work for Manitoba Hydro.

I feel it is the minister that is “out of his league” on this file.

And now the same minister and government want to implement a low-income plan to help pay for the most expensive electricity in North America by further increasing the cost of electricity to the millions who will not qualify for this subsidy since the bar has been set so low as to be mostly ineffective and unavailable to most customers of hydro. This certainly appears to be nothing else but a PR exercise on the part of the government.

There is no good reason why we should have installed so many wind turbines or solar farms, both of which need an alternative back-up source of electrical power, since both wind and sun are unreliable sources of continuous energy available on demand.

The fact that there is no available mechanism to store surplus electrical power produced by wind or solar, Hydro One sells it on the open market at a substantial loss. Unfortunately, the current government has tied their hands for quite a few more years with multi-billion dollar contracts to foreign companies to supply either the turbines or the solar panels.

In my estimation, the only solution to the mess created by this government is to buy power from reliable and affordable sources of electricity producing jurisdictions, such as Quebec Hydro or Manitoba Hydro.

Hydro One cannot be trusted to produce the required amount of affordable power required and this government, regretably, has created most of the current (no pun intended) mess it finds itself in on the hydro file.

Richard Gaudet

Kinburn

Ontario needs to learn from Europe’s green energy debacle, says policy advisor

16 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Financial Post, April 14

Ontario will follow the EU at its peril — power rates will soar while industries depart

As the Ontario government announces new unilateral climate policies, Canadian policymakers would be well advised to heed the lessons of Europe’s self-defeating green energy debacle.

The European Union has long been committed to unilateral efforts to tackle climate change. For the last 20 years, Europe has felt a duty to set an example through radical climate policy-making at home. Political leaders were convinced that the development of a low-carbon economy based on renewables would give Europe a competitive advantage.

European governments have advanced the most expensive forms of energy generation at the expense of the least expensive kinds. No other major emitter has followed the EU’s aggressive climate policy and targets. As a result, electricity prices in Europe are now more than double those in North America and Europe’s remaining and struggling manufacturers are rapidly losing ground to international competition. European companies and investors are pouring money into the U.S., where energy prices have fallen to less than half those in the EU, thanks to the shale gas revolution.

Although EU policy has managed to reduce CO2 emissions domestically, this was only achieved by shifting energy-intensive industries to overseas locations without stringent emission limits, where energy and labour is cheap and which are now growing much faster than the EU.

Most products consumed in the EU today are imported from countries without binding CO2 targets. While the EU’s domestic CO2 emissions have fallen, if you factor in CO2 emissions embedded in goods imported into EU, the figure remains substantially higher.

Of all the unintended consequences of EU climate policy perhaps the most bizarre is the detrimental effect of wind and solar schemes on the price of electricity generated by natural gas. Many gas power plants can no longer operate enough hours. They incur big costs as they have to be switched on and off to back-up renewables.

Most products consumed in the EU today are imported from countries without binding CO2 targets

This week, Germany’s energy industry association warned that more than half of all power plants in planning are about to fold: Even the most efficient gas-fired power plants can no longer be operated profitably.

Every 10 new units worth of wind power installation has to be backed up with some eight units worth of fossil fuel generation. This is because fossil fuel plants have to power up suddenly to meet the deficiencies of intermittent renewables. In short, renewables do not provide an escape route from fossil fuel use without which they are unsustainable.

Read more here: http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/eus-green-energy-debacle-shows-the-futility-of-climate-change-policies

Surplus power in Ontario: $4 billion lost

13 Monday Apr 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

From Wind Concerns Ontario:

Wind output up, exports up, cost of electricity up— no coincidence

Five years ago, in 2009, George Smitherman, Minister of Energy during the McGuinty reign, rammed through the Ontario Legislature the Green Energy and Green Economy Act.  The Act ushered in the FIT (Feed In Tariff) and MicroFIT programs, attracting corporations from around the world who wanted the lucrative power contracts being let by the government-mandated Ontario Power Authority.

The result of the Act is now evident with huge chunks of rural Ontario covered with solar panels and spiked by 500-foot industrial wind turbines cranking out intermittent electricity, surplus to our demand, 99.9% of the time.

Early in 2010, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) advised us of electricity generation    for Ontario by fuel type for 2009.  The headline in their press release stated: “Wind Power in Ontario Generates a New Record in 2009.” Wind produced 2.3 terawatt hours (TWh) or 1.6% of Ontario’s total demand of 139 TWh.   The same press release noted Ontario exported 15.1 TWh, and wind’s percentage of those exports was 15.2%.  The release also disclosed the average HOEP (hourly Ontario electricity price) for 2009 was $31.6 million per TWh, and the Global Adjustment (GA) $30.6 million/TWh.

That means, the costs of power generation (on average) were $60.2 million per/TWh.

Wind significant share of the loss

In 2009, Ontario exported 15.1 TWh generating revenue of $477.2 million (15.1 TWh x $31.6 million), but the TWh exported cost Ontario ratepayers $909 million (15.1 TWh X $60.2) — that means Ontario lost $432 million.  The cost of power production from wind was $283 million (2.3 TWh X $123 million/TWh), representing 65.5% of the losses on the exported TWh.

Fast forward five years to January 2015: IESO’s announcement indicated Ontario’s demand in 2014 was 139.8 TWh. Wind was 6.8 TWh, or 4% of all generation.  Exports grew to 19.1 TWh and wind’s percentage of exports shot up to 35.6%.   HOEP was $36 million/TWh and the GA jumped to $54.6 million/TWh, making the all-in-cost to Ontario’s ratepayers $90.6 million/TWh.   The cost to produce 19.1 TWh was $1,730 million (19.1 TWh X $90.6 million), and revenue generated from the sale was $688 million (19.1 TWh X $36 million). That left Ontario’s electricity ratepayers to pick up the $1.042 billion shortfall.  The cost for 6.8 TWh of wind was $836 million plus another $42 million1. for curtailed wind bringing its cost to $878 million, representing 84 % of export losses.

$4 billion

The all-in-cost of Ontario’s electricity generation jumped from 6.2 cents/kWh in 2009 to 9.06 cents/kWh in 2014, an increase of 46%. Ratepayers picked up an additional burden of $4,048 million for 139.8 TWh.

The extra .8 TWh (800 million kWh) Ontario ratepayers consumed in 2014 versus 2009 cost us over $4 billion or $5.06 per/kWh, much of it was caused by the push for renewable energy and the need to have back-up power plants for when the wind is not blowing or the sun isn’t shining.

Imagine how many subway stations or hospitals $4 billion might have built.

©Parker Gallant

April 13, 2015

What’s the true cost of wind power? Plenty, says NEWSWEEK

13 Monday Apr 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

What’s the True Cost of Wind Power?

Newsweek OPINION

By 4/11/15 at 5:22 PM

As consumers, we pay for electricity twice: once through our monthly electricity bill and a second time through taxes that finance massive subsidies for inefficient wind and other energy producers.

Most cost estimates for wind power disregard the heavy burden of these subsidies on U.S. taxpayers. But if Americans realized the full cost of generating energy from wind power, they would be less willing to foot the bill—because it’s more than most people think.

Over the past 35 years, wind energy—which supplies just 2 percent of U.S. electricity—has received $30 billion in federal subsidies and grants. These subsidies shield people from the uncomfortable truth of just how much wind power actually costs and transfer money from average taxpayers to wealthy wind farm owners, many of which are units of foreign companies.

Proponents tend to claim it costs as little as $59 to generate a megawatt-hour of electricity from wind. In reality, the true price tag is more than two and a half times that.

This represents a waste of resources that could be better spent by taxpayers themselves. Even the supposed environmental gains of relying more on wind power are dubious because of its unreliability—it doesn’t always blow—meaning a stable backup power source must always be online to take over during periods of calm.

But at the same time, the subsidies make the U.S. energy infrastructure more tenuous because the artificially cheap electricity prices push more reliable producers—including those needed as backup—out of the market. As we rely more on wind for our power and its inherent unreliability, the risk of blackouts grows. If that happens, the costs will really soar.

Read more of this article from Newsweek, here.

What the Easter Bunny brought you (losses)

10 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

What the Easter Bunny brought Ontario’s neighbours

Ontario goodies for somebody...just not you
Ontario goodies for somebody…just not you

Ontario’s ratepayers won’t care much for what the Easter Bunny delivered over the long weekend.

Over Friday, Saturday and Sunday on the weekend of April 3, 2015, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) reported we exported 250,500 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity to our friends and neighbours, but they gave us only $6.21 per/MWh for power that cost us at least $90 per/MWh to produce.

The exported power over those three days was equivalent to almost 24% of total Ontario Demand of 1,009,700 MWh.

On top of that, IESO indicated via their Planned Outage Report they constrained, spilled, idled or steamed-off another 238,000 MWh from a variety of generators which represented 23% of total Ontario Demand.  Between exports and the outage requirements, ratepayers picked up the tab for 488,000 MWh or 51% of power we didn’t have a demand for.

So, why are we all told to conserve more?

Wind over that weekend generated about 58,000 MWh and represented 23% of exports. The cost of production was $7.1 million ($123 per/MWh) for which we were paid $360K ($6.21 per/MWh) — that’s a loss of $6.7 million.

Ratepayers also picked up the cost of the other 192,500 MWh exported at a cost of $17.5 million and the constrained production at a cost of about $12 million.

$36 million in losses

In those three days, Ontario’s electricity customers paid for all this and saw no benefit. Yet we are obligated to pick up almost $36 million in losses.  Doing this every day would results in annual costs of $3 billion, with no benefit!

We need the Liberal government to tell the Easter Bunny to stay home next time and dole out the Easter treats to Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers, instead of our neighbours.

©Parker Gallant,

Toronto, April 7, 2015

Expert panel finds annoyance adverse health effect caused by wind turbines

10 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

NEWS RELEASE

April 9, 2015
Expert Panel finds that annoyance can be caused by wind turbine noise — a clear adverse health effect

Ottawa (April 9, 2015) – A new expert panel report, Assessing the Evidence: Wind Turbine Noise, released today by the Council of Canadian Academies provides an in-depth examination of 32 potential adverse health effects linked to wind turbine noise. For most of the identified symptoms, the evidence is inadequate to draw a direct link between wind turbine noise and a negative health effect.

However, there is sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between exposure to such noise and annoyance.

Determining whether wind turbine noise causes adverse health effects is an important issue as demand  for renewable energy, including wind power, is expected to grow in Canada and around the world. The wind sector has expanded rapidly since the 1990s, and Canada is now the fifth-largest global market for the installation of wind turbines. With this demand, however, come concerns that the presence of wind turbines may pose a public health risk to nearby residents. In response to public concern, Health Canada asked the Council of Canadian Academies to conduct an in-depth expert panel assessment to evaluate the evidence and identify gaps in knowledge.

“The Panel looked at what had been written on the potential health effects of exposure to wind turbines, in the scientific literature, legal cases, and the most informative public documents,” said Dr. Tee Guidotti, Expert Panel Chair. “We identified 32 health issues and then analyzed the published peer reviewed studies on each problem to determine if there was evidence for a causal relationship with wind turbine noise.”

The Panel’s report stresses that, given the nature of the sound produced by wind turbines and the limited quality of available evidence, the health impacts of wind turbine noise cannot be comprehensively assessed and further information and study are required.

The Panel outlined 11 main findings discussed in the full report. Some findings include:

1. The evidence is sufficient to establish a causal relationship between exposure to wind turbine noise and annoyance.

2. There is limited evidence to establish a causal relationship between exposure to wind turbine noise and sleep disturbance.

3. The evidence suggests a lack of causality between exposure to wind turbine noise and hearing loss.

4. For all other health effects considered (fatigue, tinnitus, vertigo, nausea, dizziness, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, etc.), the evidence was inadequate to come to any conclusion about the presence or absence of a causal relationship with exposure to wind turbine noise.

5. Technological development is unlikely to resolve, in the short term, the current issues related to perceived adverse health effects of wind turbine noise.

6. Impact assessments and community engagement provide communities with greater knowledge and control over wind energy projects and therefore help limit annoyance.

The Expert Panel’s assessment was extensive; they considered a wide range of evidence and developed a rigorous methodology for their work. The resulting report provides key information and insights on what is known and not known about wind turbine noise and its possible impacts on human health. The foundation of knowledge contained in the report can support all levels of government, the scientific community, industry, and community stakeholders as future policies, regulations, and research agendas are considered.

For more information or to download a copy of the Panel’s report, visit the Council of Canadian Academies’ website, http://www.scienceadvice.ca 

About the Council of Canadian Academies

The Council of Canadian Academies is an independent, not-for-profit organization that began operation in 2005. The Council undertakes independent, authoritative, science-based, expert assessments that inform public policy development in Canada. Assessments are conducted by independent, multidisciplinary panels (groups) of experts from across Canada and abroad. Panel members serve free of charge and many are Fellows of the Council’s Member Academies. The Council’s vision is to be a trusted voice for science in the public interest. For more information about the Council or its assessments, please visit www.scienceadvice.ca.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The wind industry works hard to demean the use of the term “annoyance” which is in fact an accepted medical term denoting distress, or stress. Find a definition of annoyance as it applies to environmental noise and degradation of health, here.