• About
  • Donate!
  • EVENTS
  • Ottawa’s “Energy Evolution”: wind turbines coming to rural communities
  • Thinking of signing a wind turbine lease?
  • Wind Concerns Ontario
  • Wind turbines: what you need to know

Ottawa Wind Concerns

~ A safe environment for everyone

Ottawa Wind Concerns

Category Archives: Wind power

Wind farm jobs temporary says Watertown area legislator: support for project overstated

13 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by Ottawa Wind Concerns in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

employment wind power, Galloo Island wind farm, Jefferson County, jobs wind farms, Scott A Gray, Watertown, Wolfe Island wind farm, Wolfe Island wind turbines

 

Watertown Daily Times, March 12, 2015

When it came to proclaiming widespread support for another Galloo Island wind farm project, a member of the Jefferson County Board of Legislators believes that Donald C. Alexander counted his chickens before they hatched.

Mr. Alexander, chief executive officer of the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency, said in a story Friday in the Watertown Daily Times that a wind farm being proposed by the Albany-based Hudson Energy Development LLC shouldn’t be as controversial as the previous project pursued by Upstate NY Power Corp. of West Seneca. A payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement proposed by Upstate NY Power Corp. was approved unanimously in 2010 by the town of Hounsfield and Sackets Harbor Central School District. But it narrowly made it through the county legislature by an 8-7 vote after a protracted and contentious debate.

The latest plan calls for an underwater transmission line rather than an overland line, an idea that made the previous project so objectionable. No land line should make the project more amenable to opponents, Mr. Alexander claimed.

County Legislator Scott A. Gray, however, believes Mr. Alexander has painted too rosy a picture. He said there doesn’t appear to be sufficient support on the legislature for a PILOT agreement this time around.

“Mr. Gray said Donald C. Alexander has misrepresented support for a 20-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement planned by Hudson Energy Development LLC of Albany without giving the Board of Legislators time to learn about the 32-turbine, 106-megawatt proposal,” according to a story Monday in the Watertown Daily Times. “Given the number of legislators who probably would oppose a PILOT, Mr. Gray said, he believes Mr. Alexander has publicly misrepresented the level of support expected for the project.”

“Basically, he’s blatantly trying to back us into a corner by positioning this like it shouldn’t be a problem and is going to be approved by all of the taxing jurisdictions,” said Mr. Gray, who also sits on the JCIDA board. “So if something happens and it fails at our board, we accept the blame for killing the project.”

A PILOT for this project would result in Hudson paying less than a third of what it would without the agreement. The three taxing jurisdictions would give up $2.22 million a year for 20 years – a total of $44.4 million. For a proposed wind farm that provides essentially no local jobs, this doesn’t make sense.

No long-term economic benefit

About the only jobs it would create are those for the construction workers contracted to prepare the site and build the wind turbines. While those jobs are attractive, they disappear after the construction is completed. Relatively few people — and they would be highly skilled, outside contractors well-versed in high-tech turbine maintenance — would be required to maintain the turbines, so there would be virtually no long-term economic benefit for the region.

Mr. Alexander also dismisses concerns about a landscape dotted with towering turbines, which he described as the “size of a thimble.” Each proposed turbine is taller than those on Wolfe Island, which are visible from Thompson Park in the city.

This curious characterization of the turbines led Paul J. Warneck, director of Jefferson County Real Property Tax Services, to observe:

“I think for Don Alexander to minimize the impact as it relates to the south end of Cape Vincent, town of Lyme and town of Henderson is a mistake and ill conceived. There’s no doubt in my mind, depending on how they light these towers, that they’ll be seen from that distance. The supporters who believe you’re not going to see them are just totally misleading the public. When you’re fishing on Galloo Island, you can plainly see the Wolfe Island turbines — and they’re about 15 miles away.”

PILOTs should be reserved for projects that contribute ongoing benefits to the local economy. The loss in property taxes can be mitigated by the increase in permanent employment opportunities. More people with good-paying jobs will spend their discretionary income in the area.

If Hudson Energy wishes to construct a wind farm on Galloo Island, it must compensate all Jefferson County residents by being required to pay its full share of property taxes. Questions over why taxpayers should underwrite a project that provides no permanent jobs and whether it would create a visible impact on the pristine nature of the eastern basin of Lake Ontario make this proposal a poor candidate for any PILOT agreement.

….

See original article for comments: “Wind not wanted in this area.”

Developer says more wind turbines coming to North Stormont, South Dundas

10 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by Ottawa Wind Concerns in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

EDP Renewables, IESO, Ken Little, North Stormont, South Dundas, South Dundas wind farm, wind farm Eastern Ontario

Cornwall News Watch, March 9, 2015

More wind farm plans for S. Dundas, N. Stormont

Posted on March 9, 2015 by Editor in News, North Dundas, North Glengarry, North Stormont, South Dundas, South Glengarry, South Stormont // 1 Comment

South Dundas Mayor Evonne Delegarde, left, shakes the hand of EDP Renewables Project Manager Ken Little. The company announced $2.7 million in compensation to Dundas and SD&G for road damage during the construction of the South Branch Wind Farm. (Cornwall Newswatch/Bill Kingston)

MORRISBURG – While announcing a settlement for road damage in Dundas county, the company behind a 10 turbine, 30 megawatt wind farm in Brinston is looking to expand.

During a ceremony at the South Dundas Municipal Center Monday afternoon, EDP Renewables paid Dundas and the United Counties of SD&G nearly $2.7 million for road wear when they put up the South Branch Wind Farm near Brinston.

The process started in June 2013 when North Dundas, South Dundas and the United Counties signed road use agreements with EDP.

Following an engineer’s evaluation, EDP agreed to pay South Dundas $868,500, North Dundas $118,590 and the United Counties $1,697,386.

Compensation a ‘drop in the bucket’

While the Municipality of South Dundas appreciates the money, Public Works Manager Chris Bazinet says the compensation is “just a drop in the bucket” given the cost of the roads and maintaining infrastructure.

While the money can be used at the municipal governments’ discretion, South Dundas Deputy Mayor Jim Locke says the county money is earmarked for South Dundas county roads.

With the damage compensation out of the way, EDP Renewables Project Manager Ken Little says they are looking at options in South Dundas and North Stormont.

Little says the next rollout of wind farms will be a competitive bid process run by the province but it will not fall under the Ontario feed-in-tariff (FIT) model.

He says they have already approached some farms about optioning land, primarily in the area east of South Branch Road in South Dundas.

“(It’s) still an early stage project. But we’re working with the IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) to understand what the capacity, availability is in all of Eastern Ontario. So, it’s at a stage where no proponents necessarily know the amount of capacity available for a project to connect to the circuit,” Little said.

He believes a screening process will be completed in May, which will give the public a better idea of the size of project.

Roughly 30-50 wind turbines had been planned for North Stormont but Little suspects the development with South Dundas would be smaller than that.

Bids on the project would be due in September and proposed wind farms would go online in 2018-2019.

………………………………………..

Editor’s note #1: WHY does the wind power developer’s payment of funds owing due to road damage rate a “ceremony”?

Editor’s note #2: The South Branch Wind Opposition Group in South Dundas has disbanded; for more information or assistance, please contact Ottawa Wind Concerns at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com or Wind Concerns Ontario at windconcerns@gmail.com

Health Canada brochure “misleading” Wind Concerns Ontario tells Minister of Health

10 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by Ottawa Wind Concerns in Health, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

adverse health effects wind turbines, federal Minister of Health, Health Canada, Health Canada brochure, Health Canada study results, Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety, Minister of Health Canada, wind farm, wind farm infrasound, wind farm noise, wind power, wind power lobby, wind turbine noise

A letter is heading for the Brooke Claxton Building at Tunney's Pasture

Health Canada headquarters at Tunney’s Pasture–not in touch with the reality in Ontario, says Wind Concerns Ontario

Wind Concerns Ontario has sent a letter to the federal Minister of Health, Rona Ambrose, expressing concern about the mailing of a promotional brochure connected to the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health study. The study results were released in a summary (no peer review, no actual report or paper) last November, but the brochure was not sent out until February 2015, by Canada Post Unaddressed Admail. The timing is unusual, coming so long after the study results release, and coinciding with Ontario’s new procurement process for large renewable power projects. It is also very unusual for a research team to create and release a brochure. That brochure is misleading, Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson said in the letter to the Minister. “It’s not true, as the brochure says, that there are no health effects from the wind turbine noise and infrasound–there are, and the study summary says that.  It says 16.5 percent of people studied who live within 1 km of a turbine were experiencing distress,” Wilson said. Wind Concerns Ontario met with Health Canada/Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety staff the day after the study results were released, and advised that the draft brochure not be released. “We told them that the disclaimer on the brochure, which explained that the study results were ‘preliminary’ and unreviewed, was not prominent enough,” Wilson said. “We also asked why they weren’t going back into the study communities in person, as is normal practice for scientific research teams, rather than sending a brochure.” Wind Concerns said that the study summary, and now the brochure, strain the credibility of Health Canada and the federal government in Ontario. “The fact is, the conclusion being promoted in the brochure from this study–that there are no health effects–does not coalesce with the real-life experience in Ontario communities,” Wilson said. “The people of Ontario were hoping that their federal health department would pull out all the stops to find a reason for the many, many reported health problems related to wind turbine noise—instead, they got short shrift in this study, and now an unnecessary and misleading, taxpayer-funded promotional brochure that functionally supports the wind power development industry.”

North Bay area wind farm exposes Ontario policy problems

05 Thursday Mar 2015

Posted by Ottawa Wind Concerns in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Algonquin Pikwakanagan, Antoine First Nation, Duty to Consult, First Nations land claims, First Nations land rights, Government of Ontario, Innergex, Innergex and Ontario, North bay wind farm, Ontario, Ontario Ministry of NAtural Resources, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, power development, Transport Canada, Vic Fedeli, wind farm, wind power generation

It wasn’t enough that the Government of Ontario, by encouraging and supporting development of high-impact wind power generation projects in rural Ontario destroyed small-town and rural communities, now its “green energy” policy has set First Nations against each other.

In a proposal for a 150-megawatt wind “farm” in the Mattawa area, near North Bay, Quebec-based Innergex and Ontario has not only placed a power development in a scenic area valued for tourism and wildlife preservation, it is also endangering North Bay’s airport operation and attendant economic growth—part of which just happens to be a NORAD base. (Transport Canada? Will THIS wind power project get a rise out of you?)

Ontario’s new Large Renewable Procurement process is expected to encourage power development on Crown land and in partnerships with First Nations. When it comes to Mattawa, however, the First Nation participating for profits doesn’t even live anywhere near there.

A news conference will be held tomorrow by the First Nations who do, and who have been involved in negotiations with the government over rights for years. Should be very interesting.

Here’s the story from North Bay-Nipissing.

Prowind hires lobbyist

04 Wednesday Feb 2015

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

IESO, Large Renewable Procurement Ontario, North Gower, Ottawa wind concerns, Prowind, Sussex Strategy Group, wind farm Ottawa

Wind Concerns Ontario yesterday posted a list of the lobbyists who had registered with the provincial registry on behalf of wind power developers. Germany-based Prowind, which has an office apparently in Hamilton, Ontario, is among them, with Sussex Strategy Group representing them.

Sussex has a number of Big Wind clients, and is famous for the leaked strategy document in which it recommended that wind power developers align themselves with organizations associated with health care, in order to support the “clean” “green” and environmentally healthy perceptions about wind power. The consultants advised their wind power clients to “confuse” the issue by changing focus from high energy prices to job creation and clean air.

Prowind’s project in Ottawa is currently inactive and the company did not qualify as an applicant to the new Large Renewable Procurement process; however, as we learned listening in on an industry-focused webinar recently, an unqualified applicant can partner up with a company who did qualify (begging the question, what was the point of THAT?).

Prowind is currently trying to raise funding for its project near Woodstock Ontario by a community investment fund.

***

NOTE: Ottawa Wind Concerns was active in creating a plebescite via legal petition to Ottawa City Council in 2013, which resulted in a motion of support for the community in its opposition to the wind power project. The community group remains active, with a legal team on retainer.

Natural Resources Canada funds study of “large penetration” for wind power in Canada

04 Wednesday Feb 2015

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Canada, Government of Canada, Minister of Finance, Natural Resources Canada, Natural Resources Canada study, Pan-Canadian Wind Integration Study, Parker Gallant, wind energy, wind power

Check out the video and photos below!

Looking to put chicken coops right across Canada?

Reprinted from Wind Concerns Ontario

Industry association “lead proponent” in Natural Resources Canada study

Last week, in researching his series on the Canadian Wind Energy Association’s campaign to influence Ontario citizen attitudes toward wind power, and recommendations for the lobby group’s “Ontario campaign,” Parker Gallant discovered via the Ontario Lobbyist Registry that CanWEA disclosed publicly it has received funding  of $663,000 from the federal government.

The funding is presumably for CanWEA’s role as lead proponent of a $1.7-million Natural Resources Canada project called the Pan-Canadian Wind Integration Study,  “that will evaluate how large penetration of wind energy could be integrated on the provincially run Canadian electric grid and show the challenges and opportunities in doing so. “

In the first paragraph of the NRCan page on this study, which names CanWEA as the lead proponent, is a significant error. CanWEA’s mandate is most decidedly NOT “to promote the responsible and sustainable growth of wind energy in Canada.” CanWEA itself says its mission is “to ensure Canada fully realizes its abundant wind energy potential on behalf of its members.”

In other words, as any specialized industry group does, CanWEA’s goal is to represent and promote the interests of its members.

It is not an environmental organization.

Why, we ask, is an industry group, with some very well-financed members, that states outright its goal is to act in the best interests of its members, receiving government financing to further its members’ fortunes?

A question for your Member of Parliament. And the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Finance (Joe.Oliver@fin.gc.ca ).

Big Wind’s “Big Bonanza” in Ontario: subsidies benefit a few corporations, not ratepayers

04 Wednesday Feb 2015

Posted by Ottawa Wind Concerns in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Consumer Policy Institute, FIT, George Smitherman, North Gower wind farm, Ontario, Ontario government, Ontario Power Authority, Pierre Poilievre, Prowind, subsidies for wind power, wind farm subsidies, wind farms Ontario, wind power, wind power subsidies

From the Financial Post Comment, February 4, by Brady Yauch, executive director the Consumer Policy Institute

When the Ontario government launched its Green Energy Act (GEA ) in 2009, it promised “new green economy jobs” and ” a wide range of economic opportunities.” Then Minister of Energy George Smitherman argued that the GEA would be a boon to Ontarians of all stripes: “We see opportunities in our rural communities for farmers, not just to lease their land for big companies that are the proponents of wind farms, but indeed for clusters of farmers to see themselves as investors in projects…. the emergence of thousands of smaller green energy projects—microgeneration—in urban as well as rural areas.”

Yes, everyone would need to pay a little more for renewable power, the public was told, but the benefits would be widely shared, for the ultimate benefit of all. As it turned out, power rates didn’t go up a little – they soared. And the subsidies weren’t widely shared among the folk – a handful of billion dollar companies pocketed most of them, most of them outside the province.

According to an analysis by the Consumer Policy Institute and Energy Probe, 90% of the wind subsidies went to just 11 companies, 80% of the subsidies went to nine companies with annual revenues over $1-billion, 60% of the subsidies went to six companies with more than $10-billion in annual revenue.

As for the province’s claim that it wants to create an Ontario-based “green economy,” less than 10% of subsidies to wind generators went to small-scale or local owners.

Since 2006, when the province first started subsidizing wind turbines, the province has provided more than $1.92 billion in subsidies. This act of corporate welfare is far from over.

According to the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) – the provincial agency in charge of energy planning and contracting – the province has signed deals for another 2,630 MW of wind energy to come on stream in the coming years, on top of the 3,065 MW already in commercial operation. All of that generation will receive above market rates courtesy of ratepayers for their output. In total, the amount of subsidies to wind producers could hit $8-billion over the next decade and $13-billion over the next 20 years.

The list of companies receiving the lion’s share of subsidies reads like a “who’s who” in Canada’s energy sector and corporate heavyweights. Brookfield Renewable Energy (a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management), Enbridge and Transalta alone accounted for about 38 percent of all subsidies handed out to wind generators. Those companies combined brought in $54-billion in total revenue in 2013.

Samsung, which posted $217-billion in revenue last year, is expected to triple its wind capacity in Ontario – and the subsidies that go along with it – in the next couple of years.

The damage to ratepayers for such policies has been significant. Since 2009 – when the GEA was introduced – ratepayers in Ontario have seen the commodity cost on their energy bills climb dramatically, with the regulated price of power over that time having increased on average by 56%, or just over 9% annually – more than five times the rate of inflation, making electricity price increases worse in Ontario than elsewhere in Canada.

To make matters worse, the high rates being pushed onto ratepayers has lowered demand for electricity across the province in recent years. That means Ontario now has a significant surplus of power, which it then exports to neighbouring jurisdictions at a loss. Ontario ratepayers are now subsidizing the energy consumption of households in America and other provinces.

Nearly everyone is losing when it comes to renewable energy in Ontario – except for those few companies that planted industrial wind turbines across the province and are receiving billions in subsidies for their effort.

Brady Yauch is an economist and the executive director of Consumer Policy Institute. bradyyauch@consumerpolicyinstitute.org

NOTE from Ottawa Wind Concerns: The Library of Parliament, on request from MP Pierre Poilievre, estimated that IF the wind power project proposed for the North Gower-Richmond area of Ottawa by Germany-based Prowind had gone ahead (it almost reached approval), the 20-MW project would have cost Ontario ratepayers $4.8 million per year.

Wind farm noise study “ground-breaking” acoustician colleagues say

29 Thursday Jan 2015

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Australia, Big Wind, Cape Bridgewater, Dr Bob Thorne, Steven Cooper, wind farm, wind farm adverse health effects, wind farm health effects, wind farm neighbours, wind farm noise, Wind farm noise study, wind farm study, wind turbine noise, wind turbine noise study, Wind Turbine Signature

Wind farm noise study firm congratulated by acoustics professionals

New study explains why Ontario has gone from affordable electricity rates to among the highest in N America. Photo: Bloomberg
New study from Australia called ground-breaking and unique. Big Wind says it’s meaningless. As they would.

The wind turbine noise study completed by acoustics specialist Steven Cooper in Australia has had a resounding effect around the world: using a new methodology and working with the cooperation of the wind power company (who now is rushing to clarify it was not a “health” study), the results showing that wind “farm” neighbours are at greater risk for adverse health effects has been of great interest.

While the wind power industry has been denying the study’s relevance, news comes of congratulations from fellow acoustics professionals for Mr Cooper’s study.

We attach a copy of a letter of congratulations from another noise measurement firm in Australia, calling the Cooper study “a benchmark.” Use of the term “sensation” rather than noise, is “ground-breaking and unique,” writes Bob Thorne, PhD.

The letter may be read here: Thorne-B.-Cape-Bridgewater-study-NMS-congrats

Australian wind farm noise study shows neighbours at risk for health problems

29 Thursday Jan 2015

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Australian wind turbine noise study, infrasound, Pacific Hydro, Pacific Hydro Australia, Steven Cooper, wind farm health effects, wind farm neighbours, wind farm noise, wind turbine, wind turbine sensation, Wind Turbine Signature, wind turbines

This is a story provided by Wind Watch, which has access to a subscriber-only report from The Australian.

Turbines may well blow an ill wind over locals, ‘first’ study shows

Credit:  By: GRAHAM LLOYD. From: The Australian. January 21, 2015. ~~

People living near wind farms face a greater risk of suffering health complaints caused by the low-frequency noise generated by turbines, a groundbreaking study has found. The study by acoustics expert Steven Cooper is the first in the world in which a wind turbine ­operator had fully co-operated and turned wind turbines off completely during the testing. It opens the way for a full-scale medical trail that may resolve the contentious debate about the health impact of wind farms.

Funded by wind farm operator Pacific Hydro, the study was conducted at Cape Bridgewater in southwest Victoria where residents have long complained about headaches, chest pains and sleep loss but have been told it was all in their minds.

As part of the study, residents living between 650m and 1.6km of the wind turbines were asked to ­diarise what they were experiencing, including headaches, pressure in the head, ears or chest, ringing in the ears, heart racing or a sensation of heaviness. Their observations were separated into noise, vibration and sensation using a one to five severity scale.

“The resident observations and identification of sensation indicates that the major source of complaint from the operation of the turbines would appear to be related to sensation rather than noise or vibration,” the report says. “For some residents experiencing adverse sensation effects, the impact can be exacerbated by bending over rather than standing, with the effect in some cases being reported as extremely severe and lasting a few hours.”

Mr Cooper said it was the first time that sensation rather than audible noise had been used as an indicator of residents’ perception of nearby wind turbines.

The report found offending sound pressure was present at four distinct phases of turbine operation: starting, maximum power and changing load by more than 20 per cent either up or down. Mr Cooper said the findings were consistent with research into health impacts from early model wind turbines conducted in the US more than 20 years ago.

The relationship between turbine operation and sensation demonstrated a “cause and effect”, something Pacific Hydro was not prepared to concede, he said.

Survey participant Sonja Crisp, 75, said the first time she experience discomfort from the wind turbines, “it was like a thump in the middle of the chest.

“It is an absolute relief, like an epiphany to have him (Mr Cooper) say I was not crazy (that) when I am doing the dishes I feel nausea and have to get out of the house.”

David Brooks, from Gullen Range near Goulburn, NSW, said health concerns from wind farm developments were not confined to Cape Bridgewater. The findings should be used as the basis for a thorough health study of the impacts from low frequency noise, he said. “Until this is done, there should be a moratorium on further wind farm developments,” he said.

Pacific Hydro and Mr Cooper agree that more widespread testing is needed. Andrew Richards, executive manager external affairs at Pacific Hydro, said: “While we acknowledge the preliminary findings of this report, what they mean at this time is largely unclear.

“In our view, the results presented in the report do not demonstrate a correlation that leads to the conclusion that there is a causal link between the existence of ­infrasound frequencies and the ‘sensations’ experienced by the residents.” Mr Cooper said the findings had totally discounted the so-called “nocebo” effect put forward by some public health ­officials, who said symptoms were the result of concerns about the possibility of experiencing them.

The Cape Bridgewater study included six residents over eight weeks in three houses. One hearing-impaired participant had been able to identify with 100 per cent accuracy the performance of wind turbines despite not being able to see them.

Another Cape Bridgewater resident Jo Kermond said the findings had been “both disturbing and confirmation of the level of severity we were and are enduring while being ridiculed by our own community and society.”

Mr Cooper said residents’ threshold of sensations were experienced at narrow band sound pressure levels of four to five hertz at above 50 decibels. The nominal audible threshold for frequencies of four to five hertz is more than 100 decibels. Mr ­Cooper said an earlier investi­gation into health impacts of wind farms by the South Australian EPA had been flawed by limiting the study to only one-third octave bands and not looking at narrow band analysis.

“By looking at high sensation and narrow band I have developed a methodology to undertake assessments using narrow band infrasound,” he said. “We now have a basis on how to start the medical studies,”

Mr Cooper was not engaged to establish whether there was a link between wind turbine operation and health impacts, “but the findings of my work show there is something there,” he said.

Mr Cooper said Pacific Hydro should be commended for allowing the work to proceed. “It is the first time ever in the world that a wind farm has co-­operated with a study including shutting down its operations completely,” he said.

Mr Cooper has coined the term Wind Turbine Signature as the basis of the narrow band infrasound components that are evident in other studies. He said the work at Cape Bridgewater had established a methodology that could be repeated very easily all over the world.

Pacific Hydro said it had conducted the study to see whether it could establish any link between certain wind conditions or sound levels at Cape Bridgewater and the concerns of the individuals involved in the study.

“Steven Cooper shows in his report, for the limited data set, that there is a trend line between discrete infrasound components of the blade pass frequency (and harmonics of the blade pass frequency) and the residents’ sensation observations, based on his narrow band analysis of the results,” Pacific Hydro said.

“However, we do not believe the data as it currently stands supports such a strong conclusion.”

The report has been sent to a range of stakeholders, including government departments, members of parliament, environmental organisations and health bodies.

The report may be downloaded from the following links:

The Results of an Acoustic Testing Program – Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm
Appendices A to H
Appendices I to J
Appendices K to M
Appendices N to P
Appendices Q to S
Appendices T to V

Source:  By: GRAHAM LLOYD. From: The Australian. January 21, 2015.

See also a story from January 21 in The Standard, here.

Ontario’s “Rollback” surplus power sale: $4B in 3 years

21 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by Ottawa Wind Concerns in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Bob Chiarelli, electricity bills Ontario, hydro bills Ontario, Ontario, Ontario economy, Parker Gallant, surplus power Ontario, Wind Concerns Ontario

Here from former bank VP Parker Gallant, now VP of Wind Concerns Ontario, a review of Ontario’s green energy policy which has resulted in a surplus of power produced when we don’t need it, and the government’s sell off to neighbouring jurisdictions.

Ontario’s power system is “exactly like Walmart” Bob Chiarelli says

Electricity: on sale every day, cheap, in Ontario
Electricity: on sale every day, cheap, in Ontario

Anyone reading an excerpt from the November 18, 2014 Standing Committee on Estimates text of Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli might have trouble discerning what his message was.  And, specifically, what his answer had to do with MPPRandy Hillier‘s question on whether Ontario loses money exporting surplus electricity.

Chiarelli had danced around the question, claiming Ontario needed “surplus generation,” but Hillier kept hounding him and finally, Chiarelli responded.

Mr. Randy Hillier: “Listen, I understand that we want to have a margin of surplus. We all can understand that, because you don’t know specifically and exactly how much is going to be needed at any particular point in time. But let’s get back to the question. What are our estimated losses—do you have an estimate—for this year and next year, cumulatively, in our losses of trades?”

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: “Can I ask you to give me 30 seconds without interruption? Just a few seconds, okay?”

Mr. Randy Hillier: “Well, if you can answer the question—60 seconds.”

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: “Walmart buys snow blowers. They expect to sell X number of snow blowers in a winter. At the end of the winter, if they haven’t sold those snow blowers, they sell them at a discount. They’re selling them for less than their costs. That’s part of doing business.

The electricity system is exactly the same as Walmart. Why do they have sales? Why do they sell a product that is worth X number of dollars in November for less when they’re selling it in March or April? Why do they do it? They’re giving it away. They’re losing money. How much have they lost?”

Walmart. Ontario’s electricity system is “exactly the same” as Walmart.

Here’s what the Ontario Auditor General’s report for 2011 said about what Ontario lost by exporting electricity surpluses.

 “Based on our analysis of net exports and pricing data from the IESO, we estimated that from 2005 to the end of our audit in 2011, Ontario received $1.8 billion less for its electricity exports than what it actually cost electricity ratepayers of Ontario.”

The losses highlighted in the AG’s report are related to the creation of the Global Adjustment or GA.  The buyers of our surplus electricity only pay the HOEP (hourly Ontario electricity price) and Ontario’s consumers pick up the difference between the contracted price for generation and the HOEP.  It was that difference, the GA, that the AG’s report highlighted.

Ontario has seen three more years of generation since that report and each one has meant increasing costs to Ontario’s electricity consumers.  For 2012, IESO reported our exports were 14.6 terawatt hours (TWh) and generated an average price of $24.1 million/TWh, but the costs to Ontario’s consumers for that generation included the GA which was an additional $49.6 million/TWh—that resulted in a cost of $724 million.  2013 was worse: Ontario exported 18.3 TWh generating $26.5 million/TWh with  the GA cost at $59.0 million/TWh for a cost of $1.007 billion. 2014 was slightly worse again, with exports of 19.1 TWh generating $36.0 million/TWh, costing ratepayers $53.5 million/TWh for the GA, creating a loss of $1.022 billion.

So, those three years cost ratepayers $2.75 billion for the 52 TWh (11.3% of total generation of 459.8 TWh) of exported power we didn’t need, bringing losses since creation of the GA to $4.550 billion.

Ontario’s ratepayers might be much better off if Walmart really was running the electricity system in Ontario. At least Walmart isn’t continually running at a loss.

©Parker Gallant                                                                                                            January 21, 2015

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Pro-wind groups in Ottawa collaborate to “educate”
  • Thinking of signing for a wind turbine lease? Better get informed to protect yourself
  • High-Speed Rail opposition in Rural Eastern Ontario: a lesson for wind power developers
  • Land use conflict prompts citizen legal action over West Carleton battery storage site
  • Energy Minister Stephen Lecce speaks out on renewable power sources wind and solar; emphasizes cost, reliability

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Tags

Bob Chiarelli Green Energy Act IESO Ontario Ottawa Ottawa wind concerns wind energy wind farm wind power wind turbines

Contact us

PO Box 3 North Gower ON K0A 2T0

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Ottawa Wind Concerns
    • Join 380 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Ottawa Wind Concerns
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...