Parker Gallant in Ottawa September 30

25 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Many people in Ottawa are followers of Parker Gallant’s Ontario’s Power Trip columns in The Financial Post. He is, of course, the “retired banker who took a good look at his hydro bills and didn’t like what he saw.”

He has plenty to say about not only our (rising) electricity bills, but the role of renewables in Ontario’s electricity costs, and the resulting effect on Ontario’s business competitiveness.

Parker Gallant will be speaking at a breakfast-time event in Manotick, Tuesday September 30th at 7:45 a.m., at the Hard Stones Grill on Manotick Main Street.

The event has been organized by the campaign for Dan Scharf for council in Rideau-Goulbourn. Seating is limited: RSVP to dan4rideau.goulbourn@gmail.com  

Donations to the campaign are welcome at this event.

Here is Parker’s latest, re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario; he is vice-president of the coalition of community groups opposed to large-scale wind power projects located too close to Ontario communities.

Clean air day for Ontario means cleaned out wallets for ratepayers

Ontario’s cleanest day: too bad it cost you

The heading on Cold Air energy blogger Scott Luft‘s article read:  “September 20th: Ontario electricity’s cleanest day in my lifetime.”   He was talking about the fact that emissions from the electricity sector in Ontario produced almost no emissions last Saturday.  Why? Low demand meant clean nuclear, clean hydro and clean wind produced more than enough power to satisfy the 13,593 MW average Ontario demand for electricity, as reported by IESO in their Daily Market Summary.

Here are the details: on September 20th, nuclear produced about 270,000 MWh, hydro 82,000 MWh and wind over 40,000 MWh.  Taken together, they produced about 81,000 excess MWh of power which Ontario simply exported.  Ontario was also busy steaming off Bruce nuclear power, and probably spilling hydro and paying those gas plants for sitting idle.   It’s obvious Ontario didn’t need that 40,000 MW of wind but with the “first to the grid” rights of wind and solar, IESO was obliged to accept it.

As it turned out the hourly Ontario electricity price or HOEP performed badly on September 20th and averaged .82 cents per MWh or .00082 cents per kWh.  So, Ontario’s ratepayers were paying wind generators $135.00 per MWh while IESO were busy selling it off to our neighbours in NY and Michigan for .82 cents meaning (without counting in the steamed-off Bruce nuclear, the gas plants $500 per MW of capacity for idling, non-utility generators or NUG-contracted utilities for curtailment, solar generators, etc.) we were losing $134.18 for every MWh of power that those wind turbines produced.

What that means to you is, the 81,000 MWh we sold to our neighbours cost each of Ontario’s 4.5 million ratepayers as our Energy Minister, Bob Chiarelli, might say, a large “Timmies” coffee and a donut!  Please don’t stop your conservation efforts, however, as the Ontario Liberal government would like us to do this more often!

Ontario: truly a great neighbour!

©Parker Gallant

September 23, 2014

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

 

Farmers Forum editorial on wind: I don’t want a turbine

15 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Apparently, everyone is tickety-boo with Wolfe Island being turned into a factory--or are they?

Apparently, everyone is tickety-boo with Wolfe Island being turned into a factory–or are they?

Wind turbine woes

September 2014, Farmers Forum

Farmers Forum surveyed a big chunk of Wolfe Island residents and found that 75 per cent approve of or are indifferent toward the 86 wind turbines they’ve been living with for five years.

There are only two wind turbine projects in Eastern Ontario–one in Wolfe Island and one near Brinston, south of Ottawa. But Wolfe Island, surrounded by the St. Lawrence River at one end and Lake Ontario at the other, is a captive crowd. We easily surveyed 200 of the 1,400 residents lining up for the Kingston ferry or working in the hamlet of Marysville.

With such a high proportion of residents surveyed–one in seven–we captured a fairly good picture of how people feel about those gigantic white gosal posts with their three imposing blades. Of course, having a visual of a turbine makes a huge difference. On many properties on the 29-kilometer long island, you can’t even see the turbines.* From other vantage points, you can see more than 10.

We found that money makes a difference. Those landowners (many of them farmers) hosting one or more turbines, are delighted with the $10,000 to $14,000 they earn each year per turbine just to look at them. The wind turbine company hands over another $100,000 to the island annually. Improvements to the local outdoor rink are one of the many benefits. It’s like getting paid twice for having the good luck of living at the right place on the right island at the right time.

Not surprisingly, wind power companies in other areas of the province are now offering “hush” money to Ontarians living near a proposed wind turbine project. As I’ve said before, if a company wants to pay me $14,000 a year to put a wind turbine on my property, I’d move the garage in order to accommodate them. Change their mind and offer the turbine to my neighbour and suddenly that turbine doesn’t look so good. It’s kind of an eyesore and doesn’t it affect bird migration? Could this be the health issues that we hear about or am I just sick at the thought that I just lost $280,000 of free money over 20 years? I think I know the answer. But when you offer to cut me in on the monetary benefits of my neighbour’s turbine, I’m suddenly all sunshine and happy thoughts.

This is not to say there aren’t honest-to-goodness health risks. Farmers Forum has no reason to disbelieve those survey respondents who complain of low-level noise when the wind changes direction.

We’re losing $24,000 an hour on wind

This brings me to my only real beef against wind power. As happy as I thought I would be to have a turbine, I don’t want  one.

They are the biggest money losers in the history of the province. Not for Wolfe Islanders or anyone else who gets a wind turbine contract. But for everyone else forced to pay an electricity bill. Electricity costs have already risen 12.5 per cent each year for the past five years. There are more than 1,000 operating wind turbines and another more than 4,000 to go up in the province. Ontario’s auditor general says we can expect another 40 per cent price hike over the next few years in our electricity bills. By 2018, every Ontario family will be paying an extra $636 per year to go green. And why? So the province can claim to be the first green province or state in North America? Big deal.

Wind turbines are incredibly inefficient. In a major report last year, the Fraser Institute noted that 80 per cent of the power generated by wind turbines occur when Ontario doesn’t need the power. So, while the province pays 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour, it often resells is for 2.5 cents south of the border. The report, Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario’s Green Energy Act, observed that data from the Independent Electricity System Operator show Ontario loses, on average, $24,000 per operating hour on wind power sales. Numerous companies, including Kelloggs and Heinz, have closed plants because Ontario companies pay more for power than any other jurisdiction in North America.

Not “green”

To make matters worse, a wind turbine can contain more than 200 tonnes of steel and Chinese factories need the mining of even more tonnes of coal and iron to make them. Writes David Hughes in his book Carbon Shift, “A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.”

So, you can’t even call wind turbines green energy. It’s appalling that farmers have been lied to about the benefits. We’re wasting billions on a phoney cause.

Patrick Meagher is editor of Farmers Forum and can be reached at editor@farmersforum.com

Re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario

WCO editor’s note: Although Farmers Forum was clear on the limitations of their survey they missed several key points: one, by surveying only people at the ferry dock and in a coffee shop, they may have missed people who stay on the island all day, but more important, as the Island has turbines on one half and none on the other, it would have been absolutely critical to define where the survey respondents actually live. They didn’t. Another key factor in any survey of community residents living with turbines is the fact that many turbine contracts force landowners to sign a non-disclosure agreement—in other words, if they have anything negative to say about the turbines, they can’t talk.

Onshore, offshore: tell us any wind farm makes sense

12 Friday Sep 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

For some reason, there is a sudden buzz about offshore wind power in Ontario. Last week, the province put out two Requests for Proposal pertaining to offshore wind power generation. One of them was for a “noise impact” study, which is flawed from the very request because it asks for a proponent to do a literature review only, on audible noise only, and not to do any actual noise measurements, despite the fact that the Wolfe Island wind “farm” could provide very interesting data. As well, none of the studies already done on offshore wind “farms” are likely to deal with freshwater, and the attendant problems such as ice.

This week, the Canadian Physicians for the Environment or CAPE, put out an op-ed to Ontario newspapers, saying they want Canada to not lose opportunities for jobs in clean energy technology, and that “far” offshore wind power development should be explored.

Wind Concerns Ontario was quick to point out two things: first, the push for “far” offshore wind power development is an admission that there are serious problems with onshore wind power development, and second, there still have been no studies done on a cost-benefit analysis, an options analysis, or a true, comprehensive impact analysis for wind power development.

Here is the story from today’s London Free Press on the “far” offshore idea.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Ontario seeking bids for offshore turbine noise study

08 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

Just prior to the 2011 Ontario election, the Dalton McGuinty government announced a “moratorium” on offshore wind development. It was widely thought this move was to stave off any criticism (and lost votes) from Toronto, the Ontario Liberal stronghold, as there was significant opposition to a project proposed off the Scarborough area, where lake views are prized.

Now, it’s 2014, and the Liberals have a majority and four years ahead in power.

Last Friday, a request for proposal for a noise impact study for offshore wind “farms” was posted on MERX here.

Details here:

echnical Evaluation to Predict Offshore Wind Farm Noise Impacts in Ontario

Detailed Description
This Request for Proposals is an invitation to prospective proponents to submit proposals for the Technical Evaluation of Sound Propagation Modelling Methodologies to Predict Offshore Wind Farm Noise Impacts in Ontario.

Scope of Work
The Preferred Proponent will be required to conduct a technical evaluation of sound propagation modelling methodologies to predict Offshore Wind Farm noise impacts in Ontario (the “Study”), and create a report about the Study to the satisfaction of and for approval by the Ministry (the “Study Report”). The scope of work to be performed by the Preferred Proponent includes:

(i) Conducting a literature review and consulting technical and government specialists;

(ii) Preparing and submitting the Study Report based on the literature review and consultation;

(iii) Providing the chapters of the Study Report to the Ministry in draft form for review, comment and approval by the Ministry, and revising the chapters and final Study Report to the satisfaction of the Ministry; and,

(iv) Participating in kick-off meeting/teleconference and periodic teleconferences with Ministry staff as required.

Field measurements, validation testing and/or the purchase of Offshore Models are outside the scope of this study.

 

Note that this is essentially a literature review and actual noise measurement is “outside the scope”; we expect that the wind industry lobby will contribute heavily to this “study.”

Offshore wind power generation projects have been proposed for several areas in Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron. Concerns about such development range from worries about noise (turbine noise produced at Wolfe Island is experienced across the water in New York State), damage to the lake beds, especially Erie, where the toxic substances have settled, and for property values of adjacent properties.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

 

Chatham-Kent airport turbines still not removed: company fighting Transport Canada order

03 Wednesday Sep 2014

Posted by in Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Turbines near Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport (Photo by Trevor Thompson)

Blackburn News, September 2, 2014

Photo: Trevor Thompson

An appeal to an order to have wind turbines removed at the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport continues to move through the federal process.

Renewable Energy company GDF Suez is arguing that the turbines don’t pose any danger to incoming or outgoing aircraft. But Transport Canada disagrees, and has ordered them removed by the end of the year.

According to a Transport Canada email sent to BlackburnNews.com, a board is being formed to review the company’s appeal and hear the government’s reasoning for the removal order.

The government says the board will be made up of one or more impartial representatives. There’s no word on when the board will be formed or when the hearing will take place.

Read the full story and comments here.

Editor’s note: GDF Suez is headed by Mike Crawley, former president of the Ontario Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party of Canada. Anyone who saw the documentary Down Wind is aware of Mr Crawley’s success in reaping millions of dollars worth of wind power contracts from the ONtario government.

Ontario doesn’t need more wind power: WCO

01 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy

≈ Leave a comment

ONTARIO DOESN’T NEED MORE POWER SAYS WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO

Large Renewable Procurement means higher electricity bills for consumers

September 1, 2014, Toronto— Ontario’s new Large Renewable Procurement process aims to add more expensive, intermittent wind power to Ontario’s power capacity at a time when Ontario doesn’t need the power, and can’t afford new generation, says Wind Concerns Ontario.

In comments made to the Ontario Power Authority on the draft new procurement process for “renewables” such as wind and solar, the advocacy organization said it cannot understand why suppliers for more power are being sought at this time.

“Ontario lost more than $1.5 billion last year because we had power being produced at the wrong time of day for people to use it,” says president Jane Wilson. “We had to sell it off to other jurisdictions like neighbouring U.S. States at bargain-basement prices. And now, we ‘re looking for more? It doesn’t make sense.”

Adding more renewables to the mix will increase electricity bills for Ontario’s already strapped consumers. “I am very concerned about energy poverty,” Wilson, a registered nurse, says. “We are hearing from young people and seniors who say they have reached or exceeded their limits and just can’t pay any more. Why is Ontario scaling back on cheap hydro power, and looking to buy more expensive wind?”

Wind Concerns Ontario also noted concerns about the approval process for wind power projects. At present 85 municipalities in Ontario have declared themselves to be unwilling hosts to the wind power plants, which can reduce property values, diminish attractiveness for tourists, and produce noise and vibration that disturbs sleep and affects health for some residents. Seven projects have been approved since the June election, Wind Concerns says. The cost of those projects works out to $135.7 million a year or $2.7 billion over the life of the 20 year contracts, or an additional $28.28 per household every year.

“Kathleen Wynne, Bob Chiarelli and their government keep saying that they are not going to ‘force’ wind power projects on communities,” Wilson says, “but just last week they approved a huge power project at Plympton-Wyoming in Lambton County—that community has been very clear about its wishes. This new process fails to define what community approval means. Our communities need to know that, now.”

Wind Concerns commented on other issues with the Ontario Power Authority such as a need for power developer to disclose all the impacts of a proposed project to local governments, for their sales staff to adhere to a code of practice, and for wind power contracts to contain measures that allow landowners to change their minds about having turbines on their property.

Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of community groups and individuals concerned about the potential impact of large-scale wind power generation projects on the economy, on the natural environment and wildlife, and on human health.

Read the full Wind Concerns Ontario comment to the Ontario Power Authority on the new Large Renewable Procurement process here: Aug23Input into Large Renewable Procurement RFP Framework

Parker Gallant on Hydro One: use less, pay more

01 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario

What Hydro One is doing to over a million ratepayers is a shame

People who know me know it’s like Christmas for me when the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) posts the Yearbook of Distributors and it’s true, the data is a big gift!  You can imagine how a banker might react when confronted with the details the OEB releases.  It gets better when you look at it in detail.

Here is my take on the information as it relates to Hydro One, only one of Ontario’s 73 LDCs (local distribution companies). Hydro One is a monopoly that services 1,221,100 customers (according to the Yearbook) in Ontario, and has exclusive rights to the transmission of energy generation.  Caution some of the fact that follow may disturb some readers.

  • Total Hydro One full-time employees as at December 31, 2013 was 5,641, plus what are referred to as “non-regular” employees numbering 2,109.  In 2002 Hydro One had 3,933 regular employees, so full-time employees have grown by 1,708 (up 43.4%).
  • In 2002, Hydro One had 1,219,614 customers; at year-end December 31, 2013, they reported 1,221,100 customers but they apparently needed 1,708 additional full-time employees to service those additional 1,486 customers.   (The number of “non-regular” employees for 2002 was not available.)
  • Total “Purchased Power” by the 73 local distribution companies in 2013 was 125,306 million kWh and by Hydro One was 25,829 million, or 20.6% of the total. Yet Hydro One services 24.7% of all Ontario ratepayers.
  • The average OMA (operations, management and administration) costs for the 73 local distribution companies was $325.00 per ratepayer, but for Hydro One’s customers it was $495.60—that’s $170.60 more, or 52.5% higher.
  • If one removes the hard data for Hydro One and calculates the OMA for 2013 for the 72 LDCs the average comes to $269,  meaning Hydro One’s OMA is 84.8% higher. For 2012 it was only (I use the term lightly) 65.4% higher.
  • Gross Income (net of Power Purchased) was $3.418 billion for all 73 local distribution companies but for Hydro One it was $1,323 billion or 38.7% of all the Gross Revenue from those 24.7% of ratepayers.
  • Net Income, after PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) was $624.6 million for the 73 local distribution companies and $258.3 million for Hydro One—that represents 41.3% of Net Income for only 24.7 of all ratepayers.
  • Average monthly kWh (kilowatt hours) consumed per customer was 2,112 for all customers of the 73 local distribution companies, but only 1,764 kWh for Hydro One’s customers. That means Hydro One’s customers consume 16.5% less kWh. But… (see the next bullet for the other shoe to drop).
  • Average Power & Distribution Revenue less Cost of Power & Related Costs per customer annually for all customers for the73 local distribution customers was $691.35; for Hydro One (24.7% of all ratepayers) it was $1,084.10— a difference of $392.75 or 56.8% higher for Hydro One ratepayers.
  • Average Power & Distribution Revenue less Cost of Power & Related Costs per total kWh purchased for all 73 local distribution companies was 0.027 cents/kWh; for Hydro One customers it was 0.051 cents/kWh, a difference of 0.024 cents or about 89% higher.
  • Line losses, which we are all billed for, vary and those averaged 4.1% for all 73 local distribution companies; but for Hydro One they amounted to 6.8% or 69.5% more.
  • If one adds the 900 employees Hydro One outsourced in 2002 to Inergi to for their customer service/billing process to the 3,291 reported to be employed in their LDC unit, and then add that number to the 10,022 employees all 73 LDCs reported, Hydro One employees represent 38.4% of all LDC employees, while servicing only 24.7% of all ratepayers.
  • If one calculates the number of customers per employee of the foregoing it works out to 2,914 customers per Hydro One employee and 5,532 for the other 72 LDCs. In other words, employees of the other LDCs support 2,616 more ratepayers per employee compared to Hydro One.
  • Why are Hydro One employees paid more on average if they service 47.3 % fewer ratepayers?

There are a lot more damning statistics that even a mediocre mathematician could use to demonstrate how Hydro One is the least efficient of the 73 LDCs. I believe it is obvious that there are standards applied to municipally owned LDCs that simply do not apply to Hydro One.  They are given carte blanche by the regulator, the OEB,  to run roughshod over 24.7% of all of the ratepayers of the province without consequences.

The Ontario Ombudsman’s report, expected in the fall of 2014, will highlight the mess of Hydro One’s billing system; what will the Ontario Liberal Government do to correct the blatant mistreatment of over a million ratepayers by Hydro One?

©Parker Gallant

August 27, 2014

The views expressed here are those of the author.

MP Cheryl Gallant calls for smart meter investigation

01 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

For Immediate Release
August 29, 2014.

MP Gallant Investigates Hydro One Smart Meters

Ottawa, Ontario… Cheryl Gallant, MP recently met with Industry Canada officials regarding the controversial Ontario Hydro One “smart meter” program. The meeting was a result of an investigation that was requested by the Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke MP due to the thousands of complaints she has received about Hydro One. While the regulation of electricity is a provincial responsibility, measuring devices like electricity meters falls under Federal jurisdiction.

“When I started my investigation into Hydro One so-called smart meters after receiving thousands of complaints from electricity customers, the Saskatchewan smart meter fires that prompted calls to remove all installed meters in that Province were not yet in the media,” observed Cheryl Gallant, MP. “While our Federal Minister of Industry was already working with me in my investigation, the observation that other jurisdictions were experiencing problems with the new electricity meters added a sense of urgency to my investigation,” remarked MP Gallant. “The odd fact about the billing problems and smart meters at Hydro One, is that they seemed to be confined only to the Ontario Provincial Crown Corporation. Ottawa River Power Solutions, one of our locally-controlled electricity distribution companies, verified that in 10 years, they received no complaints about their smart meters.”

“Measurement Canada, the Federal Agency at the Department of Industry tasked with the responsibility to regulate metering devices, confirmed for me the problem is not with individual electricity meters when they are received from the manufacturer for certification. Laboratory tests confirm this. That means the problem is with Hydro One. “Whether it’s corruption of data between meters and the billing department, erroneous estimates where connectivity does not exist, gross incompetency or something else on the part of the provincial government, this merits further investigation.”

“Measurement Canada also confirmed to me its interest is seeing full disclosure on an individual’s Hydro One bill. Of particular note is the charge for “line loss.” It is not clear what the “line loss” or “delivery” charge on someone’s bill is actually for. Actual line loss is an easy calculation. Hydro One and the provincial government have made the calculation so convoluted, this needs an independent investigation. This is all about fairness. Not considered a tax, electrical use increases hurt more than a tax hike because at the end of the day you have less money in your pocket for food, rent, heat mortgage payments and other necessities of life,” concluded Cheryl Gallant, MP.
-30-
For more information contact MP Cheryl Gallant at 613-732-4404

Editor’s note: Cheryl Gallant is a Conservative Party of Canada MP

Read the full story here.

Citizen opposition to wind farms results in ratepayer savings

25 Monday Aug 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Here is a comment from Ottawa economist Robert Lyman, who is reflecting on a recent post by energy blogger Scott Luft.

Luft believes that citizen opposition to giant wind power projects has resulted in substantial savings for Ontario.

I thought I might extract a few of the more salient points that would be of interest to Wind Concerns Ontario.
The article is intended as a status report on industrial wind in Ontario, measured three years after the last batch of feed-in tariff contracts were awarded.  Three years ago, the contracted capacity from wind generators increased from around 4000 MW to around 5800 MW, according to the Ontario Power Authority (OPA). The OPA showed 1958 MW “in service” in 2011.
The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), in contrast, currently reports that “installed generation capacity” for wind is 1824 MW, well below the OPA’s figure for 30 months ago. The discrepancy between the two agencies is unexplained. Scott Luft’s interpretation is that actual generation from wind sites has been only about 12.5 % of the grid-connected wind sites. He also estimates, based on OPA data, that Ontario currently has about 2800 MW of generation capacity from industrial wind turbine generators. This is less than half the capacity that was contracted for three years ago.
He believes that the delays in construction of the contracted capacity is clearly the result of “rural NIMBYism”; in other words, the strong efforts of rural communities to push back against wind developers.
How much has this saved Ontario ratepayers?
The feed-in tariff contracts were to pay $135 per MWh. At 2850 MW, a delay of one year in construction pushes back about $1 billion in contract payments. However, the savings to be realized from wind opposition go further. Contracting, which was planned to go to about 8000 MW of capacity, was curtailed below 6000 MW three years ago, and the 2013 Long Term Energy Plan rolled back wind plans by an additional 1200 MW. The deferral on contracting 2000 MW of wind for three years is worth about $2.5 billion, and cancelling 1200 MW altogether could be worth another $8.5 billion over the 20 years of the contract term.

North Gower resident report on K2 wind project

25 Monday Aug 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

A resident of North Gower recently visited Huron County, where the K2 wind power project is under construction by a consortium of Samsung, Pattern Energy, and Capital Power. The 270-megawatt 140-turbine power project is located in the Township of Ashfrield-Colborne-Wawanosh.

Billed as “one of Ontario’s most promising renewable energy facilities,” the project was the subject of an appeal (dismissed) and is now being appealed by local residents who are asking for a stay of construction.

Here is what our citizen reporter said:

I just returned from Huron Co from vacation next to the K2 plant which is well into construction. All dire predictions of construction problems have occurred, the concession roads in Ashfield are taking such a pounding from heavy trucks that the $15 m paid to the township won’t begin to replace the damaged roads. While last year no one would talk of wind turbines, this year they will talk of little else; over 85% of residents now are against K2. Very frustrating as it seems people have to experience the degradation to the community before they will pay attention. If such pressure had been applied to the council earlier, perhaps something could have been done. But, maybe not as some of the sitting members have signed on as leasees with Capital-Samsung, in an unbelievable conflict of interest.
Further south at Grand Bend the council is at least appealing a wind plant, probably with no effect but they are trying.
All the more reason to alert residents here of what will occur if a go ahead is ever given to the local wind plant. It will not be pretty to put it mildly, and the wind company will act immediately to expedite the project. By then it will be too late.
Despite being warned about the potential for problems with water (the water table is 12 inches from the surface), Samsung-Pattern-Capital proceeded with the wind project, with the approval of the Ontario government. Almost immediately after construction began, land was flooded and as far as we know, water continues to be pumped and trucked away from the project.