Tag Archives: Canadian Wind Energy Association

Wind power on TVOntario: problems, social costs

27 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

March 27, 2015

TVOntario’s public affairs program, The Agenda with Steve Paikin, dealt with the controversy over the implementation of Ontario’s push for power generation from wind this week, with an edition of the show, followed by the debut of new documentary film Big Wind.

Ottawa Wind Concerns’ chairperson (and Wind Concerns Ontario president) Jane Wilson was a guest for the entire Agenda program, which is available online at http://tvo.org/video/211902/wind-power-wind-problems.

The documentary is also online at TVOntario’s website, at http://tvo.org/video/211702/big-wind

There are opportunities to comment at both links.

What the Health Canada noise study means for North Gower

29 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Health Canada study results show North Gower wind farm would have made more than 100 people sick

Many people were disappointed in the results contained in the summary of the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health study, which was released in a hurry on November 6th.

While the mainstream media picked up on the message as being “there is no association between wind turbine noise and health effects” what Health Canada actually said in its news release was this:

No evidence was found to support a link between exposure to wind turbine noise and any of the self-reported or measured health endpoints examined. However, the study did demonstrate a relationship between increasing levels of wind turbine noise and annoyance towards several features (including noise, vibration, shadow flicker, and the aircraft warning lights on top of the turbines) associated with wind turbines.

In fact, the study found that an average of 16.5% of people within 2 km of wind turbines, or a wind turbine (whether multiples were considered is not clear), had severe distress or “annoyance”. The closer people lived, the worse that result was: 25% of people at 550 meters or less (some people waived the setback as part of their contract with the wind power developers) had adverse health effects related to the distress or annoyance, annoyance being a medical term.

The adverse health effects from the annoyance listed by Health Canada were:migraine, tinnitus (chronic ringing in the ears), dizziness, sleep disturbance or disorder, and cardiovascular effects such as elevated blood pressure.

So, what would that mean for North Gower, if the wind power generation project proposed by Prowind in 2008 gone ahead (remember, it got as close as one could to a Feed In Tariff contract, before the government paused the subsidy program in the spring of 2013–it is NOT true that it would never have been approved, it was virtually there).

Thanks to volunteers who have mapped the area, using a schematic of the turbine locations which was leaked to us, we know this:

Number of homes within 800 meters of a turbine: 43

Number of homes within 1.6 km of a turbine: 234

TOTAL number of homes that would be most affected: 277

At an average of 2.5 people/home, that would be 692 people, and at an average of 16.5% affected by distress/annoyance, that would be 114 people.

This is considered to be a conservative figure as Health Canada did not do any follow up on the significant number of houses it discovered vacant or demolished in the study. These were “mature” turbine projects and as we know from the experience of people living in areas like Chatham-Kent, Clear Creek, Ripley and Kincardine, the people most affected leave within six months to a year.

114 people.

At least some of them children.

And yet the Ontario government continues to approve these power projects, despite evidence of harm to health, and the fact that Ontario does not need the power. And the wind power lobby group, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) persists in the mythology that wind power is clean and good for the environment.

Health Canada is taking no action, despite these results, and has no intention of studying wind turbine noise further*. The people of North Gower have a right to expect more from the federal government, and from Health Canada, which is supposed to used sound science principles to protect citizens.

Our Member of Parliament is Pierre Poilievre at pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca if you have any comments on what the Health Canada study means to you and our community.

Ottawa Wind Concerns

PO Box 3, North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

*As per a personal meeting with the study team representatives, Ottawa, November 7.

Canadian Nuclear Association: wind is not ‘green”

14 Tuesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Wind’s dirty little secret: fossil fuel back up essential

JOHN MINER | QMI AGENCY

October 13, 2014

LONDON, Ont. — I’m green, you’re not.The battle to be embraced as the best environmental choice for Ontario’s power supply is getting down and dirty.

Fed up with the wind-farm sector enjoying what it considers an undeserved reputation as a pristine energy supplier, Canada’s nuclear industry — it generates the lion’s share of electricity in Ontario — has launched a public relations assault against wind.

Both nuclear and wind are major players in the power mix of Southwestern Ontario, home to one of the world’s largest nuclear plants — Bruce Power, near Kincardine — and many of Ontario’s biggest wind farms.

“Wind power isn’t as clean as its supporters have claimed. It performs unreliably and needs backup from gas, which emits far more greenhouse gas than either wind or nuclear power,” said Dr. John Barrett, president and chief executive of the Canadian Nuclear Association, in an e-mail to QMI Agency.

The Canadian Nuclear Association hired Toronto-based Hatch Ltd., a global consulting and engineering firm, to compare wind farm and nuclear energy.

Hatch reviewed 246 studies, mostly from North America and Europe. Its 91-page report concludes wind energy over the lifetime of an installation produces slightly less greenhouse gas — implicated in climate change — than nuclear and both produce a lot less than gas-fired generating plants.

But Hatch says it’s an entirely different picture when wind energy’s reliance on other generating sources is considered.

The engineering firm calculates wind turbines only generate 20% of their electrical capacity because of down time when no wind blows.

When gas-fired generating stations are added into the equation to pick up the slack, nuclear produces much less greenhouse gases, the Hatch study concludes.

Its analysis is that for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced, nuclear power emits 18.5 grams of greenhouse gases. Wind backed by natural gas produces more than 20 times more — 385 grams per kilowatt hour.

The nuclear industry attack on wind might not be a welcome message for the Ontario Liberal government that has justified its multibillion-dollar investment in Southwestern Ontario wind farms on the basis it’s providing green energy.

But its a position that resonates with Ontario’s anti-wind farm movement.

“We share their concerns on this issue and have been speaking about this for years. We have taken advice from engineers in the power industry, who say that wind power cannot fulfill any of the environmental benefit promises made for it, because it needs fossil-fuel backup.,” said Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario.

On the other side of the debate, the Canadian Wind Energy Association said it has had an opportunity to review the Hatch study.

It said there’s no surprise that when wind and natural gas generation are paired that the mix creates more greenhouse gases than nuclear. But when wind is paired with other potential electricity suppliers, the results are different.

“Unfortunately, by choosing to focus on only one scenario, the study failed to consider a broad range of equally or more plausible scenarios for the evolution of Canada’s electricity grid,” the Canadian Wind Energy Association said.
WHERE ONTARIO’S POWER COMES FROM

For the year 2013:
Nuclear: 59.2%
Hydro: 23.4%
Gas: 11.1%
Wind: 3.4%
Coal: 2.1%
Other: 0.8%

For one minute in time:
(Oct. 13, 2014, 8 a.m.)
Nuclear: 65.8%
Hydro: 24.6%
Wind: 5.9%
Gas: 2.7%”

Source: Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator

Read the original article and reader comments here.

CanWEA execs venture down to Brinston wind ‘farm’

17 Thursday Jul 2014

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

 

 

Not from around here: just visiting for the brainwashing

The executives at the wind power developers’ lobby group, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, took a trip down the road from their offices on Carling Avenue in Ottawa to see the wind power project in Brinston, just south and east of Ottawa.

Here’s a report on the visit:

CanWEA Staff Tours South Branch Wind Farm

On June 25, several EDPR employees led a tour of the South Branch wind farm for staff members of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) , including CanWEA’s president, Robert Hornung, who had this to say about the visit: The siting characteristics of South Branch and how well the wind farm blends with the natural landscape are truly impressive, said Mr. Hornung. We were equally impressed by the care and attention that EDPR has taken in building a high level of enduring community acceptance. 
The tour of the wind farm, located near Brinston, Ontario, included stops in the O&M building as well as the inside of the base of a tower and the substation building. After an informative tour, CanWEA expressed interest in working with EDPR to improve its information packages for farmers.  Several CanWEA representatives also said they planned to stop by the upcoming South Branch Kid Wind Day, which will be held on Thursday, July 24, and attended by 150 kids.

The claim that EDP has “enduring community acceptance” would be laughable, were it not for the truth about this community: once the wind project was publicly announced by the original developer, Germany-based Prowind, the community became divided between the few farm owners leasing their land for turbines, and others in the community who had no choice but to watch this happen to them. A community group was organized and held several information meetings…but of course, with the Green Energy Act, there are no solutions through elected representatives. South Dundas Council voted on a resolution to say there would be no support for further wind power development as Ontario doesn’t need any more power generation.

The so-called South Branch Kid Wind Day is NOT for local families (hard for them to miss the huge, 3-megawatt turbines) but it will be for kids being bused in from elsewhere. The community has not even been informed of this PR event.

Of greater concern, though, is the news that an “information package” is being developed for farmers: this is being worked on because Eastern Ontario has a green light from the province for wind power development…it is rumoured that 5,000 more acres in North Dundas have been optioned for future wind power development.

Our question: will EDP and CanWEA provide full disclosure on noise, health problems, sleep disturbance, property value loss, and the potential for lawsuits from neighbouring landowners?

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

Electricity in Ontario: higher cost, lower reliability

26 Monday May 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Here from Ottawa-based energy economist Robert Lyman, a commentary on how Ontario’s electricity system has evolved. (You may also wish to read a letter in today’s Ottawa Citizen by wind industry lobby group the Canadian Wind Energy Association president Robert Hornung, who would have us believe wind power is the cheapest source of power available. )

For most of Ontario’s history, the official energy policy of successive provincial governments was generally the same. The Province sought to keep electricity prices as low as possible consistent with the goal of ensuring that Ontario consumers and industry had secure and reliable sources of supply. With the election of a Liberal government in 2003, the goal changed. Since then, the Government has raised electricity costs significantly, emphasizing reliance on expensive industrial wind turbines, solar plants and biomass for generation, and using higher rates to force consumers to cut back on their energy use.

The consequences of those policies have been a doubling of residential electricity rates and the ever-increasing share of renewable energy generation as part of the provincial electricity generation mix. According to data from the Ontario Power Authority, in 2014 biomass, industrial wind turbines and solar plants will provide about four per cent of Ontario electricity supply, but will cost consumers $1.933 billion dollars, or 17 per cent, of the total generation cost. The amount of renewable energy brought on line is expected to increase significantly by 2018, adding further to the costs.

The Ontario Long Term Energy Plan, published in December 2013, included a table projecting what this will mean for the average residential customer who consumes 800 KWh of electricity per month. Taking into account the costs of electricity generation, transmission, distribution, taxes and related regulatory charges, the average monthly bill will rise from $125 in 2013 to 181 in 2020, a 45 per cent increase. Large industrial users will see their rates rise from $79 per MWh in 2013 to $104 in 2020, a 32 per cent increase.

These increases do not take into the account the significant costs associated with having to provide significant back up capacity because the wind and solar plants are “intermittent” sources of supply. This means that they usually produce energy when it is not needed, and production from these plants cannot be varied to accommodate changes in demand.  Ontario generation capacity now exceeds demand, and the Green Energy and Economy Act requires that renewable energy sources be given preferential access to the provincial grid over lower cost conventional supplies. The increases in rates do not take account of the cost of curtailing operations at existing plants or of losses on export sales. In 2013 this was about $1 billion.

So, do Ontario residents at least get more secure electricity supplies as a result of all these increased costs? The answer lies in…

Please read the rest of Mr LYman’s article here: ONTARIO ELECTRICITY – High Prices, Low Reliability

Letter: ask questions about Gunn’s Hill (and Prowind)

06 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Here is a letter to the Editor from the current edition of the Norwich Gazette. This community is the location of Prowind’s ONLY active wind power development.

Letters to the Editor

Norwich Gazette

May 5, 2014

The public should be asking questions about the Gunn’s Hill wind project, and asking about the organization called The Oxford Community Energy Co-operative.

If the “community” in the project area wanted a co-operative why wouldn’t they create their own? Why are Prowind Canada, Ontario Sustainability Services (OSS), “Friends of Wind” (presumably funded by Canadian Wind Energy Association) and IPC Energy trying to push it into the community? Doesn’t this appear more like a mechanism for the developer to apply for the “co-operative” adder from the Ontario Power Authority (to make more money for the developer) rather than a true community initiative?

What is IPC Energy’s interest in this project? Will the project be changing ownership? Why would the Oxford Community Energy Co-operative’s (OCEC) corporate office address have been registered as the IPC Energy address in Mississauga, with IPC’s president being a director of the OCEC?

While Prowind stated in its Renewable Energy application documents its plans to be a “long-term presence and neighbour”, it already tried unsuccessfully to sell the Gunn’s Hill project to Boralex in 2013. Given that Prowind Canada has still not begun operating any projects in Canada, and their staff has been dwindling in number each year, why would there be any assurance that Prowind will be involved long-term? At what point will the project ownership change?

Ask about the provider, Prowind.

Why does Prowind claim employment opportunities will be offered to Six Nations workers in one section of their REA documents, while stating preference will be given to local community residents in another?

Why did Prowind claim the Talbot Wind Farm near Ridgetown was a “well planned project” without researching the impact on residents? Why have they not admitted that residents have had significant adverse impacts in this “well planned project”, including having to vacate their homes or sleep in their basements?

Take a look at a website we’ve been observing – http://www.windontario.ca. You already know the Norwich Township council has declared themselves to be an “unwilling host”.

Do you truly believe the Gunn’s Hill project will benefit the environment? Ontario’s coal-fired generating stations have already been shut down and we are exporting surplus electricity at a loss to other jurisdictions on a regular basis, with manufacturing industries closing down in Ontario.

The public should be asking the hard questions.

Gerald and Carol Engberts. RR4 Woodstock

Prowind's Head Office in Hamilton until 2013
Prowind’s Head Office in Hamilton until 2013

 

Editor note: Prowind is the Germany-based company that has proposed a wind power development for North Gower-Richmond until the Feed In Tariff subsidy process was put on hold in 2013; a new procurement process is slated to begin in the summer of 2014.

London School of Economics study finds property value loss near wind power

26 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Research in Ontario on values of properties neighbouring wind power projects show a a range of loss on the order of 20-48%, as has been reported here.

The London School of Economics is about to publish a study based on transaction for properties near 150 wind “farms” studied over a 12-year period, which finds significant value loss.

Property value loss has been a hot-button issue for the wind power lobby, probably because it is proveable, and is a negative side effect of wind power projects, which can be very invasive in communities. The study is a sharp contrast to studies done by Ben Hoen in the United States, usually at the behest of and with funding from the wind power lobby. Mr Hoen famously produced a study claiming to have looked at over 7,000 properties—that was roundly criticized by people who know something about real property (Sunak & Madlener, Wilson, more).

This is just a preliminary news story; we look forward to reading the whole study on its release.

Property value loss in North Gower due to the proximity of the huge wind turbines (over 500 feet in height) to 1,000 homes, is estimated to be $134 million.

Donations to help us with legal advice are welcome; send to PO Box 3, North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

Proof wind turbines take thousands off your home: Value of houses within 1.2 miles of large wind farms slashed by 11%, study finds

  • Study by LSE found value of homes close to wind farms slashed by 11%
  • Home that costs £250,000 would lose £27,000 in value
  • Homes as far at two-and-a-half miles away could be reduced by 3%

By Sanchez Manning

PUBLISHED: 23:59 GMT, 25 January 2014 | UPDATED: 15:45 GMT, 26 January 2014

The presence of wind turbines  near homes has wiped tens of thousands of pounds off their value, according to the first major study into the impact the eyesore structures have on house prices.

The study by the London School  of Economics (LSE) – which looked at more than a million sales of properties close to wind farm sites over a 12-year period – found that values of homes within 1.2  miles of large wind farms were being slashed by about 11 per cent.

This means that if such a wind farm were near an average house  in Britain, which now costs almost £250,000, it would lose more than £27,000 in value.

Homes located within 1.2miles of wind farms can decrease in value by up to 11 per cent, a study has discovered

+2

Homes located within 1.2miles of wind farms can decrease in value by up to 11 per cent, a study has discovered

In sought-after rural idylls where property prices are higher, the financial damage is even more substantial. In villages around one of Southern England’s largest onshore developments – Little Cheyne Court Wind Farm in Romney Marsh,  Kent, where homes can cost close to £1 million – house values could drop by more than £100,000.

The study further discovered that even a small wind farm that blighted views would hit house values.

Homes within half a mile of such visible turbines could be reduced in value by about seven per cent.

Even those in a two-and-a-half-mile radius experienced price reductions of around three per cent.

Homes within a two-and-a-half mile radius could see reductions of up to three per cent

+2

Homes within a two-and-a-half mile radius could see reductions of up to three per cent

The report’s author, Professor Steve Gibbons, said his research was the first strong evidence that wind farms are harmful to house prices.

MORE ‘GREEN C**P’ TO BE CUT AS CARBON TAX IS SLASHED

Green taxes are set to be frozen to reduce soaring energy bills.

Whitehall sources say the Government is preparing to put the brakes on the ‘carbon tax’ on greenhouse-gas emissions, with an announcement expected in the Budget in March.

Prime Minister David Cameron has reportedly instructed aides to ‘get rid of all this green c**p’ to reduce energy bills, which currently average £1,350 a year.

Prof Gibbons, director of the LSE’s Spatial Economics Research Centre, said: ‘Property prices are going up in places where they’re not visible and down in the places where they are.’

The study, which is still in draft form but is due to be published  next month, focused on 150 wind-farm sites across England and Wales. It compared house-price changes in areas that had wind farms, were about to see one built  or had seen one rejected by the  local authority.

Last night Chris-Heaton Harris, MP for Daventry, said: ‘There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence – especially in my constituency – of house-price reductions near wind turbines. The question is, will anybody be liable for these losses in future?’

And Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the LSE, said: ‘These results are not really surprising as it is already known that people place a value on countryside views.’

A Department for Energy and Climate Change spokesman said: ‘Developments will only get permission where impacts are acceptable.’

A spokesman for Renewables UK, which represents the wind industry, said: ‘We will be analysing the conclusions closely when the final report is issued.’