Tag Archives: CanWEA

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

Wrong, wrong, wrong

27 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The Times

Wrong to assume

Blanding-SmallThe Prince Edward County Field Naturalists are wrong. Ontario Nature. Nature Canada. Both wrong. Dr. Robert McMurtry is wrong. The South Shore Conservancy is wrong. So too is the Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory. Alvar, bird, butterfly, turtle and bat experts are all wrong. The municipality of Prince Edward is wrong. As are the majority of County residents who believed Crown Land at Ostrander Point should be preserved—rather than industrialized for the profit of one corporation.

And now we have learned that Ontario’s own Environmental Review Tribunal is wrong. A Toronto court has said so. This ought to keep Premier Kathleen Wynne up at night.

The Tribunal’s Robert Wright and Heather Gibbs spent more than 40 days hearing evidence, challenging testimony and witnesses and weighing competing claims. They began their task in a snowstorm in February; and delivered their decision on a hot July day last summer. Wright and Gibbs visited Ostrander Point. They walked around. They saw, with their own eyes, what was at stake.

They dug deep into the evidence. They weren’t satisfied that the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) had sufficiently scrutinized the developer’s plans before issuing it a permit to “harm, harass and kill” endangered species, including the Blanding’s turtle.

They discovered that mitigation measures proposed by the developer to ensure overall benefit to the species were untested and worse, according to evidence presented before them—unlikely to work, particularly for the population at Ostrander Point.

However, the Toronto court ruled that Wright and Gibbs should have given the MNR the benefit of doubt.

“In my view, the Tribunal ought to have assumed that the MNR would properly and adequately monitor compliance with the ESA (Endangered Species Act) permit,” wrote Justice Ian Nordheimer in the decision.

But Wright and Gibbs, after listening to 40 days of testimony and examining nearly 200 documents entered into evidence, concluded they could not make that assumption.

The Tribunal’s error was that it didn’t believe the MNR would adequately look out for the Blanding’s turtle.

Wright and Gibbs had gone backward and forward through the proposals prepared and submitted by the developer and accepted by the MNR. They concluded the “Blanding’s turtle at Ostrander Point Crown Land Block will not be effectively mitigated by the conditions of the REA [Renewable Energy Approval].”

The court didn’t say Wright and Gibbs were wrong about their conclusions, but that they should have “accepted the ESA permit at face value” or explained better why their conclusions were different than the MNR.

“The Tribunal was obliged to explain how the fact that the MNR had concluded under the ESA that the project would lead to an overall benefit to Blanding’s turtle (notwithstanding the harm that would arise from the project) could mesh with its conclusion that the project would cause irreversible harm to the same species,” wrote Justice Nordheimer.

This is the bit that ought to send a cold shiver through Premier Wynne and anyone else who is worries about the welfare of endangered species in this province.

Read the full article here.

Court decision: you can sue a wind power developer!

23 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

A decision came down from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice last evening, which at first seems like a defeat for communities and people who suddenly find themselves predated upon by huge, subsidy-seeking wind power developers. The decision read that the plaintiffs in a legal action based on lost property values would not be able to proceed with their action.

Right now.

But if the project is approved by the Ontario government, that would be another story.

Also in the decision were remarks that the Court accepted evidence on property value loss–in the area of 22-50%– and also evidence from Dr Robert McMurtry on the potential for health effects.

This is a very significant event and marks a sea change for people and communities wishing to have some say in what goes on around them. As you know, local land use planning powers were removed for renewable energy projects by the Green Energy Act. What’s worse, as municipalities seek ways to get some form of control back, wind power developers are responding with punitive lawsuits (Thunder Bay, Wainfleet, Bluewater).

The news release on the court decision is here. As soon as we find a link to the full decision, we’ll get that for you too.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1151369/ontario-court-allows-lawsuits-against-wind-company-and-landowners-just-a-matter-of-time

Donations welcome to cover legal fees (yes, we have one on retainer and yes, we’re thinking ahead) and other expenses: PO Box 3, North Gower On  K0A 2T0

 

Prowind’s North American corporate headquarters

18 Thursday Apr 2013

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

We have a treat for you today, a photo of Prowind’s Head Office in Hamilton. You may recall the original office was inside a building in Kemptville Ontario, where there was also a make-your-own-wine-and beer business. Well, now that Prowind (really headquartered in Germany) is consorting with the likes of EDP, GE and Boralex, they have come up in the world, and need to be closer to their huge projects in the Woodstock area.

The Hamilton office suite is also more convenient for President Jeffrey Segal. Mr Segal, by the way, once claimed that he lives near a turbine; on further questioning, it was revealed that he meant he lives in Toronto and has seen the Exhibition Place demonstration (joke) turbine. But he is experiencing no health effects or property value loss, and so far, all the non-participating receptors (they used to be called ‘neighbours’) are OK, too.

But we digress.

Here for your viewing pleasure, is a photo of the Prowind office location. Bear in mind that this is a company that is supposed to be preparing high-level engineering reports to attest to compliance with noise regulations and safety requirements, that will be assuring no impact on human health or the natural environment, and that assures municipalities there will be economic benefits.

They do it all from here:

Prowind HQ-Hamilton

Yup.

No sign of the dumpster into which all the letters from concerned citizens must go, but it’s probably there somewhere.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com and Follow us on Twitter at northgowerwind

Support for Bill 39 Affordable Energy Act

18 Thursday Apr 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Energy economist Robert Lyman has provided us a copy of his letter to MPP Lisa MacLeod in support of Bill 39 for the Affordable Energy Act, which will be read today. The wind power corporate lobby group has been working hard to oppose this bill, which would see cancellation of the Feed In Tariff subsidy which is bankrupting Ontario and providing huge subsidies to wind power developers, return of local land use planning control for renewable energy projects, and the requirement that wind power projects provide power at competitive prices.

His rationale is worth reading.

Ms Macleod,

I am writing with respect to Huron-Bruce MPP’s proposed Bill 39, the Affordable Energy Act, which I understand will receive second reading in the Ontario legislature today. As you know, the bill would authorize the return to municipalities of local land use planning control for renewable energy projects. It would also require that that proposed wind power projects supply power at a price competitive with other sources of power. I appreciate that is is very difficult to obtain legislative approval for Private Members’ Bills, but I think the committee meeting on this subject is an appropriate time to raise the awareness of the legislature and perhaps the media concerning the major problems associated with the Green Energy Act.
Here are a few points you may wish to bear in mind.
The current FIT subsidy for on-shore wind turbines of 13.5 cents per kWh. One should note the comments and findings in Chapter 3 of the Auditor General of Ontario’s 2011 Annual Report ( My personal comments are in brackets):
– “Many other jurisdictions set lower FIT prices than Ontario and have the mechanisms to limit the total costs arising from FIT programs”.
– “Ontario’s FIT prices were originally designed with the intention of allowing a reasonable rate of return, defined as 11% after-tax return on equity.” (In today’s market, even the riskiest of investments don’t get an 11 % rate of return; the FIT prices, in contrast, are guaranteed for the twenty-year life of the contract. There is no risk at all.)
– “There was minimal documentation to support how FIT prices were calculated to achieve the targeted return on equity, because of the numerous changes in the financial model and assumptions made by the Ontario Power Authority”. (The method of determining the FIT prices was, and remains, obscure.)
– “There has been a lack of independent oversight on the reasonableness of FIT prices. Although the OEB has historically been mandated to oversee and approve electricity prices, it has no role or legislative responsibility to review or approve FIT prices.”
– “”The internal rates of return offered to the developers in Germany and Spain varied depending on market risks and ranged from just 5% to 7% in Germany to between 7% and 10% in Spain. When Ontario’s FIT prices were first developed in spring 2009, they were already higher than those in Germany and Spain, which have both significantly dropped their FOIT prices since then due to lower component costs arising from technological advances”
– (Ontario’s FIT price for onshore wind installations is higher that that in Michigan, Wisconsin, Denmark, Germany, Spain and South Korea. Only in Vermont and Washington are FIT prices higher.)
I would add that, of all the various elements of the Green Energy Act, the withdrawal of authority from municipalities to exercise land use planning control over the construction of renewable energy installations is probably the most egregious. It is an affront to democracy that the governments most closely associated with the affects these installations have lost their ability to protect the public.
Bob Lyman
Nepean
********
Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
Donations welcome at PO Box 3 North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

Medical Officer of Health: NO studies showed NO association

22 Friday Feb 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

We are reminded today of the “health” study–really just a review paper–sponsored by the wind power corporate lobby group CanWEA, which concluded that not only was there any proof of any association between industrial wind turbine noise (the word infrasound was not uttered in those days) and health impacts, in fact, the research team said, there is so little evidence of anything that we recommend no more money be spent on research. At all.

Appalling in the world of scientific research, to make a statement like that.

Now today, Grey Bruce Medical Officer of Health Hazel Lynn and colleague Dr Ian Arra, released the results of their own review and said, there are NO studies in the world that prove there is NO association at all between turbine noise and health impacts. In other words, the studies that CanWEA loves to trot out saying they are proof of no problems at all, are not valid.

At present, Dr Lynn and Arra said, the associations are weak, but not absent, and more research is needed they concluded.

Meanwhile, the wind power lobby group and corporations go around telling people that anyone complaining about wind turbine noise and health effects needs some kind of therapy, or an injection in their wallet–if either one of these things happens, their health problems will go away.

In the Ontario Farmer recently, farm owner Harvey Wrightman of Adelaide-Metcalfe, quoted Dr Michael Nissenbaum (whose study of turbine noise at Mars Hill indicated health effects as far away as three MILES): “If someone came into a doctor’s office and said they have chest pain and the physician said, ‘It’s all in your head,’ without investigating, that would be malpractice. It’s the same thing if patients are complaining of sleep disturbances and other ill effects, and off the top of your head you claim they’re making it up and it’s about the way the turbines look, especially when there’s a known, plausible mechanism for why people could be affected. There’s nothing magical about the effect that people are sleeping poorly due to the noise. There’s nothing difficult to understand or fantastical.”

“This whole issue has always been about ethics,” Wrightman continues, “and what the application of the practical limits are of harm, i.e., what you can reasonably accept in the way of harm of the rural population….Why are there increasing reports of vertigo and nausea with the latest projects?

“The first step to getting those answers is a moratorium on construction of projects. That would be a real show of understanding and respect for rural Ontario.”

We would add that there is more than ethics at play here, we would suggest that at this point, if the government has the slightest clue what it is doing could be wrong and could be harming people, there will be legal liability. The wind power companies, too. And the people who have leased their land for the turbines without thought for their neighbours and communities.

 

Contact us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Polls: what fun they are

20 Wednesday Feb 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Oraclepoll Research Limited has just released the “Ontario Omnibus Survey” 2013 (well, it says 2012, but the survey was done this past January) which was commissioned by the wind power developer lobby organization, CanWEA or the Canadian Wind Energy Association. The company surveyed 1,000 people by telephone—that figure represents one out of 9,000 electors in Ontario.

Last year’s survey entertained very different questions and statements, including “Wind energy is one of the safest forms of electricity generation compared to other sources (nuclear and coal).” Agree, neither agree nor disagree, or Disagree. The response was that 78% agreed! 79% in Toronto!

This year’s statement–what the company reported on, anyway–was “Ontario should continue to strive to be a Canadian leader in wind and solar energy [sic]* production.” Agree, neither agree nor disagree or Disagree.

69% agreed!!! 76% in Toronto!!Where there will never be a wind turbine or wind power plant!

Oraclepoll also asked people to rank their preference in power generation: solar, wind, natural gas, hydro, or nuclear. Solar came out on top followed by wind. Now, we know this is no choice at all because when you choose wind as your source of power, you are actually choosing gas, because intermittent wind power needs back-up from something during peak periods of demand…and right now, that’s gas.

We are reminded of an episode of Yes Prime Minister which takes a look at how polls are crafted; the word choice in questions or statements is critical to the outcome of the polls. You may wish to take a short two-minute humour break and view the video, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

With that in mind, here are the statements we’d like to have seen:

Are you concerned about rising power bills in Ontario?

Are you concerned about the effects on small and medium business of higher electricity bills?

Are you worried about the potential for job losses as small and medium business cope with higher power bills?

Are you concerned about higher food prices as a result of higher power costs to local farmers?

Are you concerned about the subsidies given to wind power developers which can be as much as $500,000 per wind turbine, per year?

Are you aware of the health problems being reported in Ontario due to exposure to noise and vibration from wind turbines?

Are you aware of the damage to the environment from large-scale wind turbines, including the killing of birds and other wildlife?

Do you think Ontario should approve hundreds more large-scale wind power generation facilities?

Think the poll might have come out differently with those introductory questions?

Here is a link to the latest CanWEA-sponsored poll.

http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/Canwea-Ontario-Omnibus-Report_Feb2013_Q2_and_Q3.pdf

*Energy is what is used to produce power.

Pro-wind group claims they are on the “right” side of history

15 Friday Feb 2013

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Friends of Wind, a wind biz lobby group funded organization, has been lauded by CanWEA’s VP of Communications Chris Forrest as being on the “right” side of history, in the fight against the “devastating” effects of the use of fossil fuels for power.

Applauding the volunteer efforts of its members, Forrest claims that while others languish, these solid citizens are spending volunteer hours working hard to get their message out. http://friendsofwind.ca/here-on-the-right-side-of-history/

So are we, Mr Forrest, so are we.

There are legions of people in Ontario–doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, safety experts, acousticians, and others from all spheres–who are working tirelessly to protect the health and safety of people in this province, to say nothing of Ontario’s natural environment and word-renowned beautiful landscapes.

We believe that sources of power ought to be safe for everyone, not benefit just a few. We believe that the Ontario government’s green energy program ought to have been based on a proper cost-benefit analysis–it wasn’t (the Auditor-General says so). We believe the setbacks based on noise modelling ought to have been based on science–they weren’t. And as a result, hundreds of people across Ontario are now ill from exposure to the environmental noise and vibration produced by these huge power plants.

What does the wind industry say about the people reporting ill health effects? It’s all in their heads, they could benefit from therapy, if they got a bit of money their objections would go away … etc etc. This is just like the tobacco industry which maintained for years that not only were cigarettes not harmful, they were actually good for you.

We know who was on the “right” side of history there.

The “right” side now, is the side that stands up for health, the environment, and change that truly benefits the economy of Ontario … not a rush toward invasive, low-benefit, intermittent and unreliable wind power that benefits a few at the expense of many.

Cancel the Feed In Tariff program, repeal the Green Energy Act, hold the wind power plants compliant to noise regulations, and compensate those who have lost their health and property values…these are the right things to do.

MP demands halt to local wind project, says science lacking in decision

12 Tuesday Feb 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Nepean-Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre rose in the House of Commons yesterday to present a petition to the House on behalf of residents of North Gower and Richmond (communities within the City of Ottawa) where a 20-megawatt wind power project is proposed.

Poilievre’s petition demands a halt to the wind power generation project until the results of the Health Canada study on noise and infrasound has been completed, anticipated for the end of 2014. “Decisions must be science-based,” he told the House.

He noted that Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq announced the revised study design February 10th.

Ottawa Wind Concerns is grateful for the MP’s support on this issue, and for bringing forward a solid foundation for the community’s concerns about this project, which will expose the people living in 450 homes to noise and vibration. In 2010, Rogers TV host Mark Sutcliffe asked then-company representative Bart Geleynse Jr whether the turbines in North Gower-Richmond area project would make noise. “Of course they will,” said Geleynse, “they’re power plants!”

Indeed.

And they don’t belong so close to families.

The wind power development lobby group CanWEA this week put out a news release saying that a survey showed 80% of the residents of Denmark questioned about wind power said they were not bothered by the wind turbines. In fact, 17% of the respondents said they were disturbed, with about 4% saying they were disturbed to a “major extent” and 5% “moderately” disturbed. In other words, almost 10% had their lives disrupted and their health affected by wind turbines.

“North Gower and Richmond are quiet communities that don’t deserve to be turned into a wind power factory,” says Jane Wilson, chair of Ottawa Wind Concerns. “The community doesn’t want this, our MP and MPP supports us and so do many on Council. It’s a completely inappropriate land use.”

Last year, MP Poilievre asked the Library of Parliament to look at the cost to taxpayers of the North Gower-Richmond power project, and discovered the cost in subsidies to ratepayers would be $4.8 million per year (a conservative estimate, we’re told).

In fact, subsidies to the wind power developers run $500,000 per turbine per year. Worse, Ontario doesn’t need any more power, and the intermittent nature of power produced by wind turbines is having a destabilizing effect on the grid, say Ontario’s electrical engineers, in their 2011 report.

The video of Pierre Poilievre’s statement in the House is here: http://www.pierremp.ca/petition-calls-for-a-moratorium-on-local-wind-project/

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@yahoo.ca