Tag Archives: wind farms environmental damage

David Suzuki: turbines OK at my place (except I don’t really live there)

03 Thursday Apr 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

David Suzuki says he’s OK with wind farm near his cabin

David Suzuki: Supporting wind power makes sense

by David Suzuki on Apr 1, 2014 at 4:07 pm

I have a cabin on Quadra Island off the British Columbia coast that’s as close to my heart as you can imagine. From my porch you can see clear across the waters of Georgia Strait to the snowy peaks of the rugged Coast Mountains. It’s one of the most beautiful views I have seen. And I would gladly share it with a wind farm.

Sometimes it seems I’m in the minority. Across Europe and North America, environmentalists and others are locking horns with the wind industry over farm locations. In Canada, opposition to wind installations has sprung up from Nova Scotia to Ontario to Alberta to B.C. In the U.K., more than 100 national and local groups, led by some of the country’s most prominent environmentalists, have argued wind power is inefficient, destroys the ambience of the countryside and makes little difference to carbon emissions. And in the U.S., the Cape Wind Project, which would site 130 turbines off the coast of affluent Cape Cod, Massachusetts, has come under fire from famous liberals, including John Kerry and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.
It’s time for some perspective. With the growing urgency of climate change, we can’t have it both ways. We can’t shout about the dangers of global warming and then turn around and shout even louder about the “dangers” of windmills. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges humanity will face this century. Confronting it will take a radical change in the way we produce and consume energy—another industrial revolution, this time for clean energy, conservation, and efficiency.
We’ve undergone such transformations before and we can again. But we must accept that all forms of energy have associated costs. Fossil fuels are limited in quantity, create vast amounts of pollution and contribute to climate change. Large-scale hydroelectric power floods valleys and destroys habitat. Nuclear power plants are expensive, create radioactive waste and take a long time to build.
Wind power also has its downsides. It’s highly visible and can kill birds. But any man-made structure (not to mention cars and house cats) can kill birds—houses, radio towers, skyscrapers. In Toronto alone, an estimated one million birds collide with the city’s buildings every year. In comparison, the risk to birds from well-sited wind farms is low. Even the U.K.’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says scientific evidence shows wind farms “have negligible impacts” on birds when they are appropriately located.
…

Read the full account here.

Rick Conroy on Amherst Island wind power project: the terrible prospect

01 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

There are very few independent newspapers left in Canada. Most are now part of chains, and as a result, their editorial content follows whatever line the ownership decrees. Here then is the refreshing view of wind power in Ontario from editor of The Wellington Times, the “must-read” tab in Prince Edward County.

The Times

Last defence

The channel that separates Amherst Island from Prince Edward County is scarcely two kilometres wide. The island itself is tiny—just 20 kilometres long and seven kilometres across at its widest point. It is likely that in some ancient past Prince Edward County and Amherst Island were connected.

Now these communities share a common threat—a threat to the birds that stopover on their way north and south. To the animals that live here and make this unique habitat their own. To a pastoral way of life. And to the very health and well-being of the folks who who call these island communities home.

Earlier this month, the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) deemed complete an application by a company controlled by Algonquin Power to construct as many as 37 industrial wind turbines on this small and fragile island. Thirty seven turbines. Each soaring more than 400 feet into the air— blades sweeping the sky over a span of 10,000 square metres (equal to two acres of sky for each turbine).

Once erected— there will be no escape. No place to avoid the unrelenting thrum or flicker from blades swooshing overhead. No safe passage for migrating birds seeking to avoid the treacherous minefield of turbines stretching across the island.

The playground for the only elementary school on the island lies within 550 metres of one of the proposed turbines. Hydro One won’t allow wind turbines that close to its transmission lines for fear of damage—but the Ontario government deems school children less valuable, it seems.

The simple truth is that it is impossible to cram 37 turbines onto this tiny island and avoid putting humans, animals and natural habitat at risk. It is why the developer, in a report prepared by a consultant on the threat posed by this project to more than 14 endangered or threatened species, stresses that it will work to minimize the impact of its project, but that its first obligation is to “ensure the commitments of the contract” and “ensure renewable energy is delivered to the province”. The developer has made it clear what its priorities are.

We know too, from experience in this community, what the province’s priorities are. The MOE and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is already running ahead to clear the regulatory path for the developer. Endangered species and human health concerns are merely check boxes on a form to be filled in.

Once the turbines are erected Amherst Island will be lost for at least a generation—disfigured and devastated for the duration of the developer’s guaranteed 20-year contract with the province. For species on the brink of survival, the damage may well be permanent.

Read the full article here.

Ostrander Point appeal: citizens vs government in court next week

17 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Final chapter

Fair-Fight

PECFN and APPEC are represented by Eric Gillespie and Natalie Smith. The MOE is represented by Sylvia Davis and Sarah Kronkamp. Gilead Power’s case will be argued by Doug Hamilton, Chris Wayland and Sam Rogers of Mc- Carthy Tetrault.

Ostrander Point victory to be tested in appeal court next week

There are many people will be nervously watching developments in a Toronto courtroom beginning next Tuesday. It is here that likely the last chapter of the industrial wind turbines on Ostrander Point is to be written.

HOW WE GOT HERE
In 2009, the Green Energy Act was made law. The sweeping legislation comprised an array of measures designed to ease the development of more renewable energy projects in the province. It reduced or eliminated regulations and processes used by its safeguarding agencies, including the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Energy Board. It replaced several regulatory appeals with one—the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Politicians, such as former MPP Leona Dombrowski, assured anxious rural Ontario residents, communities and their local leaders that the ERT, or Tribunal, would be independent, thorough and their conclusions would be final. Many residents were unsettled by the assurances—viewing the ERT as merely the last checkbox for a developer to tick before being released to plunder the provincial treasure and lay waste to the rural countryside. It was viewed as a cynical contrivance by a government fixated on seeing thousands of industrial wind turbines spinning in the provincial countryside. It would be Premier Dalton McGuinty’s legacy to Ontarians.

To ensure ERT adjudicators weren’t being led astray by sympathetic arguments by those defending their communities, livelihoods and natural environment, the Green Energy Act dictated that the legal test for the ERT would be impossibly high.

To be successful an appeal to this panel would have to prove “serious harm to human health” or in the case of birds, animals and their habitat the requirement is to prove “serious and irreversible harm.”

OSTRANDER POINT
Late in 2011 the Ministry of Environment issued a Renewable Energy Approval to Gilead Power Corporation, enabling it to proceed with its plan to erect nine industrial wind turbines, each soaring 423 feet into the flight path of the millions of birds that migrate through the region each spring and fall. It granted the approval on Crown Land—essentially industrializing a rugged and largely wild bit of the south shore of Prince Edward County.

Two appeals were made to the province’s ERT.

The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County presented witnesses who described the damaging effects of living near industrial wind turbines. They presented scientific and medical evidence to support their position that wind turbines were hurting Ontario residents and that no other project should be permitted until a thorough and independent study of the health effects was conducted and shown to be safe.

The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists presented expert evidence on the rare and sensitive alvar habitat at Ostrander Point. Evidence showed that a number of endangered species of birds and animals shared this unique ecosystem, and that tipping the balance to industrial development would put the survival of endangered species in peril.

Read the full article here.