Tag Archives: wind power

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.

Wind power an issue in municipal election

06 Monday Oct 2014

Posted by in Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

ballot

Opposition to wind “farms” in Ontario is shaping up to be a key election issue with candidates expressing support for anti-wind farm community groups; in several cases, community leaders who have actively opposed wind farms or wind farm proposals locally are running for office.

The Wellington Times newspaper in Prince Edward County has published responses from local candidates on key issues, including this question: What is your position on wind energy projects in the County?

Of the 35 candidates for the office of Mayor and councilors in 10 wards, half the candidates responded that they would either “discourage wind developers but accept existing provincial rules” or “fight local wind projects along with local anti-turbine groups.” All three candidates for Mayor responded that they would actively fight the two proposed wind power projects (Prince Edward County has declared itself to be Not A Willing Host to large-scale wind power generation projects).

Six candidates for councilor said it was a provincial issue, and that the municipality had no control, while two said they would actively support wind power in Prince Edward County, because it would help with “climate change” and/or result on local benefits in terms of tax revenue and vibrancy funds.

The full comments and candidate profiles may be seen on The Wellington Times website atwww.pec2014acs.wordpress.com

In other areas, Shawn Drennan is running for Reeve in Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh; Louise Hall of Southgate Community Against Turbines is running for Council in Southgate; and incumbent councillors Heather Stauble(Kawartha Lakes) and Betty Konc (Wainfleet) have been outspoken in their support of their communities fighting wind power projects.

Who else is standing up for their communities vs Big Wind? Let us know: email windconcerns@gmail.com

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario

The collected wisdom of Energy Minister Chiarelli

29 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Minister Chiarelli: words of wisdom

Ummm...uhhhh...er... [The musings of Bob Chiarelli]
Ummm…uhhhh…er… [The musings of Bob Chiarelli]

In the approximately one and a half years that Bob Chiarelli has been Energy Minister, he has made many observations about the electricity sector in Ontario. I thought it might be amusing to see a collection of them, altogether.

  • When Minster Chiarelli announced the end of the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (January 1, 2015) he said: “The provincial government is trying to rejig hydro bills to ensure that customers aren’t hit with a sharp increase when the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit is phased out.”  And, “The plan was to also eliminate the debt retirement charge on hydro bills at the same time.”  The announcement of those simultaneous actions raised the average ratepayer bill by $100 annually but in Mr. Chiarelli’s wisdom that wasn’t a “sharp increase”!
  • Minister Chiarelli announced that “wind turbine developers” would be “paid to not produce power” and bragged it would save ratepayers $200 million annually!  He didn’t promise that rates would fall as a result of the savings, however, and he also failed to note that the money paid “to not produce power” would raise the per kWh cost of the actual power produced!
  • The Minister announced that the Samsung contract had been revised and would “save ratepayers money,”  $3.7 billion over the 20-year term.   Once again, no promise of rates falling, just that they wouldn’t increase as much as previously anticipated.
  • Minister Chiarelli told us that “over the next 20 years, rates would increase 3.4 % per year” (after the Samsung announcement) but this writer’s bill increased 9.1% in only one year, as have most ratepayers bills.  We are all looking forward to the 3.4% increase after 10 years of 10% increases.
  • Minister Chiarelli holds the record of the nine Liberal Ministers of Energy for issuing 22 “directives” to the OPA, surpassing Brad Duguid, the previous record holder at 19.  Apparently Liberal Energy Ministers know more than the “experts” running the electricity system!
  • The first directive issued by Minister Chiarelli on June 23, 2023 instructed the OPA to expand FIT and MicroFIT contracts; that was superseded by his most recent directive of August 29, 2014 telling them to scale back, even though they hadn’t achieved his original target.
  • Minister Chiarelli has been consistent in telling all Ontario ratepayers to “conserve” but he recently issued a new directive instructing the OPA to create a new program so large industrial companies would “consume more” at rates at a third of what the rest of us pay.
  • Minister Chiarelli referred to the cost of the gas plant move from Oakville as the “price of a Timmie’s coffee” and uses that analogy often when talking about increasing electricity rates.   Is this a new currency he plans on bringing in if he is appointed Finance Minister for the Province?
  • Minister Chiarelli in his “Minister’s Message” in his long-term energy plan, “Achieving Balance” says, “Ontario has adopted a policy of Conservation First,” and a chart in the plan “Forecast Energy Production (TWh) 2032” claims it willcontribute 30 TWh of energy efficiency by then.   I presume he noticed that 30 TWh of nothing won’t toast your bread!
  • The same Minister’s Message also says, “We will work with our agencies and the province’s local distribution companies to ensure they operate more efficiently and produce savings that will benefit Ontario’s ratepayers.”  Meanwhile, the largest and most costly large distributor in the province, Hydro One (owned by the province)is being investigated by Ontario’s Ombudsman for a billing system causing havoc for its 1.1 million ratepayers.  Ironically, the recent budget from Minister of Finance, Charles Sousa, talks about maximizing profits from it to increase revenues to help reduce the budget deficit.  That puts Minister Chiarelli in conflict with Minister Sousa!  Wonder who will win?
  • Minister Chiarelli wants us all to conserve but his “Achieving Balance” plan comes up short as it will actually increase emissions according to the Power Workers Union and the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers.  The Power Workers,  “the plan is short-sighted in its thinking, will leave the province vulnerable to supply shortages and willreverse the decline in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributed to the successful restart of units 1 and 2 at Bruce Power by relying significantly more on natural gas generation when the Pickering Nuclear Station closes.”
  • Minister Chiarelli in an interview had this to say about engagement with municipalities:  “Our government wants to ensure that future renewable energy projects will be built in the right place at the right time.”  So, municipalities can have their “say,” they just can’t say “no.”
  • Minister Chiarelli in the same interview was asked a question about the possibility of a moratorium on wind projects until the federal health study was complete. He said, “Dr. Arlene King [former Chief Medical Officer of Health] undertook a review of the potential health effects of wind turbines. Her 2010 report stated that there is no scientific evidence to date to support claims that wind turbine noise cause adverse health effects.”   We know Dr. King’s report was nothing more than a “literature review,” is contentious and outdated, but our Energy Minister pretends it is the last word.

This is a quick review of Minister Chiarelli’s management of the Ontario electricity sector, highlighting his contradictory views, his conflicts, his approach to the addition of wind turbines to Ontario’s energy sector and  their mediocre potential to contribute to Ontario’s electricity needs.   A deeper review of Chiarelli’s performance and that of his predecessors would have turn up more results and more of egregious statements.

What stands out is that the Ontario Liberal government has contrived to make Ontario the most expensive market for electricity in North America, a major factor in Ontario’s mediocre economic performance.

©Parker Gallant

September 29, 2014

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

Re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario

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.

Ontario energy ministers’ hydro rate forecasts off

20 Wednesday Aug 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Parker Gallant: Ontario’s energy ministers’ forecasts: don’t believe a word

Hydro One serves less than one-quarter Ontario customers, yet has more “costs”

In late 2009, with the advent of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, then Energy Minister George Smitherman proclaimed that electricity rates would only rise by 1% per year.  The 2010 Minister of Energy Brad Duguid launched his personal version of the Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP) and included a forecast that electricity rates would rise by an average of 7.9 %over the next three years.   In late 2013 Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli produced his LTEP. His forecast? Electricity rates would rise by 42% over the ensuing five years and by 33% over the next three.

George, Brad and Bob have a treat in store: the Ontario Energy Board’s 2013Yearbook of Distributors is now out, and actual results show that all their forecasts appear to have been grossly understated.

Comparing the “cost of power” (COP) for the year ended December 31, 2013 to that of 2012 shows the COP increased by over $1.6 billion (for less consumption) by Ontario’s ratepayers (not including Ontario’s large industrial users and exports) which translated to a 15% jump, well over forecasts of the past and present Energy Ministers.

$350 a year more to our bills

That $1.6 billion jump in the cost of power from 2012 to 2013 added about $350 annually to the typical ratepayers bill.

The Yearbook is a labyrinth of data to be mined for more interesting information.  For example, the OMA (operations, maintenance & administration) costs for 2013 increased by $97 million (6.4%) over 2012 for the 73 LDCs (local distribution company) reporting.  One could assume that the increase can be shared equally by all 73 LDCs, but no: $68 million or 69% of that increase came from Hydro One even though they only service 24.7% of Ontario’s ratepayers.

Looking back to the first Yearbook (2005 year end) and comparing average kilowatts (kWh) consumed per customer per month, you calculate that it has decreased by 11.2% from 2,378 kWh to 2,112 kWh.  At the same time Hydro One customers decreased their usage by only 5.6 % (104 kWh) but started at a much lower average level of consumption. This is surprising in that the OEB allows Hydro One to use a higher average consumption level when applying for a rate increase.  It may be a reflection on the inability of OEB staff to look at data in a different fashion instead of the “isolation” they appear to apply to each and every rate increase application.

In 2012 the OEB started collecting new data referred to as “Full-time Equivalent Number of Employees” (FTE) and if one totes up the numbers you find that the LDC sector had 10,022 FTEs at the 2013 year-end, of whom 3,291 (33%) are FTEs of Hydro One. Again, Hydro One serves just 24.7% of Ontario’s ratepayers.

Take those FTE numbers and use the data supplied in some of the other 102 Yearbook pages you can determine the average cost of each FTE  (adding up OMA costs for 2013, all staffing costs, and then dividing by the number of FTEs).  For 2013, if you deduct Hydro One’s OMA costs and FTEs you get  72 LDCs claimed costs at $1.001 billion and FTEs were 6,731 — so the “average” cost per FTE $148,760.  For Hydro One the OMA costs were $604.7 million for 3.291 employees making the “average” cost for a Hydro One FTE $183,744.  One has to ask, Are Hydro One workers worth the extra $35,000?

The other information that started appearing in the Yearbook a couple of years ago under “liabilities” was what is referred to as “Employee future benefits” (EFB) which one assumes is what the individual LDC has allocated towards pension and other retirement benefits.   For 2013 the EFB for the 72 LDCs (excluding Hydro One) was $468 million and if one simply divides that value by the FTEs (excluding Hydro One) you determine those EFBs average $69,529 per FTE or about $70,000 per employee to cover future pension and post retirement benefits.

Do that for Hydro One and you see they allocated $824 million (increased by $248 million, up 43% in just two years, from 2011) towards their EFBs.  Calculating what that is for each of their 3,291 employees you are better able to understand what the Leech Report highlighted about the unaffordability of the pensions and benefits at Hydro One, OPG, and the other electricity-related Crown corporations. Employees chip in $1 for every $4 of employer (in other words, you and me, the ratepayer) contributions.

Hydro One’s liability for “future benefits” represented almost 64% of the total of “Employee future benefits” at the end of 2013 — again to service just 24.7% of all ratepayers.

In fact, the liability per Hydro One employee of $250,000 at the end of 2013 was more than three times that of the other 72 local distribution companies.

More pain in the future

Ontario finished 2013 with slightly less than 1,200 MW of solar and 2,800 MW of wind in operation.  That amount of wind and solar played the major role in causing the extraordinary jump in the cost of power.  As of March 31, 2014 an additional 3,000 MW of wind generation and 1,000 MW of solar is either contracted for or under construction, which will double the sources of intermittent and unreliable  generation.  Those contracts will push up the cost of power by $350, or more, per annum, for the “typical” householder — in other words,  George, Brad and Bob all missed forecasts by a long shot.

Don’t expect to see the Ontario government tackle the rising costs of electricity caused by the incredibly generous salary and benefits programs and increasing amounts of wind and solar added to the grid. With billions of dollars destined annually for wind and solar developers, and huge shortfalls in the overly generous pensions and future benefits of the (mainly) provincial owned electricity entities, Ontarians will see continuing double digit growth in electricity costs.

Ontario ratepayers simply cannot believe what the Energy Ministers say.

©Parker Gallant

August 18, 2014

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Republished from Wind Concerns Ontario.

Achtung Ontario! Renewables are a money pit

12 Tuesday Aug 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Germany, the model for Ontario’s wind and solar developments, now regrets its spending spree

Brady Yauch, Financial Post, August 12, 2014

Germany – the country on which Ontario modelled its approach to renewable energy development – has a $412-billion lesson for Ontario. That’s the amount the country has spent on subsidies in support of solar and wind energy, among other renewables, over the past 20 years, all in the push to wean the country off fossil fuel and nuclear generation.

On the surface – and according to many news sites – the program has been a success, and not just because of the 378,000 people renewables now employ.

By the end of 2012 (the most recent year for data), wind and solar provided about 13% of all German electricity consumption. Adding in hydro and biomass, renewables provided more than 23%. And in May, headline writers around the world proudly trumpeted that renewable energy provided 75% of the country’s total electricity consumption.

Not what it seems

But scratch a bit below the surface and an entirely different picture emerges – one with households being pushed into “energy poverty” as renewable subsidies lead to soaring power bills, handouts to the country’s big businesses and exporters so they can avoid paying for those subsidies and a systematic bankrupting of traditional utilities. As for that one day in May when headlines celebrated that 75% of power generation came from renewables, well, it was a Sunday when demand for power is at its lowest level.

Germany’s decision to support renewable energy at all costs has, ultimately, cost the country’s ratepayers billions of dollars and led to a doubling of monthly electricity bills over the past decade. Households now pay the second highest rates for electricity in the EU – second only to Denmark, the world leader in wind turbines. The country’s feed-in tariff program – which offers renewable energy producers a guaranteed rate for their power – has already cost $412-billion, but could, according to one estimate from the former Minister of the Environment Peter, produce an $884-billion price tag by 2022. Germany will hand out $31.1-billion of renewable energy subsidies in this year alone.

The price of electricity paid by German households has increased from 14 cents (euro) per kilowatt hour in 2000 to 29 cents per kilowatt hour last year – marking a 107% increase, while inflation over that time period was about 22%. The biggest reason for that increase is the renewable energy subsidy, which amounted to 1.4% of the total bill when it was first introduced in 2000, but now accounts for 18%. That renewable levy now costs the average household in Germany more than $320 a year.

Electricity now a luxury

Rising electricity prices for households led Der Spiegel, one of the country’s most respected magazines, to warn that electricity was becoming a “luxury good.” More than 300,000 households each year are being left in the dark because they can’t afford electricity.

German households are being hit particularly hard by the cost of renewable subsidies because the country’s largest businesses – many of them exporters and in energy-intensive sectors – have been exempt from paying for them. Regulators and politicians – fearing that that high electricity prices would hurt the economy and result in job losses or plant closures – gave big business a free pass and instead shifted the costs to households.

The renewable subsidies have distorted Germany’s power market to such an extent that traditional utilities are being pushed to the brink of collapse. Electricity generated from solar and wind has no relationship with the market. Because the price the producers receive is guaranteed and is not based on demand, they dump their output whenever it is produced. This glut of power has, at times, pushed the price of wholesale power below zero – meaning the utilities need to pay someone to use it. This has skewed the price to such an extent that traditional generators can’t economically produce power – they simply stop producing when the price goes too low.

While the answer would seem to be to close those uneconomic generators, that’s not possible since renewable energy is intermittent – at times it will produce no power, while at others it will produce too much – and traditional generators are needed to provide a secure, reliable source of power. Utilities are being asked to keep producing power even though the economics of it don’t make sense anymore. To prevent utilities in Germany from pulling out of the business of generation, the government now offers more than billion dollars in “balancing payments” – sometimes 400 times the price of power – to stabilize the grid.

Renewable producers still can’t survive without subsidies

The rise of renewable power has also led to coal making a comeback. The amount of generation from coal actually increased from 43% of all output in 2011 to nearly 45% in 2012. Electricity generation from lignite, a cheaper and dirtier form of coal, has also been on the rise because, according to one Germany utility, it’s the only thing that can compete with subsidized renewable energy.

The energy situation in Germany has become so disruptive and politically untenable that the government has recently done everything it can to pull back on subsidies and other support for renewable energy, much to the dismay of renewable producers that still can’t survive on their own.

Far from being a success, Germany’s rush into renewable energy has crushed households, taxpayers and utilities. Ontario needs a better model.

Brady Yauch is an economist and the executive director of Consumer Policy Institute.

Read the full article here.

Brinston wind farm noise prompts MoE investigation

11 Monday Aug 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Turbine neighbour prompts noise probe by ministry

By Nelson Zandbergen – AgriNews Staff Writer, August, 2014

Ontarios Ministry of Environment and Climate Change installed the basketball-sized microphone atop a temporary 30-foot listening post in her backyard, along with a smaller meteorological tower.BRINSTON Leslie Disheau has her ear to the ground in South Dundas, and for 10 days last month, a very powerful ear trained on the sky around her Brinston home as well.

The ministrys move was prompted by Disheau and partner Glen Baldwins complaints about nighttime noise emanating from two industrial wind turbines on either side of their place, one to their immediate northwest, the other to the southeast. Comprising part of the 10-turbine South Branch project that went into serviceearlier this year, both of the nearest units are less than one kilometre away from the home the couple shares with their two teenaged children.

But Disheau, candidate for deputy mayor in the municipal election and a fierce critic of the turbine industry, feared that developer EDP Renewables was intentionally slowing the two windmills to quiet them down while the ministry data-collection and audio-recording effort was underway with her participation.

The Houston-based firm almost immediately learned about the microphone on the day of the install, she said with some frustration.

Located just down the road from the projects main depot, it wasnt more than three hours after the arrival of two ministry trucks in her driveway that EDP called the same ministry to question the presence of those vehicles, according to Disheau.

She says the audio technician putting up the equipment learned of EDPs inquiry while talking to his office bycell phone, then told her about it.

Wind developer has not filed a compliance report yet

Disheau expressed unhappiness that a mandatory post-construction noise report had yet to be publicly filed by the company itself, after putting the project into service in March.

In the meantime, over a 10-day period in July, the ministry captured its own sound data with Disheaus help. During those times she considered the turbines to be noisiest, she pressed a button inside her home, triggering the recording process via the outdoor microphone, which was tethered to audio equipment in a locked box.

Comparing the sound to that of a rumbling plane or jet, she got up at night when she couldnt sleep to push the audio recording button located at the end of a long cord connected to the stuff outside. She also kept an accompanying log as part of the initiative.

The noise is most acute, she said, when the direction of the wind causes the blades to swivel toward her home in perpendicular fashion.

Effect of multiple turbines not considered by government

She scoffed at regulations that mandate 500-meter setbacks to neighbouring homes, pointing out the rule doesnt take into account the cumulative, “overlapping” impact of multiple turbines that surround. Nor does the regulation change with the actual size of a turbine, she adds, asserting that, at 3-megawatts apiece, “these are the largest turbines in Ontario.”

Ultimately, the ministry will use the data collected by Disheau to create a report, which could potentially form the basis of ministry orders against the two offending turbines. “To shut them down at night so that people can sleep,” she said with a hopeful tone, though she also acknowledged the ministry may not issue orders. And even if it does, she expects the developer to appeal and appeal.

Disheau also said there are measures that municipal governments can undertake to curtail the noise, including a nuisance noise bylaw of 32 decibels, which recently survived a court challenge in another Ontario municipality. She espouses such a policy in South Dundas and will push for it at the council table if elected.

Read the full story here.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

The “green” movement: exploitation of the well-intentioned?

07 Thursday Aug 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Sure looks "green" to us

Sure looks “green” to us

You may recall we posted an earlier video prepared by Ben Acheson.

This video is currently making the rounds. The spokesperson here is Ben Acheson, who is actually a Policy Advisor in the European Parliament. He has made several other videos on “green” power and wind in particular, which are well worth seeing. Perhaps you have seen Wind Energy: chalk it up to a loss, which is also one of Ben’s.

In this video, Acheson suggest that business is capitalizing on people’s wishes to do the “right thing” for the environment, but that various money-making ideas which DON’T help the environment (like wind power) have been promoted.

On to the current video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw1MyiMyKsQ&list=PL4kAMiuuZB8kzmFIy1x0c_i_bSLvCBqnJ&index=9

Participate in PECFN’s BioBlitz at Ostrander Point, August 9-10, 2014

31 Thursday Jul 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Uncategorized, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Love Nature? Want to save it from the Ontario government’s misguided “green energy” program which believes wind power trumps wildlife? Here’s a chance to help out. A 2 1/2 hour drive south-west.

CCSAGEadmin's avatarCCSAGE Naturally Green

BioBlitz poster FINAL low colour-page-001 Click on image to enlarge

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Public invited to help inventory the biologically significant Ostrander Point.

Prince Edward County (July 30, 2014) – The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists are hosting the county’s first ever BioBlitz at Ostrander Point. The event runs over a 24 hour period from noon on Saturday August 9 to noon on Sunday August 10, 2014 and includes guided tours for the public focussing on how to identify a variety of species from plants to birds, insects and amphibians and reptiles.

Ostrander Point is located within the South Shore Important Bird Area, a site recognized globally for its importance to birds and biodiversity.

“Much of the biodiversity of the South Shore Important Bird Area has not been identified” notes Myrna Wood of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists Club. Wood continues “Ostrander Point was the subject of an Environmental Review Tribunal hearing during which…

View original post 237 more words

Wind power: a “wolf in green clothing”

28 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

It’s clean, it’s “green,” and it wants your land and your money too

Here from The Hill, a US blog for policy-makers, a posting on wind power and the US form of subsidy, the Production Tax Credit.

July 25, 2014, 10:00 am

Wind power production tax credit: Wall St. wolf in green clothing

By Curtis Ellis, The Hill, July 25, 2014

The tax incentive for wind power expired last year, and the battle over its extension is now underway. Opponents say the wind power production tax credit, PTC, is a wasteful boondoggle while supporters say it’s crucial for renewable energy and jobs. The Sierra Club calls it “one of the best bets we’ve made on clean, domestic energy.”

But it’s a misplaced bet.  The PTC actually blocks the green energy technologies that hold the most promise.  Rather than helping an infant industry, the PTC is a handout to Wall Street.

Congress created the PTC in 1992, a tax credit of roughly 2 cents per kilowatt-hour of wind electricity, to nurture the infant wind energy industry. Government incentives to promote crucial industries are time-honored. That’s not the problem with the PTC.What’s important is that only big investors who want to offset tax liabilities on other investments need apply. The PTC can only be taken against “passive income” – income from other investments. Private equity firms put together investors who need a tax write-off courtesy of the PTC. Warren Buffett admits he uses the PTC to lower his Berkshire taxes: “we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them.”

The PTC doesn’t help the average Joe who wants to put a small wind turbine on his ranch to generate electricity and reduce the taxes he pays on his farm income.

But while the PTC boosts Wall Street investment schemes in large-scale wind farms, the fact is small-scale, individually owned generation facilities hold the most promise for renewable energy.

Noted environmentalist Bill McKibben writes, “One of the great side effects of moving to renewable power is that we will replace vulnerable, brittle centralized systems that are too big to fail with spread out democratic energy sources.” Unfortunately, the PTC only encourages more “brittle centralized systems.”

California’s Local Clean Energy Alliance (which includes the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Sierra Club) concurs. It’s report, Community Power, states “local, decentralized generation of electricity offers many benefits to California’s communities relative to large central-station solar or wind power plants in remote areas.”

The Institute for Local Self Reliance, a green energy cheerleader, says renewables work best “at small scales across the country,” what’s known as distributed generation, “a network of independently-owned and widely dispersed renewable energy generators” rather than “a 20th century grid dominated by large, centralized utilities.”

In fact the Institute explicitly says the PTC is a significant barrier to greater investment in renewable energy. Removing this barrier “makes smaller projects more accessible to the local community, and draws local investors back into the process,” says John Farrell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

Utilities are also taking local-scale renewable energy seriously.  A report by the Edison Electric Institute, Disruptive Challenges expects small-scale solar and wind “to challenge and transform the electric utility industry” with “adverse impacts on revenues, as well as on investor returns.”

David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, a wholesale power company that operates coal-fired plants, told Blooomberg Businessweek  “the grid will become increasingly irrelevant as customers move toward decentralized homegrown green energy.”

So, if local-scale wind and solar generated close to the end user makes the most sense, why do we have a PTC pushing large-scale wind farms? It’s a Wall Street play.

Environmentalists supporting the PTC mean well, but they fail to see the wolf of Wall Street hiding beneath the green clothes. Ironically, the national green organizations are fighting for the kind of massive generating stations and power lines their local chapters often fight against.

The PTC is an anachronism and an obstacle to developing the decentralized, independently owned power generation system appropriate for wind, solar and other renewables.

Anyone who believes in renewable energy should be happy to see the PTC expire. It’s time to replace this tax write-off for the financial services cabal with something that benefits everyone.

Ellis is executive director of the American Jobs Alliance.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/213183-wind-power-production-tax-credit-wall-st-wolf-in-green#ixzz38c15D4Uf