Tag Archives: wind turbine noise

Wind turbine noise adversely affects people and the environment

20 Tuesday Dec 2016

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Wind turbine noise adversely affects people and the environment

Here is a paper from the Energy Collective, which includes a summary of noise regulations and setbacks. The writer’s conclusion is that worldwide regulation is needed, otherwise local regulation of noise is developed, with heavy influence from the wind power industry.

3-MW turbine south of Ottawa at Brinston: Ontario. Worldwide regulation needed to prevent wind industry influence [Photo by Ray Pilon, Ottawa]

3-MW turbine south of Ottawa at Brinston: Ontario. Worldwide regulation needed to prevent wind industry influence [Photo by Ray Pilon, Ottawa]

December 19, 2016

Willem Post

Europe and the US have been building onshore wind turbine plants in rural areas for more than 25 years. Anyone living within about 1.0 mile of such plants would hear the noises year-round, year after year. Those nearby people would be experiencing:

  • Decreasing property values.
  • Damage to their health, due to lack of sleep and peace of mind.
  • Living with closed windows and doors, due to year-round noises.
  • Exposure to infrasound.

The wind turbine noise problem is worldwide. Due to a lack of worldwide guidelines, various political entities have been developing their own codes for the past 30 years. The World Health Organization is finally addressing the lack of detailed guidelines regarding such noises.

World Health Organization Noise Guidelines: WHO, publishes detailed guidelines regarding various, everyday noises, such as near highways and airports, within urban communities and in work places. The guidelines serve as input to local noise codes.

In general, wind turbines are located in rural areas. When they had low rated outputs, say about 500 kW in the 1960s and 1970s, they made little audible noise, and the infrasound was weak. However, when rated outputs increased to 1000 kW or greater, the audible and infrasound noises became excessive and complaints were made by nearby people all over the world.

WHO, which has not published any detailed guidelines regarding wind turbine noises, will be releasing environmental noise guidelines for the European region in the near future.

Worldwide guidelines regarding wind turbine noises are needed to protect nearby rural people, such as regarding:

  • The maximum outdoor dBA value, how that value is arrived at, such as by averaging over one hour, where that value is measured, such as near a residence, or at the resident property line to enable that resident to continue to enjoy his entire property.
  • How to measure, or calculate the outdoor-to-indoor sound attenuation of a residence.
  • How much setback is needed, such as one mile to minimize infrasound impacts on nearby residents.
  • The maximum dB value of infrasound, how that value is arrived at, where that value is measured.
  • How to determine the need for a 5 dB annoyance penalty.

The lack of such guidelines has resulted in various political jurisdictions creating their own codes. That process has been heavily influenced by well-financed, pro-wind interests, which aim to have the least possible regulation to maximize profits.

Comparison of Wind Turbine Codes: Below are some highlights from the noise codes of various political entities to illustrate their diversity:

1) DENMARK: Because Denmark was an early developer of wind turbine plants, its noise code is more detailed than of most political entities. It has a buffer zone of 4 times total height of a wind turbine, about 4 x 500 = 2,000 ft, about 0.61 km (no exceptions), and it also has the following requirements regarding outdoor and indoor noise:

OUTDOOR

  • For dwellings, summer cottages, etc.: 39 dBA (wind speeds of 8 m/s, 18 mph) and 37 dBA (wind speeds of 6 m/s, 13 mph)
  • For dwellings in open country: 44 dBA (wind speeds of 8 m/s) and 42 dBA (wind speeds of 6 m/s)

The below regulations describe the methods and time periods over which sounds are to be measured:

  • Page 4, par 5.1.1 mentions averaging over various periods. Only the worst average readings of a period are to be considered for compliance.
  • Page 4, par 5.1.2 mentions a 5 dB annoyance penalty must be added to the worst average readings for a period for clearly audible tonal and impulse sounds with frequencies greater than 160 Hz, which would apply to wind turbine sounds.
  • Page 6, par 5.4 mentions limits for indoor A-weighted low frequency noise 10 – 160 Hz, and G-weighted infrasound 5 – 20 Hz.

“If the perceived noise contains either clearly audible tones, or clearly audible impulses, a 5 dB annoyance penalty shall be added to the measured equivalent sound pressure level” That means, if a measured outdoor reading is 40 dBA (open country, wind speed 6 m/s), and annoyance is present, the reading is increased to 45 dBA, which would not be in compliance with the above-required 42 dBA limit.

In some cases, a proposed wind turbine plant would not be approved, because of the 5 dB annoyance penalties. The noise of wind turbines varies up and down. The annoyance conditions associated with wind turbines occur year-round. The annoyance conditions associated with other noise sources usually occur much less frequently.

NOTE: The 5 dB penalty does not apply to indoor and outdoor low frequency and infrasound noises, i.e., 160 Hz or less.

INDOOR

– For both categories (dwellings, summer cottages, etc.; open country), the mandatory limit for low frequency noise is 20 dBA (Vermont’s limit is 30 dBA), which applies to the calculated indoor noise level in the 1/3-octave bands 10 – 160 Hz, at both 6 and 8 m/s wind speed. The purpose of the regulation is to ensure neither the usual noise, nor the low frequency noise, will annoy nearby people when the wind turbines are in operation.

Denmark’s Controversial Noise Attenuation Calculations: The controversy in Denmark is regarding the Danish EPA assuming high attenuation factors for calculating attenuation from 44 dBA (outdoor) to 20 dBA (indoor, windows closed) for frequencies above 63 Hz, which yield calculated indoor noise levels less than 20 dBA. The Danish EPA prefers assuming high factors, because they result in compliance, which is favorable for wind turbines.

However, acoustics engineers have made indoor field measurements (supposedly “too difficult to measure”, according to the Danish EPA), which indicate many houses near wind turbine plants have lower than assumed attenuation factors, which results in indoor noise levels greater than 20 dBA, i.e., non-compliance, which is not favorable for wind turbines.

However, the final arbiters should not be government personnel using assumptions, but the nearby people. Increasingly, those people are venting their frustrations at public hearings and in public demonstrations.

2) POLAND is considering a proposed a law with a 2.0 km (1.24 mile) buffer zone between a wind turbine and any building. That means at least 65% of Poland would be off limits to wind turbines. Future wind turbine plants likely would be offshore. …

Read the full article here.

Noise emissions from wind turbines cause adverse health effects: scientific paper

06 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Hearing Health & Technology Matters

October 5, 2016 — A new paper from acoustician Richard James and audiologist and professor emeritus Jerry Punch, just published in the journal Hearing Health Matters, confirms support for the idea that “acoustic emissions from IWTs [industrial wind turbines] is a leading cause of AHEs [adverse health effects] in a substantial segment of the population.”

The authors deal with 12 commonly held beliefs about wind power and health effects, promoted by the global wind power development industry, that do not support a connection between wind turbine noise and health problems. They conducted a comprehensive literature review, and review the findings of the most up-to-date studies, including the Cape Bridgewater study by acoustician Steven Cooper, which changed the language of wind turbine noise research.

A paper by Paul Schomer of the U.S. is quoted for example, and the authors conclude “some people affected by WTN [wind turbine noise] may be responding directly to acoustic factors, rather than to non-acoustic factors, as argued by Leventhall.” (page 21)

Canada figures in the paper with references to work done by Dr Roy Jeffery, Dr Robert McMurtry, and researcher Carmen Krogh, among others.

The authors wrote a ccovering letter for windaction.org in which they said,

Finally, let it not be said that either of us believes in making any less than the best possible effort to develop clean and efficient sources of energy. Rather, we hope that our article will be instrumental in promoting public health through a better understanding of the issues underlying the potentially harmful effects of audible and inaudible noise from industrial wind turbines when the turbines are sited too close to where people live and work.

Jerry Punch

Richard James

Read the paper here.

Ontario ignored staff warnings on wind turbine noise

30 Friday Sep 2016

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

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

More on the disaster that has been Ontario’s “green energy” program.

Premier Wynne with former Energy Minister and Ottawa MPP Bob Chiarelli [Photo: Canadian Press]

Toronto Sun

It’s too bad Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal government didn’t have its epiphany on the pointlessness of subsidizing any more expensive, unreliable and unneeded wind turbines before it tore apart rural Ontario.

It’s too bad Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal government didn’t have its epiphany on the pointlessness of subsidizing any more expensive, unreliable and unneeded wind turbines before it tore apart rural Ontario.

The Liberals’ treatment of rural Ontarians has been a disgrace.

They overrode local planning rights by passing the Green Energy Act of 2009 under Wynne’s predecessor, Dalton McGuinty, then rammed industrial wind factories down their throats.

Sometimes, it was hard for people in these communities to believe they were living in a democracy.

Rural communities were torn apart — neighbours cashing in by leasing land to wind developers for turbine construction, against neighbours forced to live in the shadow of the mega-structures.

The province received hundreds of complaints about health problems which people believed were being caused by the turbines and suppressed them.

During the 2011 election, the CBC reported government documents released under Freedom of Information legislation showed environment ministry staff had issued internal warnings the province needed stricter rural noise limits on turbines, that it had no reliable way to monitor or enforce them and that computer models for determining setbacks were flawed.

Ontario Provincial Police showed up at the homes of middle-aged women in one rural community who had never been involved in any form of law-breaking, warning them to keep their demonstrations against wind turbines peaceful.

As we reported, these visits were made at the request of a wind developer. (The government denied any involvement.)

While the Liberals dismissed wind protesters as NIMBYs, they simultaneously cancelled two unpopular natural gas plants in Oakville and Mississauga due to local opposition, at a public cost of $1.1 billion, in what the Tories and NDP dubbed the Liberal seat saver program.

When local residents wrote to Liberal MPPs asking for help in fighting the industrial wind factories imposed on them, they received form letters in reply.

For many rural Ontarians, the Liberal blunder into green energy, launched without any meaningful business plan according to the Auditor General of Ontario — and which wasn’t needed to eliminate coal-fired electricity — wasn’t just a case of their government wasting billions of dollars and sending their electricity bills skyrocketing.

It was a case of their government robbing them of fundamental democratic rights.

 

Trudeau government silent on wind farm noise and health problems

30 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

In sworn testimony at an environmental review tribunal, a Health Canada official confirmed industrial wind turbines — large, noise-emitting devices — are regulated under the federal Radiation Emitting Devices Act

Ottawa Sun, Jun 28, 2016

The federal government’s inaction on wind turbine noise is making Canadians sick.

It’s been a year-and-a-half since Health Canada’s $2-million study determined low-frequency acoustic waves from industrial wind turbines cause community annoyance.

According to the World Health Organization, unwanted noise, even at a moderate level, can lead to a myriad of adverse health outcomes, including stress-related symptoms such as sleep disturbance, elevated blood pressure, cardiac events and depression.

It’s a “green” form of radiation sickness.

Canada’s Radiation Emitting Devices Act (REDA) is supposed to regulate the design and operation of devices that emit radiation, such as microwave ovens and tanning beds. In sworn testimony at an environmental review tribunal, a Health Canada official confirmed industrial wind turbines — large, noise-emitting devices — are regulated by REDA.

REDA requires a manufacturer or importer of such a device to “forthwith notify the Minister” upon becoming aware its device is emitting radiations not necessary for the performance of its function.

On June 15, Barbara Ashbee of Mulmur, Ontario, together with hundreds of other Ontarians, sent an open letter to Health Minister Jane Philpott, asking why Health Canada has not insisted wind energy corporations report citizen complaints about noise radiation. She wants the minister to meet with her and representatives of citizens suffering from turbine noise radiations.

Ashbee wrote: “Many in Ontario and elsewhere have logged serious health complaints with proponents/operators of wind turbine projects, provincial and federal government ministries as well as wind turbine manufacturers … As previous ministers and current Minister Philpott have been informed, the adverse effects of wind turbines are not trivial.”

Access to Information records indicate wind energy corporations have reported no complaints.

Why is Health Canada not forcing wind turbine operators to report citizen complaints, as required?

Is the wind industry lobby that strong?

Why were Canadians not told wind turbine corporations are required to report citizen complaints to Health Canada? Were wind energy companies also not told about the REDA?

Why did Health Canada’s Wind Turbine Noise and Health study exclude people under age 18 and over age 79, the most vulnerable segments of Canada’s population?

Why do REDA regulations not include standards for the design and operation of wind turbines, as they do for microwave ovens, etc.?

Prior to the 2015 federal election, Canadians for Radiation Emission Enforcement (CFREE) asked candidates in wind turbine-affected Ontario ridings: “Will you support a moratorium on new wind turbines within 2 km of residences, until REDA regulations are updated to clearly stipulate wind turbine operators must comply with REDA, and to include scientifically proven safe setback distances?”

The survey revealed equal support from candidates of all four parties for a wind turbine moratorium. Only three candidates opposed it, but none were elected. In Ontario, the turbine setback is only 550 meters from residences.

Other countries are extending setbacks to safer distances. In Poland, the setback is now ten times turbine height. In closely settled Bavaria, it is now two kilometres. But there is no such action from Health Canada. No moratorium. No change in setbacks. No standards in REDA. More wind projects are planned. More Canadians are getting sick.

Openness and transparency are supposedly important to the federal Liberal government.

What will Prime Minister Justin Trudeau do about Health Canada’s inaction on wind turbines?

Read the full story here.

New wind turbine noise regulations needed, says Wind Concerns Ontario

29 Wednesday Jun 2016

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Wind turbine noise testing needs total overhaul, Wind Concerns Ontario tells MOECC

Print

NEWS RELEASE

June 27, 2016, OTTAWA – Ontario needs to do a complete revision of procedures for wind turbine noise testing, Wind Concerns Ontario has informed the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) in a review of proposed regulatory changes.

According to WCO, the growing scientific research on wind turbine noise emissions and the escalating number of unresolved complaints confirm that proposed changes to the government’s old protocol are insufficient to address the problems faced by people living among wind turbine projects.

“The changes the Ministry has proposed to its existing procedures are nothing more than minor tweaks,” says president Jane Wilson. “The government is ignoring the need for real change to keep up with science, and to protect health from noise emissions.”

By 2015, the MOECC had received more than 2,700 complaints about problems with wind turbine noise, WCO learned. Though more recent data are not available, monitoring by WCO suggests that this number has continued to grow with the number of larger new turbines that have become operational since then.

Proposed new testing procedures are inadequate as they limit testing to audible noise outside of the home, while many citizen complaints relate to turbine noise emissions that people cannot hear, but rather, are vibrations or sensations that they feel, says WCO. And, while many complaints are about the noise and sensation experienced inside buildings, the MOECC only tests outside noise.

“The MOECC persists in the standard of using one form of noise measurement, the dBA, while the acoustics industry and even the Government of Canada has said this is providing only part of the picture on noise emissions,” Wilson says.

The process of confirming turbine compliance with regulations is convoluted and complex — people have lost trust in the Ontario government, WCO says. For example, the Enbridge project near Kincardine began operation in late 2008 but there is still no report that confirms the turbines are compliant.

The MOECC also relies on information from the power developers, and predicted modelling — not actual noise testing. This has resulted in a loss of faith in the Wynne government as a protector of public health.

Rather than dismissing resident complaints, WCO told the Ministry in a comment document in response to proposed regulatory changes, the government should view these contacts as an opportunity to learn and show leadership in responsible renewable energy implementation.

Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of community groups and citizens concerned about the impact of industrial-scale wind power projects on the economy, the environment, and health.

…

Contact Jane Wilson at president@windconcernsontario.ca

Additional quotes:

“If government and the wind power development industry is using only A-weighted noise measurement or dBA, they are only getting part of the picture.”

“Wind turbines have been found out of compliance via third-party measurements, yet the MOECC does not act on these findings. The MOECC also does not report publicly on complaints or actions taken as it does for other complaints made to the ministry ‘Spills Line’. ”

“Using only computer-generated predictive noise models does not reflect the reality of wind turbine noise emission experiences in Ontario. The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change needs to do actual, on-site testing in conditions similar to or the same as those that spurred a citizen complaint to assure Ontarians it is fulfilling its mandate to protect people.”

www.windconcernsontario.ca

See the WCO comment document filed with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change here: ResponsetoNoiseProtocol-June16FINAL

Wind farm noise measurements questioned by acoustics consultant

27 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Ministry of Environment noise study for wind power project was done using average wind speed at a “particularly quiet site” says consultant hired by Kincardine: increase in sound from wind alone is “staggering”

(Re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario)

Kincardine Independent, February 24, 2016

GROUNDBREAKING INFRASOUND STUDY RESULTS UNVEILED

By Barb McKay

An acoustics engineer is questioning the Ontario government’s methods for setting baseline sound limits for wind turbines after field testing was recently conducted in Kincardine.

Todd Busch, project manager for Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd., was in front of the Municipality of Kincardine council during its meeting last Wednesday to go over data from a study conducted within the boundaries of the Armow Wind Project last fall. Swallow was contracted by the municipality to study baseline acoustic and infrasound levels prior to the 92-turbine, 180-megawatt project becoming operational.

Engineers conducted interior and exterior sound testing at five homes within the project area between Oct. 30 and Nov. 14, 2015, using special microphones designed specifically to record infrasound (sound not picked up by the human ear). The sound measurements account for sound levels from wind in exterior testing.

Busch said when a noise impact study was conducted with audible sound testing for Armow Wind in 2013, engineers who did the study declared that the project would comply with Ontario Ministry of the Environment noise limits for industrial wind turbines. He said the study was done using an average wind speed at a particularly quiet site and a measurement of seven decibels was added to factor in sound levels at a higher wind speed. In the noise impact assessment summary, Busch said sound levels were calculated at between 37 and 39.8 decibels. The noise level limit set by the province is 40 decibels. Infrasound levels were not tested.

Busch said the report that was generated from the noise impact study did not explain why seven decibels was assumed for higher wind speeds and he questions the mehodology used to measure residual noise levels in the background environment. He does not believe the study factored in noise levels associated with wind and therefore is concerned the testing was compromised.

“We placed our microphones within 10 metres of where the noise impact assessment (study) microphones would have been,” Busch said. “A measurement of 39.8 decibels would be a candidate for scrutiny.”

Testing by Swallow generated acoustic sound levels of between 37 and 57 decibels outdoors and 20 to 40 decibels indoors. Infrasound levels measured between 57 and 88 decibels outdoors and 53 to 72 decibels indoors. He said the increase in sound from wind alone is staggering and should be explored further.

“We have been told many times from the provincial government that we can’t measure infrasound,” councillor Randy Roppel said. “Can you?”

“We did,” Busch replied.

Read the full story here

Ontario turbine noise regulations not adequate for health WCO tells MOECC

24 Tuesday Nov 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Listen to experts on turbine noise to protect health: Wind Concerns Ontario to MOECC

November 24, 2015

Wind Concerns Ontario has written to the Green Energy Approvals section of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, following testimony from acoustics experts at the appeal of the White Pines wind power project last week. We demanded that the MOECC review the testimony of the witnesses, specifically that Ontario’s noise regulations are inadequate to protect health, and apply the information to the current review of noise regulations for wind turbines in Ontario.

The letter has been received and acknowledged.

The letter follows.

Stephanie Liu

Senior Program Advisor

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Environmental Programs Division, Modernization of Approvals Branch, Green Energy Approvals,

135 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto Ontario M4V 1P5

November 20, 2015

RE: NOISE GUIDELINES FOR WIND POWER PROJECTS

We are aware that the comment period for the proposed amendments to current noise guidelines for wind power projects has closed; however, there is testimony being given at the appeal of the White Pines project in Prince Edward County that is germane to your review, and should not be overlooked.

Several experts in acoustics, who have technical experience measuring the noise and low frequency noise emissions from wind power projects, have testified over the last few days to the following key points:

  1. The Ontario regulations are inadequate to protect health
  2. The Ontario regulations rely heavily on A-weighted measurement which is not adequate or appropriate (this fact was already mentioned in the federal government funded report from the Council of Canadian Academies)
  3. Wind power developers’ predictions for noise are not always accurate and again, seek to conform to the inadequate regulations of the Ontario government
  4. The Health Canada study of wind turbine noise and health clearly shows there are problems after 35 dB

 

What follows is a citizen report of testimony given by Dr Paul Schomer, an eminent acoustics professional.

APPEC’s health appeal continued on Day 10 with expert witness Dr. Paul Schomer testifying before the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) on the White Pines wind project.  The remainder of the day was spent making adjustments to the schedule following WPD’s abrupt announcement that it was dropping an appeal of the disallowance of two turbines (T7 and T11) by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).

Dr. Schomer, a former Standards Director of the Acoustical Society of America with 48 years’ experience in noise measurement, was qualified by the ERT as an expert in acoustics.  He told the Tribunal that all residents in the White Pines project area will be affected by audible and inaudible sound and a number of residents will be seriously affected.  The effects reported by people living near wind projects are similar in nature to the effects experienced by participants in a 1985 University of Toronto study on infrasound. 

At lower levels and at higher levels of pure tone some participants experienced nausea and dizziness.  However, when overtones were added at higher levels, participants experienced headaches and fatigue. Dr. Schomer considers that internationally-accepted noise standards and protocols are being flouted in Ontario.  For example, A-weighting is not supposed to be relied on when sounds have low-frequency content such as those emitted by industrial wind turbines.

  Canada is one of the countries that voted for this rule.  He also calls for changes in current Ontario regulations to adjust up to 10 db(A) for wind turbine noise in rural areas.  Other suggested adjustments include up to 3 db(A) for weather conditions and 3 to 4 db(A) for locations downwind of turbines.   

Dr. Schomer is highly critical of WPD’s current predicted average sound as it merely indicates that 50% of the time 50% of the residents will be exposed to sound above or below the limit.  The wind industry should be held to a higher level of accountability: db(A) limits should be met 95% of the time.

Dr. Schomer pointed to a very important figure in the Health Canada Report.  Only 1% of people are shown to be highly annoyed at 30 – 35 db(A) sound levels.  However, at 35 – 40 db(A) the number jumps to 40%.  Dr. Schomer sees this as evidence of a community response to wind turbine noise, and that what Health Canada says, what independent acoustic experts say, and what communities say should carry weight in Ontario.

Through experience Dr. Schomer has found that when community responses disagree with the physics, the physics is usually wrong.  This has been confirmed by his involvement in six studies of wind farms, including the 8-turbine Shirley Wind Farm in Wisconsin where three families abandoned their homes and about 60 other people reported adverse health effects.   

We would ask that the Ministry be certain to review and consider this important evidence in its review of the noise guidelines for wind power projects, which are in no way “farms.”

Just this past week, Wind Concerns Ontario has learned of seven families forced to leave their homes in the area of the Goshen project; another half-dozen families are leaving their homes behind in West Grey. This is all due to the noise experienced.

This is a matter of grave concern, and we hope the government is sincere when it says its mission is to “protect the environment” which also means, the environment people live in.

Thank you.

Jane Wilson, RN

President

Wind Concerns Ontario

windconcerns@gmail.com

PO BOX 509 250 Main Street Wellington Ontario

Call to register wind turbine noise complaints

12 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Wind turbine and home, Brinston, Ontario. Photo by Ray Pilon.

Wind turbine and home, Brinston, Ontario. Photo by Ray Pilon.

Residents of the Brinston area, living with the South Branch wind power project operated by EDP Renewables of Spain, are reminded to call with any complaints or problems with noise or vibration experienced.

People with complaints about excessive noise from the turbines at Brinston must call both the developer, EDP Renewables (1-877-910-3377 ext 3) AND the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change/MOECC (1-800-860-2760 Cornwall area office). 

It is recommended that you call and leave a message with the particulars of your complaint such as the time of day, the duration of the problem experienced, and your specific location.

You may wish to document events on your own: there are applications to measure noise and infrasound that are free downloads to your cellphone. Record noise events by date and time, the noise level you record, and also the wind speed at the time you make your notes.

Follow up your call to the MOECC with another call to determine what action has been taken.

Note that the wind “farm” operator was mandated to complete a post-operational noise assessment which to date, it has not been done. This means that the protections afforded Ontario residents under the Green Energy Act and regulation 359/09 may not be in place for South Branch area residents. If you are concerned about this contact your MPP Jim McDonell at jim.mcdonellco@pc.ola.org and the MOECC at https://www.ontario.ca/contact-us or1-800-565-4923

You’ll have to move: doctors tell Nation Twp mothers of sick children

01 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

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

No community support for greed in Nation Twp [Photo: Ontario Farmer]

No community support for greed in Nation Twp [Photo: Ontario Farmer]

Ontario Farmer, August 25, 2015

[Excerpted]

By Ian Cumming

Emotions were high the late afternoon of August 10 among the 200 or so folks who gathered outside the Nation Township Municipal Hall. They also lined the road beside, waving No Windmill signs, with most trucks and cars driving past honking support.

Doctors told mothers of ill children: you have to move if the turbines come

Two concerned mothers approached Ontario Farmer one the day before this protest, the other at the protest; one with an autistic son, the other with a daughter waiting for a heart transplant. Both said they were given medical advice that “we’ll have to move if the windmills come.”

The son, Michael, “who can hear a grasshopper deep in the grass that far away,” would be tormented beyond anyone’s comprehension, from the windmill swooshing sound that non-autistic people can barely sense, said his mother Susan, a former nurse. “When I drive by windmills I cry and choke with anger.”

Marc Bercier had windmills go up plus a substation on his land*, to the minimum sum of $95,000 per year for 20 years. A heck of an offer for a father who has two sons wanting to take over the operation.

“I’m pulling out of the windmill contract,” said Bercier recently. He detailed the venom that his family has faced for their decision to have windmills, including his elderly mother, when attending a public meeting the week before. [Editor: this was the huge meeting attended by 500+ people in St. Bernardin.] “I don’t want to put my family in that situation.”

The $22,000 he gets to keep as a down payment from EDF “wasn’t worth it,” said Bercier, “We value peace and family over money.” *

Even when he [Bercier] had gone public to Ontario Farmer (June 23) and other media this summer, detailing his contracts and the reasons for signing them, farmers who had done the same “attacked me, wanting me to keep quiet,” said Bercier.

Perhaps it was that self-imposed silence and the smoothness of the wind company EDF attempting a quick sales job for the community which contributed to the mounting opposition, said Bercier. “EDF didn’t do the real work with people.”

Phone call from the Liberal MPP

A last-minute pitch from EDF, which included offering to double the yearly stipend to the Nation Township from $150,000 to $300,000 per year on August 10, came the exact same day his council was meeting to reverse its earlier decisions to support the two projects [Editor: the writer fails to mention that there is a 150-MW project by EDF, and a 40-MW project by RES Canada being proposed] and declare itself an unwilling host, said Nation mayor Francois St. Amour. … The motion to reverse [Nation’s] earlier decision hadn’t even been on the agenda, but a call from local Liberal MPP Grant Crack to the mayor to deal with it, forced the issue ahead.

… [Developer EDF commented…] If people in the area have legitimate health concerns, we can certainly work with them and place the windmills so they are not affected, [Stephane Desdunes, director of development] said.

 

 

*Editor: you just don’t care about other people’s families and peace…

Money lures Nation Twp farmers to lease land for wind turbines

30 Tuesday Jun 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“If I didn’t sign, I would see the windmills without revenue”: cash crop farmer Marc Bercier

Not too many years ago, cash cropper and seed grower/processor Marc Bercier was actively opposed to green energy projects being proposed and built in his area, but this February he signed for a potential five windmills* and one substation to be located on his 1,700 acres.

“If I didn’t sign I would see the windmills without revenue,” said Bercier.

Pointing to the 29 pages of documentation involved for his portion of the 10,000-acre proposed windmill project, Bercier noted how the negotiated sections on soil compaction, erosion and overall environmental protection were vital to him, considering that his farm is only just over the requires 500 meters from this village. [Editor: what? Do you mean from the project?]

The documentation showed that Bercier was promised $15,000 per windmill per year as a base price, with incentives for more power and compensation for anything that affected the surrounding land. The substation lease was $20,000 per year.

Township Council passed support motion

It’s a massive community project that seems to have the support of Nation Township Mayor Francois St. Amour. A January 20, 2014 council motion passed, stating it [council] “supports the application under the Ontario Power Authority’s Large Renewable Procurement Program.”

… Ontario Farmer obtained documentation showing that, as of March, 2015, 165 landowners had been approached by the EWG windmill company, of which 128 had signed agreements and 37 were in discussion.

“They are all farmers,” said St. Amour, noting that the required setback distances from the windmills meant that a lot of land was involved per windmill.

As of mid-June, almost everyone of the former holdouts had signed up and joined, said Bercier.

OFA ‘incredibly helpful’

The company had persuaded and signed up a local, prominent farmer who then went up and down the concessions promoting the project to individuals, said Bercier.

… “yes, there are liens on the project,” said Bercier. However all lien documentation has been passed by his lawyer, alleviating all concerns as to affecting the farming operation, he said.

The OFA has been incredibly helpful in promoting the project, noted Bercier.

Spending $42,000 a year of hydro costs for his farm, “double what it would cost if I was in Quebec,” Bercier is well aware of the extra hydro costs the public pay to finance such green energy projects.

“We had an election, the Liberals won. The voters chose to pay for more electricity,” said Bercier.

By Ian Cumming

Ontario Farmer

June 23, 2015

*They’re NOT “windmills”!