All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Thursday, December 3rd, 2020

Council’s stance on wind project doesn’t represent everybody

by Nicole Kleinsteuber
Local wind supporters addressed council Tuesday night requesting they defeat a motion to submit a series of concerns to the Ministry of Environment and Gilead Power.

“We do not find it to be relevant to the original motion, reflective of sound science or representative of the greater good,” said John Thompson, past president of PEC Federation of Agriculture.

The motion states the municipality believes Ostrander Point is an inappropriate site for the proposed wind farm and should not be approved for a list of reasons. Concerns ranged from unresolved adequacy of the proposed setbacks of turbines from residents homes to infrastructure having negative impact on birds, wildlife and the environment.

Rob Williams, a member of the County Sustainability Group agreed with Thompson when he addressed council. The local group wants the community to adopt green initiatives, including windmills.

“Informing the ministry of the municipality’s belief is one thing,” said Williams. “Requesting that the belief that Ostrander Point is an unsuitable site must be addressed to the satisfaction of the County of Prince Edward is quite another. It blocks any opportunity for the ministry to grant approval.”

Williams said most of the reasons in the motion have not been critically evaluated by council or staff and are rife with subjective complaints.

“Exaggerated localized threats to humans and wildlife are given prominence yet the far greater threats from climate change, against which clean sources of renewable energy like wind are our primary defence, are completely ignored,” said Williams.

Williams said the concerns are a thinly disguised attempt to circumvent the approval process and impose a municipal veto on any approval decision by the ministry.

“It is a direct challenge to the ministry’s authority,” said Williams. “It will severely compromise the credibility of council as a reasonable partner and hence diminish council’s stature and influence in future ministry decisions.”

“I’m quite intrigued by the information that we received saying that this is a disguised attempt to circumvent the approval process and impose a municipal veto,” said councillor Robert Quaiff. “Absolutely, that was the complete intent. It was for this municipal council to take a line and draw it in the sand and all declare once and for all whether or not we support the industrial wind turbine location at Ostrander Point.”

Councillor Jamie Forrester wanted to know how councillor Quaiff came to the conclusion that the entire municipality is against the Ostrander Point location.

“I’m not quite sure how we can make that assumption one way or another,” said Forrester. “There hasn’t been any surveys with results backing up the statement.”

Councillor Bev Campbell agreed that the introductory paragraph should be rephrased.

“That paragraph doesn’t belong with matters to be addressed,” said Campbell. “We want Gilead and the province to provide us with mitigation measures to the items we’ve listed.”

Campbell said she wasn’t in favour of deleting the environmental concerns pertaining to the Important Bird Area, wildlife and endangered species. Campbell said the portion pertaining to negative human health impacts, reduced quality of life and noise emissions should be omitted from the list.

Councillor Brian Marisett said the sections about health studies should be left out.

“I don’t think it’s possible for a study to come out with conclusive proof that’s going to satisfy all of the residents regardless of what position they’re taking,” said Marisett. “I’ve heard this debate since 2002. Experts from this side and experts from that side on and on. Everyone is claiming that they’re the authority on the issue and I don’t think we’re ever going to get there.”

But councillor Terry Shortt disagreed, stating these are concerns from a portion of the community.

“They should be included,” said Shortt. “We have a divided community. Part of that community is in support of wind energy and part of the community is not.”

Council decided to amend the original motion to read the province and Gilead to provide mitigation measures for the following concerns.

“It’s some improvement,” said Thompson in an interview. “They’ve taken out the most offensive part. You can’t say the county doesn’t think that it’s an inappropriate site. It’s not possible to say it in all honesty. That information isn’t available.”

Thompson also requested council to bring in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s decision to suspend new feed in tariff contracts for wind until their issues are resolved into the debate. Thompson said there are inconsistencies in last week’s press release that said the OFA wants to suspend all wind developments across the province.

The concerns the OFA wants addressed surround the price to be paid for wind power, the inefficiency of wind energy, setbacks and induced currents, health and nuisance issues and the removal of municipal input for projects.

OFA President Mark Wales agreed the call for a suspension should be clarified.

“A lot of people understand what we’re saying and for those who don’t we need to clarify that point,” said Wales in an interview. “The OFA isn’t against wind energy. It’s time to put a pause on the process, don’t issue any new projects until concerns are dealt with. The projects that are in the works are going to go ahead.”

Wales said these issues have to be resolved to ensure the success of all projects.

Filed Under: Local News

About the Author:

RSSComments (45)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. David Norman says:

    @Rob Williams
    I quote from your comment here in reference to your comments to Mark and Paul;
    “Unfortunately you and several other commenters still seem to be following the approach:
    • If you say it often enough, they’ll believe it.
    • Who needs evidence?
    • Shoot the messenger who bears unwelcome news.
    CSG members continue to advocate the opposite approach:
    • Be skeptical of ‘facts’ or arguments that lack supporting evidence.
    • Base your decisions on facts and arguments that ARE supported by CREDIBLE evidence.
    • Do your homework so that you know which is which.”

    It would certainly help your cause if you and other vocal members of the County Sustainability Group which you are advocating for, practiced what you preach.
    For example, in an inane effort to refute my criticism of Don Chisholm’s “rhetoric” in a letter to the Picton Gazette, J. Legate a member (spokesperson) of the County Sustainability Group (CSG), introduced ridiculously ill conceived comparisons and like Chisholm, sought to give a notion of credibility through “peer review” by editors of a journal and the “many members” of the CSG. Before I address these, let me first state that I am not a member of any group, large or small, pro or con Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs). I have a Marxist ideology in this respect, Groucho Marx-ist that is, which states, “I would not want to belong to any group that would have me as a member”. My agenda is simply one that seeks transparency. That is, I desire to understand the real nature of the publicly presented inconsistencies which are an attempt to hide inconvenient truths. In other words, who benefits and how.
    I agreed with J. Legate’s assertion that “letters containing incomplete or misinformation about wind turbines” are “frequent in the local press”, Legate’s own letter testifying to this fact. This is the nature of self-fulfilling prophecy, particularly that of an ideologue. In defense of Chisholm, Legate sited an “information paper produced for the British Parliament” (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn368rare_earth_metals.pdf)
    which stated that only 4% of offshore wind turbines contain “rare earth metals”. Legate then went on to say that “this percentage will not exceed 15%”. This is not what the report states. The report states that “Currently, 4% of new offshore wind turbines use a magnetic drive system containing rare earths, which improve reliability and mechanical efficiency. This figure is anticipated to rise to 15-25% by 2015.” Legate fails to point out that the other IWTs they refer to are older, less efficient technologies and that most IWT generators now being produced all use rare earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium primarily, to create the permanent magnet drive systems that are necessary to the efficiency and engineering of the current wave of increasingly omnipresent 2 to 5 Mgw IWTs. Mind you, the IWTs being proposed for Ostrander all use wound copper wire generators, an older and less efficient technology, and just as environmentally destructive from a resource mining perspective.
    The “peer reviewed” paper “Life cycle and greenhouse emissions analysis of wind turbines and the effect of size on energy yield” by Dr. R.H. Crawford which Legate proposed refutes my negative carbon recapture assertion in respect to IWTs, was in fact not funded by the Australian Research Council as he stated. It was funded by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), in the U.S.A., to which the Australian Research Council is affiliated. The journal, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, in which the article appeared is published by NREL and the “peer review” is performed by members of this organization. The journal website clearly states that the papers they publish are commissioned and funded by NREL. The NREL is “the only federal laboratory dedicated to the research, development, commercialization and deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies”. The paper itself, while interesting in its own right, is a one dimensional review and extension of existing literature attached to the output data of a couple of IWTs. It is not a multivariate scientific study and cannot be referenced as such, and as you attempted to do. As for peer (member) review of articles by CSG, I am more than pleased that Legate has made the entire membership culpable to this misinformation. And it appears that Legate is an adherent to the notion that “size matters” and I quote; “Unlike at least one local anti-wind group, it (the CSG) has many members”. Again, I agree with Legate, size does matter, particularly when you’re trying to wade your way through piles of rhetorical excrement!

  2. Lori Smith says:

    Council’s wind stand may not represent everybody but that is to be expected of any decision that is made at any level of government. The important thing is to follow the credo “do no harm” or “err on the side of caution”. If a moratorium is placed on all wind turbine projects or the Ostrander Point project is stopped, this only ensures that future “green” energy projects will not do more harm than good.

    We have heard over and over again that Ontario currently has a surplus of energy generation. Renewable energy from wind and solar is ineffective until we have a feasible and cost efficient way of storing energy for peak usage.

    Instead of focusing on industrial projects that label themselves “green” we need to be looking at reducing our carbon imprint by changing our lifestyle from one where everything is disposable. Most items we buy are designed to be obsolete within a few years – cars, TVs. PCs, cell phones, clothing, furniture etc. We need to focus on designing our community so that when gas and oil are too costly for everyone to own their own car and for food & goods to be shipped from thousands of miles away when it can be grown or manufactured locally. We need to design electronic products that can be upgraded rather than disposed of, then recycled. We need to adopt the attitude that we want the things we buy, to last.

    I cannot understand how a group with “sustainability” in their name can actually endorse the current industrial wind and solar projects and the Ontario Green Energy Act that has stripped the democratic process from the municipal level. The Ontario Auditor General’s report clearly shows the cost of the path the current provincial government has taken towards “renewable” energy is far too costly, will cost 2-4 jobs for every one it creates, will never create 50,000 jobs, etc.

    I agree we need to invest in wind and solar generated energy – but it does not have to be today? at such incredible costs? and in a time of surplus generation? Wouldn’t it be better to invest now in developing better and more efficient generators and storage? Technology changes so rapidly, and over time things tend to become smaller and more efficient.

    There is absolutely no good reason not to wait while proper health and environment studies are done, as it is a lot less costly not having to try and undo damage caused than not to cause the damage in the first place.

  3. PEter says:

    From my perspective, the rhetoric surrounding the Industrial Wind Energy debate is largely ‘ego’ based. In my view, the comments above certainly support that. Many of them come from the “I am smarter than you” mentality. Folks, get with the program! Can we move the debate to a higher level? We’re one community! Although the issues above are important to ALL the residents of Prince Edward County, much of what we’re discussing here revolve around the micro issues of IWT; protection of birds, minor health concerns, opinions of small, rather ineffective (on the large scale) green energy support groups, etc. Yes, they are important. But, unfortunately, if we keep the focus on the micro, not a single thing will change. The turbines will grace the south shore of PEC. However, if we pool our collective energies (both pro and con) perhaps we can begin to understand how the macro issues (one North American Power Grid, American influence, energy security, etc) are truly influencing decisions on the energy portfolio in Ontario or more specifically here in PEC. Not until we get some clarity with regard to the things we can actually change or influence, the issue will continue to divide this community. A divided community is what “the powers that be” want to see. We’ll still be debating while the turbines are being built. There is nothing new to that game. I’ve seen it time and time again. I guess for some, if that’s what it takes to ensure the IWT are built, that’s what they’re prepared to do.

    I want to be clear; I am NOT against green energy generation. I am not against green energy groups who feel they have a deep seated obligation to save our planet. What I am against is the autocratic decision making that has and continues to permeate the energy file in Ontario. Bottom line: I want a government that is prepared to tell us the truth when it comes to Ontario’s energy commitments. Just tell us if you’ve already committed to the Ostrander Point project.

    Finally, at the least, we should be asking ourselves the following:

    Was the Green Energy Act created to eliminate municipal oversight and decision making? In other words, remove any sort of individual or group pushback. If so, was that to ensure delivery on Ontario’s energy commitments, both renewable and nonrenewable, to NERC and our friends to the south?
    Has the province of Ontario already LEGALLY committed to a number of green energy projects via the NERC and the independent electricity operator of Ontario? In other words, are the IWT and other green projects planned for Ontario fait accompli? Could that be the reason why during the most recent election, Dalton McGuinty seemed ready to commit political suicide over ensuring green energy projects moved forward, particularly in rural areas. Look where that got him. A lot red turned blue. You get the idea.
    Why has the province allowed developers of green energy projects to start digging before the completion of environmental and health studies?

    Finally, I am a bit confused and somewhat alarmed when I see that sustainability groups have decided to support a project with the word INDUSTRIAL in it. When I think industrial, I don’t think sustainability. I think BIG BUSINESS, BIG MONEY and BIG PROFITS!!!… all of which contribute to exponential growth on a finite planet. From my perspective, sustainability should be localized, conservation focused and community controlled.

  4. paul says:

    Not worthy of any further discussion – The “yes” folks are bleeding heart do-gooders without any real-world experience. Their ill-conceived flag-waving enthusiasm for greedy and not-so-green corporations demonstrates their ignorance.

  5. John Thompson says:

    Tom, what may have been intended as a County vote is not restricted. Votes are coming from anywhere and repeats are possible.

  6. Tom says:

    It would appear that the vote “NO” readers are the winners or are they? How many voters were repeated voters? Is there an statistical proof that this poll was really accurate?

    Just imagine if all the energy spent here to fight the Turbines ( pro and against)was used for charitalble purpose to benefit the less fortunate.

    I wonder…..If eveyone who wanted to vote on a poll were encouraged to make a donation to a charity for the priveledge of voting what the outcome would be?

    Food for thought.

  7. Mark says:

    If the County Sustainabilty Group was speaking to a world audience, a Canadian audience or a provincial audience you might have had a point. This special interest group is a County group and their audience in our local newspaper was County folk. No one should be called an easy target. We have brains, we know right from wrong and we are more than capable to make rational decisions. Your backward steps to now attempt to make this my error only adds credibiltiy to my challenge of your groups goals. You are playing political games and you are now spinning to deflect attention on your ill conceived rhetoric. You would be more credible if you addressed the Auditor Generals report point by point. Good luck with that. Your group have seriously erred. The Town Hall is waiting.

  8. Rob Williams says:

    Mark,

    You alleged that:
    “The CSG stated in a local newspaper last week that county residents were easy targets for special interest groups”

    and then used your allegation as an excuse to imply:
    “That was demeaning and left the inference that we were naive, ignorant and ill-informed setting us up to be influenced”.

    The allegation is untrue and the mudslinging tactic is straight out of Dirty Tricks 101.

    The sentence you misquoted made no mention of county residents but offered the opinion that the “general public” is an easy target, meaning the majority of humans in N. America and beyond.

    Although we all like to think of ourselves as immune to well funded and carefully crafted propaganda campaigns, in practice that is only wishful thinking, as demonstrated by the success of commercial and political advertising.

    Using false allegations to “shoot the messenger” brings a new low to what should be a respectful discussion, and reveals a lot about your credibility.

  9. Mark Russell says:

    My issue with wind factories is primarily financial. All of the other issues that are a problem, like health issues, migratory bird issues, back-up power issues, etc., pale in comparison to the financial penalty wind factories generate. And it’s not just in reduced property value for adjacent home owners, it is the sheer cost of wind generated power that makes it the least “green” thing we could be doing.

    For example, if Ontario actually reached its goal of generating 20% of its electricity from wind, the additional cost to Ontarians over the course of 20 years would be in excess of a few hundred billion dollars! You may question that given wind energy costs a paltry 7 cents per kilowatt-hour more than energy generated by conventional means. But, over the course of 20 years, that adds up to $200 billion dollars. Anyone can do the math on this – its basic arithmetic.

    We use about 200 billion kilowatt-hours per year in Ontario … 4 trillion kilowatt-hours over the course of 20 years. If 20% of that comes from wind, that’s about 800 billion kilowatt-hours that cost us and extra 7 cents each, or a total of $56 billion dollars. And, that’s not the end of the extra cost of wind, because in order to generate that much energy from wind, we would have to have three times that capacity standing by, ready to generate electricity when the wind doesn’t blow (which is 25% of the time). And that particular kind of energy is also generated at a cost-premium by natural gas (thereby causing the wind factories to also be responsible for a lot of CO2 output … in other words, wind is not completely “green”.) So, the additional cost of the natural gas factories that go hand-in-hand with the wind factories will cost an additional $150 billion in generation costs. The sum total of the extra cost of wind in Ontario is over $200 billion dollars.

    And if that doesn’t shake you, consider what happens to the value of homes on a typical County road along the water with 100 homes on it. Half of those homes will be waterfront, and the average value of the homes on that road may be approximately $350,000 (very conservative estimate). So the total value of the homes on that road would be $35 million. If a farmer adjacent to that road decides to contract with a wind factory so that he can collect an easy $60,000 a year for 20 years, he will cause the value of the homes on that road to decline by a total of $3.5 million, and that’s only if you take a very conservative estimate of a 10% decline in home value if in-view of a wind factory (very conservative for a waterfront property). So in effect, the neighbours of that farmer are paying more than double what that farmer is collecting for allowing the wind factory on his property. It’s no wonder this issue is divisive in the County.

    All of the arithmetic that demonstrates the folly of wind factories is available to everyone with a high school education. However, the energy companies, the Ontario government, and the pro-wind special interest groups do not want anyone to stop to ponder this basic problem with wind factories – they like to resort to simple arguments like “we have to do SOMETHING to stop global warming,” or, “if we’re not part of the solution we’re part of the problem.” If the pro-wind faction gets any real traction with wind factories Ontario will be bankrupt before we actually save the world.

  10. John Thompson says:

    Doris, all I was saying is that the vote is open to anyone anywhere, as evidenced by the fact that I was able to vote from the ski lodge computer before coming home. No identity was required. Straw votes have their limitations and so does technology.

  11. Mark says:

    Rob,

    The CSG stated in a local newspaper last week that county residents were easy targets for special interest groups. That was demeaning and left the inference that we were naive, ignorant and ill-informed setting us up to be influenced.
    If I voice my opposition to industrial wind turbines that is my right and choice. I do not expect anyone to believe it anymore than I expect them to believe the much debatable information you and your special interest group are flogging. I know that wind enrgy is expensive. I know that it requires backup. I know that it causes some health issues as publicly confirmed by nearby humans to turbines. I know that they kill birds and a migratory route is a poor location. I know that they lower neighbouring property values. I know that they are a poor mix in a tourist based region. These things are not revelations to anyone so have it and say it ain’t so. I mean we are easy targets and really wouldn’t no the difference.

  12. Rob Williams says:

    To Paul,

    Thanks for sharing your opinions. As to getting the facts straight, please be more specific in your challenge to the particular information I presented.

    Please also identify your source references so that we can see that your alternative information is based on more than just opinion.

    To Mark,

    On one thing we agree, County residents are quite capable of making a reasoned decision on whether wind turbines are appropriate. It is important to note, however, that in order to make a valid decision on any subject we all need relevant and accurate information.

    Unfortunately you and several other commenters still seem to be following the approach:
    • If you say it often enough, they’ll believe it.
    • Who needs evidence?
    • Shoot the messenger who bears unwelcome news.

    CSG members continue to advocate the opposite approach:
    • Be skeptical of ‘facts’ or arguments that lack supporting evidence.
    • Base your decisions on facts and arguments that ARE supported by CREDIBLE evidence.
    • Do your homework so that you know which is which.

  13. Dan says:

    John,

    Whose “greater good” are you talking about? I base my arguments on research and talking to several electrical engineers who all came to the same conclusion that IWT’s are not a reliable, cost effective, carbon reducing source of electricity for Ontario. The “Global warming” hoax has been exposed to the wealth distribution mechanism the United Nations intended it to be. So now they call it “climate change” because yes the climate is always changing and has been for millions of years. Big industry (for the money), big government (for the ego) and some in the county (for reasons of their own and without merit) continue to flog this archaic source of energy to the detriment of the people, businesses, and the sensitive environment areas found in PEC. Any research that finds the south shore as an eligible area for IWT’s, must be suspect and probably has political influence from beyond the county.

  14. Doris Lane says:

    John it is too bad that you cannot take the vote on wind turbines for what it is–a vote by the readers of County live on an issue which is doing great damage to the county both physically and emotionally.

    I owe an apology to Robert Quaiff as I have been informed
    by ratepayers in North Marysburgh that Robert did indeed contact the ratepayers of North with a questionaire on local matters. As far as I have heard so far that honour goes to Quaiff and Heather Campbell only
    I have contacted Robert on several occasions as the Picton councillors do not seem to be concerned about ratepayers issues.
    Robert always returns my e-mails. He is a councillor who cares about the people of the County.

  15. John Thompson says:

    Dan, I repeat two main points from the submission:

    – the greater good
    – Constraints will prevent wind development in most of the County. Athol and SM have the only eligible land space according to our research.

  16. Dan says:

    After John Thompson’s submission and some council member’s arguments, I repeat.
    There are those that look to make the “big” income off of lease agreements at the expense of their neighbours.

  17. John Thompson says:

    The local and provincial anti wind groups must have emailed their members (as would be expected) because the initial votes were positive followed by a flood of negative. Many of these votes could have been from out of County as proven by the fact that I have been able to register my vote before returning home from an out of County and Province location using the ski lodge computer. No identification was required.

  18. Mark says:

    It is not Mark et al. There hasn’t been any rhetoric that is out of hand. Why is it that the CSG continues to tell us what we should think and say? They have already proclaimed that we County folk are easy targets,suggesting we are not smart enough to understand the isues. Well as I stated earlier, I find that inference insulting. We are quite capable of making a reasoned decision on whether industrial wind turbines are appropriate. And climate change is a whole other debate.

  19. virginia says:

    Stop the insanity. A straw vote on a web site means absolutely nothing. It just encourages irrationality.
    Steady on!

  20. Doris Lane says:

    Kudos to county live for putting out the poll to vote and to all the comments against IWT=s
    maybe council could take a page from county lives book and ask the people of pec what they want and not just assume they know best–when it is perfectly clear they do not
    cheers to heather campbell for here survey sent by email–only recived one–where are the other councillors???????

  21. paul says:

    Rob – Windpower is a fraud – it is not reliable and normal power source are running all the time anyways. We are paying NY State to take the power.

    Why are there TWO full time employees on Wolfe Island picking up dead carcasses of birds? Are those the full time jobs we want to create.

    Get your facts straight.

    The only winners here are the companies making the industrial machines, and the so-called “green” energy companies installing them – the only green is the money they are receiving.

    Why is the OFA now promoting no new installations?

    Do your homework and the facts right

  22. Rob Williams says:

    Mark et al,

    The rhetoric is getting a little out of hand here. Let’s take a breath, try to move away from heated opinion and calmly examine some facts supported by scientific evidence.

    Wind power is the fastest growing source of clean renewable energy worldwide. [1] In PEC no other clean energy resource offers greater power generation potential than wind. The whole of the South shore and West coast of PEC are among the best locations in Ontario to harvest wind energy and make a major contribution to filling the energy gap that will be left by fossil fuels. [2]

    Slowing/limiting Climate Change will yield massive survival benefits to humans and other species, including birds. Data from Wolfe Island has demonstrated that the impact of wind turbines on bird mortality even in a major bird migration route (average less than one bird/turbine per month [3]), represents no threat to the populations of the tens of millions of birds that fly that route each year.[4]

    With numbers like that it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that fears for bird populations at Ostrander point are more than a little exaggerated.

    To avoid placing wind turbines in bird migration routes would do more to threaten bird populations than benefit them, since it would mean forgoing most of the best wind resources in South East Ontario in our fight against Climate Change.

    [1] REN21 “Renewables 2011 Global Status Report” http://www.ren21.net/REN21Activities/Publications/GlobalStatusReport/GSR2011/tabid/56142/Default.aspx
    [2] Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources “Wind Speed Map for South East Region of Ontario” http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@renewable/documents/document/197240.pdf
    [3] TransAlta “Post-Construction Monitoring Report” for Wolfe Island (Dec. 16, 2011)
    http://www.transalta.com/facilities/plants-operation/wolfe-island/post-construction-monitoring
    [4] Weir, R. D. “Observations and Comments on Bird Migration through the Kingston, Ontario, Area During Spring and Autumn”, KFN Workshop on Bird Migration, 8Th March 2011..
    http://kingstonfieldnaturalists.org/events/2011migrationworkshop/birdmigration-kingston-ronweir.pdf

  23. Jim Wiegand says:

    I am going to add some sobering thoughts to this blog on wind energy. The industry was and still is being propped up by a foundation of fraud. Environmental problems can never be solved if the experts are creating bogus studies and deliberately designing their methodology for a desired end product. I call it rigging and I see this in virtually every study I read from the wind industry. The bird mortality cover-up has been going on for 28 years and to still to this day not a single mortality study has been properly conducted.

    As for the “noble cause” about greenhouse gas reduction goals, which corporate America conveniently considers to be a much larger threat to bird and all other species – Let’s put the climate change blame exactly where it really belongs – Deforestation. Micro climates are being changed daily all over the world from industry. The deforestation problem is now being made even worse from the installation of wind farms and accompanying infrastructure. Anyone that wants to see this can just take a ride on Google earth over to New England and look a the mess.

    In ten to twenty years time down the road, after hundreds of thousands of square miles of precious ecosystem habitat have been chewed up and raptor populations all over the world are crashing – What will wind energy have accomplished? At best 20% of the energy needs and we will still the have the oil consumption problem, the deforestation problem and climate change.

    The entire wind industry know very well that there is no way to ever make the propeller style wind turbine safe for birds and bats. That is why they built an industry with virtually no regulations or accountability. This way the truth could be hidden. I really believe if the public were to ever see the true suffering to eagles and other birds caused by this industry I would not need to be making these comments. The images of eagles and other birds with body parts missing then wandering around for days before dying would change this industry. According to a California Energy Commission report, the most common injury to a raptor hit by a wind turbine is, a severed wing. Golden eagles and other raptors mate for life and were meant to live 20-35 years. Not any more. A nest that was being watched by a photographer saw a female golden eagle lose her mate four years in a row before the nest was abandoned. This nest was located near Altamont pass.

    I guess my comments make it quite obvious that I despise this industry. When I see a wind turbine I see a tombstone for an eagle. As a wildlife biologist, an expert on birds of prey, and expert on wind industry studies, I know what happens at wind farms. I know for a fact mortality is far worse than what is being reported. I could prove it with a proper study. Even reported mortality at Altamont Pass would double or triple. The public would also know about the bodies of the rarest species killed by the turbines because they would not be culled from the studies or reports. As far as I am concerned, until I stop seeing bogus wind industry studies and start seeing the aggressive development of new turbine designs, this industry can never be considered a solution of any kind, for society.

  24. Mark says:

    Never give up the fight to this nonsense. Never stop until these monster turbines are rejected. Don’t just assume our council will hear the message. Remember their response to a reduced council size. We have to continuosly keep the heat on. It’s our democratic right to be heard. Special interest groups that call themselves “County Sustainability” do not speak for us. They believe they know what is best for us. Well they do not represent all citizens,only those that buy their distorted message.

  25. paul says:

    The entire shoreline around PEC is an active birding area with significant landing and take off points for migrating birds of all kinds.

    As well many of the proposed areas are rural residential.

    Both environemnts are not appropriate.

    We now have real momentum with tourists, wineries, restaurants, new residents and new investments everywhere. People come here for the peaceful enjoyment of rural Ontario at its finest.

    Now figure how many jobs tourists and new residents create both seasonally and full time jobs forever – lots and lots, versus some one time jobs and a few permanent jobs with Industrial wind turbines.

    Those in favour of these monsters need to give their head a good shake.

  26. J.Pearson says:

    These turbines are covering our country. They are causing devaluation of beautiful properties. The illnesses the have been reported have got to be serious enough to stop the building of more.I say no to wind turbines.

  27. J.Pearson says:

    No to wind turbines.

  28. Kathy MacPherson says:

    A few weeks ago I saw 6 swans flying from Smiths Bay over our house directly toward Ostrander Point. My heart stopped when I realized that if there were 40 story wind turbines installed there now and twirling away, the chances of those swans getting by them safely were pretty low. Ostrander Point is not an appropriate site for industrial wind turbines.

  29. Chris says:

    To Jack: well I don’t blame you, then. I studied the proposal and looked carefully at the placement of the 9 turbines but couldn’t see any residences.
    How far away is the closest?

  30. Jane Dean says:

    Kudos to CountyLive for conducting a survey. Councillors, listen to the people. Regardless of whether one is for or against industrial wind turbines, installing them in or around an important bird area is outrageous for many valid reasons. Stop the madness now. Just say no. Jane Dean, Milford

  31. Jack Dall says:

    Chris, I live down there and on each side of me another four families do. None of us want the turbines. We are somebody and our feelings do matter.

  32. celine dussault says:

    No matter where you stand regarding the Wind turbines, when it comes to Oestrander Point, we should all reject even the idea of thinking about touching this area. It is a protected area – and should stay that way – protected.
    Definitevely – NO WIND TURBINES in this area.

  33. Mary Beth Schofield says:

    When I voted a few moments ago…68% of County citizens agreed with me that Industrial Wind Turbines have no place in Prince Edward County.
    Not in the wildlife sanctuaries,
    not in migratory flight paths,
    not on the shores of our pristine beaches,
    or near the tax-paying citizens who have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes in the County.
    Keep turbines well away from the things that make the County special.
    We look to our representatives on Council to heed this demand. Do your homework! Don’t embarrass us and yourselves with a lack of knowledge about the reality of wind energy. We demand more of you than being a rubber stamp for the wind lobby.

  34. Chris says:

    No one lives down there. Why is there an ongoing discussion about health effects on humans?
    Have you folks been down there to see where the proposed turbines will be?
    There isn’t a living soul around that I could see.

  35. Dan says:

    The last Provincial election was a big defeat for the Liberals and the Green Fallacy act in rural Ontario. I think that gives a clear picture how most of rural Ontarians feel about IWT’s. There will always be those who are gullible followers and believe whatever the Liberals and the cocktail environmentalists tell them. There are also those that look to make the “big” income off of lease agreements at the expense of their neighbours. The majority of rural Ontarians must continue to do what is right and stop McGuinty and his misguided policies.

  36. Killashandra Ree says:

    A Freedom of Information request from the Ontario Ministry of Environment notes:
    “It appears compliance with the minimum setbacks and the noise study approach currently being used to approve the siting of WTGs will result or likely result in adverse effects …” [MOE memorandum, Ontario Senior Environmental Officer, April 9, 2010]
    The Ontario Ministry of Environment documents are available at http://www.windyleaks.com

    Shame on councillors Bev Campbell, Brian Marisett and Jamie Forrestor for not defending the health risks of the constituents of Prince Edward County. They seem to have forgotten they were voted in to represent the population, to protect our resources and to ensure the long term future of the community. No to Industrial Wind Turbines (they are NOT windmills). Reduce council size. Stop the unnecessary spending. Listen to your people.

  37. Reg Bell says:

    Last summer my wife & I took a trip over to Wolfe Island to see first hand what all the fuss was about with wind turbines .We parked our car in among the turbines & did a walk about.We couldn’t see any big deal ,actually thought they looked quite impressive .We noticed birds flying in amongst the turbines with no problem .So I have to say we’re not against wind turbines now,just the high cost the power they pruduce is.What our council should do is ignore the for & against people & persuade our Ontario government to locate a nuclear energy plant here .It’s green & will create well paying jobs for young people here in the county !

  38. John Thompson says:

    We see it often repeated here that wind power needs backup because of the intermittancy issue but the rest of the story is that all sources of generation need backup because of reliability. The authorities keep enough spinning reserves going to accomodate a major production failure such as a nuclear reactor going down. Wind variability for the amount of wind power which is in the plan should be backed up by the same reserves and we will be reducing fuel consumption and it’s impacts.

  39. Doris Lane says:

    right on GRACE ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CHECK THE PIE GRAPH ON COUNTY LIVE

  40. Janet Gracer says:

    Mr. Williams declares that our primary defence against climate change are clean energy sources. Even if this was true, which it is not, If he truly believes that wind energy is a major clean energy source he had better go back and get his facts straight! Our reliance on coal for energy has dropped to a mere 2.7% of our energy mix due to a reliable mix of nuclear, hydro and gas. Wind energy provides us with only 2.6% of our energy and must be constantly backed up by gas or hydro (each of which can be ramped up or down). Unfortunately, the ramping up and down of gas in order to accommodate wind generation results in more co2 emissions than if we just used gas at a consistent rate. Wind will never hold more than a very insignificant part of our energy mix and for the extortionate amount of money it will cost us, is a totally unrealistic and irresponsible approach to energy production. It is a failed experiment that has been proven over and over again and it is unfortunate that those that we have entrusted our province to have become deaf to the facts. To sacrifice our most beautiful rural areas to the greed of government and industry, well known for propagating untruths and false figures, is nothing short of criminal.

  41. Doris Lane says:

    If we just have wind and solar power, it will cost so much that none of us will be able to afford to use electriciy
    so we will have to sit in the dark.
    Donna where in the county do you think is auitable for IWT’s
    We do not have high mountain ranges like some countries that we can put them on

  42. Mark says:

    Big footprint lifesyles. Many of us in the County don’t leave a big foot print. Many also can’t afford the spiralling energy rtaes which will be the turbine legacy.

    As for global warming. Is it real. Many do not believe so. Meteroligist Kevin Williams from Rochester thinks it’s a crock. Alaska is presently enduring the coldest, yes the coldest winter on record, perhaps ever. Snowfalls recemtly of 18 feet. Somebody’s always waiting to make big $$$$ off the fear factor.

  43. Donna says:

    !!! “There should be no turbines in the county.” !!!

    We finally hear the bottom line from the anti-winds. It’s not about migrating birds or turtle habitat, it’s truly ‘not in my backyard’. Worse than that, it’s ‘not in my County’!

    So the attitude is: let’s consume all the energy we want for our big footprint lifestyles but refuse to share the energy resource that the County is so rich in.

  44. Chris Keen says:

    Since the majority of people who live in PEC are located in areas where, because of setbacks, or the DND exclusion zone, turbines are not allowed, the survey Councillor Forrester suggests would be pointless. These these “turbine free zone” residents can say “yes”, they approve, because there will never be a potential health risk to them and their property won’t potentially lose any of its value.

    It’s interesting to see that many of the the most vocal supporters of these things in the local media – including recent contributors to this site – reside in “turbine free” zones.

    At the end of the day it is madness to erect these things in one of two of Ontario’s major migratory flyways.

  45. Doris Lane says:

    There have been health studies done and many people across Ontario have had to leave their homes because they could not live in them after turbines came to their neighbourhood.
    We have asmall group in the County who have dug their heels in and can not think of anything else but having turbines on their land,
    Ostrander Point is not a good place for tubines or is any where else in Prince Edward County. THERE SHOULD BE NO TURBINES IN THE COUNTY.

    It is interesting to note that it seems that the councillors who want turbines are the very ones who do not want to reduce the size of council or give thr residents of the county a chance to decide their future. The council who were elected fell way short of being elected by the majority of oeople in the County

    What a mess the County is in–the council will not even listen to their new CAO,
    AS Rick of the Wellington Times says they are abunch of Cowboys

OPP reports
lottery winners
FIRE
SCHOOL
Elizabeth Crombie Christine Henden
Tony Scott Sharon Armitage

HOME     LOCAL     MARKETPLACE     COMMUNITY     CONTACT US
© Copyright Prince Edward County News countylive.ca 2020 • All rights reserved.