All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Saturday, July 24th, 2021

Full house for wind turbine Town Hall meeting

People who do not want to see wind turbines line the south shore of Prince Edward County made up the vast majority of the packed house attending MPP Todd Smith’s Town Hall meeting Thursday night at St. Andrew’s Church in Picton.
More than 250 people filled the chairs and the audience spilled into the foyer, the balcony and sat on the edge of the stage to hear speakers and the public have their say.
County organizations opposed to turbines here were well represented. The County Sustainability Group, which supports the Ostrander Point wind project, announced publicly it choose not to participate “in the promotional vehicle for the County’s anti-wind energy campaign”… but will meet the Prince Edward Hastings MPP face-to-face to provide input in a neutral setting.
Speaking about the proposed project location as an Important Bird Area, about endangered species and alvars were Rosemary Kent, of the Prince Edward Point Bird Observatory; Myrna Wood of the PEC Field Naturalists, Sandy Goranson and Janice Gibbins of the South Shore Conservancy. Orville Walsh, representing the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, spoke of “the many reason why the south shore is the wrong location.”
Karen Hatchard, representing Point to Point’s 1,200 supporters, spoke of the expansion of the south shore as a national park, noting the proposal is not a new idea, but relates to studies and discussion by council back to 1985.
“In 1993 council passed a resolution asking the government of Canada to declare their land holdings at Prince Edward Point in South Marysburgh a National Park… The idea of creating a land and marine based park has been studied to death…in 1985 and 1993 by divisions of Environment Canada.”
Garth Manning, of the County Coalition for Safe and Appropriate Green Energy, touched on real estate values, health problems, the sheer height of turbines and healthy, sustainable systems for the future, concluding “In the County our way of life is under threat. Do everything possible to get a moratorium on wind factories.”

Dr. Robert McMurtry highlighted points from various reviews and studies and the recent Auditor General’s report  which lists 36 major concerns with Ontario renewable energy initiatives, including due diligence, analysis of jobs, social injustice and health concerns.

Soon after the public portion of the meeting opened, Doug Bradshaw stood to proclaim he is for windmills and went to Wolfe Island where he “found nobody complaining there. The people making money are happy with them….”

Before he could continue the booing and hissing from the audience took over, but was quickly quashed by organizers who reminded everybody to “show respect”.

 

Sarah McDermott

Sarah McDermott, a resident of Wolfe Island, clarified “There are a lot of people who are discontented with the way the process went, the way there was no public input. We tried but we were basically ignored. We took our council to court and we were basically pushed over with promises of recreating habitat, putting money into organizations that help habitat.
“Mainly, I think I want to say it has been destructive to our community and destructive to a lot of people’s lives. It’s not an easy thing to live with at all. And there hasn’t really been any kind of discussion about the emotional turmoil that one experiences when they feel that their homes are being threatened. It starts there – the impact it has on human health.”

Janet Grace

Janet Grace, president of the Association to Protect Amherst Island, spoke of the proposal there to construct 33 turbines “the length and breadth of Amherst Island” and the impact on real estate.
“We are also an Important Bird Area. We have no fewer than 18 endangered or species at risk on Amherst Island and they are bulldozing us completely,” she said. “Thank you to the Wolfe Island people for coming to this meeting. I’m also a real estate broker.  I deal with a lot of waterfront properties. When I’m asked to take people to  Wolfe Island, I do so. I don’t say anything. The first thing people say when they walk into a home where there are turbines close by – and when I say close by I’m not saying 550 metres, we’re talking 800 metres to a kilometre-and-a-half. The first thing they say when they walk in and out onto the deck is: ‘Oh, my God. Nothing could make me buy this property.’ I’ve had people step out of the car and say ‘I’m feeling something strange in my head. What am I feeling?’ It is that low, pounding sound that is affecting them. The sales on Wolfe Island have plummeted. The prices have plummeted. The sales on Amherst Island have plummeted. Our real estate values have decreased just by the very threat of wind turbines.  I know farmers on Wolfe Island who have told farmers on Amherst Island not to do it: ‘Don’t do it. It’s terrible for your community. It’s not worth the money.’ There are a lot of land owners out there who feel maybe this is their right – they can put a turbine on their property and get their $6,000 or whatever it is and that’s their right and nobody can stop them. It is not their right to harm our lives to devalue our real estate and to provide an unhealthy atmosphere for our seniors, our children, everyone.”

Marilyn Cooper, of Picton, speaking about the province selling energy, quipped: “When I give a gift, hopefully I don’t have to pay them to take it.”

A man concerned about cumulative effects of  wind and solar projects also spoke out, hoping talk at the provincial level would also include solar projects “that are equally destructive in their own right.
“In my back yard we have a massive solar project under way, probably going to be the largest solar project in North America… Folks across Ontario are going to be displaced in exactly the same manner was wind. Take the word wind, put in the word solar. Not the small microfit guy we’re talking about but the big, big energy producers like the Samsungs of the world … the ones with hundreds of thousands of panels in your back yard.”

Vic Fedeli and Todd Smith

PC Energy Critic Vic Fedeli, the meeting’s keynote guest speaker, addressed solar and wind.
“Right off the bat, if you think wind is bad, which operates at 28 per cent efficiency; solar operates at 13 per cent efficiency. We pay 80 cents a kilowatt hour for people to produce energy from solar. So, even a kid with a lemonade stands know we can’t buy a lemon for 80 cents and sell lemonade for five cents and that’s exactly what’s happening.”
He asked the audience to remember what was “learned in the past week from Spain, Italy, the UK, Denmark, and now on the weekend, Germany, are cutting their subsidies for wind and solar.  You have the Auditor General, we had the environment commissioner talk about Smart Meters and how they didn’t work; you’ve got Spain – one of the world leaders in renewables is now getting out of that business. When Germany announced it was getting out of the solar business, it plunged the stock market in Europe last week for solar products. We’ve got Britain, Italy and Denmark all backing away from subsidies. What the hey do we need to tell this government when everybody around the world, and in our own back yard, including the Auditor General’s office, is telling the government this is a wrong-heading program?”

“I think we’ve been led down the green garden path,” said Fedeli. “I genuinely believe that the Green Energy Act is tremendously flawed and we’re going to do everything in our power to change it. It all started with the stated purpose was to “green” our Ontario energy sector.
“To meet that end, the government genuinely felt they needed for force-feed their philosophy to achieve the green energy goal. So that meant they needed to pay 80 cents a kilowatt hour, a ridiculously high amount by world standards, for solar, and an equally high FITT price for wind and again, as I said earlier, torpedoes be damned.
“We are going to work very very hard to continue to show the government that they absolutely need to listen to the people and need to listen to the municipal councils.”

 

Filed Under: Featured Articles

About the Author:

RSSComments (53)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Ken Globe says:

    How about countylive.ca just drop all the letters and comments on the wind turbine issue??? It’s obvious that neither side will agree on anything. And there are many other issues in our fair “couny” that could be discussed. Anything from people who don’t know how to park in the various parking lots, to the suicidal pedestrians who randomly dart out in traffic expecting you to stop, even though there is a nice, legal crosswalk 60 feet away from them.

  2. David Norman says:

    @ Rob Williams
    On reflection, I held back a great deal, out of deference, in my reply to your comment which attempted to use terms such as “defamation” and “cease and desist” in a quasi legal pretense. This represents a poorly executed and contrived attempt to intimidate. I perceive that you are FIT to be tied. I must point out to you that in Canadian law, one of the most important aspects which defines defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. I caution you in this regard to examine your statements, since those that are made as “facts”, particularly in the context of “special interest” ideologies, promoted by incorporated public entities such as the County Sustainability Group of which you are a proclaimed member, are actionable defamation. Statements of opinion, as you have explicitly proclaimed my comments, are not actionable defamation. I should also point out that “governments” and as such their elected officials are not subject to the same constraints regarding defamation and can in a disingenuous manner and without legal reproach, for example, label their detractors with childishly conceived defamatory pejoratives such as NIMBY.
    You state, “(I)in the interests of full disclosure, however, to those who otherwise might be influenced by your intemperate rant, I confess that my financial backers are pension funds that have no interest in how I spend my time or energy.” Here you make pretense to disclosure and then offer a confession without substantive explanation. That is a diversion, not a confession. In a metaphorical sense, I simply disengaged your lock, it was you who swung open the gate and let the dogs out. I could rightfully ask of your statement, since you present it as “full disclosure”, which pension funds?, and, do they have interest in Industrial Wind Turbine development?
    You also state, “I hesitate to dignify your disrespectful mudslinging with a response.” You are by explicit proclamation stating that I, in the context of my comments to you, lack “dignity”. Further, by couching the following statement “(T)the ‘special interests’ that primarily motivate my ‘representations’ are my children and grandchildren, as well as those of others, on whose future I hope to have a small positive impact” you are attempting to deflect scrutiny of your “confession” and implying that, since I dispute your suppositions regarding IWTs, my motives are otherwise. I note too, that you are frequently want to use the preface “in all due respect” in your directed, contentious comments. To state these opinions, and here I give you benefit of doubt, and then proceed, as you have, to express contempt for and/or allude to inaccuracy, is in my opinion a conniving pretene. You allude to the resolution of “divisiveness”, acknowledging that the PEC community is indeed divided, and I dare say shall remain so for at least a generation. I see these as fundamental flaws in logic which will inevitably, but most likely with little consequence given the sphere of influence and the inevitable self proclaimed motives of good intention which permeate this issue, result in at best, a bitter-sweet resolution.
    And here’s the kicker; I’m astonished that you and other IWT apologists even engage in this type of repartee since in my perception the “game” is fete de compli. The tentacles of narcissistic self interest in this regard are simply spread too far and wide to be unraveled and revealed. With the exception perhaps of some “moratoriums” which provide grandfathered allowance for all of the many registered FIT projects, or in some cases the prospect for more lucrative lawsuits (offshore), I perceive that you shall have your ideology in this regard, expressed in omnipresent, concrete and metallurgical terms. In the case that my meaning here has escaped you, I am acquiescing to your want of my “defeat” in spite of the fact that I felt that there was nothing, from a sustainability perspective, to be won.

  3. David Norman says:

    @ Doris Lane
    This issue will not be resolved (I paraphrase Rob Williams remarks), “by tactics which incite divisiveness”, or by your commanding overtures that “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”. If, as Rob Williams also stated,we “engaged in respectful discussion” (note that this is a two sided paradigm) this would not have (I paraphrase your remark), “turned into a circus”. To assert that “agreeing to disagree” in an agreeable manner, as a prerequisite is an absurd notion expounded to validate the assertions of those presenting this notion. That we should treat one another with civility is not in question, but becomes untenable and disingenuous when espoused in this manner and context.

  4. Doris Lane says:

    Sorry about the tyos my new laptop is not as easy to use.

  5. Doris Lane says:

    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

    Todd Smith called this meeting to gain some information to take to Toronto to speak on our behalf.
    It was a good meeting and had opinions from many differt spwakers.
    LET’S NOT TURN THE MEETING INTO A CIRCUS

  6. David Norman says:

    @ Rob Williams
    I must admit to being disappointed by your reply to my comments. You state; “Your musing:
    “I can’t help but wonder how your comments are received and tolerated by those who finance, in a literal and/or figurative manner, your representation.”
    has crossed a line. “
    That line was crossed some time ago by your tacit and/or explicit endorsement of members of the County Sustainability Group, yourself include, assertions that the endeavors of anti-IWT folk, of which I have identified myself, are “well funded” (by sources which you and the CSG have never seen fit to identify) subterfuge.
    And, in this statement; “You have strayed beyond just rude and obnoxious into personal defamation.” You have attacked my character on numerous occasions, this statement attesting to that, by inferring that I have misrepresented stated facts, distorted the reality of the true nature of this debate, albeit as you perceive it, and engaged in other prejudiced and inappropriate “NIMBY” behaviors.
    Further, your statement; “The “special interests” that primarily motivate my “representations” are my children and grandchildren, as well as those of others, on whose future I hope to have a small positive impact.” While I make no reference to “special interest” as you attempt to infer by quotations and in your parlance, “dignify (with) your disrespectful mudslinging”, I do laud your concern for others with the caveat that I disagree with your IWT suppositions in this respect.
    And perhaps the most telling of your comments; “You represent a minority…” I state unequivocally and without hesitation, in “the interests of full disclosure” that I represent only myself. I would hope that I would not be so arrogant as you imply to portend that I speak for others… for as I well know, this can never truly be the case.

  7. David Norman says:

    @ Acid Rain
    Thank you for your thoughtful accolade. I must note however, that any prideful reactions I might and have had to my contributions to this debate are always bitter-sweet.

  8. Rob Williams says:

    David Norman,
    It saddens me that it has come to this. Your response yesterday set a new low point and provided convincing evidence that offering respect is inappropriate and undeserved in your case.

    Your musing:
    “I can’t help but wonder how your comments are received and tolerated by those who finance, in a literal and/or figurative manner, your representation.”
    has crossed a line.

    You have strayed beyond just rude and obnoxious into personal defamation.

    I hesitate to dignify your disrespectful mudslinging with a response. In the interests of full disclosure, however, to those who otherwise might be influenced by your intemperate rant, I confess that my financial backers are pension funds that have no interest in how I spend my time or energy. The “special interests” that primarily motivate my “representations” are my children and grandchildren, as well as those of others, on whose future I hope to have a small positive impact.

    Please cease and desist from incendiary personal attacks that serve only to incite the divisiveness that everyone claims to abhor. You represent a minority who resort to such tactics. I hope that, unlike you, the majority of those who oppose wind turbines favour respectful discussion, disagreement without being disagreeable, and see fit to distance themselves from your uncalled for insulting and defaming comments.

  9. Acid Rain says:

    David Norman, to clarify my post’s intent, those links about acid rain were simply meant as a response to Johanna McCarthy’s question, “Anyone remember ‘acid rain’?” –the response being that acid rain persists, and my post was not meant as any “trump card” or a weighing in on this debate (for either side). I do completely agree with the entirety of your last comment.

  10. David Norman says:

    I find it deeply disturbing and counterproductive that the merits of science ethics over climate change and other human induced environmental problems such as “acid rain” and “biodiversity” are being introduced as “trump cards” in the Industrial Wind Turbine debate. I for one, do not need scientific data to convince me that the earth has been horribly altered, perhaps irreparably, by the activity of a burgeoning human population and the subsequent control and desire for our earths finite resources. We humans, and subsequently the rest of this planet which we naively portend and desire to control, are poisoned and otherwise altered by every human “industrial” activity in which we engage. That there is a crisis at hand is not disputable, it is apparent from “common sense” observation. Please keep in mind that everything we say and do, regardless of culturally defined credential, is tainted by human desire. It cannot be otherwise, for we are human primates, regardless or in spite of culturally perceived merits. We cannot shed the organic reality of our bodies no matter how we distort our “self conscious” desire. Engaging in this type of one upmanship will not release us from our desire to deny death. Our fears speak for themselves. My only hope is that the evolution of this debate might bring us to see the true nature of our reality.

  11. Mark says:

    Quite a read and points to groups and professionals that just will not listen or change their agenda over truth. Sound similar to what we are experiencing.

    Ctrl – click

    http://www.paulmacrae.com/

  12. Acid Rain says:

    Acid rain occurs when sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides—gases released by the burning of fossil fuel—form acidic compounds in the atmosphere.These fall back to earth in rain, snow, or sleet or as dry particles or gases. (At high altitudes and along coastlines, bits of acid suspended in clouds or fog pose an additional threat.)

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2009/08/whatever_happened_to_acid_rain.html

    “It is a widespread problem around the world and is an absolutely burgeoning problem in China, where they’re ramping up the burning of coal,” Likens says. “The only way to resolve this problem is to cut back the emissions.”

    http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/13-whatever-happened-to-acid-rain

  13. Johanna McCarthy says:

    Just released in Germany is a new book by two renowned scentisits Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Luning, that claim the climate catastraphe is fear mongering by politics. Vehrenholt found hundreds of errors when asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He did some digging and was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found.
    Conclusion – the science was hyped.
    Anyone remember “acid rain” ?

  14. David Norman says:

    @ Rob Williams
    I’m quite willing to return to and engage your “inane chicanery”. Although, I can’t help but wonder how your comments are received and tolerated by those who finance, in a literal and/or figurative manner, your representation. You state; “I have no problem with your number (which was for 2009 rather than the 2010/2011 result I quoted) but with all due respect it doesn’t seem to justify your outrage or change the point I raised.” It is apparent that you do not have “due respect” and to infer so is disrespectful. Yet, having your respect would be more distasteful, so I defer to the status quo. I do not require any justification for “outrage” over the murder (I say murder since it is calculated, premeditated ecocide and as I and others have advocated, unnecessary) of sentient life.
    You also state; “Unless I am mistaken 602 birds over six months equates to 100 birds per month. Spread over 86 wind turbines this equates to 1.17 birds per turbine per month.” Unless I am mistaken 602 birds and 1,270 bats, 1,872 sentient lives, over six months equates to 3,744 calculated murdered sentient lives over one year, 37,440 over ten years, and 93,600 over the stated 25 year life span of these 86 industrial wind turbines on Wolfe Island alone. Further, if we logically extend this calculation to the 553 industrial wind turbines proposed for this small “important bird and bat migration area” on the shores of eastern Lake Ontario, we produce a figure of 695,470 murdered sentient lives. I get your drift, wink wink, nudge nudge, slightly less than three quarters of a million sentient lives sacrificed to the great eco-crucifix that IWTs have come to represent… nothing egregious in that eh!
    I’m already aware of the “trump card” you are pulling from your sleeve and await your reply.

  15. Rob Williams says:

    David,

    You comment that:

    “The estimate you site of one bird per turbine per month is patently untrue and an egregious distortion. …..

    “A consultant’s report covering the period between July and December of 2009 was released recently, indicating that 602 birds and 1,270 bats were killed by the turbines over that stretch……

    “Knowing what I do about you I would have thought you would have more adeptness with figures..”

    I have no problem with your number (which was for 2009 rather than the 2010/2011 result I quoted) but with all due respect it doesn’t seem to justify your outrage or change the point I raised.

    Unless I am mistaken 602 birds over six months equates to 100 birds per month. Spread over 86 wind turbines this equates to 1.17 birds per turbine per month.

  16. David Norman says:

    @ Rob Williams
    On reflection of the last comment I directed at you, I must admit to pejorative enthusiasms. In this admission I offer the following transparency of opinion to you and all other County Sustainability Group members that I have engaged in this manner:

    The County’s Industrial Wind Turbine Debate: The Hedonism and Heroics

    (!WARNING!: the following text contains arcane and esoteric thought which may not be suitable for all readers)
    I do not truly know the truths of the motives and perceptions of those expressing concern over the Industrial Wind Turbine issue in Prince Edward County. Nor could I, for this engages a ‘complexity of individuals’ (similar in structure to a gaggle of geese) for who I have no culturally defined right and more importantly, cognitive predisposition, to assume. I can only attribute meaning based on my own knowledge, experience and observation, which makes me as subject to interpretation as those who I am want to define in an attempt to order and subsequently understand my reality in this respect. While in my weakness I have engaged the vulgar promotional strategies of many of the pro diametric of this issue, I do perceive as a con diametric, and at times employ to my personally acceptable shame, the elements of inane chicanery represented.
    All of us positioned on the continuum of the diametrically opposed on this issue must consider and measure the relative merits of the hedonist and heroic qualities of the underlying motives inferred from language exchange. That we could rely on the present naively defined expression of science, while attractive from a pragmatic point of view, would have prevented us from ever culturally evolving to the status we presuppose that we human primates have achieved. Both hedonism and heroics are the product of narcissistic desire premised on an inherent and inescapable human chauvinism. And I emphasize here that both come with a cost to individual human endeavor. In this respect I am reminded of the following poem which can be applied to both:

    Let thy desire flourish,
    In order to let thy heart forget the beatifications for thee.
    Follow thy desire, as long as thou shalt live.
    Put myrrh upon thy head and clothing of fine linen upon thee,
    Being anointed with genuine marvels of the god’s property.
    Set an increase to thy good things;
    Let not thy heart flag.
    Follow thy desire and thy good.
    Fulfill thy needs upon earth, after the command of thy heart,
    Until there come for thee that day of mourning.
    (Author unknown, Egypt circa 1000 B.C.)

    In deference I urge you, my diametric opponents to look objectively at your suppositions for they are setting the stage for all future engagement of the condition that we, the “Rogue Primates” have created in our unholy quest for the defining delusion of cultural evolution (I am reminded here of the movie “Monty Python and the Holy Grail). Exercise caution, not in your prognostication of the future, for that is the cognitive impetus that defines our species, but in the present administration of prediction. And further, to my diametrically opposed readers, if you have come to this point in my veiled diatribe, and heaven forbid, have found personal merit nestled in this bafflegab, you may have completely missed my intended meaning.

  17. Suzanne Lucas says:

    The facts with regards to IWTs are irrefutable: energy from them cannot replace coal fired plants because wind will always need a back up; IWTS do not reduce CO2 emmissions ( so if we are “fighting a war” against Climate Change we need a better weapon); the Green Energy Act has cost billions of dollars and according to the auditor general’s report the government failed to provide due dilligence; currently we do not need the energy and we are paying others to take it from us; because the government has failed to implement adequate environmental regulations, IWTS are destroying our valued natural heritage and bio-diversity (contributing to the problems attributable to climate change); the GEA is also responsible for dividing communities by offering insentives to few while others face financial and health risks; the GEA forces communities to accept IWT development and allows the government to ignore important community concerns, denying their right to social justice. If you still like this policy despite the facts then have your own meeting and have done with it.

  18. Doris Lane says:

    Global Warming in this county is caused by
    THE CEMENT PLANT
    DISEL TRUCKS AND TRACTORS
    EMISSIONS FROM CARS
    If they build turbines ,the construction of them will add greatly to carbon emmissions.
    Do you not know that wind factiries are built mainly by big oil who get carbon credits to usr on Oil SAND PROJECTS
    We only have a couple of coal fired plants in ontario–most of these emmisions come from the states

  19. David Norman says:

    @ Rob Williams
    You state “thanks for your opinions but you didn’t exactly address my point”. You are not at all welcome. What I stated was not “opinion”, it was clarification with appropriate references of the suppositions and distortions you presented from gleaned facts, in an attempt to criticize the views of another. The estimate you site of one bird per turbine per month is patently untrue and an egregious distortion. You can visit the Nature Canada web site for accurate data. As an example I quote from a Globe and Mail article; “A consultant’s report covering the period between July and December of 2009 was released recently, indicating that 602 birds and 1,270 bats were killed by the turbines over that stretch”. Read more on this at; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/windfarm-turbines-deadly-for-birds-bats/article1598597/. Your supposition appears quite different in this context. Knowing what I do about you I would have thought you would have more adeptness with figures.
    And with this following statement “A respectful and receptive forum it was not. I found it particularly noteworthy that not one of the speakers at the town hall mentioned global warming, Climate Change or the urgent need to reduce our emissions of CO2. It was slightly surreal as though the County was enclosed in a protective bubble which meant we never have to worry or do anything about these pesky global problems” you have once again demonstrated your arrogant and blatantly deceptive approach to this issue. It speaks to the insincerity of your position, revealed by your inability to face opposition in a public forum. And I have no doubt you will hear from others in this regard.

  20. Mark says:

    I really struggle with why they cannot defend their views in an open forum. Defintely an opportunity missed. If you expect to only speak to Industrial Wind Turbine supporters you would probably only be speaking at your own meeting. Much like preaching to the converted. It leaves me with the impression that they will not look at real life concerns or address what is problematic issues for the vast majority of residents. It’s like they have their agenda, they are convinced almost cult like that they are right and refuse to listen to any dissenters. Scary!

  21. Rob Williams says:

    David,

    Thanks for your opinions but you didn’t exactly address my point:

    “…it is hard for most of us to understand why a bird kill rate of less than one bird per turbine per month is perceived as a significant threat to the populations of what is estimated at tens of millions of migrating birds.”

    It’s particularly hard to understand why the same people who are concerned about the above threat seem totally unconcerned about the massive numbers of birds and other species already being killed as a result of our profligate use of fossil fuels.

    I did attend the Town Hall and agree with Don’s comment. The imbalance was even more extreme than was forecast in the CSG letter. A respectful and receptive forum it was not.

    I found it particularly noteworthy that not one of the speakers at the town hall mentioned global warming, Climate Change or the urgent need to reduce our emissions of CO2. It was slightly surreal as though the County was enclosed in a protective bubble which meant we never have to worry or do anything about these pesky global problems.

    If only it were so.

  22. Don Chisholm says:

    No Gary, I did not attend. Many of us recognized this, “Town Hall Meeting”, was set up as an anti-wind pep rally chaired by the Provincial opposition party’s energy critic. As reports indicate, this was no place for an opposing view, as the gentleman who did speak in favour of wind discovered to his dismay.

  23. Gary Mooney says:

    Mark, re the group to which you refer — I’m told that they did have members of their leadership in attendance: Don Chisholm, Don Ross and Rob Williams.

    It’s too bad that they didn’t speak up in support of the gentleman from Demorestville who commmented that he had visited Wolfe Island and didn’t find any problems.

  24. Mark says:

    Excuse me. Auditor Generals report, McMurty’s opinion, Wolfe Island residents. Does some special interest group that chooses to put the County name on their tag expect credibilty when they sly away from any debate? They would experiment with a costly illconceived concept to save face. Just come out and tell the Wolfe Island residents that they are crazy and all their health concerns are imagined. Have at it again. The weekly sermon on how the Prince Edward County Industrial Wind Turbines will save the Earth are getting a tad old!

  25. David Norman says:

    @ Rob Williams
    Did you read and/or research the links you provided in your comment to Johanna? Let me first address the TransAlta link: http://www.transalta.com/facilities/plants-operation/wolfe-island/post-construction-monitoring). TransAlta is an Alberta based energy company with IWTs on Wolfe Island which as a function of the Green Energy Act is allowed to conduct its own monitoring of bird and bat kills. It states on the TransAlta web site that “Data collected during the monitoring work is done professionally, objectively and without bias. The monitoring reports are prepared by third-party experts who have extensive experience in post-construction monitoring programs.” Take note that the monitoring (collecting the carcasses) is done by TransAlta personal, while the actual data is farmed out to “others”. You’re implying that we are to trust the credibility of an energy company with vested interest which recently confessed to market manipulation and was fined $370,000, the highest penalty in Alberta history, which was “a pittance compared to an estimated $5.5 million consumers paid in inflated costs.” Read complete story at: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/TransAlta+Corp+admits+market+manipulation/5671487/story.html#ixzz1m1i9MO1M
    Your link http://kingstonfieldnaturalists.org/events/2011migrationworkshop/birdmigration-kingston-ronweir.pdf) (OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS ON BIRD MIGRATION THROUGH THE KINGSTON, ONTARIO, AREA DURING SPRING AND AUTUMN By Ron D. Weir) from which you derive your “what’s a few bird deaths matter when there are millions flying by” premise is also counterproductive. In his last paragraph Ron Weir states his concerns quite clearly, and I quote; “During the early stages of planning for installation of windmills on Wolfe Island, the KFN provided the Ontario MNR and Environment Canada with factual information with respect to the sites on Wolfe Island where bird casualties would likely be the greatest. It appears that this advice was totally ignored by the company undertaking the installation and therefore there should be no surprises about the casualties that are resulting. Sound environmental advice has the potential to minimize the environmental impact in all aspects of development. Unfortunately it appears that only lip service is paid to these concerns.”

  26. Rob Williams says:

    Johanna,

    You caution that the adverse consequences attributed to Climate Change “…are the things that will happen by building IWT on Ostrander Point.” You further say “There will be mass extinction of endangered or at risk birds being killed by the blades of the turbines.”

    Your comments suggest that we are encountering a misunderstanding because of inconsistencies in our use of terms. Mass extinction is a term normally reserved for events such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs and approximately 75% of all species 65M yrs ago or the even bigger event 250M yrs ago which wiped out approximately 90% of all species. Five such events appear in the fossil record.

    There is strong scientific evidence that we are in the early stages of a sixth event (e.g., see “Biodiversity crisis: Habitat loss and climate change causing 6th mass extinction” http://indymedia.org.au/2012/01/22/biodiversity-crisis-habitat-loss-and-climate-change-causing-6th-mass-extinction).

    Suggesting that the Ostrander Point wind project will cause a mass extinction event I assume is not what you intended.

    If we compare the measured impact of Wolfe Island wind turbines on bird mortality averaged over a year (see TransAlta “Post-Construction Monitoring Report” for Wolfe Island (Dec. 16, 2011)
    http://www.transalta.com/facilities/plants-operation/wolfe-island/post-construction-monitoring)
    to the numbers of birds that migrate through the Kingston/Wolfe Island area in a year (see 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)
    it is hard for most of us to understand why a bird kill rate of less than one bird per turbine per month is perceived as a significant threat to the populations of what is estimated at tens of millions of migrating birds.

    If the mortality rate were a hundred or more times greater, the need for concern would be more readily apparent. Your assertion that all but one wind farm in N. America has even lower bird kill rates than Wolfe Island, sounds like good news.

    Ostrander Point has lower bird densities than Wolfe Island so we should expect correspondingly lower bird kill rates per turbine.

  27. David Norman says:

    @ Brock
    Took some time to reflect on your response to my response to your response to Donna’s post (have I lost you yet?). I seek transparency, which oft times means that I must accommodate wider motivating views. In fact, I find these views more instructive in terms of understanding the underlying motives/perspective of individuals. I see nothing offensive in statements of partisan politics, other than the notion that they represent a system of hierarchical control which I perceive as inherently flawed.

  28. Jack Dall says:

    It is time we took a stand, or draw a line in the sand as councillor Quaiff stated. The answer is simply “no” we are not having these monsters in our backyard and they simply shouldn,t be in any ones backyard.

  29. Dan says:

    To Donna and John

    Repeat, if your really interested in the truth.

    All your ramblings and tirades will not hide the Liberal Government’s ignorance and complete incompetence in dealing with Ontario’s energy needs.

  30. Tom says:

    @ Donna…correction…”possible” should have been as NOT possible…

  31. Tom says:

    @ Donna..

    You really said it all!!!!!

    Good going girl!!!

    A voted in party will promise just about anything even though it may well be possible.

    Tom

  32. Treat Hull says:

    John, you commented that “Treat Hull’s oft-mentioned hydro line from Quebec comes with its costs too; just ask the Cree…the fish that used to be a staple of their diet are now laced with mercury released into the water after flooding from the massive hydroelectric dams.”

    I was opposed to the James Bay projects of the 1970’s when the Quebec government unilaterally displaced the native people, but fortunately Quebec’s northern native nations have had some success in having their rights recognized since then.

    Before I came to the conclusion that importing hydro-electricity from Quebec was a responsible option, I researched the position of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and established that responsible development of hydroelectricity is part of their vision for the economic development of their people.

    I also spoke directly with Ghislain Picard, the Regional Chief of Quebec and Labrador with the Assembly of First Nations. He confirmed that they would look favourably on interest in hydroelectricity from Ontario because it would give them more leverage with the Quebec government.

    I am sorry I was away in the US all last week and unable to attend what sounds like a very successful meeting.

    Treat Hull

  33. Brock McKay says:

    Okay,

    For those who haven’t read the Auditor General’s report…

    The province’s current target for wind is 10,700MW.

    Wind has an efficiency of roughly 28%, as compared with hydroelectricity which is roughly 65%. Wind is intermittent and less effective when Canada hits its summer power peak because meteorological conditions in Canada show less wind in summer. So, in summer, wind is about 17% efficient.

    In order to achieve the 10,700MW goal, the province has set, the IESO and OPA have said you will need a 47% back up or 5,029MW of natural gas power. So, your green energy strategy is going to cause you to burn a fossil fuel. Thereby wiping out its overall greening effect.

    Also, your hydro numbers are off. While hydro power does currently comprise 22.2% of our power, the Ontario Waterpower Association estimates that another 10-13 percent of our power supply can come from pumped storage projects, new hydroelectric projects and refurbished existing projects to increase their efficiency.

    While you’re correct in stating that some pumped storage projects CAN use wind power. You are incorrect in stating that they MUST. Using windpower or solar is actually a new process for pumped storage. Many pumped storage projects currently exist without windpower.

  34. John says:

    And just where do you think we can come up with the 5000 megawatts of water powered electricity we need now? And the umteen megawatts of power we will need to power transport and building heating when those are converted to electricity – as they must be?

    The limit, including the Niagara tunnel, is about 5000 megawatts but only if you include pumped storage capacity. How do you power pumped storage? With wind energy! So drop water power down another notch to 3800 megawatts. We then can’t meet our current needs let alone the future.

    The choice is NOT hydro vs wind. Face it, the “free ride” we have been on is over. Sacrifices will need to be made or the planet will be unrecognizable in the very near future.

  35. Brock McKay says:

    Which, David, would be fair game if this were a federal issue or there were federal involvement or anything really related to all the areas of federal jurisdiction which she listed.

    However, none of this is federal, which places all of her criticisms far, far off topic. Todd Smith, while a Progressive Conservative, is a provincial representative. Different party + different level of government = off topic.

    Not only off topic, but disrespectful in tone. Therefore, inappropriate and should be taken down.

  36. David Norman says:

    Actually Brock, my first impression of Donna’s comment was that it was fair game given that the impetus for this Town Hall, Todd Smith PC is PECs elected Provincial representative. While I too can appreciate his approach to the Wind Turbine issue, I can also appreciate and in many references support, Donna’s perspective on the Conservative’s record.

  37. Mark says:

    Wow Donna get the soap box out. That was quite a rant. But seriously as much as you obviously despise the Cons this subject matter is industrial wind turbines.

  38. Brock McKay says:

    I’m sorry but Donna’s comment is insulting and besides that, it’s wildly off topic. It has nothing to do with the town hall, or the turbines for the South Shore and it ignores calls by both pro and anti turbine advocates to keep the debate respectful.

    I think site administrators should remove the comment.

  39. Donna says:

    So you’re pro the Conservatives?

    The Cons who are messing with the Canadian economy, turning us into a resource-only nation?

    The Cons who are squandering money on jets and jails?

    The Cons who are cutting back on our Old Age Security and our Guaranteed Income Supplements?!

    The Cons who are de-funding the CBC to silence their critics?

    The Cons who are piling up debt so there will be no money for social programs in the future?

    The Cons who give the oil industry $2.5 billion in tax breaks?

    The Cons who give the oil industry $2 billion for CO2 burial (so we pay for their pollution)?

    The Cons who are lobbying for the Keystone Pipeline and the Gateway Project to increase markets for dirty oil sands?

    The Cons who create Senate seats so they can ignore the balance set in our Constitution?

    The Cons that steal $50 million for Tony Clements’ riding?

    The Cons who break election funding laws?

    The Cons who hire ex-convicts to advise the Prime Minister?

    THERE’S NOT ONE AVERAGE CANADIAN WHO IS BETTER OFF WITH THE CONSERVATIVES IN POWER…ONLY THE CONS AND THEIR RICH FRIENDS.

  40. Brock McKay says:

    Independent British capital cost estimates show a 50% higher cost for wind than hydroelectricity, which is the real choice here.

    This has been presented as a choice between coal and wind. It’s not. It’s a choice between hydro and wind. And under ANY objective evaluation, hydroelectricity is the far, far, far superior choice.

    As our friend, Treat Hull, has pointed out. It’s just as green, it makes far more economic sense, it doesn’t cause anyone’s property values to go down and its a far more efficient and reliable source of power.

    This is a battle of hydro vs. wind and there is no evidence that supports wind in that battle.

  41. Dan says:

    John,

    All your ramblings and tirades will not hide the Liberal Government’s ignorance and complete incompetence in dealing with Ontario’s energy needs.

  42. John says:

    In an Ontario study in 2007, the OHIP costs associated with asthma was about $200 per household. The cost of the GEA is put at about $98 per household. Burning fossil fuels aggravates asthma. Then there are all the other repiratory diseases which have to be costed. Then there are the direct and indirect costs we all pay but aren’t costed. Drill baby drill, burn baby burn…all the way to the hospital.

    Turbines cost $1 per megawatt installed or $4 if adjusted for availabilty. The Niagara tunnel will cost $6 per megawatt if on budget. Cheap hydro-electricity? Not! And Treat Hull’s oft-mentioned hydro line from Quebec comes with its costs too; just ask the Cree…the fish that used to be a staple of their diet are now laced with mercury released into the water after flooding from the massive hydroelectric dams.

    Darlington 1-4 cost $4 per megawatt in the mid-eighties…a Progressive Conservative project, Todd Smith; cost overruns due to interest charges from political delays was the biggest part. More nuclear anyone?

    The fact is that turbines have just about the lowest externality cost of any form of power generation.

  43. Johanna McCarthy says:

    The CSG says that climate change will affect natural habitat loss, mass species extinctions and diminished water tables. Things which all of us should be concerned about. Yet these are the things that will happen by building IWT on Ostrander Point.
    There will be mass extinction of endangered or at risk birds being killed by the blades of the turbines. We just have to look at Wolfe Lsland which has the second highest bird kill in North America. Spain’s turbines have killed over 18 million birds and bats in one year alone. Germany has a kill rate per turbine per year of 309, and Sweden 895.
    Rare natural habitat will be destroyed when the bulldozers come in and rip off vegeation to create nine cement pads each the size of a football field.
    Water tables will be damaged by the blasting of the bedrock to level the area.
    All this damage from a technology that has not been proven safe or efficient.
    A UK study by Ruth Lea says that wind power is not even an effective means of cutting carbon emmissions in order to meet climate change targets. Neclear power and/or efficient gas-fired plants are far more effective in achieving these goals.
    A Dutch study by Kees le Pair says that wind turbines on a normal windy day in the Netherlands actualy increase fuel (gas) consumption rather than reducing it, when compared to electricity generated with modern high effeciency gas turbines.
    If we want to do something about climate change there are better ways than wind energy. Hydro electric plants or high effeciency gas-fired palnts are a better source of power.

  44. John says:

    Yeah, we all can sit back and complain about what is wrong but what are you doing that is right? They have found the boreal forest in the prairies is dying off because of climate change. Dead flora and fauna zone on its way. Glaciers that feed the prairie rivers all summer are shrinking rapidly. No water for farming. People forced from their houses and livelihood. Twice in a decade “once in a century flooding” in Manitoba. Crops can’t be planted, people forced from their homes. Lucky no one died. Spring comes earlier in nesting ground of scaup and scoters. They don’t adjust and numbers reduced by 40% and 60%. Soon the south shore will have no ducks that make it such an important birding area.

    But we can build our retirement McMansions on the water in PEC and bury our heads in the Sandbanks.

    Meanwhile the CSG gets slammed for trying to come up with solutions.

    In the Kent Breeze tribunal they talked about the annoyance of wind turbines, but that pales to the annoyance of their detractors!

  45. R Y McMurtry says:

    We all believe in green but not in the Green Energy Act. The GEA in the long run will do a great deal of harm to that which is really green, really sustainable and really progressive. The GEA has divided communities, created energy poverty, put people out of their homes, created dead zones for fauna and made people and children unwell. All this has been done in the absence of any due diligence, a fact made very clear by the Auditor General. The government has little capacity to monitor harm and to this point has little interest in intervening on behalf of rural Ontario. Premier McGuinty’s ship of state is heading for the rocks. Sadly we will all have to pay the price for his failures.
    Time to act to limit the damage. A moratorium and appropriate independent evaluation is needed now. In its absence a public enquiry must be the next step.
    Bob McMurtry

  46. Doris Lane says:

    Good to hear from Earle and Joan Taylor–Earle is a medical surgeon and Joan a nurse. They have a good understanding of the health issues.

    Check Vic’s comments from town hall meeting–see how much wind and solar is going to cost us. Another plant just closed in Ontario. Could it be the high cost of electricty???Power is cheaper in the US because we pay them to take our excess power

  47. Leslie Kaduck says:

    Wolfe Island is a mess. The highest bird and bat mortality rates in North America; Transalta abandoned the promises to build bike paths and reforest the hundreds of mature trees and saplings, hedgrows and bird habitat destroyed to accommodate roads; the township willingly covered up the destruction of wetland in the “protected” Little Sandy Bay. Maybe the 22 landowners profitting (many of the absentee landowners) are happy — but the vast majority are either ambivilant because they reside kilometres away or fuming over the financial toll. There is NO local economy linked to these monstrosities. The hotels and B&Bs The impact of these intensive developments will be felt for generations in decreased biodiversity, decreased land values and decreased quality of life.

  48. Joan and Earle Taylor says:

    We both feel that windmills are not something de need in this county. They are known to cause medical problems eg. Heart attacks, hypertension, strokes. They are noisy and ugly, they don’t much power and are very destructive to the bird population in the area. Consequently we both vote NO to wind mills.

  49. Lori Smith says:

    Hopefully the people that read in the Gazette the meeting was to be held at Bloomfield Town Hall, managed to find their way to St Andrew’s in Picton.

    The massive solar installation the man mentioned being built across the road from his home is in Odessa. They moved there a few months ago and only found out about the solar plant when construction began.

  50. Doris Lane says:

    A very comprehensive report of the excellent meeting held by Todd Smith on Feb 2. Noted that a very vocal member of the sustianability group was present but did not speak to the group. It was very obvious from the presenters that IWT’s are not sustianable.

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 2021 • All rights reserved.