All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Friday, December 4th, 2020

“Alarming pattern from Liberals” responding to WindyLeaks wind concerns

Ontario Liberals React to launch of WindyLeaks.com

WindyLeaks.com UPDATE: Aug. 18,2011 –
“We’ve seen an alarming pattern from the Ontario Liberals in responding to concerns about industrial wind development in Ontario” said John Laforet, President of Wind Concerns Ontario. “Liberal MPPs and staff are treating these concerns like a communications problem they can spin away with half truths and an have undertaken an effort to suppress the truth while Ontarians suffer. Wind Concerns Ontario is putting the Ontario Liberals on notice that we intend to use their own internal documents to demonstrate they are lying.”

Earlier this week WindyLeaks.com released a memo from Cameron Hall, Senior Environmental Planner from the Ministry of the Environment, who criticized the 550 meter setback and the allowable noise discharge of 40 decibels.
In his memo Hall cites field work undertaken that demonstrates wind turbine noise discharge is different than typical noise, resulting in adverse effects at lower decibel levels than other noise and states turbines should not be allowed to cause more than 32 decibels of noise at the point of receptor (thus calling for a greater setback).

“The Ontario Liberals shameful lack of commitment to the truth appears to be deeply entrenched,” WindyLeaks posts. “In response to this first release, Guelph MPP Liz Sandals stated incorrectly that the Ontario Liberals Green Energy Act regulations comply with the World Health Organization’s noise guidelines, while Jonathan Rose, an aide to Environment Minister John Wilkinson stated incorrectly that an Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the noise limits and determined Ontario’s wind energy regulations to be safe.”

“In the midst of being caught with clear evidence that Ontario’s setback regulations don’t protect human health in a memo drafted over a year ago by Ontario’s civil service, Ontario Liberal officials chose to lie about lying instead of using the opportunity to come clean and begin cleaning up their mess” Laforet said. “We will continue releasing documents that prove unequivocally this government knows there is a problem, but Ontario Liberal MPPs and staff have chosen to suppress information, instead of dealing with it.”

WindyLeaks.com has scheduled another release for Monday Aug. 22nd at 8 am “and will continue daily postings of victims ignored pleas for help to the Ministry.”

Windyleaks reports McGunity Liberals hiding wind turbine truth

AUG: 15 – A government memorandum on wind turbines obtained through the Freedom of Information Act was released today by Wind Concerns Ontario’s “windyleaks.com” campaign. The document, says Henri Garand, of the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, was written in April 2010 and shows the McGuinty Liberals were well aware that noise from industrial wind turbines operating, even in compliance with Ontario’s wind turbine regulations, were causing adverse effects on communities.

Windyleaks.com reports:
The damaging report by Cameron Hall, a Senior Environmental Officer with the Ministry of Environment in the Guelph District Office, exposes several serious deficiencies in Ontario’s legislated noise limits for wind turbines at 40 decibels. Hall describes the noise from wind turbines as ‘sound contamination discharged into the natural environment…’

In the document released today Hall indicates that there are many characteristics of wind turbine noise not addressed in the regulations. These characteristics must be factored into the equation when assessing tolerable turbine noise levels in quiet rural settings especially at night.

Hall comments that wind turbines create an audible ‘swish’ or cyclical sound as the gigantic turbine blades pass the towers at speeds of over 200km/hr. Any other industrial noise with this quality receives a 5 decibel penalty. Currently the Minister of Environment says 40 decibels is the acceptable level for wind turbine noise. However with just that 5decibel penalty the noise limit should be lowered to 35decibels.

“For almost four years residents in rural Ontario have played by the book,” says John Laforet, president, Wind Concerns Ontario. “They have complained about the unbearable noise to the field officers in their region believing that the field officers would communicate the issues to the minister and his advisers. If this is how the government process works, by burying evidence, then the system is either broken or corrupt.”

The FOI document shows in statement after statement that the field officers do not support the ministry guidelines. E.g. “The assumption…is not supported by our field observations”, “is not supported in the report”, “…this conclusion is not supported by our field officers” , and ” …it appears reasonable to suggest the setback distances should be calculated using a sound level limit of 30 to 32 dBA at the receptor [home], instead of the 40dBA sound level limit.”

An increase of 10 decibels to a noise is perceived by the human ear as a doubling of that sound. The fact is wind turbine developments in Ontario are permitted to go to 51 decibels even at night – a full 20 decibels over the tolerable threshold for human perception.

“What is really disturbing,” said Laforet, “is that it appears this Liberal government is operating in a culture of Willful Blindness at the most senior level including the Ministers of Environment, Health and inside the Premier’s office.”

Download the memorandum obtained through the FOI act by clicking here http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/

windyleaks.com was launched this week by Wind Concerns Ontario with an aim “to regularly release and feature revealing documents through Ontario’s fall election campaign to educate voters on the Ontario Liberal’s dishonesty on the impacts of industrial wind turbines.”

Filed Under: Local News

About the Author:

RSSComments (89)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Henri Garand says:

    John No. 3,

    As I explained in my lengthy August 27th comment, the Ontario legal cases did not resolve the fundamental issues. The Divisional Court judges did not examine any scientific evidence, and the Environmental Review Tribunal focused only a specific project. Since it’s impossible to identify specific harm to nearby residents before wind turbines start to operate, the ERT process, which requires a pre-operation appeal, is a farce.

    What part of this don’t you understand?

    You may be comfortable giving free rein to industrial development, but a lot of us are not. The history of the petro-chemical industry is instructive. Moreover, this week the Australian state of Victoria established 2 km residential setbacks and 5 km community setbacks. Ontario is no longer a world leader in protecting its citizens.

    As for the technical aspects of wind turbines and the electrical system, we could argue over these forever. But wind would still not provide dependable electrical power 24/7 no matter how you finesse it.

  2. Ernest Horvath says:

    John , I have read the tribunal findings and the appeal.
    There is the real world interpretation , and then there is “courtroom language”.
    To an average person , when their head or body begins to hurt , because of the hum or vibration or due to the effects of stray voltage … that pressure in your head and your body ..do you really think that an argument that their issues are different because they aren’t standing at the same longitude and lattitude at a different time of year or day or hour as the other people that have similar issues somewhere else , so what they are experiencing doesn’t apply in their case ,because it it slightly different ?
    There is courtroom logic , then there is real world reality for the people that are being impacted.

    Anyone can go on youtube and watch thousands of individuals , worldwide , telling their stories that your industry and this government are saying doesn’t exist.

    There are some companies out there that have bought peoples homes because of the issues they have lived with.
    And that to me is ethical. And shows they care. And I respect that.

    Some people are affected , some aren’t. Just as some people react to poison ivy , some do not.
    You would save a lot more money , and time and grief by working with those that it does affect.

    Everything has some form of impact.

    I wish someone in your industry could understand that working together as a group , as a community would further your interests far more than ignoring them.

    The people that sat down and designed the GEA made a huge error in judgement.
    It has destroyed a political partys credibility , as well as the ECO groups that helped design it.

    I don’t know who you represent government or alternate energy but I think working towards building trust and respect is road that has far less friction.

    From where I stand , if done properly there shouldn’t be a war.

  3. John says:

    Mr. Horvath which part of this did you not understand?

    “The Tribunal has found that the Appellants have not met the legal test set out in section
    145.2.1(2)(a) of the EPA and the appeals must, therefore, be dismissed.”

    The anti’s lost on every issue. Spin it any way you want the anti’s did not prove their case with the MOE or at the appeal tribunal.

  4. Ernest Horvath says:

    http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/english/decisions/index.htm

    10-121
    Erickson vs MOE July 18

    Is this what you are referring to ?
    Well , it is painful to read , but those who are on the fence , you may be interested in reading it.

    There is also a 223 page review , that explains the entire case on the same page down the list with the same name and number.

  5. John says:

    Actually Henri if you reread your post you will find you were saying wind doesn’t decrease co2 production.
    “wind power saves less than one percent in GHG emissions”

    You are wrong about what you said, wrong about natural gas turbines meshing with wind, wrong about what the Bentek Energy report said. And wrong about Niagara Falls where they have massive reservoirs to store water. It is a rare reservoir that is always full so reducing power from water is a viable solution to mesh with wind.

    If anti-wind had any legitimate arguments they would have won a court decision somewhere. But they haven’t because they haven’t.

  6. Donna says:

    Henri, there are actually some very innovative storage technologies being researched as we speak. It’s only common sense that any need for storage will be addressed by industry.

    On the other hand, as I was telling Ernest in another post, Ontario will need more power. Continued development, new technologies, population growth, etc will all demand more electricity. (Even your GAP proposal would require more electricity, Henri.) Ontario will need all the green energy it can generate!

    From the Globe and Mail today:

    “Magna International and the Ontario government are set to announce an investment of more than $400-million in research and development into ELECTRIC vehicle technologies as Ontario strives to become a hub for the development of environmentally friendly vehicles.”

  7. Henri Garand says:

    John, I cited Bentek Energy’s study not so much because the GHG issue but because it confirms the need for backing up wind power in order to provide reliable supply and stabilize the electrical grid. That is not theory.

    Wind supporters never want to acknowledge the inconvenient fact that wind power cannot be stored. The variable supply must be used when generated, or it is wasted. Though wind turbines have been producing electricity for around 30 years, no cost-effective technology has been developed to store wind power on an industrial scale. The only solution that has worked is pumped storage, when wind power is used to pump water back into a reservoir for later use.

    Is this feasible in Ontario? In Southern Ontario hydro power comes mostly from run-of-river production like that at Niagara Falls. Just how is pumped storage supposed to work there? Most dammed Ontario rivers are in the North, where few wind projects are proposed as yet.

    Let’s look at the flipside—excess wind power. Currently, the Ontario Power Authority is obliged to purchase however much power is generated by wind. When turbines are (rarely) operating at high capacity, they provide so much power that it can destabilize the system.

    How are blackouts avoided? Other supplies may be cut back if they can easily be brought up and down. This is not really the case with coal and nuclear, but it is with hydro. At Niagara Falls water is diverted from the generating station. So wind power displaces another form of “clean” energy. What is the value of this?

    Alternatively, wind power is sold to the United States below cost or even with negative pricing. Then Ontario consumers subsidize the American electricity system.

    John No. 3 can trumpet the success of wind energy in Europe as much as he likes (and dismiss any source of information he hasn’t personally vetted and approved). In Ontario wind energy is already proving to be folly. Adding more wind turbines in the settled parts of Ontario won’t make the situation better. But it certainly will expose more and more Ontarians to the health risks.

  8. Ernest Horvath says:

    Well then great..lets say for arguments sake that we all agree we should adopt alternate energy.
    For the good of mankind.
    There are hundreds of thousands of homes , businesses and farms with rooftops….lets use our money to provide grants and subsidies to us all so we can adopt alternate energy… since this is about ” the Planet” , I am sure none of you would disagree if we did this.
    Lets use our money to aid Ontarians in adopting alternate energy. It saves them money , according you some of you it will reduce GHG emissions and of course it will reduce demnd significantly.
    We can work this energy program as a collective.
    I am sure you woill all agree then ?
    Will you all support a lobby for this.
    Lets take the ” For Profit” out of the equation.
    It is afterall about emissions.

  9. Doris Lane says:

    Treat Hull summed it up very nicely the other night in Belleville. He had a chart which gives the references–wind/solar/coal/gas/water and nuclear
    Maybe Treat could print it here and it would valuable for everyone to read it.
    We all know that we do not need extra power at the moment and Dalton is just pushing wind and solar in order to make a statement for the province.
    He is more interested in Political Power than he is Electrical Power.

  10. John says:

    Henri did you bother to read the Bentek report? I did. Took it with a grain of salt because it makes its money doing analytical work for natural gas companies. None the less it supports what Ontario is doing.

    The report says emmissions increase when it is necessary to cycle COAL! fired generation plants to accommodate wind. It recommends that gas turbine be used instead.

    From the report:
    1. Short term. (1-2 years)
    Limit the utilization of wind generation to that which can be offset by cycling existing
    natural gas facilities.
    2. Long term (Beyond 2012)
    Utilities operating under RPS should consider adding significantly more combined cycle
    and combustion turbine gas plants to their generation mix. Adding more natural gas plants
    will reduce the need to cycle coal facilities in all but the most extreme situations.

    Guess what? That is exactly what Ontario is doing. Ontario also has the ability to reduce water generation which integrates well with wind. Draining of reservoirs is slowed so the power can be used later. Texas and Colorado, the subject of the reports(not California) don’t have Ontario’s hydro resouces.

    As to Denmark being unique, Germany increased electricity production and reduced CO2 emmissions each by 10% by using wind (and a small amount of solar.)
    As to Denmark’s price this from the producers of the HEPI (2009):
    When the price of the electricity alone is taken into account, a very different picture emerges.
    · Concerning household electricity prices, Paris becomes the cheapest city, with Copenhagen
    moving from most expensive (in the total price rankings) to the third cheapest, just ahead of
    Helsinki. Dublin is the most expensive followed by Rome, London and Amsterdam. Berlin moves
    from being the second most expensive (in the total price rankings) to being one of the five
    cheapest.

    The HEPI report (produced monthly) shows that as of July as a percentage of price Denmark had the lowest electricity cost and lowest combined electricity and distribution costs in Europe. The cost of electricity was less than .08 Euros last month. With distribution it was .13 Euros. All the rest was taxes. You find a similar situation with respect to natural gas in Denmark – very high energy taxes make ng among the highest priced in Europe.

    Both Denmark and Germany use heavy taxes on all forms of energy to promote efficientcy – with great success.

    Once again the facts don’t match your anti-wind assertions Henri.

    BTW I don’t read pro or anti wind websites. However when someone makes a public comment about wind I verify the data and the source, preferring original documents when available. Parroting WCO or FWO is not something I would do.

  11. John Thompson says:

    Gary, I got the number (which is close to yours) from sygration.com. The figure is not shown but I went to “current generator output” and clicked on each installation individually to get the nameplate capacity of that project and added them up. The total should represent that which is commisssioned as of today in my interpretation of it. Projects nearing readiness would not be showing so this will be an increasing figure.

  12. Henri Garand says:

    My “theory” has most recently been confirmed by the American engineering firm Bentek Energy. In a study of actual production in states like California and Texas, Bentek found that the amount of emissions abated by the use of wind farms has either been quite small or, in some cases, has caused more total emissions than a no wind energy situation.

    Guess you won’t find these facts on wind industry websites! The truth is also sometimes independent of politics.

    As you perhaps know, John No. 3, Denmark is a special case. It subsidizes the export of excess wind-generated electricity to Norway and Sweden, which use it to pump water into reservoirs, effectively storing energy. When the wind fails, the Swedes supply power to Denmark at market rates. Due to the obsession with wind energy the Danes pay approximately 35 cents Cdn. per kwh compared to a high of 9.6 cents for Ontarians (or roughly 20 cents if every charge on a hydro bill is included).

  13. John says:

    The book Gary recommended is written by:
    Robert Bryce BFineArts, late of Austin Texas, and long time energy (oil and natural gas) writer. He now resides with the Manhatten Institute – about as neo-conservative an organization as you can get. Among their funders are Exxon and Reliant Energy. They want to eliminate welfare, public education, and medicare among other social initiatives. They would be happy to see free markets in energy.

    That is who Robert Bryce schills for today.

    The writer I recommended, Dr. David Sanborn Scott, has a PHD from Northwestern in engineering and numerous awards for his work in energy related systems.

    Your choice.

  14. John says:

    The book you and Henri should be reading, Gary, is “Smelling Land”. In it you will discover how renewables integrate into a sustainable (millenia at least) energy system without fossil fuels.

    Henri, your statement about wind and back-up generation yada, yada is simply wrong. In the real world where we live wind has been shown to be a viable alternative to fossil fuels. I know you would like it to be different but it just isn’t so.

    Denmark: increase in electricity generation 50%. Increase in CO2 emissions 0! That is reality not musing.

    The data doesn’t support your theory, Henri.

  15. John says:

    So Mooney once again trots out the Cameron memorandum, quotes the analysis BUT IGNORES THE RECOMMENDATION. The recommendation was 550metre set back. The province adopted the 550 metre set back.

    But that doesn’t fit with his version of reality so he continues his obfuscation.

  16. Gary Mooney says:

    I’m currently reading a book by Robert Bryce titled “Power Hungry: The myths of ‘green’ energy and the real fuels of the future”. It’s a real eye opener.

    I’ll maybe do a summary of this book when I finish it, but here are a few key conclusions:

    * It is impossible to significantly reduce the use of fossil fuels, including coal. It would require a major reduction in the standard of living in developed nations and would prevent developing nations from improving their standard of living.
    * Rather than trying to reduce carbon emissions, it is more realistic to find ways to adapt to climate change.
    * Re coal, the emphasis should not be on reducing the use of coal but on reducing emissions of neurotoxins (especially lead and mercury) from the burning of coal.
    * In the near term, we should favour natural gas for increased power capacity. It produces half of the CO2 of coal, much lower particulate pollution and is plentiful and cheap.
    * Longer term, we should look to nuclear as the best source of increased power capacity.

  17. Ernest Horvath says:

    Henri , what is going on right now could be a good fiction novel.
    I remember when the first TV came into our living rooms.
    There were very smart people back then that fought to ensure media wasn’t used to “educate” people for an agenda.
    Over the years that has been chipped away , slowly.
    It was illegal back then to own too many media so that one could not compromise peoples thoughts .
    I have never seen so much of that , as I have in the past several years.
    As you can see…
    The original issue was the MOE knew about health issues and pretended they did not , not at the employee level , they tried to do their jobs. ..good spin , good attempt at redirection and confusion.
    The question is , will people that have been following this begin to research their own information.
    And demand accountability.
    I hope so.
    The larger picture here is what kind of government do we have that plays these tricks?
    What kind of people sit around a board room and go over the scenarios to refute human health issues that could be someones mother , daughter or grandchild?
    Like a chess game.
    When they know the truth.
    What kind of person tells the general public all is well when they know they have no idea if they are when they can’t measure sound levels?
    Is this what we will accept in government ?
    What’s next …poisoned water that is fit to drink ?
    Did you notice no one considered the people affected?
    Pathetic.

  18. Henri Garand says:

    Of course, wind energy works for Mr. Thompson because he ignores the necessity of fossil fuel backup. As the supply of wind power increases in an electrical system, its variability cannot be balanced by normal spinning reserves. It requires dedicated backup, usually from variable-cycle gas plants, which must be kept operating at all times because wind power always varies due to fluctuating wind speeds.

    When gas plants operate at low output, they burn fuel inefficiently and generate more GHG emissions than when operating at capacity. Some studies have calculated that, depending on the backup technology, wind power saves less than one percent in GHG emissions. The saving of fossil fuel is also obviously much reduced.

    Besides providing inefficient, unreliable wind power, this absurd pursuit of wind energy puts people’s health at risk (see my comment yesterday on the legal recognition of this reality), ruins rural landscapes, kills birds and bats, devalues any nearby property, and obliges consumers to pay TWICE for electrical generation—once for heavily subsidized wind and again for a technology that actually works.

  19. Donna says:

    Well, Ernest, guess what happens when you destroy the environment? You ultimately destroy all living species including humans. We need to act for the world and for the future, not for our own petty personal needs in the present.

  20. Ernest Horvath says:

    It doesn’t matter how many people you hurt , how many people are struggling to make ends meet.
    It’s all about the environment.
    As long as the cheque comes in.

    This is a statement made by Dwight Duncan,

    “It would be irresponsible for the province and tax-payers to continue to subsidize electricity consumption, because it jeopardizes our ability to invest in health care and education. This is simply not sustainable, nor is it acceptable. The people of this province deserve better.”

    Dwight Duncan (Ontario Hansard Volume B, November 26, 2003)

  21. Gary Mooney says:

    John, where did you find the 1400 MW number. I haven’t been able to find an up to date number.

  22. John Thompson says:

    It’s working out OK for me, reducing GHG emissions and stretching the supply of non renewable resources longer into the future. Much better than the Alternative which no one has picked up on for reasons which John has explained below.

  23. Ernest Horvath says:

    So lets get back to the lying..can we please.
    Yes we have been misled..why are we allowing people to spin past the issue?

    Here’s why we are at this point
    This is the beginning , you tell me how this has worled out the way they sold it:
    http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/btn4_1.pdf

    Here is TRUE agenda behind power in Ontario:
    This is a statement made by Dwight Duncan,

    “It would be irresponsible for the province and tax-payers to continue to subsidize electricity consumption, because it jeopardizes our ability to invest in health care and education. This is simply not sustainable, nor is it acceptable. The people of this province deserve better.”

    Dwight Duncan (Ontario Hansard Volume B, November 26, 2003)

    How is it working out for you ?

  24. John Thompson says:

    Having seen different numbers here on the nameplate capacity of installed wind generation in Ontario, I just did a website check and the number is 1400 MW at this time. Current wind output is 700 MW and rising. Coal is just 5 MW now as little is needed to maintain consumption and safety reserves. Gas is running at a reduced level as well. With wind we all win.

  25. John says:

    Perhaps we should go with the Green Alternative Plan:

    $2.25 billion a year tax grab from electricity users.
    $800 million added to the debt each year.
    All-in (net metering, capital, maintenance, interest) costs of .90+ per kwh of generation over a 20 year period.
    Wind turbines are under .15 for comparison.

    Your choice: 90 cents per kwh OR 15 cents per kwh. More taxes OR not more taxes. More debt OR not more debt.

  26. Henri Garand says:

    The outcome of recent Ontario legal cases did not settle the issue of adverse health effects from wind turbines. The Ontario Divisional Court ruled only on the adequacy of the Ministry of Environment’s administrative review process. It NEVER examined any scientific evidence, and therefore its ruling is irrelevant to the scientific questions. The full decision can be read at http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2011/2011onsc609/2011onsc609.pdf.

    The Environmental Review Tribunal for the Chatham-Kent wind project ruled narrowly, deciding that the Appellants had not proven “serious harm” would result from specific wind turbines on specific “receptors” (i.e., people in their own homes). It denied the appeal but noted the need for further research:

    This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree. The question that should be asked is: What protections, such as permissible noise levels or setback distances, are appropriate to protect human health? (p. 207)

    Just because the Appellants have not succeeded in their appeals, that is no excuse to close the book on further research. On the contrary, further research should help resolve some of the significant questions that the Appellants have raised. (p. 207)

    The ERT’s 227-page judgment can be read at http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/files/201108/00000300-AKT5757C7CO026-BHH51C7A7SO026.pdf.

    It’s a pity that those who haven’t read these legal rulings draw their own ill-informed conclusions based on the misleading interpretations of the wind industry and the Ontario government.

    This brings the countylive.ca postings full circle to the Ministry of Environment’s documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. None of these documents was provided to the Environmental Review Tribunal during the hearings. MOE bureaucrats suppressed public release of the information from their field officers, just as they dismissed the information internally because it conflicted with the current setback regulations.

    The term “expert” does not apply to politicians and their apparatchiks.

  27. Gary Mooney says:

    Ernest, I believe that there are 700-800 turbines currently in operation in Ontario with a nameplate capacity of about 1600 MW.

  28. Ernest Horvath says:

    Total demand: 13268 MW (8:00 a.m. EDT – Aug. 27, 2011) Total generation: 14991 MW (Aug. 27 – 7:00-8:00)
    Excess generation: 1723 MW
    WIND: 104 MW:
    1200 IWT with a 5000 MW capacity.

    what do your experts say about this ?

    Perhaps we can ask David Colby a microbiologist , I am certian he will have an ” expert” opinion.

    MOE staff discuss health issues..yet Wilkinson tells you there are none.
    Emails discuss not having the ability to measure sound levels by the MOE
    Wilkinson tells you they are at safe levels.

    These are intelligent people , they believed because they thought they were being told the truth.
    The MOE employees are not the issue.
    They have tried to do their job to protect the people they work for. And to do an ehthical , important job.
    They are being undermined doing that.

    Orangeville has had an application for a wind development near the largest quarry application in North America ,
    this IWT development links back to a Nigerian Bank.

    3 x the rate of conventional poer for wind
    12 x the rate of conventional power for ground solar
    15 x the rate of convetional power for rooftop solar
    Plus Gas plants..which is the main power source.

    It’s all about GHG emissions to protect the people.

  29. Dayton Johnson says:

    Then there was the time that “experts” told us that cigarette smoking did not cause Cancer… and some were in the medical field. I think we have learned not to trust government and those studies anytime,,,they’re in the pockets of big business who can bend or twist the truth to their advantage. Depending on whose side these “experts”pretend to be we may not know the real results for a decade…then maybe too late.Too much risk.

  30. John Thompson says:

    I agree with Gary that it is best to leave the determination of appropriate sound levels to the experts. They have established the current numbers and the process has survived appeal so the case should be considered closed. Civilization works that way.

  31. Ernest Horvath says:

    No I don’t Dayton.
    i have focussed on carbon pricing and cap and trade and alternate energy for several years….that I can tell you a lot about.
    The government, this government has ALWAYS known there are health issues and ALWAYS known that 550 set backs were too close…but it affected IWT density for IWT developers. You have paid for studies , many in fact , that detail the known impacts globally and how other countries deal with them. So far they have followed the consultants papers to perfection.
    The GEA was designed for the benefit of this business.

    I urge you all to get informed. Read government sites , read IWT developer sites , but also read the other sites and newspapers across the globe. Read sites from extreme views from both sides because the links are invaluable at times.
    They are all agenda based.
    Somewhere in the middle you will find a balance.
    I began my journey several years ago. And I started out wanting to believe in what the government and eco groups were pushing.
    The first week of reseraching you will have more questions then answers…..
    Don’t take my word for it , don’t take pro FIT peoples word for it , don’t take the Liberals word for it or the NDP , because we have an agenda here .
    The entire future of the next generation rests with you.
    Let me know what you learn.
    It will be interesting to see if you still believe this is all about clean air.

  32. Paula Peel says:

    John,

    In his memo Cameron Hall draws attention to numerous serious flaws in the current noise study approach and in methods used to calculate set backs. Hall is a senior environmental officer with the MOE and is more than qualified to report on these things. From the comments I have seen thus far I suspect he is more qualified than any of us. However if you have found holes in Hall’s report “big enough to drive through” I suggest you contact him immediately.

    Prompted by grave doubts about current noise studies and methods used to calculate setbacks, Hall was led to point out in his April 2010 memo that compliance with minimum setbacks would result or likely result in adverse effects and that preventing adverse effects “may require increasing the setback distances to ensure sound levels at the receptors do not exceed the applicable sound level limits.”

    A recommendation from one of its senior field officers to increase set backs is precisely what MOE did not want to hear in April 2010. According to a Confidential Draft Memo dated Feb 2010, MOE was moving full steam ahead to relax current set backs. MOE was willing to give proponents the option of siting turbines closer than in the setbacks in Table 1, as long as a noise study (conducted by the proponent) proved that siting turbines closer than the setbacks in Table 1 would not cause adverse effects. The draft was posted on the Environmental Registry in March, 2010 (see link below).

    Halls’ memo has to be considered in the context of powers-that-be in MOE moving ahead to relax the standards to allow turbines to be sited closer than setbacks that were set out in Table 1. Hall is arguing about as strenuously as a senior field officer can argue that using the current noise study and current set back approaches that there are already adverse effects. (“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 contrary to subsection 14(1) of the EPA.”) Hall would be well aware that if MOE continued to uphold the current noise study approach that turbines would to all appearances be in compliance, even those with closer setbacks. He would also be well aware of what closer setbacks would mean in terms of wind turbine noise and adverse effects. Hence the “amendment” (NOT “recommendation”)that Hall went on to propose in his memo.

    Hall had bigger concerns than the 550 m set back when he wrote his memo. And as we now know all of his findings were ignored and his memo was buried by powers-that-be at MOE who had more important things to do than protect people.

    http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/24003/299744.pdf

  33. Dayton johnson says:

    Thanks for the facts Ernest. Over and above everything else these numbers tell the truth.
    Would you have an average daily production number for these 1200 turbines vs. the gas fired etc.production?
    By comparison in the dairy farm business if a certain cow is not producing enough product(milk) chances are she makes a one way trip

  34. Ernest Horvath says:

    Wind is making 3 times the conventional rate
    Solar is making 12 to 15 times the conventional rate
    Neither are feasible without a main source of power..Gas
    negating emissions claims.
    Fact is Large Scale Wind and Solar are being questioned for it’s impact globally..as they should , because without our money..they would NOT exist , because it doesn’t work.

    Again.. here are the facts

    1200 IWTs with a 5000 MW capacity
    Total demand: 13613 MW (6:00 a.m. EDT – Aug. 25, 2011) Total generation: 15293 MW (Aug. 25 – 5:00-6:00)
    Excess generation: 1680 MW
    WIND: 501 MW

    For you people it is about money..
    For those that have done some research globally on every aspect , there are simply too many claims that are in fact not true.
    They are not reliable , they are not emissions free , they impact the environment , and they harm people and wildlife. And have and they are destroying economies.

    What is the future is hydro electric..why did we not hook up to Hydro Quebec?
    Would have been the best thing for Ontarians…not for your business , but best for Ontarians.
    Then there is underwater tidal turbines…huge dollars are going into that as they look at the Bay of Fundy.

    If it was about anything but making money …we would have had grants and subsidies for alterante energy for all Ontarians. Millions of homes and business …could have created long term local jobs in retail , installation and service for solar and geothermal…real long term local jobs.

    Orangeville has a proposed IWT development owned by a Nigerian Bank ..?

    Ontario Hydro was the envy of the world..but no profits selling us a product. Under NAFTA , it was deregulated.
    It was loudly claimed that we would have lower prices , through competition , blah , blah , blah. A pubilc utility was evil. Right.
    The same people that spun that are spinning large scale IWT and Solar…because you care.?

    Being a public utility or a business , you still have the ongoing costs of making sure everything is in good order, where it all fell apart was with business…you are looking for more money for profits..we will continue to pay more and more and more.
    There is NO benfit for Ontarians or consumers. Just you.

    These belong in remote areas where there is no power , Africa , India’s countryside , Greenland rural areas , Islands…where there is no other feasible way of producing power.

  35. Gary Mooney says:

    Developers and others make comparisons of sound levels
    of wind turbines relative to refrigerators and normal conversation etc, but this is way too simplistic.

    Two examples:
    * The noise from a wind turbine has a very strong low frequency coomponent, but the dBA scale used by the government eliminates the low frequency component. If the sound was all low frequencies, it would register as 0 dBA. What should be used is the dBC scale, which retains low frequencies.
    * The government’s limit of 40 dBA is the sound level averaged over an hour. However, the sound is not constant; it varies constantly and is louder when a blade passes the tower. So a 40 dBA sound could be 39 dBA for 95% of the time and 50 dBA for 5% of the time, with the latter being the greater problem.

    Ontario allows sound levels to be 40 dBA, but if the wind is blowing pretty hard, up to 51 dBA. Some experts say that sound should be limited to 30 dBA. 40 dBA is perceived as twice as loud as 30 dBA and 50 dBA is four times as loud. That’s a huge difference.

    Anything to do with sound measurement is very complex. It’s better for us to leave determination of the apropriate limits to the experts.

  36. Maria says:

    normal conversations stop at some point

  37. TM says:

    A normal conversation is typically a sound level of 60dB.

  38. Donna says:

    Of course you’re not personally threatened by wind development anymore, Henri; the military put a stop to wind turbines in your backyard on Big Island!

    Unfortunately your ‘common sense’ is very short-sighted and based on self-interest and/or misinformation. What is desperately needed is a global view and a plan for a sustainable world for future generations. Our dependence on, and even addiction to, fossil fuels and the very real, frightening facts of peak oil and climate change make it our generation’s responsibility to make sacrifices. We need REAL and DRAMATIC changes NOW!

    For interest’s sake, what parts of your Green Alternate Plan have you implemented? What about your friends? Are you making big changes to your lifestyles and practising what you preach?

  39. Henri Garand says:

    Thank you, John No. 3, for making a declaration of your bias. I wish another John had also come clean, so to speak.

    To reciprocate, I am no longer personally threatened by wind development. My opposition continues some would say out of principle or loyalty to friends, but I like to think of it as due to plain common sense.

    The Green Alternative Plan was devised by an electrical engineer, who also costed it along with a businessman. The Ontario Green Party thought highly enough of the proposal to consider including it in the party’s energy platform. I guess they missed your letter.

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.