Caution to the Wind

W-FIVE Staff

Updated: Sat. Dec. 27 2008 6:55 PM ET

Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman is all smiles at the opening ceremony of the Melancthon EcoPower Centre, near Orangeville. With133 gleaming white turbines, standing 80 meters tall and poised to generate enough energy for 52,000 homes, this is the largest wind farm in Canada -- and a symbol of Ontario's commitment to green energy.

Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman speaks at an event promoting wind energy as a source of renewable power.

"When by 2014, our collective actions allow us to close the Nanticoke coal fired generating station," Smitherman told to the gathered crowd, "we will have made the biggest single contribution to climate change anywhere in all of North America."

No doubt about it, green is good. So why is it that across the country, more and more people are seeing red over wind energy? Some say that in the rush to develop wind power, current government regulations aren't doing enough to protect human health, or the environment.

Helen Fraser wasn't at the opening of the Melancthon EcoPower Centre. But she's all-too familiar with the turbines. According to Fraser, she and her husband lived just over 400 meters from one of the turbines erected in phase one of the project. At first she had no problem with the fact that a wind farm was coming to her rural area.

Helen Fraser and her husband lived just over 400 metres from a turbine. She says the sound and strobing effect caused her to develop headaches and body aches, and her caused her husband's diabetes to get worse.

"I thought this was absolutely amazing. [I was] all for green" said Fraser. But soon after the 45 meter blades -- longer than the wingspan of a Boeing 737 -- started spinning, she said she knew something was wrong.

"It was like a whoosh sound. It would just go whoosh-whoosh, like a steady beat with it. And there would be times my heart would actually beat to the pulse of the turbine," she recalled.

Even though the turbines' distance from the Fraser's home satisfied the Ontario government's noise guidelines, the sound and strobing effect when the sun was shining through the spinning blades made them too close for comfort - at least for the Frasers.

"I had terrible headaches, body aches. I couldn't sleep at night," said Fraser. "My husband's blood sugar, because he has diabetes, was all over the map." When the couple went away on vacation, they say the problems stopped.

Fraser and her family eventually sold their property to Canadian Hydro Developers, the company behind the wind farm, and their former home sits in the shadow of a giant, spinning wind turbine.

Assessing the Health Risk

To some, the experiences of Helen Fraser might sound far-fetched. But not to Dr. Robert McMurtry, a former assistant deputy minister at Health Canada. When McMurtry decided to retire, he chose Prince Edward County, an area in Eastern Ontario that juts out into Lake Ontario. It makes the region well-suited for wind farms and several are planned. Concerned about possible effects, McMurtry, a medical doctor who is not an expert in the field of wind turbines, decided to analyze the scientific literature.

"I am really concerned because there have been too many reports in too many places around the world about ill affects, adverse affects on health," he told W-FIVE. "The low frequency noise has a particular problem. And a number of people have reported ill effects including headaches and dizziness and ringing in their ears or sometimes worse."

The turbines apparently don't affect everyone equally. Andrea Hutchinson and her family live near the Melancthon wind farm - the same one that caused Helen Fraser such distress. But Hutchinson doesn't mind them at all.

Andrea Hutchinson walks her daughter in front of their house, which stands near the Melancthon wind farm.

Standing on her property, and pointing to the spinning turbine nearby, she told W-FIVE the sound was far less than she had originally feared.

"I can hear them if I'm not moving around and there is no traffic," she said. "It's not offensive at all. They're not that loud."

The wind industry backs up its claim that there are no adverse health affects from wind turbines with several studies and points to the fact that there are some 10,000 turbines across North America, with relatively few complaints.

But opposition to wind farms is growing across Canada. Critics want tougher rules governing how close turbines may be built to people's homes. Some provinces do set noise limits. And in Ontario, that usually means municipalities require turbines be 400 meters away. That's three times closer than the buffer zone being recommended by health experts at France's National Academy of Medicine.

To bring awareness to the issue, several local groups have joined forces to make some noise about wind energy. They're called Wind Concerns Ontario. W-FIVE attended the inaugural meeting in Innisfil, Ont. this past fall.

"I think the government really needs to step up to the plate and make sure they do their due diligence and make sure they do their history checks on where they are putting these wind turbines because it's about location, location, location," said one member.

"The government has made rural Ontario residents expendable in the name of green energy," complained another. "It's as simple as that. And they are going to ram it down our throats."

Canadian Hydro developers

Developers like Canadian Hydro Developers first have to find landowners to lease their land, then conduct environmental assessments, and finally have to make deals with municipalities.

The controversy over wind power has been a surprise to John Keating, the CEO of Canadian Hydro Developers. His company has built the Melancthon EcoPower Centre.

"Some people don't like change. Some people embrace change, and this type of change is the type of change that we should all be embracing, because that is our future," said Keating.

He also doesn't understand how there can be any adverse health effects from wind turbines.

So how do wind developers like Canadian Hydro Developers find a place to put their wind turbines? The first step is to recruit local landowners to lease a part of their land, a lucrative arrangement that can bring in between $9,000 to $14,000 a year, for each turbine. Next, they begin an environmental screening process where consultants are hired to address any potential environmental concerns. Another key process is making a deal with the local municipality to determine what the wind power company will contribute to the local government, which also makes the zoning changes necessary for construction.

On Wolfe Island, home to 1,200 residents at the eastern end of Lake Ontario, just offshore from Kingston, community concerns went beyond human health. They extended to how the municipal approvals were granted and the potential impact to an environmentally sensitive area, because Wolfe Island is designated as an Important Bird Area and is an important stopover for migrating birds.

At the time the Township of Frontenac Islands council voted on changes to the zoning by-law to allow the wind farm development to go forward, the environmental screening report still hadn't been completed. Two township councilors from Wolfe Island had optioned their own land to Canadian Hydro Developers, leaving the vote to the mayor and the two remaining councillors from neighboring Howe Island. The vote passed, with the township poised to earn about $645,000 every year for the next 20 years, under the agreement.

The mayor of the township of Frontenac Islands, Jim Vanden Hoek, refused to give W-FIVE an interview, but did send an e-mail to the program:

"Wolfe Islanders are excited about the economic opportunity that this project brings to the community and proud to be contributing to the solution to what is likely the most serious problem facing the next generation," wrote Mayor Vanden Hoek.

John Keating, of Canadian Hydro Developers, also defended his company's actions.

"What we do when we find a resource that is attractive, we approach the local municipal council, we look for champions within that council and just see what support there is for a project," said Keating. "Over the course of our history on Wolfe Island, we've seen two municipal elections and the councilors generally ran on, one of the platforms was in support of this renewable energy project."

That wasn't good enough to mollify Wolfe Island resident Sarah McDermott, who challenged the project before the Ontario Municipal Board.

"I live in the village right across from the restaurant and all of the people with optioned land go to the restaurant in the morning for coffees," said McDermott. "It's made me paranoid in that I don't even want to go outside anymore."

Her partner, musician Chris Brown, feels the same way. "You know they've created this image of green energy and being against the windmills, as they say, is about on par with 'don't you support our troops.'"

McDermott's OMB challenge, and her request that the Ontario Environment Ministry escalate the Wolfe Island environmental screening to a more stringent environmental assessment failed. Despite some local opposition and initial concerns from Ducks Unlimited and Environment Canada the project was given a go-ahead because the OMB was swayed, in part, by Canadian Hydro Developers' commitment to locate their turbines away from wetlands and to monitor the project's impact on birds for at least three years.

Ontario Environment Minister John Gerretsen, whose riding includes Wolfe Island, concedes that so far, not one of the 19 requests from citizens to escalate environmental reviews for wind turbines has been granted. "I think that we have enough information available with respect to the major issues that are involved," Gerretsen told W-FIVE in an interview.

Bill Evans, a bird expert who has studied migratory patterns on Wolfe Island, argues that more environmental reviews are required. He claims that waterfowl, songbirds and, in winter, snowy owls and bald eagles are all at risk from the newly constructed turbines on Wolfe Island.

"What I'm concerned about is the precedent for this project going in this close to Lake Ontario, this close to these kinds of populations of waterfowl, and eagles," said Evans. "If a developer can come in and build here, why not anywhere along the lakeshore?"

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081223/wfive_windmills_081227/20081227?hub=WFive

Video at:

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/w-five/w-five-caution-to-the-wind/#clip123798

Wind farms lower property assessments in western P.E.I.

From CBC news PEI

A couple from West Prince has proof from the government their property has dropped in value since wind turbines were put up near their home.

Promoters of wind farms have fought against the notion that wind farms lower property values, but Beverly and Errol Howard had their home in West Point reassessed in October, and it came back with a 10 per cent lower property value on the retirement home they built eight years ago.

Last summer, the Howards discovered the wind farm several kilometres up the road was expanding.

Beverly Howard told CBC News Monday there are now five new turbines within sight of their home, the closest about 500 metres away.

"If you're sitting out on your deck, they're noisy, if you're out gardening they're noisy," she said.

"We can't hear the surf anymore in the summertime; all we hear is windmills."

The Howards specifically asked for the reassessment in light of the new presence of the windmills. When they announced the result at a recent public meeting on the wind farm, Howard said environmental officials at the meeting were caught off guard.

"It was said to us — not by [Environment Minister] George Webster — but by someone else in the government, that we shouldn't be making false statements," said Howard.

"When they checked into it they found out it wasn't a false statement."

A spokesperson with the tax department said a handful of other residents living next to wind farms in West Prince also received lower assessments. Although the criteria for assessing property values doesn't specify turbines, the department felt the properties near windmills should be treated the same as properties near industrial areas.

Despite receiving the lower assessment, the Howards are asking the tax department to have another look, because they feel their home has dropped in value by more than 10 per cent.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2008/12/23/pe-wind-assessment.html#socialcomments

President-elect proposed economic suicide for US

Christopher Booker article in today's Sunday Telegraph (UK)

If the holder of the most powerful office in the world proposed a policy guaranteed to inflict untold damage on his own country and many others, on the basis of claims so demonstrably fallacious that they amount to a string of self-deluding lies, we might well be concerned. The relevance of this is not to President Bush, as some might imagine, but to a recent policy statement by President-elect Obama.

Tomorrow, delegates from 190 countries will meet in Poznan, Poland, to pave the way for next year's UN conference in Copenhagen at which the world will agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. They will see a video of Mr Obama, in only his second major policy commitment, pledging that America is now about to play the leading role in the fight to "save the planet" from global warming.

Mr Obama begins by saying that "the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear". "Sea levels," he claims, "are rising, coastlines are shrinking, we've seen record drought, spreading famine and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."

Far from the science being "beyond dispute", we can only deduce from this that Mr Obama has believed all he was told by Al Gore's wondrously batty film An Inconvenient Truth without bothering to check the facts. Each of these four statements is so wildly at odds with the truth that on this score alone we should be seriously worried.

It is true that average sea levels are modestly rising, but no faster than they have been doing for three centuries. Gore's film may predict a rise this century of 20 feet, but even the UN's International Panel on Climate Change only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches. The main focus of alarm here has been the fate of low-lying coral islands such as the Maldives and Tuvalu.

Around each of these tiny countries, according to the international Commission on Sea Level Changes and other studies, sea levels in recent decades have actually fallen. The Indian Ocean was higher between 1900 and 1970 than it has been since. Satellite measurements show that since 1993 the sea level around Tuvalu has gone down by four inches.

Coastlines are not "shrinking" except where land is subsiding, as on the east coast of England, where it has been doing so for thousands of years. Gore became particularly muddled by this, pointing to how many times the Thames Barrier has had to be closed in recent years, unaware that this was more often to keep river water in during droughts than to stop the sea coming in.

Far from global warming having increased the number of droughts, the very opposite is the case. The most comprehensive study (Narisma et al, 2007) showed that, of the 20th century's 30 major drought episodes, 22 were in the first six decades, with only five between 1961 and 1980. The most recent two decades produced just three.

Mr Obama has again been taken in over hurricanes. Despite a recent press release from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration claiming that 2008's North Atlantic hurricane season "set records", even its own release later admits that it only tied as "the fifth most active" since 1944. NOAA's own graphs show hurricane activity higher in the 1950s than recently. A recent Florida State University study of tropical cyclone activity across the world (see the Watts Up With That? website) shows a steady reduction over the past four years.

Alarming though it may be that the next US President should have fallen for all this claptrap, much more worrying is what he proposes to do on the basis of such grotesque misinformation. For a start he plans to introduce a "federal cap and trade system", a massive "carbon tax", designed to reduce America's CO2 emissions "to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 per cent by 2050". Such a target, which would put America ahead of any other country in the world, could only be achieved by closing down a large part of the US economy.

Mr Obama floats off still further from reality when he proposes spending $15 billion a year to encourage "clean energy" sources, such as thousands more wind turbines. He is clearly unaware that wind energy is so hopelessly ineffective that the 10,000 turbines America already has, representing "18 gigawatts of installed capacity", only generate 4.5GW of power, less than that supplied by a single giant coal-fired power station.

He talks blithely of allowing only "clean" coal-fired power plants, using "carbon capture" - burying the CO2 in holes in the ground - which would double the price of electricity, but the technology for which hasn't even yet been developed. He then babbles on about "generating five million new green jobs". This will presumably consist of hiring millions of Americans to generate power by running around on treadmills, to replace all those "dirty" coal-fired power stations which currently supply the US with half its electricity.

If this sounds like an elaborate economic suicide note, for what is still the earth's richest nation, it is still not enough for many environmentalists. Positively foaming at the mouth in The Guardian last week, George Monbiot claimed that the plight of the planet is now so grave that even "sensible programmes of the kind Obama proposes are now irrelevant". The only way to avert the "collapse of human civilisation", according to the Great Moonbat, would be "the complete decarbonisation of the global economy soon after 2050".

For 300 years science helped to turn Western civilisation into the richest and most comfortable the world has ever seen. Now it seems we have suddenly been plunged into a new age of superstition, where scientific evidence no longer counts for anything. The fact that America will soon be ruled by a man wholly under the spell of this post-scientific hysteria may leave us in wondering despair.

Who could object to wind power?

MARGARET WENTE

November 25, 2008

Globe and Mail

On Toronto's waterfront stands a mighty wind turbine, its blades rotating lazily in the breeze (at least sometimes). It's a monument to good intentions and civic virtue. The Mayor loves it. The Premier loves it. All governments love wind power, because it makes them look so green. David Suzuki, the patron saint of environmentalism, compares wind turbines to medieval cathedrals - the highest expressions of human achievement. Wind is clean, sustainable, renewable, free. Who could possibly object?

The citizens. Last night in Toronto, hundreds of anxious folks jammed a meeting called to discuss plans for a massive wind farm along the shore of Lake Ontario. They fear the 90-metre turbines will chop up birds, disrupt migration routes, destroy views, lower property values, even make them sick.

NIMBYs? No doubt. But they have a lot of company. Across Canada, Britain and Europe, a growing protest movement is arguing that wind farms are no good for the environment.

Here's another reason not to like them. Wind power can't survive without massive subsidies, courtesy of you and me. "If these hidden subsidies were taken away, there would not be a single wind turbine built in Britain," says David Bellamy, a well-known environmentalist who has been tramping the Scottish countryside to oppose a massive wind project there.

Subsidies might be okay if wind could help replace conventional energy one day. It can't. "If the whole of Wales was covered with wind turbines, the nation would generate only a sixth of the U.K.'s energy needs," says Prof. David MacKay, a physicist at Cambridge. He's all in favour of clean, renewable energy. But he's done the math.

The biggest problem with wind is that it doesn't always blow. There are lots of days when Toronto's monument to civic virtue couldn't even power my toaster. Inconveniently, these times of low production tend to coincide with times of high demand. So no matter how many turbines you put up, you always need backup power. Usually that means fossil fuel, or, in Ontario's case, nuclear.

The biggest advertisements for wind power are Germany and Denmark. Germany has more wind turbines than any other country in the world, and Chancellor Angela Merkel has draped herself in green. But wind energy can't replace conventional power there either, so Germany is also building dozens of new coal-fired power plants. Denmark, with the largest offshore wind farm in the world, brags that 20 per cent of the electricity it generates comes from wind. But more than half its wind power is exported, because that's the only way the system can work.

Here at home, wind companies have been scrambling to get their share of $1.5-billion in federal subsidies for clean energy. On top of that, they get a premium when they sell the power. Ontario pays them 11 to 14 cents per kilowatt hour. Conventional energy goes for about half that price.

"Ontario is turning to wind turbines to help create jobs and power a green energy future," brags a government press release. But wind companies are chasing another green. The biggest wind project in the world, on the Thames Estuary, nearly collapsed last spring when a major backer, Shell, pulled out. Shell said the "incentives" were better in the United States.

Fortunately, a lot of wind companies won't survive the recession. One big Canadian firm, EarthFirst, is under court protection. Wind companies need a huge amount of credit, which has dried up. Expensive wind power makes a lot less sense with oil back around $50. And the global slump will do more to cut greenhouse gas emissions than all the wind turbines and solar panels David Suzuki can dream of.

When will we stop pouring billions into wind? I have no idea. Politicians really love their turbines. Meantime, that soft whooshing sound you hear is your friendly green government, vacuuming money out of your pockets.

Economic turmoil may slow wind projects

By MICHAEL TUTTON The Canadian Press

Independent wind producers are facing big hikes in debt costs, raising doubt on whether ambitious construction goals will be met over the next few years, say financing experts.

Chris Gifford, a vice-president with Allied Irish Banks in Toronto, says worrisome signs for the industry came recently when EarthFirst Canada Inc. — the proponent of a major wind farm in British Columbia — declared it was seeking creditor protection.

"I think it’s a warning sign, what happened to them (EarthFirst) could happen to other people," he said in a telephone interview.

The German bank WestLB AG has said it intends to "enforce security" on its $131-million loan to the Calgary-based wind firm.

Meanwhile, a news release issued Thursday by EarthFirst says attempts to find fresh financing had been "severely hindered by the unprecedented crisis in the global financial markets."

In addition to the Dokie 1 wind farm in British Columbia, and the smaller Nuttby wind project in Nova Scotia, the company also has permits for further projects in B.C. and Ontario.

EarthFirst was unavailable to provide an updated comment on the projects, but has said in news releases it has retained its staff and is continuing to work on them.

Scott Urquhart, the vice-president of corporate finance at Jennings Capital in Halifax, says the problem facing Canada’s independent wind producers is they are often heavily reliant on debt, raising between 70 to 80 per cent of their financing by borrowing.

He has assisted small Atlantic Canadian energy and mining firms to find lenders and investors in the past few years. However, he said when he was recently approached by two wind firms in Nova Scotia, he advised them to wait out the storm.

"Some of the banks are . . . not doing deals at all, and it’s going to be into the new year before you can talk to the banks about doing some of these projects," he said.

Urquhart said last year banks and life insurance companies were interested in financing the projects at rates in the range of 6.5 per cent. But he estimates the interest costs are now over eight per cent, and the lenders are offering shorter terms for smaller amounts of money.

The challenges are unwelcome news in provinces where wind is viewed as a key source of future energy.

For instance, in Nova Scotia, Emera subsidiary Nova Scotia Power Inc. had contracted for 247 megawatts of capacity — enough power for 87,000 homes — which when added to its existing wind farms would be 10 per cent of the province’s electricity by 2013.

The utility is required to hit roughly half that amount of power by 2010 as part of the province’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Margaret Murphy, a spokeswoman for Nova Scotia Power, said the utility remains optimistic it will meet its minimum goals.

Despite changes, wind farm views remain mixed

By Steve Goodwin, Pictou Advocate

Mike Magnus says he hopes the latest discussion regarding the adjustments his company has made to the proposed wind turbine project in eastern Pictou County will allay local concerns and allow the major project to proceed.

“We’ve taken all the comments to heart and have engaged folks to look at the changes,” the chief executive officer of Shear Wind Inc. said Saturday, following the company’s latest information session that attracted more than 100 people to the Lismore Community Hall. “Our concern is to be a good neighbour.”

Shear Wind has applied to the province to build a 60-megawatt wind farm called Glen Dhu on Brown’s Mountain, near Bailey’s Brook, that would generate enough renewable energy to power the equivalent of 17,500 homes.

The company submitted its environmental assessment documents Aug. 20 and hosted community gatherings in Merigomish and Lismore during the 30 days provided for responses to the proposed project.

Environment Minister Mark Parent informed the company last month that he needed more information before he could either approve the project outright, or with conditions, or reject it.
“Parent was not rejecting the project,” Magnus said. “He sought more information. I wasn’t surprised with the technical assessment, but more with the community concerns.”

According to the latest diagrams presented Saturday, the four most western turbine sites have been eliminated and other positions have been moved, although Magnus noted all the turbines are well beyond the minimum setbacks contained in the Municipality of Pictou County’s wind bylaw. “We’re within the county bylaw, but we’ve done this because we think it’s the right thing to do,” he said.

While most residents support the project, some who live closest to where the turbines would be erected do not want the project to go ahead.

They say they don’t want their lifestyle and the community’s pastoral setting disrupted by the sight and sound of the turbines, which they feel would industrialize the area.

Faye Kinney bristled upon hearing how the wind farm and accompanying interpretive centre and restaurant proposed near the Glen Dhu site would increase tourism like it has in North Cape, P.E.I.

Magnus acknowledged having discussed the interpretive centre with the Pictou Regional Development Commission as a means of attracting tourists and to educate people about the community and the project.

“The idea of these tourists coming just kills me,” said Kinney.

“I’m not in favour of this project,” Bailey’s Brook resident Eileen MacKinnon added. “I know my life is going to change.”

Fellow resident Kristen Overmyer asked how much greenhouse gas reductions and diversion from coal-fired electrical generation the project would achieve. Company officials said they would have to get back to him with that information.

Meanwhile, environmental scientist Tom Windeyer said the company is addressing matters that include noise, wildlife, land disturbance and surface water. “We are addressing all the issues put forward,” he said.

“The community needs to heal and wholly understand this project,” said Pictou East MLA Clarrie MacKinnon, who also attended the meeting. “As with any project, there has to be middle ground and I think they’ve struck middle ground.”

http://www.pictouadvocate.com/stories.asp?id=503

Alternative Energy Stocks link

Charles Morand was interviewed by CBC radio noon time show today.

He was gloomy but not entirely despondent about EarthFirst. Check out the link below (October 25th entry) for a TON of information, including the disclaimer that he has a position with the company.

http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/wind/