THE CANADIAN PRESS
CHARLOTTETOWN — A P.E.I. plan to export wind energy to New England may be in jeopardy now that New Brunswick says it has no room for Island power on its transmission lines.
Last year, the province announced a $1-billion plan for wind energy development that would see the Island increase its wind power production to 500 megawatts by 2013.
Under the plan, private developers would invest the capital needed to achieve the province’s energy objective and most of the power would be earmarked for export to the eastern United States.
But an official with NB Power told the Charlottetown Guardian on Tuesday there’s no room on its transmission lines for any energy exports from P.E.I.
“The transmission that is available right now is completely tied up,” said Heather MacLean, manager of media relations for NB Power.
Over a year ago, the New Brunswick utility did tender some of its transmission capacity for use by other jurisdictions, but all of the excess was bought up by Quebec.
MacLean said if P.E.I. still wants to export wind power to New England, it will have to negotiate with NB Power or Quebec.
That could throw a monkey wrench into the province’s current search for private wind energy developers who want to export, said Environment Minister Richard Brown.
“It’s going to hamper our tender for wind development on P.E.I.,” he said. “If the developers can’t get their energy to the market, then we’re not going to get many bids.”
Opposition energy critic Mike Currie says Brown should have known this was going to happen long ago.
Currie has been asking questions about this issue for some time in the legislature. As a former development minister, he said he knew there was no room for the kind of transmission capacity needed to move the large amounts of power proposed by the province for export.
“The first thing that came into my mind when they first made their announcement was how are you going to get the power from western P.E.I., across the bridge and through New Brunswick,” Currie said.
“It looks like there was never a deal and that (Premier Robert) Ghiz jumped out front on this and now he got caught.”
Brown said the province did consult with NB Power and NS Power before the plan was put together and both utilities saw no issues at that time.
But now he, too, is being told New Brunswick currently has no room for P.E.I.’s energy on its transmission lines.
“The markets have changed. Wind production and energy production is fast moving,” Brown explained.
http://www.ngnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=281107&sc=286
Friday, August 28, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Digby wind project approved
Province OKs 17 of 20 proposed turbines
Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau has approved a wind turbine project for Digby Neck, saying he’s confident any problems can be overcome.
Scotian WindFields Inc., a Dartmouth company, and its partner, SkyPower Corp. of Toronto, will build and operate the Digby Wind Park.
"I am convinced that any adverse effects or significant environmental effects of the undertaking can be adequately mitigated through compliance with the attached terms and conditions," Mr. Belliveau said in a one-page letter to Charmaine Thompson, SkyPower’s vice-president of project management.
The letter of approval, dated Monday, was sent to SkyPower’s headquarters in Ontario.
The accompanying terms and conditions deal with items including noise monitoring and regular inspections of the turbines and the sites they occupy.
The proponents must also develop a complaint resolution plan, according to a three-page document outlining terms and conditions.
Nova Scotia Power will buy all the electricity from the facility. The provincial power utility gave the wind producers a 20-year contract last year.
The 1,100-hectare wind park will be located on leased, private land, and is designed to produce enough clean energy to power about 10,000 homes annually.
The Digby Wind Park will install new General Electric wind turbines and be running in less than a year, said Scotian WindFields president Barry Zwicker.
Each machine will produce 1.5 megawatts and be installed in the Rossway-Gullivers Cove area of Digby Neck, about 12 kilometres west of Digby.
Government is allowing 17 of the 20 proposed turbines to be built. Three units were not allowed in their proposed locations, presumably because of their proximity to houses. Relocating those turbines will require more government consultation.
"We’re looking at a plan to relocate those," Mr. Zwicker said Tuesday.
The company will soon resubmit a bid to place those three turbines elsewhere. He said the three turbines that must be repositioned were within 600 to 700 metres of homes. The next closest turbine will be about 750 metres from a dwelling, Mr. Zwicker said.
When the project was announced last year, SkyPower president Kerry Adler said the Digby Neck wind park would be worth about $80 million in construction and related costs.
Earlier this month, SkyPower announced it was filing for protection from its creditors to allow it to restructure under the Companies" Creditors Arrangement Act.
Mr. Zwicker said the Digby project is definitely going ahead and, with government approval, financing the project will now be easier to conclude.
Road development may begin soon, he said.
"We just couldn’t do anything on the site until we received this approval," said Mr. Zwicker.
Waterford resident Nora Peach said at least one of the turbines will be as close as 750 metres to a home, and some are within 1,000 metres.
"Down at the end of Gullivers Cove Road, some of those houses would be 800 or . . . 975"" metres from a turbine, she said.
"They don’t have room really . . . on such a narrow strip of land to go back any further."
Some residents had asked that the turbines be kept at least two kilometres away.
Ms. Peach said the new provincial government has joined the proponent in ignoring concerns about possible effects on property values, ecotourism and migratory birds.
"It’s quite a wall of turbines,"" she said. ""It’s probably not good for birds."
The company must monitor and report all bird deaths resulting from collisions with turbine blades or towers for a period of two years.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1139433.html
As of noon August 27th, at this Herald link there are 106 comments coming from all kinds of directions. Worth viewing.
~~~~~~~~~~
Some of the signs to be seen around Digby:
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Wind Concerns Ontario
The website http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/ is not even a year old but has burgeoned into an excellent resource for anyone anywhere who has concerns about wind energy.
This is from their "about us" page:
This is from their "about us" page:
Wind Concerns Ontario is a province-wide coalition which promotes awareness of the true impacts of industrial wind power facilities on our health, environment, economy and quality of life.
Wind Concerns Ontario provides a strong, unified voice of opposition to the unchecked rush to locate over six hundred forty massive industrial wind turbines across the province in the last 5 years without the benefit of full environmental assessment. Plans to locate thousands more at an accelerated schedule, with even less oversight are tearing apart the very fabric of rural Ontario. Along with their transformers, transmission lines, overhead distribution wires and substations these industrial wind turbines threaten people and the environment in serene, historic, rural communities, on prime agricultural land, migratory bird paths, close to sensitive wetlands, designated wildlife areas and pristine shorelines.
Wind Concerns Ontario is in favour of environmentally sound solutions to our energy demands and environmental challenges. However hundreds of published reports from scientists, engineers, physicians and environmentalists refute misleading claims by wind power developers that industrial wind technology will be either effective or harmless.
Wind Concerns Ontario is committed to informing the people of Ontario as to the whole truth about industrial wind power.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Digby wind project ‘going forward’
Scotian Windfields’ Ontario partner filing for creditor protection
Scotian Windfields is confident and committed to its Digby Neck wind turbine park project despite the fact its Ontario partner in the development is seeking protection from its creditors.
"The project is still solid in terms of going forward," Scotian president Barry Zwicker said Thursday.
Mr. Zwicker said he was aware of Skypower Corp.’s creditor protection filing before it hit the news and said it is a concern, "but ultimately our concern is for the success of the project."
Skypower announced on Wednesday that it was filing for protection to allow it to restructure under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. In a news release, Skypower, a company whose major shareholder is the financially troubled Lehman Brothers, said the filing was to facilitate the transition of the company through a sale process.
Skypower is a developer of renewable energy projects with projects under way across Canada and other parts of the world.
Scott Brownrigg, a Skypower spokesman, said Thursday that, "The CAA process should have no bearing on the evaluation of Skypower’s environmental assessment or approvals with either the Digby or other projects we have going on. It’s business as usual."
Skypower president and CEO Kerry Adler said in the release that several potential bidders have expressed an interest in purchasing the company’s assets.
"We expect a vibrant process to maximize value for our stakeholders and preserve the business as a going concern for the employees, customers and suppliers," he said.
As part of the restructuring, Skypower said it has a commitment for US$15 million that will allow it to transition the business through a quick and efficient competitive sales process.
Scotian Windfields of Dartmouth, and Skypower have proposed a 30-megawatt wind farm on Digby Neck. It would be comprised of 20 wind turbines each generating 1.5 megawatts of power.
Mr. Zwicker said, "We have been reassured that the project in Digby, in particular, has got Skypower’s share of funding set aside and quite honestly everything we have seen in terms of the continued involvement of our Skypower partners has been nothing but solid."
He concedes that there is "an issue" but "I don’t think it is a direct issue right now as far as the Digby project is concerned."
In June the provincial Environment Department informed the developers that additional information was required in their application for environmental approval.
Mr. Zwicker said that information has been compiled and is now before the minister, who has 50 days to review the material and make a decision. The 30 days for public review of the project has also been completed.
The plan was to have a project start up in September. Mr. Zwicker still hopes to keep that time line although he admits construction may not begin until late September.
"We are looking to bring this project online during the summer and fall of 2010, so we have got to get started fairly soon," he said.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Ontario’s big windy gamble
from MacLeans.ca
Jonathon Gatehouse, Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The province is betting on wind power, and critics are lining up
Smitherman, whose temperament earned him the nickname “Furious George,” betrays hints that his patience is perhaps waning for both the backlash and industry whining. “I totally understand that there aren’t many people out there looking for more electricity infrastructure in their backyards,” he says. And if somebody has to go back to the drawing board and redesign some projects, “I apologize that it will be inconvenient in some circumstances. But bigger setbacks are part of the Green Act.” All part of a difficult balancing act that the province must execute if it is to do away with coal by 2014, cut 30 megatonnes of CO2 emissions annually, and generally improve the health of all Ontarians. (Every year, the province’s coal plants kill 668 people, while causing 1,100 emergency room visits and more than 300,000 minor illnesses, says the Ontario Medical Association.)
But the noisy debate—and the pending infrastructure announcements—might just be the kind of sideshow the Ontario government needs to distract attention from even bigger problems with its energy system. Seventy-five per cent of its existing generation system must be replaced over the next two decades, and the cost of refurbishing and expanding its aging nuclear plants—the source of 53 per cent of the province’s power—is spiralling. Plans for two new reactors at Darlington were put on hold last month after the lowest bid came in at $26 billion, more than the power expansion budget for the next 20 years.
Bryne Purchase, a former deputy minister of finance and energy in Ontario, now executive director of the Queen’s University Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy, says Dalton McGuinty’s government seems to be flying by the seat of its pants when it comes to energy. “This has all been driven by relatively simple political thinking: coal bad, wind good,” he says. A carbon tax, whatever the form, would have had the advantage of pricing the pollutants out of the market, rather than making wind the default winning technology—a problem, given that it is neither particularly cost-effective at the moment, nor efficient. (The amount of available wind power can change from minute to minute, depending on the breezes, which explains Ontario’s decision to install “backup” natural gas-fired plants, which can be quickly be pressed into service.) And as the cost of new transmission lines, grid hookups and the government-mandated preferential tariffs get buried on electricity bills, consumers will never know if wind was the way to go or not, says Purchase. “Soon it will be impossible to know what the truly cost-efficient alternatives actually were.” Green, but at a steep price.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/12/ontarios-big-windy-gamble/2/
It is well worth checking out the original for the very interesting comments.
Jonathon Gatehouse, Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The province is betting on wind power, and critics are lining up
Smitherman, whose temperament earned him the nickname “Furious George,” betrays hints that his patience is perhaps waning for both the backlash and industry whining. “I totally understand that there aren’t many people out there looking for more electricity infrastructure in their backyards,” he says. And if somebody has to go back to the drawing board and redesign some projects, “I apologize that it will be inconvenient in some circumstances. But bigger setbacks are part of the Green Act.” All part of a difficult balancing act that the province must execute if it is to do away with coal by 2014, cut 30 megatonnes of CO2 emissions annually, and generally improve the health of all Ontarians. (Every year, the province’s coal plants kill 668 people, while causing 1,100 emergency room visits and more than 300,000 minor illnesses, says the Ontario Medical Association.)
But the noisy debate—and the pending infrastructure announcements—might just be the kind of sideshow the Ontario government needs to distract attention from even bigger problems with its energy system. Seventy-five per cent of its existing generation system must be replaced over the next two decades, and the cost of refurbishing and expanding its aging nuclear plants—the source of 53 per cent of the province’s power—is spiralling. Plans for two new reactors at Darlington were put on hold last month after the lowest bid came in at $26 billion, more than the power expansion budget for the next 20 years.
Bryne Purchase, a former deputy minister of finance and energy in Ontario, now executive director of the Queen’s University Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy, says Dalton McGuinty’s government seems to be flying by the seat of its pants when it comes to energy. “This has all been driven by relatively simple political thinking: coal bad, wind good,” he says. A carbon tax, whatever the form, would have had the advantage of pricing the pollutants out of the market, rather than making wind the default winning technology—a problem, given that it is neither particularly cost-effective at the moment, nor efficient. (The amount of available wind power can change from minute to minute, depending on the breezes, which explains Ontario’s decision to install “backup” natural gas-fired plants, which can be quickly be pressed into service.) And as the cost of new transmission lines, grid hookups and the government-mandated preferential tariffs get buried on electricity bills, consumers will never know if wind was the way to go or not, says Purchase. “Soon it will be impossible to know what the truly cost-efficient alternatives actually were.” Green, but at a steep price.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/12/ontarios-big-windy-gamble/2/
~~~~~~~~~~~
It is well worth checking out the original for the very interesting comments.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
New brunswick turbine burns
CBC News
A wind turbine near Moncton went up in flames Saturday morning.
Officials with TransAlta Corp., the company that operates the 32 turbines on the Kent Hills Wind Farm, are investigating how the fire broke out. The farm is located in Elgin, N.B., about 30 kilometres southwest of Moncton.
Jason Edworthy, a spokesman for the Alberta-based company, said the fire is very unusual and the company that supplied the turbine will be involved in the investigation.
The Elgin Fire Department and employees of TransAlta responded to the fire at about 9 a.m. Saturday and were able to contain it. Three TransAlta employees on site were alerted to the problem by the turbine's sensor.
The loss of one turbine will not affect the ability of TransAlta to supply NB Power, Edworthy said.
The Kent Hills facility began operations on Dec. 31, 2008, and was slated to provide 280,000-megawatt hours of power per year to meet the electricity needs of approximately 17,300 homes.
Replacing the turbine is estimated to cost between $4 million and $5 million.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/08/10/turbine-fire.html
YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkGXoE3RFZ8
Monday, August 10, 2009
Are wind farms a health risk? US scientist identifies 'wind turbine syndrome'
Noise and vibration coming from large turbines are behind an increase in heart disease, migraine, panic attacks and other health problems, according to research by an American doctor
By Margareta Pagano
Sunday, 2 August 2009
The Independent
Living too close to wind turbines can cause heart disease, tinnitus, vertigo, panic attacks, migraines and sleep deprivation, according to groundbreaking research to be published later this year by an American doctor.
Dr Nina Pierpont, a leading New York paediatrician, has been studying the symptoms displayed by people living near wind turbines in the US, the UK, Italy, Ireland and Canada for more than five years. Her findings have led her to confirm what she has identified as a new health risk, wind turbine syndrome (WTS). This is the disruption or abnormal stimulation of the inner ear's vestibular system by turbine infrasound and low-frequency noise, the most distinctive feature of which is a group of symptoms which she calls visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance, or VVVD. They cause problems ranging from internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee, chest tightness and tachycardia – increased heart rate. Turbine noise can also trigger nightmares and other disorders in children as well as harm cognitive development in the young, she claims. However, Dr Pierpont also makes it clear that not all people living close to turbines are susceptible.
Until now, the Government and the wind companies have denied any health risks associated with the powerful noises and vibrations emitted by wind turbines. Acoustic engineers working for the wind energy companies and the Government say that aerodynamic noise produced by turbines pose no risk to health, a view endorsed recently by acousticians at Salford University. They have argued that earlier claims by Dr Pierpont are "imaginary" and are likely to argue that her latest findings are based on a sample too small to be authoritative.
At the heart of Dr Pierpont's findings is that humans are affected by low-frequency noise and vibrations from wind turbines through their ear bones, rather like fish and other amphibians. That humans have the same sensitivity as fish is based on new discoveries made by scientists at Manchester University and New South Wales last year. This, she claims, overturns the medical orthodoxy of the past 70 years on which acousticians working for wind farms are using to base their noise measurements. "It has been gospel among acousticians for years that if a person can't hear a sound, it's too weak for it to be detected or registered by any other part of the body," she said. "But this is no longer true. Humans can hear through the bones. This is amazing. It would be heretical if it hadn't been shown in a well-conducted experiment."
In the UK, Dr Christopher Hanning, founder of the British Sleep Society, who has also backed her research, said: "Dr Pierpont's detailed recording of the harm caused by wind turbine noise will lay firm foundations for future research. It should be required reading for all planners considering wind farms. Like so many earlier medical pioneers exposing the weaknesses of current orthodoxy, Dr Pierpont has been subject to much denigration and criticism and ... it is tribute to her strength of character and conviction that this important book is going to reach publication."
Dr Pierpont's thesis, which is to be published in October by K-Selected Books, has been peer reviewed and includes an endorsement from Professor Lord May, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government. Lord May describes her research as "impressive, interesting and important".
Her new material about the impact of turbine noise on health will be of concern to the Government given its plans for about 4,000 new wind turbines across the country. Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, has made wind power a central part of his new green policy to encourage renewable energy sources. Another 3,000 are planned off-shore.
Drawing on the early work of Dr Amanda Harry, a British GP in Portsmouth who had been alerted by her patients to the potential health risk, Dr Pierpont gathered together 10 further families from around the world who were living near large wind turbines, giving her a cluster of 38 people, from infants to age 75, to explore the pathophysiology of WTS for the case series. Eight of the 10 families she analysed for the study have now moved away from their homes.
In a rare interview, Dr Pierpont, a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told The Independent on Sunday: "There is no doubt that my clinical research shows that the infrasonic to ultrasonic noise and vibrations emitted by wind turbines cause the symptoms which I am calling wind turbine syndrome. There are about 12 different health problems associated with WTS and these range from tachycardia, sleep disturbance, headaches, tinnitus, nausea, visual blurring, panic attacks with sensations of internal quivering to more general irritability.
"The wind industry will try to discredit me and disparage me, but I can cope with that. This is not unlike the tobacco industry dismissing health issues from smoking. The wind industry, however, is not composed of clinicians, nor is it made up of people suffering from wind turbines." The IoS has a copy of the confidential manuscript which is exhaustive in its research protocol and detailed case series, drawing on the work of leading otolaryngologists and neurotologists – ear, nose and throat clinical specialists.
Some of the earliest research into the impact of low-frequency noise and vibrations was undertaken by Portuguese doctors studying the effects on military and civil personnel flying at high altitudes and at supersonic speed. They found that this exposure may also cause the rare illness, vibroacoustic disorder or VAD, which causes changes to the structure of certain organs such as the heart and lungs and may well be caused by vibrations from turbines. Another powerful side effect of turbines is the impact which the light thrown off the blades – known as flicker – has on people who suffer from migraines and epilepsy.
Campaigners have consistently argued that much research hitherto has been based on written complaints to environmental health officers and manufacturers, not on science-based research. But in Denmark, Germany and France, governments are moving towards building new wind farms off-shore because of concern over the potential health and environmental risks. In the UK there are no such controls, and a growing number of lobbyists, noise experts and government officials are also beginning to query the statutory noise levels being given to councils when deciding on planning applications from wind farm manufacturers. Lobbyists claim a new method of measuring is needed.
Dr Pierpont, who has funded all the research herself and is independent of any organisation, recommends at least a 2km set-back distance between potential wind turbines and people's homes, said: "It is irresponsible of the wind turbine companies – and governments – to continue building wind turbines so close to where people live until there has been a proper epidemiological investigation of the full impact on human health.
"What I have shown in my research is that many people – not all – who have been living close to a wind turbine running near their homes display a range of health illnesses and that when they move away, many of these problems also go away."
A breakthrough into understanding more of the impact of vibrations came last year, she said, when scientists at Manchester University and Prince of Wales Clinical School and Medical Research Institute in Sydney showed that the normal human vestibular system has a fish or frog-like sensitivity to low-frequency vibration. This was a turning point in understanding the nature of the problem, Dr Pierpont added, because it overturns the orthodoxy of the current way of measuring noise. "It is clear from the new evidence that the methods being used by acousticians goes back to research first carried out in the 1930s and is now outdated."
Dr Pierpont added that the wind turbine companies constantly argue that the health problems are "imaginary, psychosomatic or malingering". But she said their claims are "rubbish" and that medical evidence supports that the reported symptoms are real.
Case study: 'My husband had pneumonia, my father-in-law had a heart attack. Nobody was ill before'
Jane Davis, 53, a retired NHS manager, and her husband, Julian, 44, a farmer, lived in Spalding, Lincolnshire, until the noise of a wind farm 930m away forced them to leave
"People describe the noise as like an aeroplane that never arrives. My husband developed pneumonia very quickly after the turbines went up, having never had chest problems before. We suffer constant headaches and ear nuisance. My mother-in-law developed pneumonia and my husband developed atrial fibrillation – a rapid heartbeat. He had no pre-existing heart disease. Our blood pressure has gone up. My father-in-law has suffered a heart attack, tinnitus and marked hearing loss.
" I understand this can be regarded as a coincidence, but nobody was ill before 2006."
The defence: 'Wind turbines are quiet and safe'
The British Wind Energy Association, UK's biggest renewable energy trade association, said last night: "One of the first things first-time visitors to wind farms usually say is that they are surprised how quiet the turbines are.
"To put things in context: the London Borough of Westminster registered around 300,000 noise complaints from residents in 2008, none from wind turbines. The total number of noise complaints to local councils across the country runs into millions.
"In contrast, an independent study on wind farms and noise in 2007 found only four complaints from about 2,000 turbines in the country, three of which were resolved by the time the report was published.
"Wind turbines are quiet, safe and sustainable. It is not surprising that, according to a DTI report, 94 per cent of people who live near wind turbines are in favour of them. There is no scientific research to suggest that wind turbines are in any way harmful, and even many of the detractors of wind energy are honest enough to admit this.
"Noise from wind farms is a non-problem, and we need to move away from this unproductive and unscientific debate, and focus on our targets on reducing carbon emissions."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/are-wind-farms-a-health-risk-us-scientist-identifies-wind-turbine-syndrome-1766254.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)