Wind farm map

This map is a vast improvement on the one I published last year.

That map was so hard to read, I misread it and thought the wind farm only stretched east to Dan R Lane. It goes much further east to Ocean View Drive (almost to the old Macfarlane Road). Both maps are identical in where the turbines are located.

In the spirit of disclosure, AWPC sent this (in acrobat). I cannot post a .pdf here, so I have captured most of the image and converted to a .jpeg.

The turbines are around 400m apart. This is the closest they can go to each other, as recommended by Vestas. Therefore, the only way that this farm could be setback further from residences would be to eliminate some turbines.

Comments

Comments section is reactivated.

AWPC open house

When I arrived at St Thomas More church hall last Wednesday evening, there was already over 140 people seated and AWPC was just getting started on a presentation.

Over the next hour more people arrived. Daniel and Carolyn d'Entremont had driven up all the way from Pubnico.

Atlantic Wind Power Company (AWPC) had three people at a front table and at the back of the hall a rep from Vestas turbines, an environmental analyst, and three or four more from their company.

There was a guest book to sign, glossy brochures, some maps, lapel pins and a table with munchies and tea/coffee/water/pop.

The d'Entremonts had brought and distributed copies of an aerial picture of Pubnico wind farm with their house clearly seen next to some of the turbines.

Charles Demond (AWPC) gave his presentation and then the questions started to come. There were a lot of people who had very valid questions, comments and concerns and they were not always answered directly, if at all.

Questions ranged from where a sub-station would go in (next to existing substation at the Salt Mine), power transmission and distribution cables to how the Environmental Assessment (EA) is progressing.

There were people who spoke about concerns about property value, noise, blight, local economy effects and bird mortality.

There was quite a discussion as to whether this would be in cottage country or not. Apparently, APWC believes that cottage country is just the land to the north of the Gulf Shore Road! There was a lot of time spent on who was to blame (AWPC or the County) for the timing of meetings, consultation with the public and setback bylaw amendments.

There were questions about noise of not just one but 27 turbines. Related to this was discussion as to whether the turbines would be direct or gear drive and whether the rotors would be upwind or down wind.

AWPC had told us about how much tax money would go to the County from their project and they would urge County to spend it here. They have absolutely no say on this matter and the County will spend their money where they like. When asked about how proposed changes to tax laws in Bill 160 would vastly reduce their tax base, we were given a confusing, rambling diatribe on assessments and tax claims (Charles is a lawyer and a chartered accountant).

AWPC generally answered questions by deflecting to something else they could talk about that no one from the floor could answer to. We were told about how the people in Germany and Denmark get along with turbines in close proximity (smaller turbines in smaller numbers and locally owned - not so many big farms as being proposed here). They blinded us with a very poor slide of sound levels at given distances that no one could see to be able to discuss. There was no explanation about decibels and they were using data from Ontario which uses levels higher than those recommended by the World Health Organization.

There were many, many things they said that were incorrect, misleading or spurious - and no way to dispute what they were saying without getting into a shouting match.

Daniel d'Entremont got to express some of his problems he's had with AWPC's wind farm in Pubnico. He says their family was made sick by the turbines, he can't sell his house anyone is welcome to come and stay - its empty because they cannot live there.

AWPC is organising bus tours from Pugwash to Pubnico.

I had deliberately kept quiet for the first part of the meeting. I wanted it to be evident that concerns about this wind farm are not just mine, but of many others. After about an hour an a half I finally got up to have my say and to reply to claims Charles had made earlier against this blog and me.

I introduced myself and explained why this blog exists. Charles had claimed that he had been misrepresented here. He took particular offence at the minutes of last Saturday's meeting being posted.

I reminded Charles that what he had said had outside Council Chambers last week had been witnessed by people who were all also at this meeting and I had reported him accurately (he claims that what he meant was that the wind farm wasn't going into cottage country, because it was going in south of the Gulf Shore Road).

I accepted that maybe it hadn't been wise to so quickly publish minutes of a meeting I hadn't been to and (he claims) he had not yet seen himself. In order not to get distracted by such a minimal point (in comparison to way more important concerns) I told him I would change the previous blog entry, which I did as soon as I got home.

I asked about the EA process and asked if AWPC had seen a new report which clearly concludes that, because of concerns over health, loss of property value etc, setbacks should be a minimum of 2km. They hadn't seen it and I promised to send it to them, which I have. The report I was referring to is the first of two found on the following link, but the second is excellent also. http://www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/

One of the other presenters (I am sorry I never caught his name) had said earlier that when he looks
for the location for a new wind farm the most important criteria is wind speed. I challenged this. All the critics and indeed most wind turbine manufacturers, consultants and proponents agree, that a far more important issue is current land use.

He had also said that there was no wind away from the shoreline.

I didn't get to reply to that at the open house but anyone who can access a wind map can see this is absolutely not true. ScotianWindfields showed us some really neat software that has very detailed wind maps. The Cobequids rate very highly for wind.

I was explaining why it was so important why County writes a good turbine setback bylaw, which in turn could easily be adopted by other counties or even (eventually) the Province when suddenly, Charles changed his tone with me. I could feel I was being sucked into a trap, but I couldn't work out fast enough what it was. He asked me what I was asking for a setback. I said 2km. I know this is too simplistic a setback, property borders and land use have to be considered etc etc and I had tried to say that there are some provisos that should be included. But I quickly felt out of my depth (planning strategies isn't my strong suit) so rather than be standing there stammering and stumbling I simply answered that the setback should be 2km from every residence, whether it is a million dollar home or a one room shack - everyone deserves their peace and quiet and health. He triumphantly replied "So do I".

Later on, it became clear as to what the trap had been. They then repeatedly used the claim that 2km setback from any residence would kick out any wind farm anywhere in the County. Of course, no one had County maps with them with every house marked on it to dispute this. They claimed that there would be no wind power generation in the County!

Excellently laid trap, making utterly spurious claims which distracted the crowd from the point in hand - whether a wind farm should go in cottage country on the Gulf Shore.

No one has said there should be no wind power generation - either in farms or in smaller installations. I can confidently say that everyone at the meeting is pro wind.

Our concerns are with the location of this particular farm.

There were some more excellent questions and comments from the floor, but the meeting had now been going on for over three hours and people were starting to leave. The meeting slowly broke up.

Very late in the meeting there were a couple of men who spoke up for the turbines. I understand that the gentlemen who spoke passionately about how we must embrace wind energy because of global warming and for the sake of future generations is the same person who recently bought huge tracts of land and clear cut them to farm blueberries.

As I have mentioned before, large open uninhabited areas (such as blueberry fields) would be perfect for wind energy generation.

I spoke with Annabelle Singleton of CBCL Ltd. This is the consulting firm that is handling the Environment Assessment (EA). They also handled the EA for the Pubnico project. Ms Singleton was very attentive, answered questions immediately and clearly and was taking copious notes. I have great hopes that she will put together a comprehensive and complete EA.

~~~~~

If you haven't e-mailed, phoned or written to your councillor, please do so right away. The next Council meeting is this Wednesday when there will be a public hearing. Anyone who turns up to speak must be heard. They then have the opportunity to go to second reading that day or may postpone to a later date.

The current County proposal is for 3x the height of the turbine.

I am suggesting 10x the height or 2km, whichever is greater. Other suggestions have been for anything from 1km to 5km.

Minutes of meeting in HRM with AWPC

Minutes are available via e-mail

County meeting

On Wednesday I made a presentation to the County.

The reason this rather last minute decision was made was because it has been made very clear over the last few months, as I talk to people (including some councillors), most are generally ignorant about all the pros and cons of wind turbines. There are many problems concerning turbines but the general public isn’t aware of enough to know what questions to question the wind power companies about. I have met many people in the last few months who had never heard of shadow flicker, the degree and variety of noise, ice throw and environmental damage.

Before last November, neither had I.

The wind energy companies have done a very good job over the years in selling the idea of their industry to the public, with no opposing point of view to be heard. However, in countries where these wind turbines have been around for decades, the voices of dissent are getting louder and more numerous.

There is a public hearing at Council set for April 18th to voice concerns about setback distances and there will be quite a number of very concerned property owners who intend to turn up. They have become educated about this issue, but there was no guarantee that all the Councillors would already have a basic understanding of what these people would be talking about. That is why it was decided I should do a quick “Wind Turbines: 101" with reference as to why the setbacks for them should not be too close.

The owner of AWPC , Charles Demond, caught wind (so to speak) of this pending presentation and insisted that his company get a chance to speak too.

I had very little time to amalgamate the mountain of information I have and condense it into a fifteen minute presentation. I decided to give PowerPoint a try in order to help keep me to my major points.

I arrived early enough so that my laptop could be setup with a little bit of software to make the wireless connection to their projector.

I have to say I was a little nervous about making my presentation. I had never even been to a Council meeting before, let alone address the Councillors formally! Warden Hunter was very kind in his introduction of me to Council and afterwards was very complimentary (blushing now) of my presentation.

The rules were clear, the wind power company and I had fifteen minutes each and no more. I suspect there was a little leniency on both sides over time. This is such a huge subject, that fifteen minutes can’t possibly give it justice. I know my fifteen minutes seemed to evaporate away very quickly. There was no forum for questions or rebuttals.

At the bottom of this posting is the outline of my presentation that I sent to the County before the meeting. I was able to cover most points including some details, examples or statistics. I didn’t get to the pictures of Pubnico.

The emphasis of my presentation was to express why turbines should not be setback too closely to any property. I did not discuss the proposed local wind farm directly, as that is not the issue in hand right now.

When I was finished, I got my laptop and notes gathered up, and then Charles Demond and Clare Peers took my place at the table. Only Charles spoke. He hadn’t put together a PowerPoint presentation, claiming he’d not had time. (They had arrived after the meeting started, so would not have been able to get their laptop set up for a presentation anyway).

Charles basically used his presentation time as rebuttal to some of what I had just said.

Seeing as I couldn't rebut his rebuttal (and this is my blog), I am doing that here.

He spent his first five minutes denying anything Daniel d’Entremont had to say as being true and the rest of his time defending his particular wind farm. Particularly, Charles absolutely denies there is any proof that infrasound is detrimental to health.

(I had quoted Daniel as saying his primary complaint is infrasound disturbance and claims he and his family’s health has been affected. They moved out a year ago and eventually regained the health they had enjoyed before the wind turbines went up).

Rebuttal: Review of Published Research on low Frequency Noise and its Effects (May 2003) was written by Dr Geoff Leventhall for the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs in the UK. It is available at www.defra.gov.uk The review is 88 pages long including 10 pages of 199 references of scientific studies. Not all studies agree, but there are many (including a report from the World Health Organization) that unequivocally state that there are health effects brought on by infrasound. Until the scientists can agree, lets err on the side of caution and avoid placing infrasound producing turbines anywhere too close to residences.

Charles also claims that Daniel is the only complainant.

Rebuttal: While Daniel may be the only one who has so far officially complained, he says there are many people in community who originally supported the wind farm and now say that had they known then what they know now, they would not have supported it. That process was some years ago, the public is now becoming better educated about turbines.

Charles said that land owners have the right to use or farm their land as they chose, if they want to farm wind they should be allowed to put up turbines.

Rebuttal: Yes, EVERY land owner should be allowed to use their land, including for rest and relaxation. As much as I would hate to see these 2 or 3 property owners lose out on a lucrative deal, the rest of us deserve to be able to enjoy our properties too.

Charles: “the noise really isn’t that bad, you can get used to it”

Rebuttal: That is his opinion that is not shared by the people who he expects to have to live with not just one but 27 of these noisy behemoths. It is also not the opinion of more and more people, most recently from a family on PEI who live 1km from a turbine and find their health and sleep being affected. I have many newspaper clippings and websites from Canada, USA, Australia and UK of groups who are complaining about the noise (among other problems). Noise is definitely a health issue. http://www.savewesternny.org/health.html

In my presentation I had quoted statistics from Finland that a 20kg piece of ice could be thrown 550m with a landing velocity of 170km/h (Proceedings BORKAS 11 Helsinki, 1994, pp 216). I also reminded Council that our weather is becoming more and more extreme, including ice storms.

Charles explained how turbines automatically shut down if they start to ice up. They detect an imbalance and shut down. He said there is virtually no risk of ice throw, and anyway we should be able to absorb some risk. He reminded us of the incident when a chunk of rock from a quarry blast flew across the Bicentennial Highway and through a roof. He suggested that “accidents happen”.

Rebuttal: There is no such thing as an accident. There are unsafe acts or conditions that result in harm or death. There is no degree of risk I will accept when there’s a chance of a 50lb chunk of ice blasting through my roof. De-icing systems on turbines may work most of the time, but like anything else, systems break down. If ice forms uniformly, the sensors may not work http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/tech_docs/en/downloads/ger4262.pdf If ice storm incidence increases, so does the chance of ice throw.

Charles said that the issue of snowmobile or ATV access was a non issue because it was all private property out there.

Rebuttal: Not sure what his point was there. Where else does he think these recreational drivers go? If necessary, they get an agreement signed with property owners. We have such a deal with the snowmobile club concerning my parents property in Wallace.

Charles explained that high voltage wires would not impact this area. There are already higher voltage wires coming in or out of the substation at the Salt Mine. He started quoting voltage amounts and limits and I have so say that lost me.

Rebuttal: These facts may be true for his particular wind farm, what I was addressing was the concern for anywhere in the county.

Before Charles left he handed out copies of the results of a questionnaire they had out at the Open House in Pugwash last November. They say that about 120 people attended. He had 17 questionnaire results.

Rebuttal: 17 seems like a pretty low number. He would have had 18 if he had included mine which I filled out at home, copied and then mailed to AWPC. This meeting was very poorly advertised. I actually e-mailed CBC on PEI to have them make an announcement of it because I wanted as many people as possible become aware of this project (we can't get CBC from NS here). They then phoned Clare to confirm the details and ran the announcement.

The questionnaire results showed a general positive attitude towards this wind farm. I argue that this was an issue most people were yet to be educated upon. Again and again I start a conversation with someone about wind power and they are all for it, but by the end of that conversation, when they know more about some issues they had never realised before, they have concerns. Those concerns are almost always expressed as “well, I still think turbines are a great idea, but I don’t want one in my back yard. There’s lots of space for them elsewhere. Put them out on the Cobequids.”

Charles said that an environmental impact study, in partnership with St Mary’s University, had been ongoing for nearly a year.

Rebuttal: This is a pretty small, quiet area in the winter. No one has noticed any scientists sampling flora or fauna in the area. Prime study time is coming up in the next couple of months, maybe we’ll see them then!

The most important points that I talked about that I do not recall Charles having any rebuttal to were shadow flicker or property value

After the presentations we all left Chambers and Charles came over and talked with four of my neighbours, who had come out to Amherst for my support, and me.

Charles really doesn’t seem to understand our objections to noise. He thinks we can get used to it.

One of my year-round neighbours who lives within the shadow of the meteorological tower for four months of the year (they’ve been watching for it) suffers from migraine and is very worried that shadow flicker will induce these horrific headaches (I am soooooooo glad I don’t get migraines!!). He didn’t have an answer for that.

He said two or three times (and he said the same thing to me last November) that he didn’t want to be a bad neighbour, if people didn’t want him in the area he’d leave.

We then tried to persuade him that this was an inappropriate place to put a wind farm, being cottage country and all. He denied that this is cottage country. Several times. It really was quite extraordinary. Has he not been down here? We tried again, explaining that our local population increases by two or three times in the summer. Again, he denied this is cottage country, that our property values would not decrease. We pointed out that cottagers are a hugely important part of the local economy, that if their dollars cease coming into the area, local businesses will suffer and we stand the chance of losing much needed services. Eventually he misspoke himself and did refer this area as cottage country. He didn’t seem to appreciate it when I pointed it out that he’d done that.

It was that juncture that he left us to talk to the Press.

In the following day’s Chronicle Herald it said that an Upper Gulf Shore woman is suggesting a setback that would kill the project.

Rebuttal: This appears to infer that I am the only complainant. There are many, many people on the Gulf and elsewhere who oppose this wind farm.

Charles is quoted “But the two-kilometre setback proposed would be extreme. It’s greater than any setback being contemplated in the world.”

Rebuttal: Utter nonsense. There are many instances where the setback is at least 2km (Germany, New York). In California some county’s setback are 2 miles. The UK is using 1 or 2 miles. In Pictou County wind farm operators are voluntarily using 2km as a setback. In areas with experience of turbines, the setbacks are increasing.

Charles Demond has planned his wind farm with turbines set at the highest density that he is allowed (denser than other areas allow), so of course he cannot push his turbine back 2km! If he had simply gone out to the Cobequids instead, he would have lots of land to put up a farm and still keep 2km away from residences.

He also is quoted to say “Other industries such as salt mines, farms or fish plants wouldn’t face such stringent regulations”.

Rebuttal: None of these industries pose the health and safety concerns that turbines do. They are also important employers. Wind farms employ a few people in their construction, but very few afterwards. Meanwhile a valuable land area with all kinds of potential for growth and development has been made valueless.

Charles says they’ve promised to setback at 500m which is even further than the current County proposal.

Rebuttal: If you look at the map on the November 30 posting, its clearly says that turbines would be 445m to 510m away from a residence. Turbines are getting taller and taller every year. It is not out of the way to eventually see 170m turbines, which would be taller than the current County 3x setback and fit within Charles' voluntary 500m. Clare told me they are shopping around for turbines. They may end up with something other than the 120m Vestas shown in their map.

The Amherst Daily News included the above points and also quoted Charles as saying “I don’t want to be butting heads with people, but it is frustrating that so many issues that are largely irrelevant are raised as issuers such as high voltage cables, bird kills and infrasound. They’re not issues ....... what it comes down to is how close do you want it and what’s an acceptable level of sound. We believe we’ve addressed that”.

Rebuttal: These issues may seem irrelevant to him, but they are very relevant to the people made sick by infrasound, to anyone who is concerned about endangering populations of migratory birds and the proved health issues surrounding high voltage cables. Just because his particular farm does not have to deal with high voltage cable, it doesn’t mean that couldn’t be a concern for other wind farms. As far as sound goes, he will not see our point of view of this issue. Just because he can tolerate the noise, doesn’t mean everyone else can. At 500m the noise is unbearable.

Mr Demond responded to my presentation very personally. I wasn’t addressing issues I have with his farm, but with turbines in general and why they should not be placed too close to residences. Because my recommendations potentially shut HIS farm down, doesn’t mean they are not good for the County, just not good for him.

~~~~~

Presentation to Municipality of Cumberland County
April 4th

This presentation will focus on three important factors that are affected by wind turbine setbacks: health, safety and property value. I also list various property use that should be kept in mind, if not specifically catered to in setback values. Allowances also have to be made for future developments.

Health
Noise
Shadow flicker
Blade glint
Stress
High voltage wires
Ground water


Safety
Ice throw
Fire
Rotor failure
Bird/bat kills
Extreme weather
High voltage wires
Lightning
Increased traffic
Distracted driver

Property Value
Dollar value
Resale
Taxes

Reasonable enjoyment value
Peace and quiet
Disturbance
Interference

Present use
Residential
Places of worship
Hospitals
Schools
Recreation/community halls
Hotels
Radio/ cell / microwave towers
Air strips
Parks
Campgrounds
Golf Course
Resorts
Trans Canada Trail
Culturally significant sites
Ecologically sensitive sites
Wildlife sanctuaries

Future use
Residential development
Commercial development
Recreational development
Logging
Farming

Pictures of Pubnico Point - before and after the wind farm

More media

I was back on Higgins Mountain this afternoon, this time in company with news anchor/reporter Jim Nunn and cameraman Mike (never got his last name) from CBC TV, Halifax. The report should be on tomorrow evening.

The first turbine was not working again today. I assume the van parked there was that of maintenance personnel. We drove to the third turbine over a desperately rutted road. They got some great shots of the shadow effect from the turning rotors.

I hope all the horrible and weird noises were picked up by their equipment. The turbine roar changed pitch with any little change in wind speed or direction. Every now and again there was this horrible clanking and grinding noise. Every full rotation of the rotors made another clunk noise. There was also a constant high pitched whine. It could easily be heard 1km away. Now imagine compounding that by 17 or 27 turbines. All within a few hundred metres from each other.

Nothing in today's Amherst Daily news yet.

The live interview on CJCH went well. It was all positive. The theme was the same as it was with CBC: wind power is fine but not so close to homes as x3 height. (When they found their computer wasn't connecting, my poor parents in England had to listen to it over the phone, listening into friends' radio in Dartmouth. Thanks go to Don and Marj!).

Atlantic Wind Power Corporation will be having an "Open House" on April 11th 6-9pm at the Roman Catholic church hall in Pugwash. I spoke with Clare Peers and he says he will drop off a mailing to the post offices tomorrow. Check your mail box on Thursday. Those of you who live elsewhere this time of year .... well, I don't know what you're supposed to do!

Atlantic Wind Power Corporation Inc.

Charles Demond (president) cdemond@awpc.com

Clair Peers c.peers@ns.sympatico.ca

As much as I'd like to now get prepared for tomorrow's meeting with the County, I now have to put on my secretary hat and go to a meeting in Wallace.

Publicity

A little publicity does amazing things!

Since the piece about wind turbines and this blog was published in Sunday's Chronicle Herald, I have received a ton more information and e-mails. There have been a lot of hits on this blog too.

Last week the Oxford Journal ran two pieces on the subject. The Amherst Daily News interviewed me last night and a request for an interview with CBC just came in.

Yesterday CBC radio from PEI ran a story about a family who is being driven out of their home 1km from a turbine because of the noise.

I was contacted by the gentleman in Pubnico (Daniel d'Entremont) who has been fighting AWPC for three years. We had a long and very interesting conversation. His family was driven out of their home a year ago. Their biggest complaint was the noise and infrasound which he says made his family ill. Their symptoms eventually all left after they moved away from the turbines . The wind farm was initially supported by the community, but now many are not happy and say that if they had known back then what they know now, they would have not supported the project.

More later.