As for the tower parts in the pictures below, yes those are tiny people beside them.

WATFORD – As the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal hears arguments against a wind turbine development near Watford, the project is moving ahead.

Green Breeze Energy’s four turbine 10 megawatt project worth about $22 million is under construction now with the concrete forms already poured and the turbines waiting in Windsor to be installed.

But the Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group filed an appeal of the project.

WAG’s lawyer, Eric Gillespie, says the main focus of the hearing will be the “numerous indirect health effects associated with wind turbines such as sleep disturbance, vertigo, nausea, headaches.”

Gillespie and lawyers for the province are waiting to hear the results of the province’s latest attempt to have the appeal dismissed. The tribunal is likely to release its decision this week. If the hearing moves ahead, arguments will begin in Alvinston Feb. 21.

But there is no requirement to stop work until the hearing is complete.

“You will probably see irreparable harm arguments made on other projects around the area of construction but given that the Middlesex Lambton Wind Action’s claim is based on health and that the health impacts don’t appear to be likely to be triggered until operation begins, we’re still in that phase,” Gillespie says.

“At the same time the company is clearly on notice they’re building completely at their own risk because if the appeal is successful those turbines will likely have to be removed.”

Gillespie says if the hearing continues long enough and Green Energy starts up the wind turbines, the wind action group may try to stop it.

“That is an option. At this point, no decision has been made either way,” says Gillespie. “We have indicated to the tribunal that we may make that motion so it is on everyone’s radar.”

Farm group calls for turbine halt

By John Miner, The London Free Press  January 20

In a major blow to the McGuinty government’s controversial green energy plan, the largest farm lobby group in the province has pulled the plug on its support for wind turbines.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which represents 37,000 farm families, issued a call Friday for the province to suspend wind turbine development.

OFA President Mark Wales said industrial wind turbines have split rural communities, pitting neighbour against neighbour.

“The situation is untenable,” Wales said. “It is taking away from what farmers do best and that is grow food and create jobs.”

“We need to slow this down and put some calm out there and then government needs to resolve the issues.”

Wales said technical solutions also need to be found before further development, such as how to store the energy from wind turbines when it is being produced but isn’t needed.

Selling such energy to other jurisdictions at a loss just isn’t good economics, he said.

Wales also said health concerns need to be addressed.

With hundreds of the giant turbines under construction, the Ontario government has come under intense criticism from rural groups for taking planning control away from rural municipalities.

Several Liberal MPPs, including former Agriculture Minister Carol Mitchell, were defeated in rural areas where turbines were being installed, helping to push the Liberals into a minority government position.

After the election, Premier Dalton McGuinty shifted veteran London Cabinet minister Chris Bentley into the politically hot energy portfolio.

E-mail john.miner@sunmedia.ca, or follow JohnatLFPress on Twitter

I am not a farmer, nor am I a member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA). For some, those two facts will negate any credibility that I have to offer an opinion on the organization. I accept that. However, before jumping to conclusions, let me assure you this editorial is not a public rant about the value of the organization or a call for it to be dismantled. Rather, it focuses only on their activity with respect to industrial wind projects.

In that regard, in spite of claims to the contrary, I would submit that the OFA has demonstrated no particular aptitude for protecting the health of rural Ontario. That would specifically apply to their membership, largely comprised of those who have opted to host wind turbines on their property. However, by extension it could also apply to rural Ontarians at large.

The predicament that the OFA is in may be attributable to a rather limited understanding of some of the key issues that actually impact the health and well being of those in proximity to turbines. In view of this, they are not blameless for their situation. But, by the same token, they are not entirely at fault. The rules established by the Ontario Government to roll out wind projects are stacked against the OFA. Also, some OFA members adamantly fight to place their property rights over their own health. Let’s consider these one at a time.

The primary example often quoted by the OFA as substantiation for how they are protecting health, is their successful lobbying to move turbines from 420 meter setbacks to 550 meters for participating land owners. Although well intended, this move could best be characterized as tinkering. It will do very little to alleviate the potential ill effects of turbines. One only need look at a couple of current examples.

At this time there is a Renewable Energy Application in front of the Ministry of the Environment for the McLeans Mountain industrial wind project on Manitoulin Island. This application is for the construction of 24 turbines each with 2.5 megawatts in power output and a maximum sound power level (noise level) of 104 decibels per turbine. As with most projects like this, there is a requirement for a detailed Noise Impact Assessment.

In the Mcleans Mountain noise assessment you will find a map that illustrates four distinct ‘noise envelopes’ drawn around clusters of turbines. The perimeter of each envelope indicates where noise levels are predicted to be 40 decibels. That noise level is the benchmark for compliance for the MOE. That means beyond that boundary, further from the turbines, noise levels are deemed acceptable. In this project that border physically occurs at approximately 650 metres in a 360 degree direction around each turbine cluster.

In a similar example, the Watford Wind Farm project recently approved by the MOE has 4 turbines each with 2.5 megawatts of power output but with almost 108 decibels (107.9) as a maximum sound power level (noise level). The 40 decibel boundary for the ‘noise envelope’ in this case occurs about 700 meters in a 360 degree direction around the group of 4 turbines.

To clarify, inside the boundary of each of the ‘noise envelopes’ in the above examples the predicted noise levels start at greater than 40 decibels and increase to over 70 decibels as you get closer to the turbines. Ironically, inside the noise envelope is also the homesteads and workplaces of farmers. Most of who are the constituents of the OFA.

If you were to do some research into human hearing you will find that prolonged exposure to levels of noise of 70 decibels or more can lead to impaired hearing. If that is not enough, then consider that the 40 plus decibel range within the perimeter may be more than double the ambient noise level of the natural environment without turbines. That difference between the noise level of the natural environment and the induced noise level from wind turbines is one key ingredient to negative health effects from noise annoyance. It applies equally to anyone living in proximity to an industrial wind farm.

Concern for the health of people living near turbines is rooted in the sound power level of each turbine and how they are clustered. Distance from the turbine, when considered in isolation is only secondary. The fundamental point is, unless the OFA builds an understanding of the ‘soundscapes’ of industrial wind projects, the effort to arbitrarily push turbines further away from people from 420 to 550 meters provides absolutely no increased insurance for the protection of human health. Attention has to be directed at noise emissions for the safety of land owners who host turbines. Unfortunately, for the OFA, the rules are stacked against them.

When a detailed noise impact assessment is done a distinction is made between receptors (recipients of noise). That is, there are ‘non-participating’ receptors and ‘participating’ receptors. The ‘participating’ ones are those who have signed on to have turbines on their property. Unfortunately, the Ontario Government only considers the noise predictions for ‘non-participating’ receptors in the final assessment for compliance. That’s the rule. Apparently, the contract a land owner signs to collect income from turbines is apparently sufficient to abrogate their personal right to health and well being. Albeit, this is good for the government. If noise levels at ‘participating’ receptors were considered they would rarely, if at all, be in compliance with the 40 decibel limit. As such, a vast number of industrial wind projects would never be built. That possibility is clearly not acceptable for the Government and as a result, both land owners and rural Ontarians at large remain vulnerable.

In addition to all this, the OFA faces strong challenges from some of its own members. I have read examples of participating land owners who threaten to sue their local councils if they oppose industrial wind projects. Further to that, in my own local area, some councillors when faced with opposition to wind projects have raised the question of defending the rights of property owners who choose to put turbines on their land. My personal opinion is that this would be like defending somebody’s right to smoke. While I can appreciate that many people make this injurious choice, I would never defend their right to do so.

All in all, the OFA has to overcome some formidable challenges before they can make legitimate claims of protecting the health of rural Ontario when it comes to industrial wind projects. There is a huge need for the education of the organization and some members, as well as a strong well informed lobby effort to re-write the rules. However, I am skeptical about the motivation to make this happen from an organization who so blatantly embraces the green energy mantra. The OFA’s enthusiasm for green energy at this point, seems to have obscured any objective assessment of the ramifications. I would conclude therefore, that the OFA is destined to remain incapable of protecting the health and well being of Ontarians when turbines are involved.

Wind Developers: if YOU install ANY transmission lines (collector lines etc.) in our communities— YOU must fix the Stray Voltage that occurs, not Hydro One. That includes the lines proposed to surround my kid’s school and playground.  So don’t bother telling me anything otherwise at any more of your twisted meetings.

Notice of Commencement and Invitation to Public Information Centre
Lambton to Longwood Transmission Upgrade Class Environmental Assessment

Date: January 18
Time: 5 – 8 p.m.
Location: Southwest Middlesex Arena, Auditorium 138 Mill Street, Glencoe

Date: January 19
Time: 5 – 8 p.m.
Location: Brigden Community Hall 3016 Brigden Road, Brigden

Hydro One Networks Inc. (“Hydro One”) invites you to a Public Information Centre to learn more about plans to upgrade an existing double-circuit 230 kilovolt transmission line. The transmission line, as shown on the map below, connects Lambton Transformer Station (TS) in the Township of St. Clair with Longwood TS in the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc. Consistent with Province of Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan, this project is required by the end of 2014 to increase capacity of the transmission system west of London to carry additional power from renewable, gas and other sources. The project involves replacing the conductor (wire) and insulators on the existing transmission towers. Hydro One will also repair selected tower foundations to ensure the long-term structural integrity of the transmission line.

Project Planning and Approvals
This project is being planned in accordance with the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities. The project will undergo an initial Environmental Screening. Screening criteria will be used to assess the potential significance of effects. If significant effects cannot be avoided, Hydro One will carry out a full Class Environmental Assessment. The project will also require approval under Section 92 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998. The Ontario Energy Board regulates the electricity sector in Ontario and will review Hydro One’s “Leave to Construct” application to determine if the construction and operation of the proposed project is in the public interest.

Opportunities for public input exist throughout both the environmental planning and Ontario Energy Board review processes.

Public Information Centres
Interested parties are invited to attend one of our public information centres to learn more about the project and to provide comments to our project team.

For More Information
If you have any questions or want to be added to the project mailing list, please contact: Carrie-Lynn Ognibene, Community Relations Hydro One Networks Inc. Tel: 1-877-345-6799 E-mail: Community.Relations@HydroOne.com www.HydroOne.com/projects  

—————————————————-

Hydro transmission upgrade inches ahead  By CATHY DOBSON, The Observer

A major upgrade to a 70-kilometre transmission line slicing through Lambton County bodes well for the local economy, community leaders say.

Hydro One plans to hold public consultations this month about adding capacity to the existing double-circuit 230-kilovolt transmission line stretching from the Lambton transformer station in St. Clair Township to the Longwood transformer station in Strathroy-Caradoc.

“This is very positive news,” said Steve Arnold, Lambton’s warden and mayor of St. Clair Township.

The more electricity local transmission lines can carry beyond Lambton County, the more energy projects can develop here, he said.

“We’ve been trying to get it on the forefront of government initiatives for a number of years.”

Local officials have been pushing the province to significantly upgrade regional transmission lines so they can handle new power projects and accommodate the future of the Lambton Generating Station.

In 2010, Energy Minister Brad Duguid ordered Hydro One to make the transmission system west of London a priority. It’s to be part of a $2-billion investment in the system across Ontario. But the project hasn’t exactly moved ahead at an electrifying pace.

On Thursday Jan. 19, Hydro One will finally hold a public consultation at the Brigden Community Hall to outline its upgrade plan.

While capacity will improve, it’s not clear how much more electricity the line will handle or what the cost of the upgrade will be, a Hydro One spokesman said.

Officials at the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) weren’t any more forthcoming.

“These projects are intended to upgrade the province’s transmission system to accommodate renewable projects, serve new load and support reliability,” OPA spokesman Tim Butters wrote in an email.

“Planning studies are continuing so the number of additional (megawatts) is not yet known,” he said.

While there are still many questions about the project, the president of the Sarnia-Lambton Chamber of Commerce is optimistic.

Garry McDonald spoke to ministry staff just before Christmas about it.

“We feel (additional transmission capacity) is a big factor in extending the life of Lambton Generating Station,” said McDonald.

Duguid requested an upgrade to the Lambton line as well as a completely new line, he said.

“The upgrade is to be finished by 2014, which coincides with the time when coal is supposed to be offline.

“That, as well as the gas line going to LGS, means the ministry is preparing for an opportunity that could exist,” said McDonald.

Local officials are urging the Liberal government to convert the coal-powered station to natural gas, saving hundreds of local jobs and increasing Ontario’s power supply.

“This upgrade to the transmission line is important to the existing LGS operation, all the green energy proposals for our area, and it’s important to future generation that could help the province,” McDonald said.

“I’m hoping this will mean more reason to keep LGS open and attract other power generating projects,” said Arnold. “If we end up with more energy creation locally, jobs will be created and that’s positive for all of us.”

Hydro One’s public consultation is scheduled for Jan. 19 from 5 p.m. – 8 p.m. in the community hall at 3016 Brigden Road.

cdobson@theobserver.ca

By PAUL MORDEN, The Observer Jan 12 2012

Muddy conditions caused by rain and mild winter temperatures have been a challenge for crews at the Zephyr Farms four-turbine wind project under construction near Watford.

Mississauga-based Green Breeze Energy Inc., began work on the $22-million, 10-MW energy generation project in late 2011 after receiving approval from Ontario’s Environment Ministry.

Brent Hull, vice-president with Green Breeze Energy, said the work has stayed mostly on schedule, even through the wet weather.

“In the beginning, when we were digging the holes for the foundations, they just kept filling up with water because it was raining so much,” he said.

Access roads have been built to the site on Churchill Line, between Ebenezer and Old Walnut Lines in Brooke-Alvinston Township, plus the foundations are now in place and underground wiring for the electricity collector system is nearly complete.

The turbines, made by Samsung of South Korea, are sitting dockside in Windsor waiting to be trucked to the site, Hall said.

“We should begin erecting the week of Jan. 23.”

The 100-metre blades will be trucked to the site from the manufacturer in Arkansas.

“The turbines should be all up and ready to produce power by the end of February,” Hall said.

Some time made be needed after that to test the equipment before it begins generating power, he added.

The ministry’s approval of the wind project has been appealed by the Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group. Hearings are set to begin in February but the appeal hasn’t impacted the construction schedule, Hall said.

pmorden@theobserver.ca

By PAUL MORDEN, The Observer Jan 12 2012

The fate of the Ontario Environment Ministry’s latest attempt to scuttle a challenge of its approval of a Brooke-Alvinston Township wind farm project could be known soon.

Following a Jan. 6 hearing in Toronto, Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal reserved its decision on the province’s motion to dismiss the Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group’s appeal of the provincial approval of the four-turbine Zephyr Farms wind project under construction near Watford.

“They have now indicated that they hope to get a decision released sometime next week,” said Eric Gillespie, a lawyer for the wind action group.

The ministry’s first motion to dismiss the appeal was denied by the tribunal in December.

Gillespie said he and the wind action group have provided additional information to the tribunal since then.

“Given that the first motion did not succeed,” he added, “logically, the second cannot succeed.”

Tribunal hearings on the appeal are scheduled to begin Feb. 21. The hearings are expected to be held in Alvinston but some dates will be in Toronto because of witnesses who will be testifying by video teleconference. “The facilities for doing that are located at the tribunal’s offices in Toronto,” Gillespie said.

Disclosure of evidence the parties will be relying on at the hearings is going on this month.

The tribunal also still has to rule on a motion filed by the wind farm developer to limit the scope of the evidence admissible at the hearings.

“That could have a significant affect on the amount of evidence that is filed,” Gillespie said.

He was also the lawyer for Chatham-Kent wind opponents who took a wind farm project there to the tribunal last year.

“The Chatham-Kent decision recognized that industrial wind turbines can cause harm to human health,”

Gillespie said.

“That was the first time any entity associated with the Ontario Government has come to that conclusion.”

Gillespie said they’re seeking to build “on that foundation” with the Zephyr Farms appeal.

The Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group has put out a call to anti-wind activists across the province for donations to help pay its legal costs.

Member Esther Wrightman said she’s hopeful its appeal will help inch forward the case wind turbine opponents are making.

“I’d like to see a major step forward,” she added, “but I’ll take what I can get.”

The hearings are currently scheduled for various days between Feb. 21 and March 9, with closing submissions on March 22.

If the tribunal rules a renewable-energy project will cause serious harm to human health, or the environment, it can revoke or alter the approval given by the province.

pmorden@theobserver.ca

Let me know if you see the project owner’s name anywhere (or any variation) on these signs. Do you see “Oneworld”, or “Greenbreeze”? Noooope. Hmmm. OK, how about “Stantec”? Huh.  Geeze these reps were everywhere at the public meetings, and they are nowhere to be seen once the turbines are being constructed. Here’s one that HAS to be there- ”ZEPHYR”. Nowhere to be seen. Well that’s confusing.

Hey- check out what they DO have: such as”RES”—I’ve never seen them associated with this project. And “Minten Hume Contractors Inc.”,  another one you won’t find in the ‘project documents’. Or how about the project name: “Brooke Wind Project” – that’s not officially the name of this project (Brooke-Alvinston Wind Farm).

Imagine you are a passerby, or a nearby resident and you think you might like to know a bit more about this project that you are driving by. You scribble down the names, drive home, type them into the google search….and…..nada. Apparently this project doesn’t exist. It’s a whole pile of alias names. Do you think the company did this all by accident? Or maybe the intention is to confuse the public- make the info a tad more difficult to find – hope that people give  up, don’t get educated, don’t get involved.

Sarnia This Week
PLYMPTON-WYOMING – Eric Erhard doesn’t like wind power. “If there was no other source of electricity in the universe, then maybe a wind turbine would be acceptable.” The professional engineer from Plympton-Wyoming first spoke up against them when Suncor tried to convince his municipality to host an industrial wind farm. Now, he will be one of the objectors when the Ontario government faces off against people opposed to the project February 21.

Erhard argues the wind energy industry isn’t sustainable without government funding. “It’s only sustainable when taxpayers are footing the bill. It’s really a welfare industry.”

And he says it is not environmentally friendly. Erhard says it needs other energy sources to back it up and the construction process for the turbine creates tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, not to mention the harm turbines do to wildlife. “They’re improperly called green; they do significant damage to birds, bats and to the environment in the production of turbines.

But it is the health effects of four wind turbines just outside of Watford which will be under scrutiny at an Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group filed the appeal after provincial government approved Green Breeze Energy’s four turbine 10 megawatt project worth about $22 million.

WAG’s lawyer, Eric Gillespie, says the main focus of the hearing will be the “numerous indirect health effects associated with wind turbines such as sleep disturbance, vertigo, nausea, headaches.”

Erhard hopes to back the group up with information he’s found from the World Health Organization and studies done for the province of Ontario.

Erhard says a recently released study done for the province says a the placement of wind turbines 450 meters from homes will result in “non trivial numbers of people being highly annoyed” by the low frequency sound.

Erhard says government studies place the turbines at a distance which will “highly annoy” between 6.5 and 8 percent of the people nearby.

“They’re willing to accept that – that’s their standard…that’s okay,” says Erhard. “That to me is not okay …that 1 out of 12 …that’s not acceptable.”

Erhard says while the province argues annoyance is not a disease, a new WHO report links low frequency sound to disease including increases in blood pressure and eventual heart disease.

“That’s the link I’m trying to make …Europe is changing its standards so that they get away from problem with noise pollution,” says Erhard. “Why don’t they (the provincial government) do a study of people who are complaining to see whether or not there is an issue. It’s going to cost some money but we spend a lot of money on health in Ontario.

“It seems ludicrous to me to put these things in and annoy six to eight percent of people.”

In his letter, “Wind Trumps Nuclear”, Gideon Forman shows that he doesn’t understand the anger that has been directed against wind turbines in this province. None of the protest groups has ever claimed that wind power is worse for your health than coal or nuclear. But because wind is safer, Forman seems to think Ontarians should happily allow industries to put windmills wherever they wish, to let the provincial government continue to trample on individual and municipal rights, to ignore declining property values due to nearby windmills, and to ignore any possible link between windmills and repeated cases of ill health.

I find it apalling that an association of physicians is willing to allow the health risks that seem to follow windmills. Doctors in Ontario, the US and Europe have all recommended that windmills be set back far more than Ontario’s 550 meters. The French Academy of Medicine recommends 1500 meters, and some American doctors recommend 2000 meters or more. Given the correlation between windmills and stories of poor health, even if there is not yet a proven direct link, any group of physicians worthy of the name should at least be pushing for more than 550 meters between windmills and houses. It is unacceptable that the best the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment can do is to advocate that we let people suffer for the common good.

Adam Shirley, London
December 28, 2011

—————————–

Wind energy can kill you

In response to the letter by Gideon Forman, Wind trumps nuclear (Dec. 26): Forman mention’s “the new study,” but gives no indication of what the study is or who conducted it. He goes on to say: “Windmills produce no smog, no acid rain, no toxic ash, no radioactive waste, no cancer.”

I wonder if Forman has ever looked into how these structures are produced and from what they are produced, what their longevity is and what happens to them when they fail. His letter is about as far from accurate as one could get.

Many of Ontario’s residents are reporting health problems they claim are caused by wind-turbine syndrome, but letters such as Forman’s suggest they are all liars or possibly, it’s in their heads. There are way too many persons claiming ill effects by wind turbines, so dismissing them all is not credible.

Green energy? Hogwash.

The only thing green about wind-generated electricity is all the extra green each Ontarian has to pay for this “green energy.” Wind is notoriously unreliable, blowing when not needed and needed when not blowing – which means if the so-called non-green production is cut too much, we’ll not have the capacity needed to heat or cool our homes during severe periods of weather, resulting in the death of vulnerable people when the power fails.

Ian Tuck, Exeter
December 29, 2011

 Lambton coal plant could be converted

POWER GENERATION: The coal-fired station may be a candidate for natural gas after construction of a Toronto plant was stopped

By PAUL MORDEN, QMI Agency

SARNIA – The next 12 months could determine if Ontario’s coal-fired power plant near Sarnia has a future.

Ontario Power Generation’s Lambton station in Courtright is scheduled to close in 2014, as Ontario’s Liberal government makes good on its promise – delayed several times – to phase out production of electricity from coal-fired power plants.

But the idea of converting the facility to a cleaner-burning fuel hasn’t been ruled out.

“Ontario Power is investigating the conversion of its coal-fired unit to clean fuels, including natural gas and biomass,” said Paul Gerard, a spokesperson with Ontario’s Ministry of Energy.

“No decision has been made on conversion at the Lambton Generating Station.”

Union Gas was asked in 2011 to prepare plans for a potential natural gas pipeline to feed Lambton Generating Station.

“I really believe if we’re going to continue with Lambton Generating Station in either its present form or natural gas or bio-fuels, there’s going to have to be some decisions made within 2012,” said St. Clair Township Mayor Steve Arnold.

Two of the four units at the station were shut down a year ago and about 100 employees left at that time. Another 300 workers continue to operate the two remaining coal-fired units.

The municipality would feel the biggest impact if the remaining jobs, and the property taxes the station pays, are lost in 2014.

The potential property tax impact equals millions of dollars, Arnold said. “That is at stake here in the municipality.”

Arnold said the township has teamed up with other municipalities facing the loss of coal plants to fight back against the way the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. has been devaluing the stations since the province announced they were to close.

“We’re really hoping we’ll see that put to bed in 2012,” he said.

He believes the station’s odds of remaining open past 2014 are good. Township officials continue to lobby the province and a recent change in direction for a natural gas-fired plant in the Toronto area, Arnold said, “makes Lambton Generating much more feasible . . . because we have everything already there.”

The Ontario’ government backed away from the Toronto-area plant following opposition from residents living nearby.

Arnold said existing rights-of-way could be used for upgraded transmission lines from the station in Courtright.

“If we get those in place, Lambton Generating becomes a viable option, in my humble opinion.”