Points to note—people in the North end of Strathroy are now in the “turbine zone”. Eg.: Turbines will be ~1000m to Buttery Creek subdivision.  And a biggy–can anyone find the Strathroy HIGHSCHOOL on this map??? Yeah, it isn’t marked as a school, and just so happens to be less than 1500m from two turbines, and many more to the North. I’m getting kind of tired of all our schools being immersed in these turbine dead zones. 

Suncor’s Adelaide Wind project website

REA Application Documents

1. Notice of Project Engagement and Draft Site Plan (PDF, 1 pp., 1,057 KB)
2. Notice of Project Engagement and Draft Site Plan – Mail Out (PDF, 2 pp., 1,998 KB)
3. Project Description Report (PDF, 38 pp., 1,712 KB)
4. Draft Site Plan Report (PDF, 32 pp., 1,932 KB)
5. Draft Site Plan Map (PDF, 1 pp., 1,697 KB)

Date:                Thursday February 16th, 2012
Time:              7:00 PM
Location:      Grand Bend Public School, 15 Gill Road, Grand Bend MAP

—————————————————————————————–

Speakers:

 1. Environment: Birds/Waterfowl

Dr. Scott Petrie, B.Sc, PhD - Executive director of Long Point Waterfowl and Adjunct Professor at the University of Western Ontario. Scott will outline the potential impacts that Industrial Wind Turbines could have on wetland habitat and water fowl, in the lower Great Lakes area.

2. Electrical Pollution: Home/Farm/School

David Colling - A dairy farmer for 30 years inRipley,ON, who has also been a dealer for Bio-Ag Consultants and Distributors since 1991. David studied Electrical Engineering at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, and currently uses his vast knowledge, through out Ontario, to assess electrical pollution in homes, farms and businesses that are presently in the vicinity of Industrial Wind Turbines

3. Property Value: Real Estate

Doug Pedlar - Doug is a Broker of Record for RE/MAX Bluewater Realty in the Grand Bend Area. Doug has many years as a respected Realtor within the community, and will speak on the effects that Industrial Wind Turbines currently have on property values, and how the Industrialization of the local community will impact its residents’ property values. 

Contact:  Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group windactiongroup@gmail.com

From TCI Renewables (who will flip this project to NextEra):

“Adelaide II was a longer term project based on the view that the transmission lines in the ‘West of London’ transmission area would likely be upgraded to facilitate the connection of additional renewable capacity. Given that there were a few projects called Adelaide already, we decided it was best to change the name to White Pines in an attempt to avoid confusion.

This project is in the early stages of development and therefore the project infrastructure has not yet been identified or designed. We will issue a project notice and notify the public as per REA guidelines, in the event that this project moves forward in the development process.

As for the overall project area however, the project will generally be located to the west of the current Adelaide I project area. Sorry we can’t be any more precise at this point, but we’re still evaluating the project constraints and transmission options.”

By DEBORA VAN BRENK, The London Free Press    January 26,
Wind-turbine opponents are demanding Adelaide Metcalfe council repeal a new turbine-building fee it imposed unexpectedly and without notifying them.

The rural township west of Strathroy, where two companies are proposing to build 68 wind turbines, approved a $10,000-per-turbine fee at a Jan. 16 meeting.

Last month, scores of people attended a council meeting to ask the fee charged be even higher than that.

The issue was set aside so staff could learn what other municipalities charge.

“I was flabbergasted,” said activist Esther Wrightman, to discover from a councillor’s Facebook page that in one night council had proposed, debated, approved and passed into bylaw the new fees. “I didn’t believe it at first.”

She said she didn’t see the item on the agenda, otherwise she’d have attended the meeting.

“It just has to be repealed. I just can’t accept anything less than that,” Wrightman said.

But Mayor David Bolton said everything was above-board and a careful read of the agenda would have twigged interested residents the turbine fees would be up for discussion.

Posted online a few days before the meeting, the agenda includes a clickable link to the clerk’s eight-page report. On page 7, below a page of delinquent tax payments and several pages lauding staff for safety certification, is a survey of other municipalities’ turbine fees. No recommendation accompanies the chart.

“Staff did the research. The research was in our package for the 16th,” Bolton said. Based on the survey, “we interpreted that to suggest the fee that we were discussing was adequate.”

Bolton said council debated the issue for about 20 minutes.

He said municipalities aren’t allowed to charge fees higher than cost. “The Municipal Act only allows us to recover our costs. It doesn’t allow us to make money on it,” he said.

The process council followed was appropriate, he said, because council asked for public participation at an earlier meeting as required. “We feel that we did everything according to the way the Municipal Act reads.”

Coun. Kurtis Smith disagrees. He abstained from voting because he says the proper process wasn’t followed. The bylaw wasn’t listed in the bylaw section of the agenda and the public wasn’t aware the issue was up for discussion, he says.

Green energy giants NextEra and Suncor plan to build as many as 68 wind turbines in the Adelaide Metcalfe area in two separate projects.

Bolton said formal application from the turbine companies is expected any time and without the revised bylaw, the township would have been allowed to charge its previous fee of $500.

Minutes of the meeting posted online don’t reflect any motion, seconder, debate or vote on the issue, although it does indicate first, second and third readings on the building permit bylaw took place. Bolton said those are unofficial minutes, not yet approved by council, and they’ll fully reflect the process by next meeting.

Turbine opponents say wind farms raise a host of possible health concerns for humans and migrating birds.

E-mail deb.vanbrenk@sunmedia.ca , or follow DebatLFPress on Twitter.

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.