Controversy over the Wolfe Island Wind Project centres on the location of a handful of the 86-wind turbines that Canadian Renewable Energy Corporation hopes to build on the island later this year.

The northwest part of Wolfe Island contains designated Important Bird Areas and important natural areas. Expert evidence commissioned by members of the community and supported by some government agencies raised concerns that the wind turbines would destroy rare, critical habitat. With more than 80% of Lake Ontario’s wetlands gone and bird habitat disappearing, the loss of these natural areas could be devastating.

For the last year, Waterkeeper, Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment, and other individuals have attempted to improve the wind project by identifying the locations where turbines could be built such that Wolfe Island’s natural heritage is protected.

We requested a bump up to a full Environmental Assessment of the proposed Wind Project. Or, at the very least, we sought mediation to address environmental concerns. Ingoring these request, the Ministry of the Environment went ahead and approved the CREC’s self-assessment of the Project. In response, Waterkeeper and others appealed to the Ministry of the Environment. Just before the decision-making deadline, Environment Minister John Gerretsen recused himself and the Minster of Tourism denied the appeal.

The Minister of Tourism’s decision arrived before Waterkeeper was provided with notice of the conflict-of-interest.

This week on Living At the Barricades, Waterkeeper talks about the province’s approval for the Wolfe Island Wind Project and the remaining regulatory process — the federal environmental assessment process that is in its early stages.

Listen to this week’s show online (right-click to download).

waterkeeper.ca

Owing to the large attendance, the meeting was held at the town fire hall, which was full to near capacity.

After a recap by First Wind [UPC] on the proposed location and properties involved, residents and owners were allowed three minutes each to voice their opinions.

There is no doubt that the eminent domain issue has fueled a larger controversy than the wind turbine project itself. There were a handful of supporters of the turbines, one of which sold a parcel of land to First Wind for double its appraised value. Other supporters live in the town proper and are not directly affected by the construction or the site of the turbines, and they do not pay the largest share of the property tax base.

The majority of those in attendance were, by far, opposed to the eminent domain issue, evidenced by both by their comments and the outbursts and applause of the crowd. Resident after resident lambasted the board for their willingness to accept First Wind’s request, as speaker after speaker reminded the board that they work for the residents and property owners, not for First Wind. Many land owners, who are not residents and whose land is directly affected by the eminent domain issue, spoke out about the irresponsibility of the board. All were notified by certified mail by UPC regarding the eminent domain meeting on April 22nd, but these letters arrived one day before the meeting — too late to travel and attend.

Many residents accused the board of profiting from the project and not doing enough research to acquire the knowledge of a project of this magnitude. Some even compared it to Rochester’s Fast Ferry project, which is still being paid by the taxpayers of NY. The only board members who had the sense enough to vote No (Mr. Kula and Mr. Shick) until more facts could be brought to the table were outvoted by Supervisor McConnell and board members Stacey Bottoni and Sharon Quigley at last month’s meeting. Residents were not allowed to speak at that meeting.

The Board has to publish its “findings and determinations” within 90 days of the hearing. The determination and findings must set forth:

1. The public use to be served
2. The reason for the location
3. The general effect
4. Other relevant factors

If, as expected, the Board “finds” to condemn the properties, the “condemnees” have 30 days from the “notice of publication” to appeal. People from all across the state have been sending financial and emotional support to help those whose land is threatened. All donations should be sent to Advocates for Prattsburgh Box 221, Prattsburgh NY 14873.

[The multiplication of these machines provokes dissent in the countryside, as in this report from the heart of the Massif Central, with good footage of the severely altered landscape and recordings of the noise. Merci à l'Association Coûp de Vent.]

Hit “play” button below, or download for external player (Quicktime movie).

Evidence for and against Npower renewables’ 18-turbine proposal at Middlemoor, near Alnwick, will be presented to a Planning Inspector at the Northumberland Hall.

The inquiry is expected to sit for about 12 days, with objectors, council chiefs, agencies and the developer making their cases for and against the scheme.

To keep readers fully informed, the Northumberland Gazette has set up this special section on its website to bring you the latest from the hearing, as it happens.

Nous avons essayé de comptabiliser les projets de ce programme thermique pharaonique [«Les projets de centrales brûlant du combustible fossile se multiplient», Le Monde, mardi 16 octobre 2007 -- «Si tout et réalisé, cela représentera près de 13 000 MW.»]  :

- 400 MW x 3 : Suez envisage 3 centrales à cycles combinés près de Marseille en Bretagne et dans le Sud-Ouest (la Tribune du 08/11/2005)
- Construction d’une centrale à Maubeuge par Siemens pour Poweo (Les Echos du 12/12/2005)
- 5 projets de centrales à gaz en Bretagne (EDF, GDF, Suez, Enel, Poweo ?) (Ouest-France du 21/01/2006)
- 1600 MW au Havre (centrales à charbon) par Poweo (Infooceane.com)
- 420 x 2 MW à Fos sur mer par GDF et Suez (le Monde du 27/01/2006)
- 1200 MW en appel d’offres à St Brieux
- 860 MW dans le nord-est de la France par Endesa/Siemens (le Figaro du 01.10.07)
- 3100 MW par EDF pour 2008 (Les Echos du 19.08.07)
dont 555 MW à Vaires sur Marne et Montereau,
- 440 MW à Blénod lès Ponts à Mousson (centrale à charbon) et la Maxe (Moselle) (centrale à charbon)
- 930 MW à Martigues
- Construction de 3 turbines à gaz en région parisienne et réactivation de 4 unités au fioul (Porcheville, Cordemais en Loire Atlantique avec une augmentation de la capacité à 2600 MW, Aramon dans le Gard)
- 2000 MW supplémentaire pour 2010 (Les Echos du 19.08.07)

(Nota : L’ EPR de Flamanville avec ses 1600 watts fait pâle figure)

(Nota bis : si parmi les lecteurs de ces informations, il y en a qui les contestent ou bien si ils ont encore d’autres centrales à ajouter : qu’ils me fassent signe)

Enquête Publique de Courvaudon (Calvados)
Notre conclusion : On amuse les verts avec les éoliennes, on amuse les anti-nucléaires avec l’EPR et pendant ce temps là on met en place 10.000 MW de centrales thermiques. Bonjour le réchauffement climatique !

Hervé
vdcenpb@yahoo.fr

Télécharger «Les projets de centrales brûlant du combustible fossile se multiplient»

We have tried to make an accounting of the Pharaonic thermal plant program ["Projects for fossil fuel burning power plants are multiplying, Le Monde, 16 Oct. 2007" -- "If they are all built, it would be almost 13,000 MW."]:

- 400 MW x 3: Suez plans 3 combined-cycle plants near Marseille in Bretagne and in the southwest (la Tribune, 8 Nov. 2005)
- Construction of a plant at Maubeuge by Siemens for Poweo (Les Echos, 12 Dec. 2005)
- 5 gas plant projects in Bretagne (EDF, GDF, Suez, Enel, Poweo?) (Ouest-France, 21 Jan. 2006)
- 1600 MW at Havre (coal plants) by Poweo (Infooceane.com)
- 420 MW x 2 at Fos sur mer by GDF et Suez (le Monde, 27 Jan. 2006)
- 1200 MW in a call for offers at St Brieux
- 860 MW in the northeast by Endesa/Siemens (le Figaro, 1 Oct. 2007)
- 3100 MW by EDF for 2008 (Les Echos, 19 Aug. 2007) 555 MW of which at Vaires sur Marne et Montereau,
- 440 MW at Blénod lès Ponts à Mousson (coal plant) and la Maxe (Moselle) (coal plant)
- 930 MW at Martigues
- Construction of 3 gas turbines in the Paris area and reactivation of 4 oil units (Porcheville, Cordemais in Loire Atlantique, with additional capacity to 2600 MW, Aramon in le Gard)
- 2000 MW added for 2010 (Les Echo, 19 Aug. 2007)

Note: EPR [a proposed nuclear plant] in Flamanville with its 1600 MW now looks very small.

Note 2: If anyone can correct these figures or has more information to add, let me know.

Public Inquiry in Courvaudon (Calvados)

Our conclusion: The greens are kept amused by wind turbines, the anti-nukes are distracted by EPR, and meanwhile 10,000 MW of thermal plants are being put in. Hello, global warming!

Hervé
vdcenpb@yahoo.fr

Also saw a tower section being delivered the other day near that Eagle project. It had 4 ‘flag’ vehicles, plus the giant truck the section was on. Ed figured out, at that rate, it took 40 vehicles to get each complete turbine to its site. Then those 40 vehicles had to return to their starting point …

As has been the case in past meetings, the wind turbine issue was again discussed during the regular session.

But, the annual organizational meeting, which preceded the regular one, was not without controversy.

In his series of appointments, Supervisor Fred Norton asked the town board to approve naming Douglas Aldrich of Tarbox Road to the Arkwright Planning Board.

He replaces Sue Miller, who has served on the planning board for more than 10 years and has chaired the board for several years.

“I think the planning board would benefit from Doug’s input,” Norton said.

Councilman Jeff Dietrich disagreed. “I think Sue has been doing a great job and should continue serving on the planning board,” he said.

The town board, however, voted 3-2 to approve Aldrich’s appointment with Councilman Roger Prince casting the second no vote.

Planning board member Douglas Fairbanks was named to take over the chairman’s responsibilities.

David Larson and Susan Dilks were named to the board of assessment review and Alex Gizowski was appointed to the town’s ethics committee.

Fred Bretl was reappointed to the zoning board of appeals and will continue to serve as its chairman.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Dietrich said Miller was knowledgeable, experienced and provided very good leadership for the Arkwright Planning Board.

“She deserved better treatment than she got tonight,” he said.

Planning board member Kathy Jackson agreed. “Sue put hours and hours into fulfilling the chairman’s responsibilities; on more than one occasion, she hand-delivered materials to planning board and town board members,” she said.

During the regular board meeting, the windmill issue was again the topic of discussion.

In a letter addressed to the board, Brian McMahon and his wife, Leanna, questioned the decision to again change the setbacks included in the proposed draft on the town’s wind turbine local law.

“We do not believe this action reflects a spirit of openness, community and cooperation. We are not opposed to wind towers in Arkwright…and we continue to hope this process can be executed in a way that does not create lasting enmity between neighbors,” he said.

He went on to say he and his wife feel the town board should return to the setbacks and decibel levels agreed to at the Dec. 11 public hearing.

“Precedents are being set and they should be carefully crafted,” he said.

Bob Holland said the proposed setbacks could affect the town’s economic welfare, but more importantly, he urged the board not to ignore the medical literature regarding the impact of low level noises.

“The board has an obligation to take this seriously and I am shocked at the way the board has conducted itself,” he said.

Cathy Jackson said changing the setbacks only empowers the wind turbine developers.

“I’m not against wind turbines, but give and take is needed to get Arkwright back on track,” she said.

Jim Potter, Claude McAvoy, Roger Cardot and Linda Fairbanks all spoke in favor of the wind turbine project in Arkwright.

“It is the right thing to do for Arkwright,” Potter said while McAvoy said he has spent time in a wind turbine community and found no problems among the residents.

Cardot said expanding the setbacks could possibly negatively affect small parcel property owners while Fairbanks said the family’s farm operation is one of the few in Arkwright that is still operating.

“I’ve talked with a number of residents and the majority of them are in favor of the turbines,” she said.

By JOAN JOSEPHSON OBSERVER Staff Writer
1/10/2007
observertoday.com