Resource Library Category: Environment (166 items)

RSSEnvironment

Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. This resource library is provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.

Date added:  February 23, 2012
Aesthetics, Environment, General, Health, Human rights, Impacts, Noise, Wildlife •

Wind Wise Radio

Source:  Wind Wise Radio

RSS feed — previous shows
RSS feed — upcoming shows

Infrasound and Adverse Health Effects
Ambrose and Rand
Sunday, February 12, 2012, 7:00-8:00PM

Join us for the first edition of Wind Wise Radio when we will be delighted to welcome Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand, professional acousticians, members of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering, and the authors of “The McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study” which investigated the possible relationship between infrasound and adverse health effects experienced by people living near and industrial wind turbine (IWT) in Falmouth, Massachusetts.

We will be discussing Stephen and Robert’s findings, their personal experience in the vicinity of IWT, their work on other projects, and their thoughts on the the recently released “Wind Turbine Health Impact Study”. We will also be asking them about their ideas for further studies to advance our knowledge.

Stephen and Robert will be happy to take questions and listen to your comments so please join us for this important event.

Read the McPherson Report.
Read the Mass. DEP Wind Turbine Health Impact Study.

The Word from Waubra
A conversation with Dr. Sarah Laurie
Sunday, February 19, 2012, 7:00PM

Dr. Laurie is the medical director of the Waubra Foundation in Australia and is facilitating some of the seminal research surrounding the set of symptoms known here in the U.S. as Wind Turbine Syndrome. ”Down Under” it is often termed Waubra Disease.

In mid 2010, Dr. Laurie was in the process of returning to work clinically as a rural General Practitioner when she became aware that a wind energy project was proposed for the hills near her home in regional South Australia. Being concerned with climate change and the environment, and the need for renewable energy she was initially supportive of the local project and unaware of any health concerns. It wasn’t until a neighbour alerted her to Dr Amanda Harry’s study of health issues with wind factories, that Dr. Laurie realised there were some potentially serious health problems associated with wind turbines. She decided to look into the matter fully, and became aware that despite the health problems being described around the world, there was a lack of research, and hence an urgent need for more research into this problem.

An Alternative Vision for Vermont
Luke Snelling, Geoff Goll, and Steve Wright
Sunday, February 26, 2012, 7:00PM

Please join us as we talk with leaders in the struggle for smart alternative energy solutions in Vermont.

• Lukas B. Snelling, Executive Director, Energize Vermont
• Geoff Goll, Hydrologist, Princeton Hydro
• Steve Wright, Former Commissioner of Fish & Wildlife Department

We will discuss the current situation in Lowell Mountain, Sheffield, Searsburg, the current regulatory environment, and other projects and issues involving industrial scale wind turbines in Vermont.

Energize Vermont advocates for renewable energy solutions that are in harmony with the irreplaceable character of Vermont and contribute to the people’s well-being.

National Wind Watch’s Eric Rosenbloom and David Roberson on WWR
Sunday, March 4, 2012, 7:00PM

Wind Wise Radio is honored to be joined by the president and vice-president of National Wind Watch, Eric Rosenbloom and David Roberson, for an hour of conversation about their experiences at the center of the struggle against Industrial Wind in the U.S.

Since 2005, National Wind Watch (NWW) has been a indispensable resource providing a central clearinghouse for information and assistance to individuals and local groups seeking the facts about industrial wind power.

Eric Rosenbloom is a science writer and editor. In 2001 Eric and family moved from New York to northeastern Vermont, where he founded his own company, Kirby Mountain Composition & Graphics. Eric has been involved since 2003 when he learned that there were plans to erect wind turbines on the ridge behind his house. At first, he was a cautious supporter of the development but as he learned more his opinion shifted. In 2005, he started up the excellent site aweo.org, which he continues to maintain and where you can find much of his writing on the subject of IWT. He also blogs at kirbymtn.blogspot.com.

David Roberson is a gallery owner in Shelburne Falls (jewelry, fine handcrafts, décor, books, gifts) and a small-scale farmer. David lived off the grid for 12 years in Hawley, Massachusetts, before moving to Rowe, where he lives with his “wife, dogs, cats, goats, geese, and chickens.”

In December of 2003, his seminal article, Questioning the Faith of Wind Power, was published in Shelburne Falls Independent. The article broke new ground on a host of issues, argued cogently against the rush to wind without rigorous, thorough analysis, and should be required reading for all those interested in these issues. In 2005, David organized the first gathering of interstate wind opponents, a weekend-long conference with participants from 10 states. He was the founding president of National Wind Watch and has served as its Vice-President since 2006.

The Struggle in Canada
Dr. Robert McMurtry
Sunday, March 11, 2012, 7:00PM

Dr. Robert McMurtry is currently an advisor for the Society Wind Vigilance, an international federation of physicians, engineers and other professionals promoting the development of authoritative international wind turbine guidelines to protect the health and safety of communities. The mission of The Society for Wind Vigilance is to mitigate the risk of both physiological and psychological adverse heath effects through the advancement of independent third party research and its application to the siting of industrial wind turbines.

He was a member of the Health Council of Canada for 3½ years and a member and special advisor to the Royal Commission under Roy Romanow on the future of health care in Canada. Dr. McMurtry was a visiting Cameron Chair to Health Canada for providing policy advice to the Minister and Deputy Minister of Health. He was the Founding and Associate Deputy Minister of Population & Public Health, Canada.

Dr. McMurtry sat on the National Steering Committee on Climate Change and Health Assessment. Presently Dr. McMurtry is Professor (Emeritus) of Surgery, University of Western Ontario.

Vermont’s Precious Ridges
Susan Morse and Annette Smith
Sunday, March 18, 2012, 7:00PM

Please join us as we talk with Susan Morse, a world-renowned naturalist and wildlife tracker, and Annette Smith, the executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE), about the threats posed to some of Vermont’s most ecologically sensitive areas by industrial wind power.

Susan Morse has more than thirty-five years of experience monitoring wildlife and interpreting wildlife habitat use. Her research has focused on cougar, bobcat, black bear, and Canada lynx. She is the founder and director of Keeping Track an organization devoted inspiring community participation in the stewardship of wildlife habitat.

Ms. Morse has authored numerous articles and authors a regular column on wildlife in Northern Woodlands Magazine. Her work has also been featured in many other publications, including Smithsonian, Audubon, Amicus Journal, Forest Magazine, Wild Earth, Vermont Life, Adirondack Life, The Nature Conservancy, and Ranger Rick, as well as on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition”.

Annette Smith is a native of Lewisburg and leads Vermonters for a Clean Environment in its mission to raise the voices of Vermonters and hold corporations accountable for their impacts on our people, our land, our air and our water.

VCE’s members are united in the belief that Vermont’s future lies in conserving its clean, rural, small-town environment. They have joined together to pursue the common goals of encouraging economic development with minimal environmental impacts and preserving Vermont’s natural beauty. VCE is committed to providing facts and information so that people can make informed decisions.

Industrial Wind in the Wilds of Maine
Monique Aniel, David Corrigan, and Steve Thurston
Sunday, March 25, 2012, 7:00PM

Join us as we talk with those struggling against the ongoing destruction of Maine’s precious natural areas by industrial wind developers.

We will be joined by Dr. Monique Aniel and Steve Thurston from the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power – a coalition of citizens from around Maine drawn together in the common purpose of advocating for responsible, science-based, economically and environmentally sound approaches to Maine’s energy policy.

Also we are happy David Corrigan, a Registered Maine Master Guide who blogs at Real Wind Info for Me, will be joining in our discussion.

Talking Action
Lisa Linowes and Julie Johnson
Sunday, April 1, 2012, 7:00PM

Direct Impact: Talking with Victims of IWT
Neil Anderson, Barbara Ashbee, and Richard Braithwaite
Sunday, April 8, 2012, 7:00PM

Neil Anderson hails from Falmouth, Massachusetts, and has been a leader in the effort to tell the story of the many families in Falmouth who have been severely affected by the turbine know as Wind One. Wind One is located at the town’s wastewater treatment plant a little more than 1300 feet from Neil’s home. As many as 50 families have been affected and they have managed, for now, to get the turbine turned off. Neil was an advocate of the turbine before it turned on and started to affect his health.

Barbara Ashbee was forced out of her Amaranth, Ontario, home by the siting of industrial turbines too close. Barbara could easily count 15 turbines from her yard. Her experiences with the local and provincial government is scary and disturbing:

“The Ontario government did not help, in fact they misled us on the number of complaints they had received and were claiming all was running in compliance when it wasn’t.

“The Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) released a literature review in May 2010 concluding there are no direct health issues linked to turbines. The developers and government actually use this review to approve new wind projects and they hand out copies at wind meetings but the CMOH, Dr. Arlene King, was well aware of the serious problems in many wind projects in Ontario before she signed off on the literature review. She was made well aware that families were being made sick with some being forced from their homes and chose not to speak with even one of them. She was warned.

“There is a wall of silence but as the evidence mounts they will have to answer to it at some point. These people are in a position of public trust and their lack of action or even acknowledgment of what they are doing to people is very serious.”

[Click here for a CBC radio report about Barbara Ashbee's whistleblowing about the province's knowledge of noise problems. (Click the play button above to listen, or download the 7-MB MP3 file.)]

Richard Braithwaite lives in Keyser, West Virginia and was one of 75 neighbors who signed a petition seeking a solution to the noise coming from the Pinnacle Wind project. He purchased an inexpensive sound meter and routinely registers 60–70 dB outside his home. As he says, “Let them bring their thousand dollar machine and take their own readings.” The wind developer has paid lip service to the complaints and is installing, of all things, a muffler!

Gerry Meyer lives in the 86-turbine Forward Energy project in Brownsville, Wisconsin that was erected by Invenergy of Chicago. There are five 400′ turbines within 3/4 of a mile and eleven within a mile of his house.

Gerry attended the first few public meetings about the Forward Energy project. (that was long after many local farmers were signed up to host turbines). The Invenergy representatives and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin told the public the turbines were quiet and would be a great benefit to his community. Gerry left those meeting feeling good about wind energy.

Gerry knew know about the Horicon Marsh Advocates, a group fighting for a 5-mile set back from the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge, however he did nothing to help them in their cause. As a rural mail carrier he drove within the project often stopping to take photos and on his way home from work stopped to talk to workers and take more photos. As a former construction worker the turbine construction was intriguing.

On March 3rd, 2008, he walked out of his house and heard a jet flying over. He looked to the sky for that jet. There was no jet. It was the large industrial wind turbine 1560 feet straight north of his house. This was the first day of operation of this turbine. He immediately knew he was lied to by Invenergy about the quiet sound of the turbine. This did not sound like the wind blowing through the trees. It sounded like sitting on the runway at O’Hare Airport. He began writing a daily noise diary which can be read at lifeinawisconsinwindproject.tumblr.com.

“In the house there are thumping sounds everywhere, especially upstairs in the sewing room. Very tense and sickening.”

Just a few of the heath affects caused to Gerry’s quality of life are sleep deprivation, high cortisol levels, chest pain, pulsating the neck, nausea, exhaustion, no longer has dreams, cognitive thinking issues, and the concern of what other heath affects are down the road due to constant sleep deprivation.

Strife in Ontario: The IWT Resistance
Sunday, April 15, 2012, 7:00PM

Rural Ontario is being plundered by the McGuinty government and his wind developer allies. The citizens are actively resisting the onslaught. We will talk to some of the leaders of the resistance.

Mark Davis, Deputy Mayor of the Municipality of Arran Elderslie, farm country consisting of 1 town, 2 villages, several hamlets and about 7000 people, located in central Bruce County, which is about 10 miles off the shore of Lake Huron about 3 hours northwest of Toronto. Cash crop and beef farmer, real estate sales rep for Coldwell Banker and auctioneer doing charity auctions for worthwhile causes, Mark has been a strong opponent of industrial wind turbines for quite some time and is chair of the Inter Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group consisting of 12 to 15 municipalities from about 6 counties of like-minded elected and appointed citizens doing their very best to work with the Ontario Green Energy Act and come up with bylaws and ideas to get some control back to local government and the people directly involved.

Greg Schmalz, the founder of S.T.O.P. Saugeen Shores Turbine Operation Policy resisted group opposing placement of CAW (UAW in Canada) whose 35-story turbine on the grounds of their $70M resort is surrounded by 100 families living within 550 m and more than 4,000 people within 2,000 m. This turbine has become the lightning rod representing all that is wrong with placing turbines too close to people’s homes and businesses.

Lisa Thompson, the MPP for Bruce-Huron, recently introduced a private member’s bill at Queen’s Park to establish a moratorium on futher IWT development in Ontario.

Jane Wilson, a registered nurse and health care writer and editor, is the current president of Wind Concerns Ontario, a coalition of individuals and community groups in Canada’s most populous province, Ontario. She is also the editor of a book on how the Ontario government has pushed the industrial wind power generation agenda at the expense of Ontario’s people and communities, called Dirty Business: the reality behind Ontario’s rush to wind power. Jane lives in a rural community which is part of Canada’s capital city, Ottawa; her community is threatened by a 20-megawatt industrial power project that will be too close to hundreds of homes.

Along with our special guests:

Gail and Ed Kenney of Wolfe Island, Ontario, whose appeal of their property value assessment was rejected this past week by Ontario’s assessment review board because they could find “no evidence”. Didn’t the fact that zero homes had sold since the 86 Turbines went up actually constitute stark, compelling evidence?

Saving Massachusetts from IWT — Louise Barteau, Virginia Irvine, Andrew Wells
Sunday, April 22, 2012, 7:00PM

Truth from Texas — Robert Bryce
Sunday, April 29, 2012, 7:00PM

Turbine Trouble in Paradise
Sunday, May 6, 2012, 7:00PM

Windfall hits the small screen – Director Laura Israel
Sunday, May 13, 2012, 7:00PM

Fighting for Feathered Friends (and Other Creatures) – Ileene Anderson, Biologist and Public Lands Deserts Director, Center for Biological Diversity; and Miriam Raftery, Editor and Founder, East County Magazine
Sunday, May 20, 2012, 7:00PM

Date added:  February 18, 2012
Contracts, Economics, Environment, Ontario, Property values •

Agreement and lease – Kerwood Wind (Florida Power and Light/FPL Energy/Nextera)

License and Option Agreement

5.3 Confidentiality

The Grantor covenants and agrees that: (i) the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any information which is has access to or which comes into its possession relating to the Grantee’s activities … shall be held in the strictest confidence by the Grantor, and that the Grantor shall not disclose any Confidential Information to any third party except as may be required by law …

5.4 Publicity Clause

The Grantor shall not use the Grantee’s name nor that of the Grantee’s affiliates or the names of the Grantee’s employees in any announcements, advertising, promotional material or in any publication without the prior written consent of the Grantee, except as provided in this Agreement. …

11.5 Support

The Grantor will support the Grantee’s proposed Wind Power Facilities for the License Lands in any public consultation and communication processes relating to this Agreement.

Schedule “B”

1.1 Lease

The Lessor … does hereby lease unto the Lessee and the Lessee leases from the Lessor the Leased Lands to be held by the Lessee as tenant for the term of twenty-one (21) years … for the purposes of wind energy conversion, the production, collection, storage and transmission of electric power (whether generated on or off the Leased Lands) and related activities including, without limitation: …

(b) surveying, laying, constructing, erecting, inspecting, repairing, altering, maintaining, operating, using, relocating and replacing one or more Wind Turbines, overhead and underground electrical transmission, instrument services, utility and communication towers, lines, wires, cables and conduits, electric transformers, energy storage facilities, telecommunications equipment and facilities, power generation equipment and facilities to be operated in conjunction with Wind Turbine installations, electrical substations, converter stations and switching facilities, roads, meteorological towers and wind measurement equipment, control buildings, maintenance yards, and related facilities, structures, equipment and works including foundations, poles, stays, traverse supports and anchors (collectively referred to as the “Wind Power Facilities”) in, on, under, above, along and across the Leased Lands; and:

(c) undertaking any other activities, whether accomplished by the Lessee or a Person authorized by the Lessee, that the Lessee reasonably determines are necessary, useful or appropriate to accomplish any of the foregoing.

The Lessee in its use of the Leased Lands shall be entitled to: (i) construct, use, repair, service, inspect and maintain one or more drainage ditches, trenches and culverts; (ii) cut, trim, remove and destroy in any way and at any time any trees, bushes, branches, shrubs and roots located thereon and to remove from the Leased Lands any objects, construction or structure situated on the Leased Lands; and (iii) prohibit any person from erecting any construction or structure on, above, under, along or across the Leased Lands or to alter the present elevation of the Leased Lands.

3.5 Permanent Crop Damage

If any Wind Power Facilities constructed or installed on the Leased Lands causes permanent physical damage to any crops or timber located outside of the Leased Lands, the Lessee shall compensate the Lessor for such permanent damage … at the rate of Six Hundred Dollars ($600.00) per acre …

6.1 Quiet Enjoyment

The Lessor covenants that the Lessee upon observing and performing in all material respects the covenants and conditions on the Lessee’s part herein contained, shall and may peaceably possess and enjoy the Leased Lands to the extent provided herein and the rights and privileges hereby granted during the Term without any interruption or disturbance from or by the Lessor or any other Person whosoever.

6.3 Restrictive Covenants

(a) The Lessor shall not and will not suffer or permit any person to disturb or interfere with: (i) the construction, installation, maintenance, repair, inspection, use or operation of the Wind Power Facilities, whether located on the Leased Lands or elsewhere; (ii) access over the Lands to the Wind Power Facilities; (iii) any development activities; or (iv) the undertaking of any other activities permitted hereunder. Further, the Lessor agrees that it shall not undertake any action including, without limitation, hunting, blasting, excavation or construction, that may have the effect of constituting a danger to the Wind Power Facilities or increasing the Lessee’s maintenance, repair or operation costs with respect to the Wind Power Facilities. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Lessor shall not interfere with the wind speed or wind direction over the Lands or the Leased Lands, whether by placing Wind Turbines, planting trees or constructing buildings or other structures, or by engaging in any other activity on the Lands or elsewhere that might cause a decrease in the output or efficiency of the Wind Power Facilities. … For greater certainty, the Lessor covenants and agrees that it will not, and will not suffer or permit any Person to, place, construct and erect on the Lands any above ground structure during the Term, without the express written consent of Lessee. …

(b) … The Lessee shall have the exclusive right to collect, convert and transmit all the wind resources on the Lands, and the Lessor agrees that it will not interfere with the Lessee’s operations hereunder or the enjoyment of the rights hereby granted. …

(c) The Lessor acknowledges and agrees that the duration and area within which the restrictions set forth in subsections 6.3(a) and (b) shall apply have been considered by the Lessor and the restraints and restrictions of and on the future activities of the Lessor are reasonable in the circumstances. All defences to the strict enforcement thereof by the Lessee are hereby waived by the Lessor. The Lessor acknowledges that a breach of any of the provisions contained herein would cause the Lessee to suffer loss which could not be adequately compensated for by damages and that the Lessee may, in addition to any other remedy or relief, enforce the performance of the provisions of this Section 6.3 by injunction or specific performance upon application to a court of competent jurisdiction without proof of actual damage.

13.21 Grant of Effects License

Lessor grants and transfers to Lessee a non-exclusive License for audio, visual, view, light, flicker, noise, shadow, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, electrical and radio frequency interference, and any other effects attributable to the Wind Power Facilities or activity located on the Leased Lands or on adjacent properties (“Effects License”). The burden of the Effects License shall run with and bind the Lands and every part thereof and benefit the Lessee’s interest in the Leased Lands and such other lands that the Lessee may have a real property interest in from time to time and which form part of the Project. If requested by the Lessee, the Lessor shall execute and deliver to the Lessee such separate and registerable transfer of easements which reproduce the terms of the Effects License.

13.22 Setback Waiver

To the extent that (a) Lessor now or in the future owns or leases any land adjacent to the Leased Lands; or (b) Lessee leases or holds an easement license or a lease over land adjacent to Leased Lands and has installed or constructed or desires to install or construct any Power Facilities on said land at and/or near the common boundary between the Leased Lands and said land. Lessor hereby waives any and all setbacks and setback requirements, whether imposed by law or by any person or entity, including, without limitation, any setback requirements described in the zoning by-laws of the County and/or Province or in any governmental entitlement or permit heretofore or hereafter issued to Lessee. If so requested by Lessee, Lessor shall promptly, without demanding additional consideration therefore, execute, and if appropriate cause to be acknowledged, any setback waiver, setback elimination or other document or instrument required by any governmental authority or that Lessee deems necessary or convenient to the obtaining of any entitlement or permit.

Download original document: “Agreement and lease – Kerwood Wind”

Date added:  February 1, 2012
Emissions, Environment, Ontario •

Threats from industrial wind turbines to Ontario’s wildlife and biodiversity

Source:  Stelling, Keith; and Petrie, Scott

Introduction

The precautionary principle outlined in The Bergen Agreement, signed by Canada in 1990, has become, over the past fifteen years, part of customary international law and has been included in virtually every recently adopted treaty and policy document related to the protection and preservation of the environment. It states: “policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”.

The unprecedented rapidity with which industrial wind turbine developments are being proposed and constructed in Ontario, raises major concerns about the efficacy of the Green Energy Act which has allowed and promoted this phenomenon.

1. Adverse environmental effects from industrial wind turbines

Industrial wind turbines do not have a benign environmental foot print as has been claimed.

• Biologists are observing habitat fragmentation and habitat loss, wildlife disturbance and life history disruption when turbines are placed in natural habitats.
• Bird and bat abundance declines at wind turbine sites and this can become more pronounced with time.
• Disruption of ecological links results in habitat abandonment by some species.
• The loss of population vigour and overall density resulting from reduced survival or reduced breeding productivity is a particular concern for declining populations.
• The cumulative effects of multiple on- and off-shore wind developments have not been considered.
• Collision mortality resulting from turbines and new transmission lines is increased during adverse weather conditions and migratory seasons. Especially vulnerable are raptors, passerines (songbirds), monarch butterflies, and bats. The consequential cost to agriculture from loss of pollination and natural insect control is a concern.
• In addition there are serious concerns that turbine noise impacts within- and between-species communications, including predator defence.
• Offshore installations have the added risk of causing waterfowl and waterbird displacement from feeding areas and migratory corridors, contaminant upwelling, and changes in fish communities.
• Placing turbines in close association with coastal wetlands can severely compromise movements and foraging of migratory waterfowl.

2. Ontario bird and bat mortality studies: Wolfe Island

Almost all post operational studies of wildlife mortalities from turbines in Ontario have been unavailable to the public, allowing government and industry to contend that wind turbines kill very few birds. The avian mortality records from Wolfe Island, however, have now disclosed the highest recorded rate of raptor casualties outside California. Each of the 86 industrial wind turbines on Wolfe Island killed an average of 13.4 birds during the first year of operation. Some of the species killed are already experiencing population declines: for example, the Tree Swallow and the Bobolink. Until we have public access to independent mortality studies, we will not know the full impact.

Albert Manville, Senior Wildlife Biologist, Division of Migratory Bird management at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has warned: “The numbers of Bird Species of Conservation Concern killed by wind turbines is increasing, and that’s troubling. These species are already declining, in some cases rather precipitously.”

3. Serious flaws in the Green Energy Act

The government pushed through the Green Energy Act (2009) with negligible legislative or public discussion. The Act exempted renewable energy projects from much of Ontario’s existing environmental legislation.

• One of its amendments to existing statutes, “Schedule G”, exempts renewable energy projects from the Environmental Protection Act, frustrating the purpose of that Act.
• Another, “Schedule K”, removes planning authority from local municipalities and precludes compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement.
• “Schedule L” removes approval rights from Conservation Authorities preventing them from stopping renewable energy projects on their lands.

One of the most troubling provisions of the GEA is the reversal of onus clause that requires citizens to prove a project’s harm to the environment or human health. The Chatham-Kent tribunal demonstrated that confronting government and proponent lawyers is well beyond the financial means of most Ontarians, making a mockery of the Statement of Environmental Principles which insists that the need for public engagement and public consultation is vital to sound environmental decision- making. It also debilitates the Environmental Bill of Rights (1994) which encouraged “enhanced ongoing engagement with the public as part of environmental decision making”.

4. Regulations

An essential flaw in the Regulations is the “fast tracking” provision for environmental assessments which allows the proponents of renewable energy projects to submit their own environmental screening report by hiring an accommodating consultant. Many questions have been raised as to the scientific rigour of these reports:

• Consultants often lack the proper qualifications, specialized knowledge and technical expertise to provide sound advice (for example, pertaining to waterfowl).
• Studies lack scientific rigour and fail to adequately consider existing peer reviewed literature.
• There is an insufficient use of local expert knowledge during the planning process and not enough use of available/historic data.
• Relative to Europe and the United States, there has been insufficient pre- construction monitoring at proposed wind turbine sites in Ontario (often days/months as opposed to years).
• Post-construction studies lack scientific rigour and are not standardized.
• Times chosen to make observations are often unsuitable (e.g. after or before
  migratory seasons and during daylight hours while most migrations of birds
  and bats take place at night).
• Radar observations are not being used to monitor nocturnal migrations and
  aerial observations are not being used for determining waterfowl populations even though these are the best methods for accurate assessment.
• Most “studies” are based on casual observations done over an insufficient number of days, seasons, and weather conditions and they do not include
  the multi-seasonal or multi-year observations necessary to determine effects
  on fluctuating populations.
• The methodology of the reports has been questioned and serious omissions pointed out: for example, they fail to set any a priori criteria for determining if the wind development in question will have adverse impacts on birds or bats.

Proponent-commissioned reports have generally been rubber-stamped by the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Wolfe Island project, for example, was approved despite its location on a major migratory bird corridor adjacent to provincially significant wetlands, staging areas and an Important Bird Area (IBA).

Although the industry continues to claim that it avoids placing turbines near sensitive habitats, far too many projects have been constructed, approved or proposed near critical ecosystems which support threatened species, provincially significant ANSIs and provincially significant wetlands—e.g. Wolfe Island, Ostrander Point, Arran Lake, Point Pelee National Park, coastal wetlands associated with Lake St. Clair, and Manitoulin Island among them. Numerous wind turbines have been proposed for construction in close association with coastal wetlands along the lower Great Lakes (Lakes St. Clair, Erie, and Ontario). Coastal wetlands provide critically important staging habitat for nearly 30 species of migratory waterfowl. In fact, millions of waterfowl use these wetlands each spring and fall to rest, feed and acquire the body fat necessary for migration and reproduction. Approximately 85% of our coastal wetlands have already been drained and converted to agriculture and urban development; those that remain are regularly being compromised by additional human impacts and invasive species. Consequently, it is critically
important that we do our utmost to conserve and protect all remaining coastal wetlands.

There are other problems and inconsistencies with the Regulations and Guidelines.

• The 120 metre setback from Significant Wildlife Habitat (compared to 550 metres from human habitations) is not biologically defensible. The regulations even allow proponents to place developments within Significant Wildlife Habitats when they claim they can “mitigate” adverse effects.
• The “Bird Habitat Assessment Process” requires post construction monitoring of avian mortality but does not require an adequate assessment of wildlife displacement.
• Cumulative impacts of onshore and offshore industrial wind turbines (including those being proposed for American waters) are not being considered.
• Guidelines don’t consider bird mortality to be significant until 18 birds/turbine/year are killed. This is 7.2 times the NA average and is not biologically defensible.
• Guidelines don’t consider the mortality of raptors of provincial conservation concern (i.e. Bald Eagles) to be significant unless 0.2 raptors/ turbine/year are killed. Therefore, a development with 100 turbines that killed 19 Bald Eagles per year would not require mitigation.
• Community consultation (a requirement of the Green Energy Act) has been a dismal failure with proponents ignoring and evading community concerns
  and refusing to hold public consultation meetings in preference for open house product showcases.

5. Advice of international biologists

Repeatedly biologists around the world have stated the obvious and simple warning: industrial wind turbines must be kept well away from sensitive natural habitats, including important migratory corridors.

• “Avoid locating wind farms in regional or internationally important bird or bat areas and/or migration routes”. Everaert and Kuijken 2007.
• “Developers should avoid sites that are important to wildlife”. –Dr. Mark Avery, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, U.K.
• “Wind turbine developments should not be placed within 1000 meters of waterfowl roost sites; not be placed within 1 kilometre of staging areas; not be placed in flight corridors between roosts and feeding grounds; not be placed on major migratory corridors, and not be erected in areas where the wind turbine development +500 m buffer zone occupies more than 1% of the known feeding areas at a site; not be placed in agricultural fields traditionally used by large flocks of waterfowl”. –Bjarke Laubek, M.Sc., Waterfowl Biologist with extensive experience working on waterfowl and turbine placement in Denmark.
• “Wind turbine developments should not be sited near populations of birds of conservation importance, particularly Anseriformes”. –Stewart, et al. 2004.
• “Avoid placing turbines in documented locations of protected wildlife, known local bird migration pathways or near wetlands and staging areas and avoid known daily movement flyways between roosting and feeding
  areas, as well as bat breeding and nursery colonies or migration corridors. –U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• “Wind turbine developments must no longer be built in any natural areas”. –Spanish Ornithological Society.
• “If we are to save our emblematic bird species from this new threat, it is urgent to impose a moratorium on windfarm construction and to call for a fully independent commission to investigate the whole windfarm matter, starting with the effectiveness of this intermittent, unreliable, and ruinous form of energy”. –Mark Duchamp, Save the Eagles International.

6. Recommendations

Revision of the Green Energy Act and its Regulations and guidelines is imperative to bring it into compliance with pre-existing environmental protection legislation.

• Amendments must be made to loopholes in the Act which exempt renewable energy projects from the Planning Act (and Provincial Policy Statements), the Environmental Protection Act, and the Conservation Authorities Act, and Regulations which change the purpose of the Statement of Environmental Principles and the Environmental Bill of Rights.
• Regulations must be revised to reflect the recommendations of scientists and biologists as outlined above. Regulations, guidelines and procedures must be revised to require independent mortality and displacement studies and avoid the problems related to proponent-commissioned environmental surveys outlined above. Biologically defensible setback restrictions and mortality levels must be established for wildlife habitats and migratory corridors.
• Industrial wind turbines must not be placed within 2 km of coastal and other provincially significant wetlands and should not be placed on major migratory corridors or in agricultural fields traditionally used by large concentrations of wildlife.
• All post and pre-construction monitoring must be made available to the public to allow for participation in environmental decision making as required under the Statement of Environmental Principles and the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The onus of proof of environmental damage must be reversed to make developers of renewable energy projects responsible for their actions and bring these projects into compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement.

7. Questionable effectiveness in saving GHG emissions

Here we discuss wildlife issues related to poorly regulated industrial wind turbine development but the rationale for building the turbines should also be examined.

The ideology behind industrial wind turbine installation has not been validated by experience. It is now apparent that wind turbines will not diminish Ontario’s carbon footprint just as they have failed to do anywhere else in the world.

Government advisors and ministers did not listen to the warnings of electricity generation professionals who pointed out the practical complications of adding intermittent and unpredictable wind energy to the grid. Stability can only be maintained by running fossil-fuelled plants inefficiently on standby to back up all potential wind production.

European experience has demonstrated that coal plants cannot be closed in exchange for non-base load wind energy. Germany, which has installed over 20,000 industrial wind turbines, has increased CO2 and other GHG emissions and new coal plants have had to be built to compensate for the destabilizing effect of wind energy. Ontario is building more gas plants for this same reason.

Bennet & McBee (2011) were the first to systematically assess the emission reduction performance of wind generation based on hourly generation and emissions data from Colorado and Texas in the Bentek study. It shows that previous claims were significantly overstated and that actual CO2 reductions are either so small as to be insignificant or too expensive to be practical.

Summary

The dwindling areas of wetland and other specialized ecosystems which provide habitat for threatened and endangered species are especially vulnerable to disturbance and degradation from this form of rural industrialization. Migratory avian species including raptors, waterfowl, waterbirds, passerines and bats are particularly vulnerable to displacement from critical habitats and collision mortality. Government and developers have downplayed the negative environmental footprint of wind turbines. However, as developments proliferate, post construction monitoring points to unforeseen cumulative effects and many looming
environmental concerns. Ontario’s Green Energy Act with its inadequate regulations and guidelines governing the siting of renewable energy installations is urgently in need of revision. Better information on the effects of industrial wind turbines must be obtained through rigorous study and the precautionary principle of the Bergen Agreement adhered to before further construction proceeds and incalculable irreversible damage is done to Ontario’s natural heritage.

Keith Stelling, MA, MNIMH, Dip. Phyt., MCPP
Friends of Arran Lake
Central Bruce-Grey Wind Concerns Ontario

Scott Petrie, PhD
Executive Director, Long Point Waterfowl
Adjunct Professor, University of Western Ontario

References

Barrios, L., and A. Rodriguez. 2004. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology. 41:72-81.

Bennet, P., and B. McBee. 2011. The Wind Power Paradox: Bentek Market Alert. Crowder, A.A., and J.M. Bristow. 1988. The future of waterfowl habitats in the Canadian lower Great Lakes wetlands. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 14:115-127.

Dennis, D.G.,, G.B. McCullough, N.R. North, and R.K. Ross. 1984. An updated assessment of migrant waterfowl use of Ontario shorelines of the southern Great Lakes. Pages 37-42in Waterfowl Studies in Ontario, S.G. Curtis, D.G. Dennis and H. Boyd, editors. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No 54.

Desholm, M. 2006. Wind farm related mortality among avian migrants – a remote sensing study and model analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark.

Everaert,J.,and E.Kuijken.2007.WindturbinesandbirdsinFlanders(Belgium): Preliminary summary of the mortality research results: Belgian Research Institute for Nature and Forest.

Frondel, M., N. Ritter, C. Vance, F. Scheffer, and C. Schmidt. 2009. Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience. Final Report: Rheinisch-Westfa?lisches Institut fu?r Wirtschaft sforschung (Rhine-Westphalia Institute for Economic Research).

Herdendorf, C.E. 1992. Lake Erie coastal wetlands: an overview. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 18:533-551.

Irish Electricity Supply Board (ESB). 2004. Impact of Wind Power Generation in Ireland on the Operation of Conventional Plant and the Economic Implications: ESB National Grid.

Kingsley, A., and B. Whittam. 2005. Wind Turbines and Birds: A Background Review: Environment Canada / Canadian Wildlife Service, 81 pages.

Kunz, T., E. Arnett, W. Erickson, A. Hoar, G. Johnson, R. Larkin, M. Strickland, R. Thresher, and M. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses: Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2449–2486; DOI: 10.2193/2007-270.

Liik, O., R. Oidram, and M. Keel. 2003. Estimation of real emissions reduction caused by wind generators: Tallinn Technical University, Estonia.

Manville, A.M. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers, and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science – next steps toward mitigation: Proceedings 3rd Internatl. Partners in Flight Conference. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191, Vol. 2: 1051-1064.

Ontario Power Authority (OPA). October 2007. Integrated Power System Plan.

Petrie, S.A. 1998. Waterfowl and Wetlands of Long Point Bay and Old Norfolk County: Present Conditions and Future Options for Conservation. Unpublished Norfolk Land Stewardship Council Report. Long Point Waterfowl, Port Rowan, Ontario.

Petrie, S.A., S. Badzinski, and K.L. Wilcox. 2002. Population trends and habitat use of Tundra Swans staging at Long Point, Lake Erie. Waterbirds: 25:143-149.

Petrie, S.A., and K.L. Wilcox. 2003. Migration chronology of Eastern Population Tundra Swans. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 81: 861-870.

Prince, H.H., P.I. Padding, and R.W. Knapton. 1992. Waterfowl use of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 18:673-699.

Schummer, M. L. 2005. Comparisons of resource use by Buffleheads, Common Goldeneyes and Long-Tailed Ducks during winter on northeastern Lake Ontario. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Western Ontario. London, Ontario.

Stewart, G. B., and A.S. Pullin. 2004. Effects of wind turbines on bird abundance; Systematic Review No.4: Centre for Evidence-based Conservation, University of Birmingham, England, 49p.

Download original document: “Threats from industrial wind turbines to Ontario’s wildlife and biodiversity”

Date added:  January 15, 2012
Economics, Emissions, Environment •

Measuring the Performance of Wind Energy Projects

Source:  Virginia Wind

Assuring the Success of the Commonwealth Energy Policy

The General Assembly has found that energy is essential to the health, safety, welfare and economy of the Commonwealth and that state government should facilitate the availability and delivery of reliable and adequate supplies of energy to industrial, commercial, and residential users at reasonable costs. The General Assembly has also enumerated energy objectives (§ 67-101), set forth a Commonwealth Energy Policy (§ 67-102), and directed development of a non-regulatory Virginia Energy Plan (§ 67-201). Among the objectives addressed by the Code is promotion of alternative energy sources, which, compared to traditional energy resources, may be less polluting of the Commonwealth’s air and waters. Alternative energy includes electricity generated through the use of wind turbines.

Although the Commonwealth has no experience with commercial-scale wind energy projects, the General Assembly has sought to promote the development of such projects through expedited environmental permitting by establishment of a Permit By Rule administered by the Department of Environmental Quality (§ 10.1-1197.6). In addition, the General Assembly has directed the State Corporation Commission to approve increased consumer electricity rates for utilities that demonstrate attainment of the Commonwealth’s

Renewable Portfolio Standard (§ 56-585.2). Fortunately, the General Assembly has also recognized the need to establish a procedure for measuring the implementation of the Commonwealth Energy Policy (§ 67-100). It makes sense to assure that the desired benefits of energy production are obtained, that harm to the public interests are minimized, and that future revisions of the Virginia Energy Plan are informed by experience and data.

This new 61-turbine wind project occupies 12 miles of ridgeline near Elkins, WV. If this 98-megawatt project were in Virginia it would qualify as a “small wind project” and require minimal review despite its large footprint and probable poor performance. Wind projects in this region average only 13% of total generation capacity during critical summertime peak demand periods. (PJM, 2010. Rules and Procedures for Determination of Generating Capacity, http://pjm.com/~/media/documents/manuals/m21.ashx)

The General Assembly may have been well-intentioned in promoting wind energy development in the mix of alternatives, but new information about the efficacy of commercial-scale wind energy generation indicates that objective prediction and verification of performance is warranted.

• The 2010 Virginia Energy Plan estimates the costs of new electricity generation sources, including wind generation facilities. Based on data provided for new facilities entering service in 2016, the cost of electricity generated with onshore wind projects will be 49% greater than the cost of electricity generated with conventional coal-fired power plants and 25% greater than the cost of electricity generated with nuclear power plants. (Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy 2010. The Virginia Energy Plan, www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/VAEnergyPlan/VEP-2010.shtml)
• Although the National Research Council predicted in 2007 that onshore wind energy development may offset carbon emissions by a small amount, a 2010 report by Bentek Energy, LLC reached a different conclusion. Research presented in the report suggests that contrary to expectations and the objectives of Colorado’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, wind energy development has resulted in increased emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon. This undesirable result is attributed to the inefficient management of coal-fired power plants that is required to accommodate the variable and intermittent electricity generation achieved by wind turbine facilities. (Bentek Energy, LLC, 2010. How Less Became More: Wind, Power, and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado Energy Market, www.bentekenergy.com)
• A 2007 report by the National Research Council projected that U.S. onshore wind power development through 2020 will achieve no reduction in demand for electricity from other sources, will provide no reduction in sulfur and nitrogen emissions, and may offset carbon dioxide emissions by only 1.2 to 4.5% from the levels of emissions that would otherwise occur from electricity generation. The report further concluded that because the density of the onshore wind resource is less for the Mid-Atlantic region states than for the country as a whole, the benefits in terms of electricity supply and emissions reductions will be less than for the country as a whole. (NRC, 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, National Academy Press, www.nap.edu/catalog/11935.html)

Determination of both the projected and realized performance of wind energy generation projects is absolutely necessary in the proper administration of state incentives and licensing.

Wind energy generation projects must be subject to SCC licensing and the requirement to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity.

SCC approval of wind energy generation facilities should further be conditioned upon provision of:

These analyses and reports should be based on publically reviewable data and methods that quantify effects on the reliability of electricity service and costs to consumers, electricity generation on an annual and monthly basis and during peak demand periods, and reductions in air pollution obtained through displacement of electricity generation by traditional energy sources. Prior to issuance of any licensing action under Title 56, the SCC must verify that the data and calculations concerning these costs and benefits are credible and accurate and that proposed projects are necessary and in the public interest.

Finally, it is imperative that future periodic revisions of the Virginia Energy Plan incorporate knowledge and experience gained from existing wind energy projects and that plan revisions be subject to public review and comment.

—Virginia Wind

« Later Documents • Home • Earlier Documents »