Wind Facts from a Different Angle

Without being anywhere near the CanWEA offices on January 11, 2013 one could sense the excitement when the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) released the news that wind generation in Ontario at 4.6 TWh (terawatts) had beaten coal generation of 4.3 TWh. That press release followed one from the outgoing Premier, D. McGuinty the previous day announcing the remaining coal plants would shut down by the end of 2013. So we saw two “good news” days for CanWEA and their 400 plus members, so why did they become so defensive?

The CanWEA press release of January 23, 2013 dealing with the intentions of MPP Lisa Thompson to present a Private Members Bill calling for “a moratorium on wind energy development until a third party health and environmental study has been completed,” really upset them. They followed this with a February 12, 2013 press release which included the results of what they referred to as a January “Oracle Research poll” they had commissioned. The poll is dated February 12, 2012 so its not clear if this is old news or new news. In any event the main polling question was atypically benign asking those polled to opine on whether “Ontario should continue to strive to be a Canadian leader in wind and solar energy production”. The report show 69% agree. It is noteworthy that Oracle also conducted a poll for the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association in July 2011 where the results were that 75% supported the statement “I support green energy initiatives in Ontario such as wind and solar power”. The poll conducted for CanWEA by Oracle in February 2012 had the support of 78% and the one conducted in July 2010 by Ipsos Reid had the support of 89% so the trend is down, meaning perhaps the individuals being polled are becoming aware of the bad effects of industrial wind turbines. The 20 % drop in support in just over two years must be worrying to CanWEA and its members considering the bulk of the respondents are urban dwellers unaffected by the 400/500 foot monsters.
If wind generation was truly competitive it would be offered through the Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP); the “wholesale” market IESO administers. But wind production doesn’t need to stoop to those levels because the wind developers have contracts with the Ontario Power Authority that paid them rates in 2012 in excess of 5.6 times the HOEP average rate of 2.41 cents per kWh. Most of them also get the benefit of annual “cost of living” (COL) increases tied to the inflation rate. One example is the 165.6 MW Comber wind project operated by Brookfield now in its 2nd year of operation and receiving $142.49 per MWh according to their DRBS credit report. The COL increase per MWh being paid to Comber/Brookfield is $7.49 in just the 2nd year of its operation but it is not yet commissioned (by IESO). The $7.49 per MWh increase at 5.5% is well above the Ontario Ministry of Finance indicated jump in the inflation rate in Ontario of 1.4% in 2012 (Comber went online in late 2011) so it is unclear who sets the parameters for the increase granted but it appears obvious that it greatly exceeds the Provincially reported inflation rate by the same government that gave us the FIT program!

Let’s pay no attention to the foregoing inflation kicker and assume that the 4.6 TWh (4.6 million MWh [megawatt hours]) that those wind turbine produced was paid out at $135 per MWh.  That means the developers would have been paid $614 million. Had those TWh been produced by those doomed coal plants it would have cost the ratepayers $111 million (4.6 TWh at $24.1 million per TWh [2.41 cents per kWh] for the HOEP price that the OPG coal generation plants received) or about $500 million less.

Ratepayers also paid for backup power; principally in the form of gas generation. The contracts that the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) negotiate with gas generators pay them for their backup (they are paid to be ready to produce when the wind isn’t) and that is about $15,000 per MW per month. That means that the 4.6 TWh that the wind generators produced generates payments to gas generation plants. For sitting around “at the ready” the gas plant operators received about $90 million for producing no power for the cost of that “clean” wind generation.

Not included in the foregoing is the cost to Ontario Power Generation (OPG) who are often told to “spill” cheap clean hydroelectric generation and receive no compensation. Unfortunately no information is available to calculate what that cost is, despite the efforts of the writer and other critics, but one must assume it would be significant. Likewise Bruce Power who operate “flexible” nuclear plants are forced to “steam off” or “steam bypass” nuclear production, and are paid for that lost production but the cost to the ratepayers is an unknown. The assumption is that it is a large amount. Additionally the cost of those transmission lines built by Hydro One to deliver that wind (and solar) power is a significant amount but again the costs related to wind production hookup and transmission is not quantifiable as Hydro One do not break down their capital costs to identify monies spent to hook up renewables. Nevertheless with annual capital expenditures of about $1.5 billion it is safe to assume the monies spent supporting the wind segment are significant.

So let’s look at some facts that we can point to:


  • Wind supplied 4.6 TWh of Ontario’s total generation in 2012 which was 3% of total generation of 151.8 TWh supplied by all power operators. 
  • Ontario exported 14.6 TWh in 2012 or 3.2 times the power wind generated, meaning Ontario did not need this power. 
  • Wind required back-up generation (primarily gas) for the 71% of the time wind turbines produced zero (0) electricity and during the 29% of the time those gas plants sat idle they were paid $15,000 per MW/per Month (Net Revenue Requirement) meaning it cost Ontario ratepayers $90 million. NB: A 500 MW gas plant could have produced that 4.6 TWh but for sitting idle were paid $90 million (500 MW X $15,000 X 12 months = $90 million). 
  • The 4.6 TWh of electricity if provided by the coal generation plants could have produced the same power at a cost of $111 million (4.6 TWh X $24.1 million per TWh = $111 million) instead of the $614 million (4.6 TWh X $135 million per TWh) that the wind production cost. 
  • If the back-up gas generation costs of $90 million are added to the excess (over HOEP) costs of wind the total costs to the ratepayers in 2012 was $593 million or 9.2% of the total Global Adjustment (GA) pot of $6.455 billion which was $1.146 billion higher then the 2011 GA total. 

To summarize; Ontario’s industrial wind turbines produced 3% of total generation and the bulk of that production was exported. The 3% it generated cost Ontario’s ratepayers 9.2% of the total Global Adjustment or $593 million. The $593 million in costs represents an increase of $130 per annum for the average Ontario ratepayer producing NO BENEFITS.

That $593 million found its way to ratepayers electricity bills and then became taxable with another $77 million removed from ratepayers pockets as taxes through the application of the HST.

The Liberals have managed, through their energy policies, a situation that will see the waste highlighted above, repeat itself again and again for the next 20 years or longer. It makes the scandals of e-health, Ornge and the gas plant moves look small in comparison.

Parker Gallant,
February 20, 2013

Turbines are affecting people: Lynn

 Grey-Bruce medical officer of health Dr. Hazel Lynn:
“All of the studies rejected the null hypothesis that there was no association. Every one of them found that there was an association.”

Of hundreds of credible studies around the world on wind energy, none conclude there is no association between the towering turbines and adverse health effects.
That’s what Grey-Bruce medical officer of health Dr. Hazel Lynn and her researcher, Dr. Ian Arra, will present to the public health board Friday.
The report follows plaintive calls last fall from local residents who live near wind turbines for the health unit to investigate potential ill health effects.
Lynn has been asked repeatedly over the years by municipalities and residents to conduct a study on how turbines might be affecting people’s health, which they say include migraines, insomnia, heart palpitations and other symptoms. She has rejected the requests because of the time and cost involved and because the health unit is not a research institute.”
But last September, after an emotional delegation appeared before the health board, Lynn agreed to do a comprehensive search of the most current and credible studies available.
“(The conclusions are) not new, but it’s further confirmation that these are not NIMBYs, these are people affected by these things,” Lynn said Tuesday in an interview. “All of the studies rejected the null hypothesis that there was no association. Every one of them found that there was an association.”

Please continue reading at the Owen Sound Sun Times:
There is a poll at the end of the article: “Do you believe wind turbines can make people sick?

Related: .pdf of report presentation slides

Wind running from Demand

Using the term “wind beats coal in Ontario” in a “Google” search gets 3 million hits, meaning the IESO press release of January 11, 2013 announcing wind production was 3% of Ontario’s generation versus 2.8% for coal in 2012 was noticed. Why wind beat coal is not explained;it is simply cited as a fact. Wind is granted “first-to-the-grid” rights, which means it must be accepted. In Ontario beating coal is not a big feat as coal is only significantly called on when our peak demand is closing in on record levels, meaning it is presented asthe last generation source that will be used. By this time next year that option will be unavailable in Ontario.

The recent cold spell in Ontario and Quebec highlighted coal’s usefulness however as Quebecers were encouraged to reduce their consumption and Ontario cranked up coal production (partially to assist Quebec) despite outgoing Premier, Dalton McGuinty’s recent pronouncement January 10, 2013 that Ontario Power Generation will close their remaining coal plants! McGuinty said; “We’ll replace our dirty, outdated coal-fired electricity plants — the biggest source of air pollution in Canada — with cleaner burning natural gas, and renewable energy such as wind and solar,” The biggest source of air pollution in Canada is the transportation sector not the coal fired electricity plants. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s 2010 Air Quality Report indicates that “transboundary” and “transportation” are the two biggest factors determining Ontario’s air quality.

Ontario’s “dirty, outdated coal-fired electricity plants” are far from being the biggest source of air pollution in Canada, they are not outdated (many have modern scrubbers to remove most particulates) and they cannot be replaced by “renewable energy such as wind and solar.” As Quebec experienced record demand on January 23rdand Ontario experienced it’s highest winter demand in 2 years January 24th, solar was unproductive, and wind only slightly better. 2500MW of renewable capacity was generating a little over 100MW per hour (4% of capacity), while coal units generated almost 2000 MW per hour (67% of capacity). For the month of January wind generation’s capacity was 43% which is less then it produced in the same month in 2012. This is the third month in a row where wind production has been less then the comparable month a year earlier.

Claiming that renewable energy could replace coal, is tantamount to claiming the world is flat. To bring that point home the following chart depicts the average percentage production of capacity from Ontario`s industrial wind turbines over the 6 years 2006 to 2012 and recent average consumption demand by month.
The chart clearly shows that as seasonaldemand falls wind production rises, and as thedemand rises wind production falls. Wind production is available when its oftennot needed, and frequently not available when it is!

Ontario’s peak demand months are in the summer which is wind production is at its lowest levels.

Wind turbines penchant for producing intermittent power also causes problems with management of the electricity grid and concern that it will cause blackouts. As a result of the latter Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operation (IESO) recently amended its rules related to the dispatching of “variable renewables”. The amendment will result in wind and solar companies suffering revenue losses and could save Ontario’s beleagured ratepayers $225 million as was reported in a recent TorStar article. As as result 13 (renewable) energy companies have appealedto the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) to get the new IESO rules overturned.

The grid’s reliability has become a major problem in the European electricity marketplace where the intermittent output from Germany’s extensive wind and solar generators causes major problems with manufacturers halting their production lines when the grid produces surges.  Additionally Poland and the Czech Republic have both told Germany they will no longer be able to use their transmission lines to carry or receive power from Austria because it is destabilizing their grids. Germany and Austria have a reciprocal arrangement allowing Germany to lay off their excess generation and take back hydro when wind and solar are either not producing or producing at very low levels. Germany also grant first-to-the-grid rights to wind and solar generators.

How the former Premier McGuinty had the nerve to claim renewable energy will replace 3,000 MW of coal serves to prove his naivete about the energy sector in the province. Even if IESO win their battle at the OEB, ratepayers will still be paying hundreds of millions for electricity that simply is a supplement to the province’s gas generators. Those first-to-the-grid rights granted to the wind and solar companies means ratepayers will pay twice for the same amount of energy!

Parker Gallant & Scott Luft

Cutbacks to existing contracts rattle Europe’s renewables proponents

Germany is attempting to control electricity costs after it’s EEG, considered a renewables’ surcharge, jumped to over 5 euro cents/kWh in this, a German election, year. This despite the relatively small contribution of wind (8%) and solar (5%) to total 2012 electricity generation in Germany (bdew figures).
The German Energy Blog explains proposed changes to the EEG, with perhaps the biggest surprise being a straight 1.5% cut in payments on existing contracts. German Renewables groups proposed alternatives (Bloomberg) essentially to stop excluding industry from paying for renewables (industry has benefitted from falling market rates as costs were increasingly transferred from market pricing to the feed-in tariff’s fixed rates), and the government cutting back on it’s tax haul.
Regardless of the choices in controlling consumer cost, it’s a lot of effort for 13% of supply. 

Spain gets far more than 13% of it’s supply from renewables – the Canadian Broadcast Corporation noted wind producting 25% of Spain’s electricity in January. Spain celebrated with another round of actions (details at Lexology) to curtail a massive $28 million euro tariff deficit, growing at ~5 billion euro dollars a year,
The cuts, expected to save ~1 billion euros a year – keeping in mind the deficit is ~5 billion – have foreign “investors” feeling litigous, according to Reuters

The entire article can be read at Cold Air Currents

Dr. Kouwen’s Grey Highlands Study and Sustainable Shetland Update: Wind Wise Radio

Wind Wise Radio has posted preparatory material for tonight’s Wind Wise Radio program featuring “Dr. Nicholas Kouwen, P.Eng, Distinguished Professor Emeritus University of Waterloo.”

Dr. Kouwen’s Grey Highlands Study and Sustainable Shetland Update Wind Wise Radio:

WWR advises discussion will reference this graph

Dr. Kouwen’s groundbreaking work over the past year has revealed that the Ontario Ministry of Environment’s noise limits are being exceeded a majority of the time near industrial wind turbines (IWT’s) at locations in Grey Highlands, ON, Canada. Furthermore it appears the MOE model is flawed and “substantially underestimates” wind turbine noise. We spoke with Dr. Kouwen about his methodology and ongoing work.
Dr. Kouwen’s full report can be found here.
The flawed Ministry of Environment Guidelines here.

View at Wind Wise Radio:

(note… they record the programs and you can listen at any time afterwards, even if you haven’t reviewed the material)

CanWEA Spins Truths

When presented with a statement that says: “We are pleased to see that more than 80 % of respondents were not at all disturbed by wind turbines, but we would like to see a higher figure.” most people would quickly agree that the remaining 20% of respondents must have been disturbed!

Put that statement in the hands of the wind spinners however, and the claim is made that;

“A June 2012 survey from the Danish Ministry of Energy, Climate and Buildings, however, showed that 83 per cent of Danes support continued development of wind power both on- and offshore.”

This is how CanWEA viewed the commentary on that June 2012 Danish survey and reported on it in a press release on February 8, 2013 where they try to discredit the CBC documentary “Wind Rush” that had been presented the previous day on the “Doc Zone”.  The documentary was critical of industrial wind turbines principally because they cause health problems because of “noise” issues. The documentary didn’t examine the costs to ratepayers, nor the requirement to back up wind generation with fossil fuel generators, nor the effects on the natural environment through the killing of birds and bats, nor did it look at the negative effect on property values that industrial wind turbines have!

The documentary dealt only with the health issues and it was damning, particularly in Ontario where it suggests the government rushed ahead without proper due diligence in respect to siting wind turbines because of inadequate setbacks.  The documentary also featured commentary from highly regarded Dr. Nissenbaum, a member of the advisory group, with the Society of Wind Vigilance.  CanWEA’s press release comments that much of what Dr Nissenbaum has researched “has been reviewed by experts at the first Environmental Review Tribunal.” The apparent illusion they are trying to create with that statement is unknown but I believe the inference is that Dr. Nissenbaum’s research was overwhelmed by the experts of the pro-wind segment.  What CanWEA don’t say in their press release is that those “experts” were hand picked by the Renewal Energy Approval (REA) holder’s high priced Bay Street legal counsel to ensure they would sway the Environmental Review Tribunal.  Despite that the Tribunal found; 

“This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.”

CanWEA’s efforts are aimed at stifling debate and to continue the proliferation of industrial wind turbines throughout rural Ontario. They claim in the same press release; “As the voice of Canada’s wind energy industry, CanWEA supports the responsible and sustainable development of wind energy.”

Based on the way CanWEA spin their critique of “Wind Rush” it is the opinion of this writer that “responsible” doesn’t include how they spin information. CanWEA took that negative Danish report indicating that 9% (115 humans) of the 1275 people surveyed who stated they were “disturbed by wind turbine noise “to a major extent,” or are “moderately” disturbed and claim the Danes think wind turbines are great.

Is this the renaissance of the “Marlboro Man” holding a wind turbine instead of a cigarette or can we simply put it down as wind spin?

Parker Gallant,
February 11, 2013

Turbines ‘tarnish property values’

Turbines ‘tarnish property values’ | The Australian:

A FEDERAL magistrate has accepted that wind farms slash the value of surrounding properties, saying she found it “hard to imagine” any prospective buyer could ignore such development.
In a decision believed to be the first time an Australian court has recognised the adverse financial impact of wind farms for neighbours, magistrate Kate Hughes ruled a property would be worth 17 per cent less if a 14-turbine facility were erected next door.
For one part of the property, in regional Victoria, she accepted a 33 per cent fall in value was likely.
The ruling came in a family law case published this month amid separation proceedings for the couple who own the property.
Ms Hughes heard two separate valuers had agreed the wind farm would have a negative effect on the adjacent property, which the couple has divided into three blocks. “The expert value of the three blocks of land varies significantly depending on whether or not it is assumed the proposed wind farm will go ahead,” Ms Hughes said in her judgment.
“The impact of the proposed wind farm is apparent from the valuation report.”

Complete article at The Australian (subscription)

Donations to Ontario’s Political Parties: Earmarked for Favourable Results!

Ontario’s voters who follow the news are probably aware that “Working Families”, on its website, describes itself as; “a not-for-profit organization that has the support of more than 250,000 members (and growing) representing a cross-section of Ontarians that aims to support, promote and advocate the interests of working families.” Working Families is really not an organization with 250,000 members but is an organization backed by several unions with 11 of them identified on their “about us” webpage.  Perhaps those unions have that many members but to proclaim that it “has the support” of 250,000 is a big stretch in its claim.  If one remembers the 2011 election campaign the efforts expended by the “Working Families” coalition were considerable and estimates in the media indicated they spent upwards of $9 million on various media ads warning of the dangers of electing the Tim Hudak led PC Party. Their campaign and ads harkened back to the “Harris” days and the reputed devastation he and the PC party had caused for “working families”! The ads were in very close harmony with the Liberal Party’s message that reverberated in the prior two elections and was continually used by the Dalton McGuinty Liberal MPPs in the Ontario Legislature to put down their principal opposition party. That same chatter continues although the support that the “organization” gave to the Liberals back in 2011 seems to be shifting to the NDP perhaps as a direct result of Bill 115 which forced a contract on the teachers unions by the Liberals.

The shift in support may be a forerunner to what will happen in the upcoming by-elections that will be held in Dwight Duncan’s and Chris Bentley’s ridings. A look to the past to see exactly where the parties obtain their funding and an examination of donations to the three principal parties from certain sectors for the 2011 year is interesting and discloses some disturbing facts.

Party Donation rules in Ontario are generous as Elections Ontario discloses; “There are three types of eligible contributors: Individuals who are Ontario residents; Corporations carrying on business in Ontario that are not registered charities; and Labour councils and trade unions with bargaining rights for employees in Ontario” and the donation amounts are generous being;

“Eligible contributors can contribute up to $9,300 to a central party in any year and an additional $9,300 for each campaign period.

This open faced sandwich allows corporations with multiple subsidiaries to donate up to $9,300 for each subsidiary and for unions with multiple locals to do the same. If one examines the donations made by unions and corporations (see below definitions) in 2011 it is interesting to see the effects of those rules.

Looking at the contributions to the three largest “parties” in 2011 and to their respective “election campaigns” it is quickly established the Elections Ontario rules are utilized to their fullest. From research it was determined that the (identifiable) unions collectively donated (rounded to the nearest thousand) $1,730,000 to the three parties. Looking at the “green” (those [identifiable] who have received OPA renewable energy contracts) corporations and large corporate entities (those who benefit from major government contracts) one can determine they collectively donated $800,000 to the three major parties.

Looking further at the breakdown of “union” donations it is seen that the Liberal Party received $948,000 (55%) versus $695,000 (40%) for the NDP and $87,000 (5%) for the PC Party of their 2011 donations.

On the” corporate” side the Liberal Party received $466,000 (58%) versus $308,000 (39%) for the PC Party and the balance, $26.000 (3%), went to the NDP.

Collectively the Liberal Party received 56% of the union/green corporate donations, the NDP 28% and the PC Party 16%. So the question emerges; which party is beholden to either or both of these groups?

The Liberals and the NDP received over 125 donations from unions and their locals as should be obvious from the above total union donations. A couple of the more notable ones are the Ontario Elementary Catholic Teachers Association who donated over $78,000 to the Liberals and $79,000 to the NDP but only $2,000 to the PC Party. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation donated $75,000 to the Liberal Party, $44,000 to the NDP and $15,000 to the PC Party. The Liberal Party also received over $60,000 in donations from 11 of the Labourers International Union of North America locals as another example.

On the corporate side two major companies who have benefited from provincial government contracts worth billion of dollars hedge their bets by donating to both the Liberals and the PC parties. Aecon (Mattagami hydro is a $2.6 billion build) donated $25,000 to the Liberal Party and $41,000 to the PC Party whereas Ellis Don (several hospital builds worth billions plus court houses, etc.) donated $74,000 to the Liberal Party and $59,000 to the PC Party. Needless to say the NDP received no donations from either of these major contractors but probably benefited from the unionized trades that both of these corporate entities employ on these government contracts.

What the foregoing demonstrates is that the Elections Finances Act needs an overhaul to prevent this influence peddling. Elections Ontario in their 2010/2011 Annual Report recommended “that an independent task force be established to investigate options regarding how to improve third party advertising rules in Ontario.” Elections Ontario in their report to the Legislature suggested that the review consider the following.

1. Should Ontario adopt third party spending limits?
2.Should Ontario adopt third party contribution limits?
3. Should Ontario try to limit third party advertising spending to the amounts it raises prior to and during an election?

To the best of this writer’s knowledge nothing has been done to curb this electoral abuse and one would hope that the next session of the Legislature gives the Elections Ontario recommendations a priority and establish a task force.

Evidence of how the tap is turned on or off can be found in the recent Liberal leadership conference. As most of the candidates running for the leadership bid found out the well from the various teachers unions had run dry. Ms Wynn received donations of a paltry $28,000 from 12 unions (none from the education sector) whereas she received $25,000 from the Insurance Bureau of Canada alone and $22,000 from the “green” developers. No doubt the Insurance Bureau contribution influenced her response to the Leader of the NDP, Andrea Horwath when she proposed a 15% cut in auto insurance premiums.

The time has come to take the influence peddling out of the party donations pot and place it squarely with the Lobbyist Registry where it will at least be somewhat transparent!

Parker Gallant,
February 11, 2013

Health Canada Releases Revised Research Design for the Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study

Following is Health Canada’s press release announcing revisions to it’s Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study; the release includes the link to the Updated Research Design and Sound Exposure Assessment

Health Canada Releases Revised Research Design for the Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study:

OTTAWA -Today, the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health, announced Health Canada published a revised research design for the wind turbine noise and health study, which is being carried out in collaboration with Statistics Canada.
The proposed research design was posted on the Health Canada website in July 2012 for public comment and over 950 comments were received during the 60 day public consultation period. After an evaluation of feedback received during the consultation, the Expert Committee introduced changes to the research design including an assessment of infrasound and changes to the questionnaire administered by Statistics Canada. The Expert Committee includes specialists in areas pertaining to noise measurement, health assessment, clinical medicine and epidemiology. 

“Our Government is committed to protecting the health and safety of Canadian families, and this study is in response to questions from residents living near wind farms about possible health effects of low frequency noise generated by wind turbines,” said Minister Aglukkaq. “The Expert Committee has carefully reviewed and evaluated the feedback received during the public consultation and has taken it into consideration when developing the revised research design.”
Study results are anticipated in late 2014. An initial target sample size of 2,000 dwellings will be selected from 8-12 wind turbine installation facilities in Canada. In addition to taking physical measurements from participants, such as blood pressure, investigators will conduct face-to-face interviews and take noise measurements inside and outside of some homes to validate sound modelling.
The revised research design is available on the Health Canada website. A summary of the public comments received during the consultation period and the responses from the Expert Committee are also available on the website.

City of Kawartha Lakes Council to send strong message against wind turbine project

“If you let three in…you’ll be letting in hundreds…the only safe places in Ontario will be Muskoka, Caledon and King City.”

Several members of Manvers Wind Concerns show up at City Hall to oppose wind turbine project
(KAWARTHA LAKES) They were on their feet applauding when it was over. City of Kawartha Lakes council voted 15-2 in support of a staff recommendation urging the Province to refuse an application for the Sumac Ridge wind turbine project in Manvers Township.
“They’re coming – unless you can stop them.”
That’s what Paul Reed of the Manvers Wind Concerns group told City of Kawartha Lakes council on Tuesday (Feb. 5), as dozens of people packed the public galleries in council chambers.
At a special council meeting, there were 18 speakers on the agenda. The overwhelming feeling is that wind turbines have a negative impact on health, property values, wildlife habitat and overall quality of life.

Continue Reading at