One of the things that rankles the corporate wind development lobby is the fact that property values are negatively affected for properties near wind power generation projects. This is proveable. And it is numbers on a page, not stories which can then be dismissed with the industry’s usual response which is, people are stressed, they don’t like change, they’re old and don’t understand that we need to save the environment, etc. etc. etc.
The Huffington Post released this story on Christmas Eve, a report of a new study done by an assistant professor at Rhode Island University, which apparently shows that there is no loss of value. Or, there is but it is so small that you can put it down to “margin of error.” The study, done by a PhD in economics, was funded by the state’s department of energy. Rhode Island, as you may be aware, is looking at a massive offshore wind power development.
We will be bringing you analysis of this study when we have commentary on the full paper. However, there are clues already to the complete meaninglessness of the study. The authors themselves report:
“One challenge in estimating the effects of wind turbines on housing prices is that most windturbines were built within the past few years, and there are relatively few propertysales in the immediate vicinity of wind turbines (or for that matter, at other specific locations) in such a short time period. We expect that the precision of estimates will increase over time, as more transactions occur. Hence, we recommend that that the analysis be repeated in a few years when a more robust data set with additional property transactions become available.”
In other words, no sales. Hard to measure what didn’t happen.
Here is the news story.
Wind Turbines Don’t Have Negative Effect On Property Values, Study Finds
SOUTH KINGSTOWN, R.I. (AP) — A University of Rhode Island study has found that wind turbine construction and operation doesn’t appear to have a negative effect on the property values of nearby homes.
Economics professor Corey Lang determined that proximity to a turbine has no statistical effect on property values after analyzing sales prices of 48,000 homes from the last 15 years. He compared homes near one of the state’s 12 turbines and homes far from them.
He found the turbines may cause a drop in property values of 0.4 percent for homes within half a mile of the structure, well within the study’s margin of error.
Lang presented his findings last week. The Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources funded his research.
He says a similar study is underway in Massachusetts.
More information on Corey Lang here from the university website: http://web.uri.edu/enre/corey-lang/
Ward 16 Councillor Heather Stauble said there is a team in place working hard to prepare the appeal, and much of that work was already done “because the community was prepared for the possibility the project would be approved.”
Coun. Stauble said when wpd Canada’s Sumac Ridge five wind turbines were approved earlier this month, the Province virtually ignored the 2,874 comments from the public opposing the project.
She said the deadline to appeal changed to Dec. 24, and the weekend’s severe ice storm that hammered the region has made filing its appeal in Toronto “challenging,” but confirmed it will be done.
The councillor added that given the number of people who submitted comments to the Province, “it would not look good at all if they don’t grant the appeal.”
Following the filing a request for an appeal, a Notice of a Preliminary Hearing date will be sent to every individual or organization who filed a comment with the Environmental Registry, Coun. Stauble said.
“Any individual or organization may then apply for status as a party, participant or presenter at the environmental tribunal anytime up to four days before the preliminary hearing date.”
In an email sent to her constituents, Coun. Stauble advised residents who live in the area and any individuals or organizations who have an interest can express their concerns at the tribunal. A lawyer is not necessary for this process.
She said there is no guarantee the group — headed by Manvers Wind Concerns — will win the appeal, but remains hopeful the multi-million dollar Cham Shan Buddhist Temple planned for the City may carry some weight.
The four temples, one in Cavan-Monaghan (almost completed) and three more planned in the City, is overseen by the Buddhist Association of Canada and represents a meditational pilgrimage that mirrors the same in China.
Coun. Stauble, noting the project could represent an investment of up to $100 million and is in jeopardy, as the Buddhists feel the wind turbines would have a negative impact on a temple promoting peaceful meditation.
“They have made it clear they will not build the remaining three temples” if the wind project goes forward, she said.
Coun. Stauble recalled a recent meeting with Minister Bob Chiarelli, also attended by local MPP Laurie Scott “where we were told there would be more discussion” before wind projects for the City were approved. Pointing to current legislation protecting the environmentally sensitive Oak Ridges Moraine, Coun. Stauble said by approving wind energy projects, the Province “is overriding its own legislation.”
She added this will be “a Christmas [the community] will never forget.”
For those who would like to know more about the legal Appeal or would like to make a financial contribution, contact email@example.com or visit http://manverswindconcerns.wordpress.com.
Source: Storm or no storm, wind opponents will file an appeal by Dec. 24; Manvers Wind Concerns is leading the charge against the decision for wpd Canada to build five wind turbines | Kawartha Lakes This Week | December 23, 2013 | www.mykawartha.com
|Ontario energy policies not based on cost-benefit analysis|
This letter appears in today’s Ottawa Citizen from Parker Gallant. It was written in response to an opinion piece published by the Citizen last week, by Environmental Defence executive director Tim Gray, who made a number of claims including that wind and solar were being scapegoated for rising electricity bills in Ontario.
The letter is not available online at the time of posting.
Direction on energy
Re: stop making green power the scapegoat December 17
The time has come to recognize wind and solar power generation for what it really is: intermittent, expensive and economically disastrous for Ontario. Wind turbines produce power 29 per cent of the time at the wrong time of day an season, when we consume much less power. Would anyone purchase a product that only works 29 per cent of the time?
It is interesting that in his opinion piece, Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence, would claim energy prices will only rise two per cent while Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli forecast rate increases of more than seven per cent for the next five years. Wind and solar produced four per cent of Ontario’s generation but cost ratepayers 160 per cent more per kWh than other generation, including nuclear, which supplied 56.4 per cent of Ontario’s generation.
Wind and solar frequently fail to produce any electricity and must be backed up by other generation, including gas and nuclear. That means Ontario must double up on plants to produce electricity to ensure reliability.
When wind and solar produce unneeded power they are paid not to produce or Ontario exports the surplus power at a cost to ratepayers, while spilling hydro and steaming off nuclear, and pay gas generators to be at the ready. In the first 10 months of 2013, electricity exports cost Ontario’s ratepayers $1.2 billion.
The climate crisis claimed by Environmental Defence is a tempest in a teapot and has been called that by scientists throughout the world, including many from Canada. The EU have recognized the economic costs of wind and solar, reducing subsidies and curtailing additions to those generation sources.
Ontario’s direction on energy is putting the province in a disadvantaged position as one of the highest-cost provinces. We are without the ability to attract energy intensive jobs because our electricity prices are among the highest in North America.
Ontario is a “have-not” province, and one of the reasons is our inane energy policies driven by false ideologies, perpetrated on our politicians by unscientific deities.
Vice-president, Wind Concerns Ontario
The appeal of one of two wind power projects in Ontario’s Algoma region has concluded; a ruling may not come down for months.
Appeal completed; ruling could take months
A decision into the appeal of the Goulais Wind Farm project may not be rendered until mid April.
An Environmental Review Tribunal heard arguments for more than two days earlier this week from opponents who don’t want to see a wind farm created in Goulais.
The appeal was filed by Heyden resident Doug Moseley with the assistance of Lake Superior Action Research Conservation (LSARC) and the law offices of Eric Gillespie. The appeal was also supported by the Save Our Algoma Region (SOAR) groups.
In October, it was announced that the Goulais Wind Farm project had been approved by the provincial government.
The decision, posted on the Ontario Environmental Registry, said the renewable energy approval has been issued to SP Development Limited Partnership to engage in a renewable energy project for a Class 4 wind facility that will have a total capacity of 25 MW.
The 11-wind turbine facility must be built and operational within three years.
But opponents argued that the industrial wind turbines are harmful to human health and disruptive and destructive to the natural environment and wildlife habitat.
They also argued that the wind turbines contribute to the rising cost of electricity and are totally unnecessary to produce clean energy in Ontario.
Involved parties will file their final written submissions to the tribunal by Jan. 20 and a decision on the appeal is expected to be made before April 22.
Read the full story here.
This story is interesting because of the acoustician’s findings and also, the opinion from Ontario’s own HGC and Brian Howe.
‘The only way you can build wind power in Michigan is to inflict harmful noise levels on people’
Local officials and Consumers Energy are at odds over whether a wind plant located south of Ludington meets safety standards.
Those living close to the wind plant continue to be exposed daily to the turbines and their apparent negative impact on health and quality of life.
Allegations that Lake Winds Energy Plant has significant safety issues are not new. On April 1, area residents filed a lawsuit claiming noise, vibrations and flickering lights generated by the 56 turbine facility are adversely impacting their health. Dizziness, sleeplessness and headaches are among the symptoms noted in the lawsuit.
Less than six months later, on Sept. 12, Mason County’s Planning Commission determined that the wind plant is not in compliance with safety guidelines. That decision is being appealed to the Mason County Board of Appeals by Consumers Energy, which has a huge investment in the $250 million wind facility.
Two separate reviews support the planning commission’s contention that the wind plant is out of compliance.
One study was conducted by Rand Acoustics of New Brunswick, Maine, in June 2011, which was more than a year before the wind plant went into operation. It was prepared at the request of Cary Shineldecker, who lives near the wind farm with his family. Shineldecker is now among the Mason County residents involved in the lawsuit. He and his wife said they sleep in the basement of their house to escape from the turbine noise.
Read the full story here.
Energy consultant Andy Frame, writing in The Hamilton Spectator, says that Ontario’s problems run far far deeper than OPG and some high-salaried employees: Ontario’s power system is a disaster, he says—firing a couple of execs will do nothing.
Hydro rates: The wrong target got zapped
Read the full story here.
This letter was sent to Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli yesterday by PC Energy Critic Lisa MacLeod, MPP for Nepean-Carleton. If you want to help, write to your MPP, and ask that he or she add his or her voice to Lisa’s, and demand justice for the citizens of Ontario. Here is the letter.
Here from Bayshore Broadcasting, a report on the first official day of the Armow Environmental Review Tribunal hearing. The audio clip is of engineer William Palmer.
Health Effects at Wind Turbine Tribunal
| There is audio for this story.
click to open MP3 version
Retired engineer Bill Palmer was the subject of questioning by counsel for the Director, Ministry of the Environment, Danielle Meuleman and counsel for the Approval Holder, Samsung Pattern, Sarah Powell and appellant counsel Asha James.
Palmer says after the submissions from the three parties, the tribunal reserved judgement as to whether or not Palmer can testify as an expert.
The MOE and Samsung Pattern have concerns in that area.
Palmer says he’s asked to be qualified as a professional engineer to testify about the public safety and acoustic issues that will relate to the Armow project.
Earlier in the day, the tribunal dismissed any effort to exclude medical evidence that wasn’t backed up by formal medical diagnosis.
ERT Chair Marcia Valiante said witnesses could testify to personal health effects and symptoms but they could not draw conclusions from those events.
Appellate lawyer Asha James says she believes the tribunals decision is the correct one.
The hearings come as a result of an appeal by Ken and Sharon Kroeplin who charge the Armow wind project could be a major threat to their health.
The Kroeplins say one of the more than 90 turbines to be constructed will be within 600 metres of their home.
The hearings are continuing today and an additional three weeks have been set aside in January, beginning on the 6th.
The Armow Wind project was approved by the province in October.
From Niagara This Week.
Residents fear turbines will impact gas wells
Distribution lines pose no threat says engineer
Grimsby Lincoln News