Wind farms: more expensive than we thought

Sun, wind and drain

Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought

SUBSIDIES for renewable energy are one of the most contested areas of public policy. Billions are spent nursing the infant solar- and wind-power industries in the hope that they will one day undercut fossil fuels and drastically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere. The idea seems to be working. Photovoltaic panels have halved in price since 2008 and the capital cost of a solar-power plant—of which panels account for slightly under half—fell by 22% in 2010-13. In a few sunny places, solar power is providing electricity to the grid as cheaply as conventional coal- or gas-fired power plants.

But whereas the cost of a solar panel is easy to calculate, the cost of electricity is harder to assess. It depends not only on the fuel used, but also on the cost of capital (power plants take years to build and last for decades), how much of the time a plant operates, and whether it generates power at times of peak demand. To take account of all this, economists use “levelised costs”—the net present value of all costs (capital and operating) of a generating unit over its life cycle, divided by the number of megawatt-hours of electricity it is expected to supply.

The trouble, as Paul Joskow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has pointed out, is that levelised costs do not take account of the costs of intermittency.* Wind power is not generated on a calm day, nor solar power at night, so conventional power plants must be kept on standby—but are not included in the levelised cost of renewables. Electricity demand also varies during the day in ways that the supply from wind and solar generation may not match, so even if renewable forms of energy have the same levelised cost as conventional ones, the value of the power they produce may be lower. In short, levelised costs are poor at comparing different forms of power generation.

To get around that problem Charles Frank of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, uses a cost-benefit analysis to rank various forms of energy. The costs include those of building and running power plants, and those associated with particular technologies, such as balancing the electricity system when wind or solar plants go offline or disposing of spent nuclear-fuel rods. The benefits of renewable energy include the value of the fuel that would have been used if coal- or gas-fired plants had produced the same amount of electricity and the amount of carbon-dioxide emissions that they avoid. The table summarises these costs and benefits. It makes wind and solar power look far more expensive than they appear on the basis of levelised costs.

Mr Frank took four sorts of zero-carbon energy (solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear), plus a low-carbon sort (an especially efficient type of gas-burning plant), and compared them with various sorts of conventional power. Obviously, low- and no-carbon power plants do not avoid emissions when they are not working, though they do incur some costs. So nuclear-power plants, which run at about 90% of capacity, avoid almost four times as much CO{-2} per unit of capacity as do wind turbines, which run at about 25%; they avoid six times as much as solar arrays do. If you assume a carbon price of $50 a tonne—way over most actual prices—nuclear energy avoids over $400,000-worth of carbon emissions per megawatt (MW) of capacity, compared with only $69,500 for solar and $107,000 for wind.

Nuclear power plants, however, are vastly expensive. A new plant at Hinkley Point, in south-west England, for example, is likely to cost at least $27 billion. They are also uninsurable commercially. Yet the fact that they run around the clock makes them only 75% more expensive to build and run per MW of capacity than a solar-power plant, Mr Frank reckons.

To determine the overall cost or benefit, though, the cost of the fossil-fuel plants that have to be kept hanging around for the times when solar and wind plants stand idle must also be factored in. Mr Frank calls these “avoided capacity costs”—costs that would not have been incurred had the green-energy plants not been built. Thus a 1MW wind farm running at about 25% of capacity can replace only about 0.23MW of a coal plant running at 90% of capacity. Solar farms run at only about 15% of capacity, so they can replace even less. Seven solar plants or four wind farms would thus be needed to produce the same amount of electricity over time as a similar-sized coal-fired plant. And all that extra solar and wind capacity is expensive.

A levelised playing field

If all the costs and benefits are totted up using Mr Frank’s calculation, solar power is by far the most expensive way of reducing carbon emissions. It costs $189,000 to replace 1MW per year of power from coal. Wind is the next most expensive. Hydropower provides a modest net benefit. But the most cost-effective zero-emission technology is nuclear power. The pattern is similar if 1MW of gas-fired capacity is displaced instead of coal. And all this assumes a carbon price of $50 a tonne. Using actual carbon prices (below $10 in Europe) makes solar and wind look even worse. The carbon price would have to rise to $185 a tonne before solar power shows a net benefit.

There are, of course, all sorts of reasons to choose one form of energy over another, including emissions of pollutants other than CO2 and fear of nuclear accidents. Mr Frank does not look at these. Still, his findings have profound policy implications. At the moment, most rich countries and China subsidise solar and wind power to help stem climate change. Yet this is the most expensive way of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Meanwhile Germany and Japan, among others, are mothballing nuclear plants, which (in terms of carbon abatement) are cheaper. The implication of Mr Frank’s research is clear: governments should target emissions reductions from any source rather than focus on boosting certain kinds of renewable energy.

* “The Net Benefits of Low and No-carbon Electricity Technologies“, by Charles Frank, Brookings Institution, May 2014

† “Comparing the Costs of Intermittent and Dispatchable Electricity-Generating Technologies“, by Paul Joskow,  Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 2011

From the print edition: Finance and economics

The Ontario government’s ‘bogus’ benefits: higher costs for citizens

Energy Minister Chiarelli: building Ontario UP with higher costs--works for me
Energy Minister Chiarelli: building Ontario UP with higher costs–works for me

Minister Chiarelli’s bogus benefits

Bob Chiarelli, Ontario Minister of Energy, made another  announcement about the energy sector and the Municipal Energy Plans or MEP.  Launched a year ago, the MEP has had five municipalities take the money from the Ministry to do Municipal Energy Planning. The relaunch offers $90,000 towards development of a plan, as did the last one.

The press release stated:  “These plans complement regional energy planning and help municipalities by focusing on unique community needs and goals.

There are 440 municipalities in Ontario and  yet, fewer than 1% of them jumped on Bob’s program, demonstrating meagre support for the ministry’s attempt to convince municipalities it has fixed their complaint about the Green Energy Act and the loss of local land-use planning. In fact, as we know, 85 municipalities have chosen to declare themselves Not A Willing Host to large-scale wind power generation projects — in other words, the “unwilling” outnumber the “willing” by a factor of 16:1! Most politicians would see this as some kind of message from the people, but not the Wynne-led Liberals!

Acceptance by those five municipalities of the grants cost ratepayers $450,000 but this pales next to the billions cost us from the other ideas crafted by ministers Duguid, Smitherman, Duncan, and Chiarelli and the guiding outsiders like Rick Smith (former ED of Environmental Defence), Kris Stevens (OSEA), Bruce Lourie (Ivey Foundation), to name a few.  Ratepayer money is shovelled into the pockets of mainly foreign wind and solar developers, while Ontario loses jobs and “energy poverty” grows rapidly.

Let’s compare what support goes towards the Liberal supporters, and who has had their support cut by Hydro One, PowerStream, Toronto Hydro, etc.

Where ratepayers and taxpayer money flows for the electricity sector:

$1.1 billion annually!  The minimum amount of money required to pay the salaries of the 10,800 employees at Hydro One and OPG that were on the 2014 “Sunshine List”

$483.4 million!  The money budgeted by the Ontario Power Authority for “Conservation” initiatives in 2014 to get us to install CFL bulbs, pick up that old fridge, etc.

$2.8 million!  Earnings of the top 5 executives at H1 for the year ended December 31, 2012

$2 million!  The average pension benefit for one of the 10,800 Hydro One or OPG employees on the “Sunshine List” if they retire when they are 55 and live to 84 years old

$6.9 million!  What we are paying to erect meteorological stations to measure how much electricity wind turbines and solar panels might have produced so we can pay them for not producing

$3.5 billion!  What Ontario’s ratepayers are on the hook for to pay wind and solar developers for each year over the next 20 years to produce intermittent, unreliable power

$10 million!  What the Trillium Foundation handed out in grants in 2012 to environmental groups

$1.1 billion!  What ratepayers and taxpayers paid to move those two gas plants

$1 billion annually!  What ratepayers subsidize to export excess electricity

$6 million!  An estimate of what taxpayers and ratepayers have paid for the legal teams that the Ministry of the Environment use to defend their Renewable Energy Approvals

$5 billion!  What taxpayers will have paid to get the 10% reduction on electricity bills referred to as the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit to the end of 2015

$480 million annually!  What ratepayers paid in 2012 towards retirement plans for employees of OPG, H1, IESO and ESA according to the pension report that the Liberals hid until after the election

$1.6 billion!  What it cost to put “Big Becky” under Niagara Falls for marginal electricity

$2.6 billion!  What it will cost to build the Lower Mattagami expansion, that will deliver marginal electricity!

$400 million!  The approximate annual cost  “residential” ratepayers pick up in their electricity bills to provide a supplement to “large industrial user,” referred to as Class A customers.

This doesn’t include Ontario’s taxpayer and ratepayer contributions to the obscene waste that the Liberals have created in this portfolio, but if one totes up the annual costs it comes to  $9 to10 billion.  That money has achieved a very small increase in the province’s ability to generate electricity.  The wind and solar push should be recognized as the biggest waste in the above list — delivering marginal intermittent power at the wrong time of the day and year.  The model adopted by the Liberal government in Ontario has driven up electricity rates making Ontario  number 1 for electricity costs”.

The “fair society”?

The recently approved Budget had a section titled,   “Fostering a Fair Society” in which there was a subsection headed  “Cutting Electricity Costs”. The Budget brags about “Removing the Debt Retirement Charge from Residential Bills” but says nothing about eliminating the “Ontario Clean Energy Benefit,”   which increases the average electricity bill by over $115 annually and does nothing to foster a “fair society.”

If fairness means alleviating energy poverty, what has the government done? Well, it established the LEAP (low-income energy assistance program) which in 2012 handed out $3.9 million — money from ratepayers, actually, to assist low-income ratepayers whose power has been cut off by their local distribution companies! The Liberal government took almost $10 billion dollars from all Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers and returned $3.9 to help about 8,500 people.

On the other side of the balance sheet in the energy portfolio, ratepayer and taxpayer dollars made a lot of insiders in the wind and solar power industry very happy with huge subsidies for giant power projects: little benefit for great cost.

Parker Gallant

August 4, 2014

The opinions are those of the author.

Desecration of Ontario’s North by wind ‘farms’: needless

Radar

Lake Superior. Montreal River Weather Radar Station, upper right corner. Foreground, ridge where wind turbines will be places for Bow Lake Wind Farm.

Once again, we do not usually re-post from blogs but this is an excellent summary of the recent appeals of the Goulais Bay and Bow Lake power projects, together with excellent photography by Gary McGuffin.

An excerpt:

In Ontario there have been 20 appeals in opposition to industrial wind turbine farms brought before the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and 19 have been dismissed. An appeal by Prince Edward County Field Naturalists to kill the development of an industrial wind turbine farm on Ostrander Point was won before an ERT in July 2013. However, the decision has since been reversed by the Ontario Divisional Court and appellants are seeking an appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

George [Brown, of LSARC] commented, “The 240 Bow Lake appeal came close to winning. Based on the Ostrander Judicial Review decision the Tribunal found that in order to prove irreversible harm it was necessary for the appellant to know the size of the populations being harmed. Having found that the 240 appeal failed to prove irreversible harm the Tribunal declined to make a finding on the issue of serious harm, though it agreed with virtually all the arguments on bats submitted by the 240 appeal.

As a result the Tribunal imposed immediate and more stringent mitigation measures on the project – a tacit admission that species-at-risk bats would otherwise be killed, which would be a serious harm.

The Tribunal’s decision is peculiar in that it allows these more stringent mitigation measures to be rescinded should they prove effective. Had the MNR required, or done, a baseline study, or had the 240 appeal had the time and money to do one, to determine the size of existing bat species populations in the project area, we would perhaps have had the final piece of the puzzle required to win.” …

Read the full post here.

Wind farm noise complaints trigger MoE investigation

The wind “farm” or, as we prefer it, wind power generation project, in Brinston Ontario, is the first wind power plant to have 3-megawatt turbines operating … but not for long. Many of the other power projects such as those at Bluewater and in the Niagara Region are specified to have 3-megawatt turbines. Ontario still does not have any protocol for measuring infrasound or low-frequency noise (LFN) which these machines produce.

It is worth noting that Brinston has about 400 homes within 2 km of the wind power project and its 3-MW turbines; in the Niagara Region there will be 4,500 homes, and in Bluewater, more than 2,000.

Here is a report from Brinston where the turbines have been operating for only four months.

Noise complaints lead to monitoring

by Sandy Casselman, Winchester Press

BRINSTON – It has been more than six months since the blades of the South Branch Wind Farm turbines began to spin, leaving more than one nearby resident with some sleepless nights.

“I call when it gets to the point I can’t tolerate it anymore and I go to the basement [to sleep],” Brinston resident Leslie Disheau, former president of the South Branch Wind Opposition Group, said. “It is an issue and
I’m not the only person in town with the issue.”

Disheau, who is running for the Municipality of South Dundas’ deputy-mayor seat in this fall’s municipal election, has been staying close to home since the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) installed noise-monitoring equipment at her Brinston Road property last week.

“MOE contacted me and asked if they could put this noise monitoring equipment up,” Disheau said.

The two pieces of equipment measure wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, rainfall, and more, she said.

She has submitted three separate noise complaints so far. Every complaint must be filed with EDP Renewables’ project leader Ken Little and local MOE representative Terry Forrester to be officially registered.

During EDP’s first open community liaison meeting in March, a Brinston man spoke out about his own sleep disturbances, suggesting the turbines be shut off for a period during the early hours of the morning, beginning around midnight. At that time, Little confirmed that there had been one official complaint already registered. He also said an acoustic audit had been ordered, which he expected to get underway within two months of the meeting.

“EDP has not released their post-construction noise audit report,” Disheau said during an interview with the Winchester Press Fri., July 18.

In conversation with one of the MOE officials who installed the equipment, Disheau said she learned that the provincial authority also had not seen a report from EDP.

“They can take a long as they want,” she said, crediting the Green Energy Act with the responsibility for not specifying a deadline. “There is a 40-decibel limit [on the noise the turbines can make], and we have no idea if they’re in the threshold or not.”

To describe what the sound is like, she used Highway 401 versus airplane noise as an example, pointing out that the highway noise is more of a hum, and when she lived near it, the sounds did not bother her at all.
However, the turbines produce something more in line with the “drone of an airplane that goes into your head,” she said. “It’s a deeper tone, and that’s where you get the disturbance of sleep.”

Explaining the noise and its effects on her is not easy, she said, but it is similar to the sensation people get in their chest when listening to bass guitar.

Disheau said she explained her experiences to MOE’s acoustical engineer, adding that the sensations are at their worst when the blade tips of the turbine across the road (south of Brinston) and the one to the north behind her home (west of Brinston) are facing one another.

“The acoustical engineer said ‘yes, that it all makes sense,’ ” Disheau added. “This is not normal. You should not be in sleep disturbance in your own house.”

Meanwhile, Disheau is the only one in her home experiencing the effects of the rotating blades, as her husband, who shares the second-storey bedroom on the home’s vinyl-sided addition, is tone deaf, and her children sleep on the first floor of the brick-sided main house.

The noise-monitoring equipment is controlled by a switch, which has been placed inside Disheau’s home. When she notices the noise, she flips the switch and the machinery calculates and documents the findings.

“Once everything is taken down, the ministry guy goes through [the recordings] and writes his report,” she said, which will list the decibel readings for various weather conditions (wind speed and direction).

When asked what she hopes to accomplish through this procedure, Disheau said the findings could require that EDP shut down operations during specific times of the day or during specific wind conditions should they prove the decibel levels exceed the regulated amount.

 

TERMINATED: Big Thunder Wind Park wind farm dead?

 

Image result for Big Thunder Wind Park

Simulation of Big Thunder

The news this morning, via Tom Adams of Tom Adams Energy, is that the Ontario Power Authority announced the termination of several Feed In Tariff contracts, among them the Big Thunder Wind Park.

See the OPA list of contracts ended here.

Big Thunder is the subject of several legal actions, including that by the Fort William First Nations; the First Nation claims there was not adequate consultation for this project with their people. Other concerns have been raised over the years about environmental damage and the potential to kill fragile wildlife populations. Full approval of the project was put off until after the recent Ontario election.

More news on this as we receive it.

Horizon

Wind farms kill, harm bats: Queens U Belfast

Deadly wind farms give bats “the bends” study says

Western Morning News, July 23, 2014

Bats suffer from an airborne version of the diver’s condition known as “the bends” when they fly too near wind turbines, experts have claimed.

Concern for the welfare of the creatures has already prompted dozens of challenges to schemes in the Westcountry.

The RSPB lodged an objection against Somerset’s first multi-turbine wind farm at West Huntspill – which is was eventually dismissed by the Secretary of State but is now subject to a High Court appeal by developers Ecotricity.

The bird charity claimed it was in a “flight path” for birds and bats which could hit the rotor blades.

Now Queen’s University Belfast has unearthed another potential problem, namely that pressure from the turbine blades causes a similar condition as that experienced by divers when the surface too quickly.

Conservationists have warned that the bodies of bats are frequently seen around the bases of turbines, but it was previously assumed they had flown into the blades.

Dr Richard Holland claims that bats suffer from “barotrauma” when the approach the structures which can pop their lungs from inside their bodies.

He said energy companies should consider turning off turbines when bats are migrating.

“We know that bats must be “seeing” the turbines, but it seems that the air pressure patterns around working turbines give the bats what’s akin to the bends.

“It’s most common in migratory species, with around 300,000 bats affected every year in Europe alone. You just find bats dead at the bottom of these turbines. One option is to reduce turbine activity during times of peak migration.”

The team at Queen’s University also found that bats use polarised light to navigate as well as echo-location.

Greater mouse-eared bats were shown to react to the way the sun’s light is scattered in the atmosphere at sunset in order to calibrate their internal magnetic compass, in a study published in the journal Nature Communications.

Researchers said a huge number of animals including bees, dung beetles and fish use this system as a form of compass, but bats are the first mammals to do so. They said they remained baffled as to how bats achieve this feat.

The finding adds to a growing list of systems used by bats to navigate including echolocation or sonar, the sun, stars and the Earth’s magnetic field, as well as smells and sight.

Stefan Greif of Queen’s University, lead author of the study, said: ‘”Every night through the spring, summer and autumn, bats leave their roosts in caves, trees and buildings to search for insect prey.

“They might range hundreds of kilometres in a night*, but return to their roosts before sunrise to avoid predators. But, until now, how they achieved such feats of navigation wasn’t clear.” …
Read more at http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Deadly-wind-farms-bats-bends-new-study-shows/story-21747338-detail/story.html#HF6ziRzRtjOVUTaV.99

Editor’s note: the Ministry of Nothing Refused—er, Natural Resources in Ontario requires that wind power developers only measure bat ranges a few meters from turbine locations, not the hundreds of kilometers the animals actually travel.  But in the words of the Ministry of Environment’s lawyer Sylvia Davis, “so a few animals are killed and a few people get headaches…wind power is an important public infrastructure project.”

Central Bruce residents file complaint: impending disaster at K2 wind farm

"Lake K2"
“Lake K2”

Yesterday, residents of Central Bruce and the Central Bruce Wind Action community group, filed a letter with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario, regarding serious environmental issues associated with the K2 wind power project in Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh.

The letter, which was accompanied by almost 300 signatures from local residents, details the fact that issues concerning the danger to the water table and municipal water supply were raised repeatedly during the comment and approval process for the 270-megawatt power facility. K2 is being developed by a consortium of Capital Power, Samsung, and Pattern Energy.

The letter states: “In 2011 a K2 employee, Mr. David Harrelson, advised of close to surface aquifers at the substation site. Their presence is verified by Well Record A029342 from June 20, 2006. The well records from the site specifically make mention of the ground water table at one foot (12 inches) below surface. The MoE in Owen Sound had documentation in mid-2011 regarding the water issues at this site. The Approvals Branch of the MoE was notified and provided with this information as well.”

Almost immediately upon commencing construction for K2, the land became flooded, with water spilling into municipal drains and ditches; the water was so significant that locals branded it “Lake K2” and the developers had to post a warning sign, complete with a lifesaver attached. The developer is now trucking water from the site.

Clearly, the Central Bruce letter writers state, the documents filed with the application for K2 were incomplete, and important issues not considered by the Ministry of the Environment.

The letter concludes with the demand that K2’s approval be revoked, given its basis on incomplete and inaccurate documentation: “It is not for the residents of Ontario to bear any repercussions from an incomplete REA Application. K2’s application was incomplete. Given the current situation, we question the terms under which the REA was granted. The approval was premised on inadequate and unsupported information. We are therefore requesting that the Renewable Energy Approval for the K2 Wind Ontario Inc. project in Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh be revisited and revoked.”

You may view the letter here: Letter to Agatha Garcia-Wright – July 19, 2014-1

Letter to WCO from Premier Wynne

Received by email today, a response to our letter of June 19.:

Thank you for taking the time to share your kind words of congratulation. It is an honour and a privilege to continue serving this great province as Premier.

I have noted your comments on behalf of Wind Concerns Ontario and have shared a copy of your correspondence with my colleague the Honourable Glen Murray, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, for his information.

My colleagues and I are committed to building a brighter future for all the people of Ontario. We understand that being fiscally responsible is fundamental to our future, and that building a fair and inclusive society is at the heart of a more prosperous Ontario. These are the principles that will guide us as we work with you, and all our partners, to make Ontario a better place to live, work and raise a family.

When it comes to building opportunity for the people of Ontario and securing our province’s future and well-being, my colleagues and I want to hear everyone’s voice and listen to everyone’s input. That is why I am grateful for your ideas and suggestions.

Thank you again for your kind words. Please accept my best wishes.

 

Kathleen Wynne
Premier of Ontario

Wind farm battle won, war continues

Note the role that a property value guarantee played in the developer’s decision to take the path of least resistance (that’s because they CAN’T guarantee a drop in property value).

Wind shifts focus in Tipton County

By Martin Slagter, July 13 2014,  Kokomo Tribune

The wind died considerably in the northwestern portion of Tipton County last week, leaving the perfect break in the weather for remonstrators of wind farm development in the county to celebrate.

Following 11 months of litigation, Colorado-based juwi Wind will no longer pursue plans to develop Prairie Breeze Wind Farm, a project that would have included 94 wind turbines in Prairie and Liberty townships while investing $300 million in the project.

The turbines that countless members of the public have referred to as “offensive” will remain off of farm property and away from those who claim the structures are too loud while reducing property values.

No matter which side of the aisle residents have been on, Tipton County Commissioner Joe VanBibber described juwi’s decision not to build as “a closure to a difficult time in the community.”

Ultimately, the new stipulations put in place by the Tipton County Board of Zoning Appeals proved to be the biggest contributing factor in juwi’s project not coming to fruition.

Juwi’s lawsuit alleged the BZA had exceeded its authority by increasing the distance wind turbines had to be from property lines and requiring a property value guarantee plan to protect non-participating property owners in the project area.

While some have questioned whether local officials have had the best intentions of the public and landowners as wind energy has become the hot button issue in recent years, there can be little argument that the stipulations played a huge role in preventing the wind turbines from going up. juwi said the stipulations “effectively rendered the project impossible to build.”

VanBibber said he believed juwi “no longer wants to do business in that environment.”

So what type of development is appropriate for the county moving forward?

With one wind farm backing out in the county, attention will no doubt shift back to E.ON’s Wildcat Wind Farm, which still has plans to build a second phase of turbines in center of the county. …

Read the full story here.

Wind turbines ordered removed at Chatham-Kent airport

Kirk Dickinson, July 6, 2014, Blackburn News

Transport Canada has issued an order for the removal of eight wind turbines near the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport by December 31, 2014.

Chatham-Kent Mayor Randy Hope says the municipality was surprised to learn that Transport Canada is demanding that the turbines be removed because of their proximity to the airport. He says two months ago, the municipality’s chief legal officer met with Transport Canada officials and proposed that the eight turbines be recognized as “exceptions.”

“I believe it’s ridiculous, there is an alternative that is there in front of (Transport Canada),” says Hope. “We’ve waited for months for them to reply to us, and they never replied, and came down with this order, which we don’t feel is right… We believe Transport Canada is just playing some politics with us.”

According to a media release from the municipality, this “simple solution” would be a one-time approval just for the eight turbines and would not affect the restriction of future construction near the airport.

Hope says multiple aeronautic consultants have stated the eight wind turbines do not impact airport operations or present any safety concerns for planes.

Hope says the municipality does not have a course of action regarding the order to remove the turbines, and that it is up to GDF Suez, the owner of the affected turbines, to file an appeal.

Read the full story and comments here.

RELATED STORY: MPP Pleased With Wind Turbine Removal Order

Editor’s note: GDF Suez’ CEO is Mike Crawley formerly of AIM PowerGen, and past president of both the Ontario and Canadian Liberal parties. His companies have gained contracts worth millions from the Ontario government.