Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli will release Ontario’s new Long Term Energy Plan today at Queen’s Park, sometime after 1 PM.
The question is, will the government continue its push for expensive wind power for which there was NEVER a cost-benefit analysis done, and which has not produced the thousands of jobs promised, not delivered power, and which has caused electricity rates to rise dramatically, affecting business and consumers alike?
Check back here analysis and comments.
Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli will release Ontario’s new Long Term Energy Plan today at Queen’s Park, sometime after 1 PM.
Here from The Windsor Star, a project that has been refused at the application stage by the Ministry of the Environment.
LaSalle wind turbine project axed
Residents delighted with development
Julie Kotsis, The Windsor Star
Published: Saturday, November 30, 2013
The Ministry of the Environment has rejected a plan to install two industrial wind turbines in rural LaSalle according to opponents of the project.
“(Our lawyer) informed us that (property owner Larry) Pajot would not be putting them up,” said Tim Parent, a member of Residents Against Industrial Wind Turbines. “I’m very happy … that it’s been rejected.”
“The reason I bought this place was because of the privacy and the views,” said a relieved Parent.
The controversial wind turbine project was opposed by the group of LaSalle residents who collected over 400 signatures on a petition in opposition to the project.
Parent and others also launched a $10-million lawsuit against wind company River Canard Energy Inc. and Pajot Farms Ltd., the landowner, through Toronto-based lawyer Eric Gillespie.
The residents said they feared their property values would decrease or that they would be unable to sell their properties if the two proposed 500kW turbines were installed on farmland off Disputed Road.
The group also sought an injunction to stop the project.
“Our lawyer says our lawsuit has stopped him from going ahead but then we get this other information from the ministry,” Parent said, referring to a notice that the applications had been turned down.
“During our review of the company’s proposals, It was determined that they didn’t meet our ministry requirements,” said MOE spokeswoman Kate Jordan.
Jordan would give no further details.
When reached Friday, property owner Larry Pajot said he was unaware of the ministry’s decision. “Is that right? I didn’t know anything about that,” Pajot said.
Asked if he would try to go ahead with the projects or address whatever the problems were with the applications, Pajot said “Like I said, I just found out. I don’t know what to say right now.
“So I guess the best thing is I don’t have anything to say.”
In Sept. 2012, Micah Jarvis, an energy services manager for Kitchener-based Mindscape Innovations, was the spokesman for the River Canard Energy group but Friday he refused comment saying, “we’re no longer involved with that project. “I’m afraid I’m not going to be able to help you today,” Jarvis said.
MOE’S Jordan said River Canard Energy had submitted separate applications for two wind turbines. One was refused by the ministry in late October and one was deemed incomplete and returned. “Neither of those proposals can move forward,” Jordan said, adding that the company could submit a new proposal but there is no appeal allowed on the two rejected applications.
© Windsor Star 2013
|Ontario: the once great province now in energy poverty|
Ontario is now one of the most expensive jurisdictions for power in the world. How is it affecting Ontario’s citizens and businesses?
Listen in to this hour-long podcast of Tom Adams as a guest on CBC Radio’s Ontario Today.
Warning: the stories of people who can;t feed their children, whose businesses are on shaky ground, and seniors who may not be able to keep their homes, are very moving.
Energy poverty? It’s here.
And read more Tom Adams here
As if Ontario’s financial news couldn’t be worse, it is: CCL Industries announces it is closing its plant in Penetang.
Penetang factory closure to put 170 out of work
CCL Industries to wind up local operations by mid-2015
Environmental Defence will play host tomorrow at a media event featuring U.S. businessman and former vice-president Al Gore and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.
The event announcement is here: http://environmentaldefence.ca/articles/media-advisory-former-us-vice-president-al-gore-and-ontario-premier-kathleen-wynne-mark-cli
Here from Sunmedia columnist Lorrie Goldstein, an analysis of Ontario’s completely daft energy policy, or lack of same…
Ontario’s Liberal government is making up its energy policy on the fly, for its own political ends
By Lorrie Goldstein ,Toronto Sun
In explaining why Ontario’s Liberal government scrapped its previous intention to build two new nuclear reactors, Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli offered up that the province now has a “comfortable surplus” of electricity.
That’s a strange way of describing the decimation of Ontario’s manufacturing sector — in part due to the uber-high electricity rates the Liberals have contributed to with their insane rush into expensive and unreliable wind and solar power.
Indeed, the main reason Ontario now has a “comfortable surplus” of electricity — whereas a mere decade ago we were worried about shortages and rolling brownouts — is not because our supply is better but because our economy is worse.
Simply put, when there are fewer manufacturers producing fewer goods, electricity demand goes down.
If and when our manufacturing sector recovers, electricity demand will rise again, and that’s when we’ll need adequate sources of it if we’re not to return to the dire situation of just 10 years ago when Ontario was routinely described as “power starved” by energy experts.
That’s what makes the decision of Premier Kathleen Wynne to reverse the policy of her predecessor Dalton McGuinty, on the issue of nuclear power inexplicable, at least if we’re talking about common sense versus politics.
Simply put, nuclear power is the backbone of Ontario’s electricity sector and has been for more than four decades.
Last year, nuclear power supplied 56% of Ontario’s electricity needs. Every time you turn on a light switch in this province, chances are better than one out of two the reason your light goes on is nuclear.
As I’m writing this article on Friday afternoon, nuclear power is providing 69% of Ontario’s electricity needs, or 10,709 megawatts out of a total system demand of 15,595 megawatts.
By comparison, the Liberals’ heavily subsidized and unreliable darling, wind power, is providing 4% (630 megawatts). Solar contributes so little power to the grid it’s not even worth mentioning.
Contrary to what the Wynne government would like you to believe, nuclear power isn’t an unpleasant afterthought when it comes to meeting our energy needs.
It’s the workhorse and if it isn’t properly looked after and maintained, the whole system will come crashing down on our heads when we need electricity the most.
Further, nuclear power doesn’t emit pollution or greenhouses gases. If 69% of Ontario’s electricity needs were being met by coal today instead of nuclear, Toronto would like Beijing on many days.
The McGuinty-Wynne Liberals, who in 2003 promised to phase out Ontario’s coal use by 2007, now promise to do it by 2014.
But, contrary to their absurd propaganda, they aren’t replacing coal with wind.
Wind power can’t replace coal because it can’t provide base-load power to the grid on demand, and, ironically has to be backed up by natural gas power in Ontario.
What the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals are actually doing is replacing coal power with natural gas which emits less pollution and greenhouse gases.
McGuinty let that Liberal secret out of the bag, when, in defending his decision to cancel the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants prior to the 2011 election he said, “We got 17 gas plants more or less right, but we got two very, very wrong.” In other words, the Liberals have been building gas plants like stink to replace coal, except in Mississauga and Oakville, where it would have cost them five Liberal seats.
So there, they cancelled them, at a public cost of up to $1.1 billion. Meanwhile they imposed expensive and unreliable wind turbines on rural Ontario, despite widespread community opposition.
If you’re getting the idea this is no way to run an electricity system, and that the Liberals are making their decisions on the fly and for their own political benefit, rather than on the basis of logic or common sense, then you understand their energy policies perfectly.
Chiarelli says the Liberals will unveil a long-term energy plan later this year which will include the refurbishment of a couple of existing nuclear reactors, but which will de-emphasize nuclear power.
In so doing, the Liberals will again be ignoring the advice of their own experts, who have told them to maintain and expand nuclear power as the backbone of Ontario’s electricity system.
Instead, the Liberals have thrown in their lot with radical greens, many of them leftovers from the 1960s, who still associate nuclear power with nuclear war and who wax hysterical about Fukushima and Chernobyl, which have nothing to do with the safety record of nuclear power in Ontario.
And we’ll be paying for their mistakes for generations to come.
Tom Adams interview with CBC North.(It’s a bit jumpy in spots, you may find.)
Adams explains the concept of surplus power in Ontario and what the government is doing with it … and your money.
From SooToday reaction to the Ontario government’s approval of the Goulais Bay wind power project.
Goulais wind farm approved, opponents consider next steps
Saturday, October 12, 2013 by: Darren Taylor
The Save Ontario’s Algoma Region (SOAR) group is clearly disappointed with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) October 4, 2013 decision to approve construction of the Goulais Wind Farm project.
A Renewable Energy Approval (REA) has been given to SP Development Limited Partnership to build, install, operate and eventually retire a renewable energy facility, consisting of 11 wind turbines , with a total capacity of 25 MW, in the unorganized Townships of Pennefather and Aweres.
The wind facility will be connected to Great Lakes Power’s distribution system.
The REA comes with a long list of conditions, which include requiring SP Development Limited to construct and install the facility within three years of the date of approval, compliance with the MOE’s noise emission limits, keep an eye on storm water management, sediment and erosion during and after construction, the effect of the project on wildlife (such as birds and bats), establish a community liaison committee with members of the public, and properly decommissioning of the facility upon its retirement.
SOAR’s Executive Member and spokesperson Gillan Richards, in an e-mail to SooToday.com, stated: “SOAR and Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) will now consider what action to take in response to the Goulais Project Approval.”
The group, if it decides to file an application to appeal the MOE’s Goulais Wind Farm project approval, must do so within 15 days.
SOAR has long been opposed to the project, and has maintained that the whirring of wind turbines, for example, is detrimental to human health, and that the presence of more wind farms in Algoma would be an all-round disruption to the environment and wildlife in the area.
Also ranking high among the group’s concerns is that, in its view, the project will create an eyesore on the area’s famous Group of Seven landscape, disturbing “the natural beauty of Algoma from industrial intrusion.”
SOAR states the public in general has never been keen on wind turbine developments, claiming “Algoma residents and visitors are already annoyed and dismayed by the intrusion of the Prince Wind Farm turbines.”
SOAR has also long insisted not enough public input has been gathered from the province and the developer regarding the Goulais Wind Farm project (along with other wind projects, proposed by other developers, for the Algoma region).
The group agrees with criticism from The Fraser Institute (a Canadian think tank based in Vancouver) that forecasts Ontario’s energy prices will increase dramatically (40 to 50 percent) in coming years, putting the blame for that on the use of wind and solar farms, and insisting that wind turbines are simply inefficient in producing electricity.
SOAR agrees with critics who state Ontario could have gone with cheaper alternatives, such as natural gas or nuclear power, when it sought to move away from coal-fired plants and brought in the Green Energy Act in 2009.
The Ontario government has said the Green Energy Act, despite higher costs for electricity, will ensure “cleaner” electricity for future generations.
Here from The Sachem and Glanbrook Gazette, resident Betty Ortt writes a letter to the editor. We point out again that the Auditor General for Ontario noted in 2011 that NO cost-benefit analysis or business case was ever prepared for wind power in Ontario, and the impacts–both social and economic–have NEVER been assessed by the Ontario government.
Don’t taint my fond memories
A wind project is not a farm. A real farm produces food to feed our population and real farmers are stewards of their land. That name was coined by wind developers to make Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) sound acceptable to a farming community. The only thing turbines have to do with a farm is that they are taking up farmland. They are clearly industrial. Don’t taint my fond memories of being raised on a farm.
The article said that they are sending “about” 124.4 mega watts (MW) of power to the grid. The descriptor “about” is definitely needed when production will be a far cry from that.
According to the Auditor General’s 2011 Annual Report: “We analyzed the performance of all wind farms in Ontario in 2010 based on IESO data. Although the average capacity factor of wind throughout the year was 28 per cent, it fluctuated seasonally, from 17 per cent in the summer to 32 per cent in the winter.”
One recent production example of NextEra’s project in Haldimand was Friday, October 4, 2013 when the IESO hourly generator report showed a range of 0-13 MW being produced each hour, far from 124 MW.
As to the jobs wind projects create, as we saw in the article, the permanent jobs are few (seven) and other jobs were short term as we warned council in September 2011 when they passed the Vibrancy Fund agreement after hearing over 40 speakers until near midnight and much to the disgust of a packed council building.
Mr. Hewitt once said that we would lose our passion of fighting the turbine issue after the last provincial election, but he was wrong. Council gave up.
As to the economic benefits to the county, those too are short term. Did the CEO consider the economic losses to Haldimand? Our county is now contributing to the economic poverty of our province because of the government’s Green Energy Act with electricity prices that will keep going up and now property value losses. How much are short term economic benefits worth when some people and animals in Haldimand are already having health effects since the first project of turbines started up?