Wind turbine failures “potentially serious,” need action for safety: municipal group

Skyway 8 turbine failed in July 2021. See debris to the left, including huge blade shard. Host municipalities are concerned about safety, and want regulations revised. [Photo: Louise Morfitt-Hall]

Wind farm approvals given by McGuinty and Wynne governments with no input from host communities: “mistakes were made”

January 19, 2022

The special interest task force created by a group on Ontario municipalities where wind power projects are operating has released a report to all Ontario municipalities. The report expresses concern about wind turbine failures and the apparent lack of government action. The Multi-Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group prepared the report and sent it to other municipalities a few weeks ago.

The document has information on  six “catastrophic failures” as engineers term them, that have occurred in Ontario, as well as the failure of a single turbine in New Brunswick. That event resulted in the wind “farm” operator undertaking a $100-million replacement of all turbine foundations.

The Working Group is concerned that there are no details available on the failures.

“There has been no public response from the provincial government that indicates these potentially serious incidents are being investigated, either in the context of public and/or workplace safety,” the report says.

Municipalities, even those where incidents have occurred, have received no information.

The Working Group consulted with several engineers and conducted its own review of the wind turbine failures. It appears there was a different cause for each event, i.e., no common factor in the equipment failures.

  • Bow River –Pictures suggest that tower collapse was linked to a bolt failure of tower sections.
  • Skyway 8 – Rotor failure occurred shortly after the installation of an experimental device.
  • Raleigh Wind – Published information from the project owner indicates that the tower collapse is related to a single blade failure. Marks on the tower suggest that the blade struck the tower.
  • Sumac Ridge – Blade fractures, no explanation available.
  • Kingsbridge 1 – Fire in the nacelle spread to the blades resulting in wide debris scatter.
  • Huron Wind – Blade failure with the location of the debris thrown by this failure highlighting the inadequacy of current setbacks from property lines.

Another recent incident in New Brunswick added to concerns, the group said:

  • Kent Hills, NB – Project operator linked the collapse of tower to a foundation failure.

The Working Group concluded: “the assessments of these situations increased our concern that action is required to formally investigate these incidents.  We believe they clearly demonstrate that the current setback distances are inadequate to protect the public and they will increase as tower heights and blade lengths increase.”

The Working Group recommended that the Ontario government:

  1. Establish a formal public process for investigations of wind turbine failures so that the cause can be firmly determined. These would involve third-party independent engineers starting with initial inspection procedures through to the public release of the final report;
  2. Complete comprehensive inspections of existing projects to identify any project that shows signs of similar weaknesses;
  3. Establish requirements for on-board predictive maintenance equipment for operating wind turbines to allow early identification of problems and establish protocols for information transfer to the MECP for review and sharing with the host municipality.
  4. Review the emergency response procedures submitted by the proponents of wind turbine projects as part of the approval process to ensure that the plans are current and responsive to the types of failures being experienced; and
  5. Increase the setbacks from property lines to a minimum of tower height plus blade length for new towers or repowering of existing sites to at least reflect the impact of a tower collapse while recognizing additional distances would be required to protect against ice throw and debris scatter like that seen in the Huron Wind failure where debris with the dimensions of a car were found 2.5 times the height of the tower plus blade length.

At the time the wind power projects were approved by the McGuinty and Wynne governments, municipalities had limited input to the process and to the details of the projects including setbacks from roadways and homes.

“Mistakes were made,” the Working Group says.

The Multi-Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group is asking all municipalities to write to David Piccini, minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks for Ontario to ask that action be taken for safety.

Wind Concerns Ontario, a coalition of community groups, families and individuals concerned about the negative impacts of grid-scale wind power projects, agrees with the recommendations.

“We have been urging the government to revise all the regulations pertaining to wind turbines,” says president Jane Wilson. “Ontario’s regulations were implemented in 2009 and have not been changed since then—we know a lot more about the noise emissions and the safety risk. We need change right now.”

Read the MMWTWG report here: MMWTWG Report on IWT failures

A story also appeared in the Dundalk Herald/Toronto Star on this issue.

contact@ windconcernsontario.ca

 

 

Wind power a no-show in Ontario cold snap

January 12, 2022

Monday and Tuesday this week saw the coldest temperatures yet for the winter season, with a low in Ottawa of -25 degrees C at 5 a.m.

Ontario’s demand for electricity was, as one would expect, high as people sought to keep warm: around noon, the demand was about 20,000 megawatts.

Where was wind power? At midday, Ontario’s more than 2,000 wind turbines were puffing out a mere 860 megawatts of power.

Near Ottawa, which the media dubbed “the world’s coldest capital,” the 100-megawatt Nation Rise wind power project stayed in the single digits of output, only getting to 8 megawatts of power in the late morning. In fact, a power worker sent a comment to Wind Concerns Ontario to say most of the Nation Rise wind turbines weren’t even spinning and appeared to have a coating of ice on the blades. Those that were spinning, he said, were likely taking power from the grid.

In short, when we needed it most, wind didn’t show up for work.

Today, with much milder temperatures, wind power has been spotted at the water cooler, putting out 3,400 megawatts this hour according to the IESO.

Overall demand is 18,154 megawatts.

None of this is a surprise, of course. Ontario is completely unsuited to wind power, as described by Marc Brouillette in his remarkable Commentary, Wind: Ontario’s High-Cost Millstone.

“Wind generation output is inherently intermittent as it depends on Mother Nature. For example, in 2015 Ontario’s wind farms operated at less than one-third capacity more than half (58%) the time. That means 70 per cent of wind energy was produced in the remaining 42 per cent of the time…Indeed, wind output over any three-day period can vary between zero and 90 per cent of capacity.”

He went on:

“Seasonally, Ontarians’ energy use is highest in winter and summer and lowest in spring and late fall. This is almost a mirror image of wind [power] production patterns”.[1]

In short, wind might be somewhat useful as part of a mix of power supply, but it cannot be relied upon.

Although there is a popular statement that wind replaced coal as a power source in Ontario, that is completely false: coal was replaced by nuclear and natural gas.

As not one but two Auditors General of Ontario suggested, wind power development should have been subjected to a thorough, independent cost-benefit analysis. If it had, there is no way it could stand up.

With two elections coming up in Ontario where several political parties actively promote new wind power development, and a very well financed campaign by the wind power lobby, it is important that the truth get out:

WIND DOESN’T WORK.

 

contact@windconcernsontario.ca

[1] Brouillette, M. 2017. Ontario’s High-Cost Wind Millstone. Council for Clean & Reliable Energy, p.1.

 

Ottawa “community” investor syndicate buys wind farm hundreds of kilometres away

A lot of extension cords will be needed to stretch from Bruce County to Oshawa and Ottawa for power from this “community” owned project [Shutterstock photo]

December 7, 2021

The Ottawa Renewable Energy Co-operative or OREC recently bought an Ontario wind turbine project, along with equity partner EnerFORGE, a subsidiary of Oshawa Power and Utilities Corporation, according to a news report.

The wind power project, which consists of a single 2.5-MW turbine, is in Bruce County. That is more than 500 km away from Ottawa, and more than 200 km from Oshawa, but the buyers claim this is an example of “local” ownership of renewable power facilities.

“OREC is excited to bring its co-operative ownership model to this wind turbine in partnership with EnerFORGE. Our co-operative is committed to welcoming members and investors from the surrounding communities and stay true to our principles of local ownership and continuing to diversify our growing renewable energy portfolio,” announced Graham Findlay, Vice President, OREC.

OREC, according to its website, is a “co-operative” of mainly local, i.e., Ottawa residents, but is actually open to anyone who wants to sign on as an investor. OREC claims to be a cooperative but is basically a syndicate of investors.

In a recent one-dimensional profile in Ottawa Magazine, OREC founder Dick Bakker freely admits his goal is to make money: “I’m not an environmentalist, I’m a businessperson.” While energy poverty surged in Ontario when the province got into wind and solar power with lucrative 20-year contracts* awarded to power developers and electricity bills more than doubled, Bakker himself got a contract for a solar power installation which he says has funded his retirement.

By “local” and “community,” OREC and Bakker don’t mean the communities where power projects such as wind turbine facilities are actually located.

The “community” aspect of investments is important, Bakker says in the Ottawa Magazine article, to fight local objectors, because “NIMBY is the enemy of all things environmental. NIMBYism will delay and shove more costs on big corporate projects.”

By wielding the “local” ownership sword, OREC—which is a “partner” with City of Ottawa in its Energy Evolution strategy, can undermine and overrule concerns expressed by actual residents of areas where power projects are proposed.

The partnership between an Ottawa investors group and the Oshawa power utility subsidiary is a sign of what’s ahead: large urban centres want to rack up brownie points for climate change action, but if that happens elsewhere, they’ll take it.

Ottawa city councillor Scott Moffatt, also chair of the city’s environmental protection committee, recently wrote in his column in the Manotick Messenger that projects outside the city boundaries will work for him.

“…a project outside of Ottawa can provide benefits that contribute to our Climate Change Master Plan.”**

Meanwhile, Ottawa and OREC still boast they want “local” ownership and “community” participation in power projects. With Ottawa’s Energy Evolution strategy goal of 3,200 megawatts of new power generation, that will be a lot of projects. In the model described in the Energy Evolution document, the prediction is for 710 industrial-scale wind turbines—that’s about one-third of the total number of turbines in Ontario at present.

The trend is clear: there is money to be made on renewables for some folks, and they justify their investments by waving the “green” it’s good for the environment flag, while industrializing communities without real input from the people who live there.

WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO

contact@windconcernsontario.ca

 

*Two Auditors General for Ontario have criticized these contracts as being above-market and done without cost-benefit analysis. Ontario lost billions on renewable energy contracts AG Bonnie Lysyk claimed in a report several years ago.

** Manotick Messenger, November 5, page 25.

Eminent physician blasts Ontario’s chief medical officer of health over wind turbine remarks

Remarks not worthy of the position he holds, says former federal public health official

Thousands of reports of wind turbine noise in Ontario, many with adverse health impacts, but public health doc ignores them [Shutterstock image]
December 5, 2021

“Arrogant” and insulting: that’s how Dr. Robert McMurtry, former Dean of Medicine at Western University and a former Assistant Deputy Minister of Health with Health Canada, describes comments made by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Kieran Moore, with regard to health concerns  about industrial-scale wind turbines and health impacts.

Dr. McMurtry wrote a letter to Premier Doug Ford, expressing concern and professional disappointment over remarks made by Dr. Moore during a news conference in September.

On September 29, Dr. Moore said, in response to questions about people spreading misinformation on COVID vaccines, that “there will always be a ‘vocal minority’ in opposition whether its WiFi, 5 G, or wind turbines or vaccines,” according to a Tweet made by CTV’s Colin D’Mello.

For Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health to equate vaccine misinformation with the reports of adverse health effects from wind turbine noise emissions is “inconsistent with the volumes of peer-reviewed research available that demonstrate serious harm to human health,” Dr. McMurtry wrote in his letter.

He also referred to the fact that Dr. Moore, while working in public health in Kingston, Ontario, testified against the citizen environmental group appealing the Ostrander Point wind power project, for the Ontario environment ministry.

“If Dr. Moore had taken the time to review the many studies and reports published on wind turbine effects it the past decade, it is highly unlikely he would have made the recent statement,” Dr. McMurtry said.

Instead, he demonstrated conduct unbecoming of a public health officer, McMurtry wrote. His remarks are a “gratuitous affront” and “not worthy of the position he holds”.

Dr. McMurtry has served as an advisor to many government commissions and was made a member of the Order of Canada in 2011.

Read Dr. McMurtry’s full letter here: RY McMurtry Letter to CMOH Dr Kieran Moore_November 22_2021

Wind Concerns Ontario also wrote a letter to Dr. Moore in October but has not received a response.

“High probability” of serious health effects from wind turbine noise emissions, say researchers

Government and public health authorities have failed to protect health, say researchers in a new paper published in Environmental Disease journal

 

Home in Huron County surrounded by turbines [Photo Gary Moon for WCO]
October 24, 2021

Wind power developers and their government supporters have long claimed that there is “no proof” of a link between wind turbine noise emissions and poor health. Yet concerns persist around the world, and there are many people who claim to have had their lives and health adversely affected by being forced to live near the wind power generators.

A new research paper published last week in the Environmental Disease journal concludes that “exposure to IWTs [industrial wind turbines] is associated with an increased risk of AHEs [Adverse Health Effects]. The analysis concludes that living or working near IWTs can result in AHEs in both people and animals.”

The paper addresses the fact that despite many thousands of complaints about noise and health effects around the world, research as yet to conclude a causal relationship between wind turbine noise and poor health. The authors employ a series of criteria developed by famed epidemiologist and statistician Sir Austin Bradford Hill in order to answer that question.

The result? The criteria for establishing a cause and effect relationship were met and the conclusion can be made that “exposure to IWTs is associated with an increased risk” of adverse health effects.

The authors cite studies from all around the world, including Shepherd in New Zealand, the Bridgewater study in Australian and numerous others, as well as papers produced by Wind Concerns Ontario on noise complaints filed with the Ontario government. One study was completed by two acoustics experts who became ill themselves while studying the noise emissions from a wind power project in the United States.

Most noise studies do not accurately measure wind turbine noise

“The vast majority of studies of sound from wind turbines do not accurately measure the presence of LFN [low frequency noise] or infrasound,” the authors said. “This failure of public health authorities and governments to monitor the impact of LFN and infrasound on exposed individuals impedes the proper interpretation of results and is not consistent with the WHO [World Health Organization] report “Guidelines for Community Noise’ that states: ‘When prominent low-frequency components are present, noise measures based on A-weighting are inappropriate’.”

A failure of government and public health authorities

The authors say with the “growing weight of evidence” and the “rapid proliferation of IWT installations globally” it is time for governments to act to protect public health.

“Preventive action should be taken and policies implemented that are more cautiously protective of public health, safety and welfare,” the authors conclude.

“More stringent regulation is needed to recognize, monitor, analyze, and document effects on the health of local residents and animals.”

More effective and precautionary setback distances should also be employed.

In Ontario, the regulations governing the approval and monitoring of industrial-scale wind turbines has not changed since 2009, and many aspects of the regulations still in force today were dictated to previous governments by the wind power lobby, including setback distances.

A statement by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health published in 2010 also has not been revised (though an update was developed in 2014 but never published). It continues to be used by Ontario medical officers of health as “proof” that there is no link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects, despite thousands of records of complaints held by the environment ministry.

contact@windconcernsontario.ca

 

Ontario’s top public health doc demeans citizens living with wind turbine noise

Dr. Kieran Moore: serious bias for a top public health official?

 

September 30, 2021

Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health was asked a question by media yesterday about disinformation on COVID vaccines to which he responded there will be a “vocal minority” in opposition whether it’s WIFI, 5G or wind turbines or vaccines.

He added that in a democracy, such opposition is appropriate.

But Dr. Moore, in lumping “wind turbines” with concerns about WiFi and 5G, appeared to be marginalizing such concerns and worse, demonstrating a confirmation bias—that’s a serious thing in a medical professional, and especially Ontario’s top public health official.

As an official with the Ontario government and a former Medical Officer of Health for Kingston Frontenac Lennox & Addington, he knows full well there have been thousands of complaints made in Ontario about wind turbine noise and health impacts. He must also be aware that the health ministry is currently carrying out a formal investigation of the polluted water wells in Chatham-Kent, thought to be associated with wind turbine construction an operation.

In fact, while Dr. Moore was Medical Officer of Health at KFL&A, his department conducted a brief review of the situation regarding wind turbine noise in 2011. It concluded:

The overall evidence-base can be further strengthened through the conduct of multiple studies that use both objective and subjective health outcome measures, measure sound directly, measure exposures and outcomes pre and post wind turbine installation, and consider vulnerable populations, such as children.

It is worth noting that none of these recommended studies have ever been done in Ontario, even ten years after that statement from KFL&A. The Chief Medical Officer of Health’s narrow (and now outdated) 2010 statement recommended noise measurement and studies of vulnerable populations—also not done, and that statement has never been updated, though the ministry pledged to do so.

The fact remains that the people who can afford to do the research don’t want it, and those who want it, can’t afford it.

Dr. Moore’s offhand statement about a small vocal minority is very worrying: of course the population concerned about wind turbines is small—it is a subset of a subset, a group within an already small population of rural residents in Ontario.

It is past time Ontario kept its promises to people forced to live inside and near wind power facilities: do the research, update the documents and processes, and enforce the regulations.

Contact@windconcernsontario.ca

From Twitter:

Colin D’Mello CTVNews

@ColinDMello

Ontario’s CMOH is asked whether the province should be more aggressive in combating vaccine misinformation: He says there will be a “vocal minority” in opposition whether it’s WIFI, 5G or wind turbines or vaccines. “In a democracy that is enabled and appropriate.” #onpoli

3:48 PM · Sep 29, 2021·Twitter Web App

Wind doesn’t work: court decision

Weather-dependent wind power doesn’t stack up against other power sources and results in higher costs, uncertain supply, Judge says

Wind power: not in the public interest, a judge says [Photo: D. Larsen for WCO]
September 13, 2021

A decision rendered by the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently determined that a natural gas power plant would better serve the public interest than a simultaneously proposed wind and solar power project.

In her decision, Judge Louise Dovre Borkman relied on information from the state’s public utilities analyst coordinator, who said that “wind and solar capacity does not always translate into available energy because those resources are unpredictable and uncontrollable—the wind is not always blowing and the sun is not always shining.”

A critical factor in the decision was a statement in Minnesota Statute §216B.2422, subsection 4(3)  saying that due to the “intermittent nature of renewable energy facilities” there could be an impact on the cost of energy.

“In fact,” the Judge wrote, “as Minnesota Power illustrated in its EnergyForward , the output from those resources can ebb significantly even over the course of a single day.

“When that happens, or customer demand increases, Minnesota Power must increase output from more reliable resources, like coal or natural gas generators, or purchase power on the regional market.”

The Judge noted testimony from a consulting expert on energy who said that adding more wind instead of natural gas would leave the power company “doubly vulnerable to market pricing, both to sell surplus energy into the market when prices are low and to buy energy when prices are high.”

The final conclusion was that a “wind or solar alternative is not in the public interest” because the costs are higher.

The reasoning didn’t mention Ontario’s disastrous experience with wind power but it might have: two Auditors General said Ontario’s electricity customers had lost billions. And unlike Minnesota which appears to have approached this with care and consideration, there was never any cost-benefit analysis.

The City of Ottawa is about to make the same mistake, with its Energy Evolution plan, putting forward wind, solar and battery storage as the sole solutions to producing energy for the future.

 

Latest wind turbine fail raises questions about Ontario regulations, safety

SPLAT! Catastrophic failure of turbine at Bow Lake Photo: Sault Online)

September 2, 2021

The failure of a wind turbine at the Bow Lake wind power facility near Sault Ste. Marie is raising questions about safety around the giant industrial structures and current Ontario regulations.

The collapse of the Bow Lake turbine is being investigated by the power facility operator, BluEarth Renewables, and there were no injuries associated with the event. However, as can be seen from the photo of the debris field, it is worth questioning what might have happened if the collapse had occurred on a farm property in southern Ontario.

Interviewed for the story in Sault Online , engineer Bill Palmer said “this incident is the 10th wind turbine failure in Ontario that has put the blades (and in this case all three of the 50 metre long blades for the failed turbine) onto the ground… this is the second collapse of a very similar GE wind turbine and the 6th case in Ontario in which GE turbines have put blades on the ground”.

Palmer has published numerous academic papers and appeared at international conferences on wind turbines and health and safety. He noted that his personal experience with a turbine failure showed that debris was flung more than 500 metres.

The Ontario regulation for setback between a wind turbine and a roadway or right of way is currently blade length plus 10 metres. In the case of the Nation Rise power project for example, that would be 79 metres or just 259 feet.

Just two months ago, a turbine failed in Southgate, just west of Toronto. The roadway nearby was closed for a week. No conclusions of the investigation into the event have been published to date.

“People who have never seen an actual modern wind turbine and who are familiar only with images from the wind power developers’ lobby group may not understand that these are industrial structures,” says Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario. “We are calling for an update to Ontario’s regulations for these power generators, for both safety and health. The current regulations are unchanged from 2009 and the McGuinty government, despite the fact turbines are growing more massive every year.

With the City of Ottawa calling for the installation of wind turbines as part of a Net Zero emissions strategy, more turbines could be on the way for Ontario.

“Government needs to act, now,” Wilson says.

Source: Wm Palmer PEng, published in Sault Online

 

The Green Energy Act is not gone

As long as old regulations for wind turbine noise and setbacks remain unchanged in Ontario, anger is not going anywhere

Why people are still angry: noise complaints and other problems still not dealt with in Ontario [Photo: D. Larsen for WCO]
September 1, 2021

Former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is reported to have said of citizens objecting to wind power projects in 2009: “They can’t stay mad forever”.

But, it seems they can.

Writer Tom Van Dusen explores this in the August 24 edition of Ontario Farmer and asks, why, when the Nation Rise power project has been approved and is now operating, after lost citizen appeals and even a court case, is the opposition to the project just as strong?

Why aren’t people just accepting of the 29 giant turbines, and getting on with their lives?

Why indeed?

Appeal process was a sham

For one thing, there is the sense of injustice about it all. Almost every single wind power project was appealed, before 2009 to the Ontario Municipal Board and after, when the Green Energy Act prescribed an appeal process before the Environmental Review Tribunal. Legal writers have described the task of appeal as almost impossible to win, the way the rules were set up. Instead of power developers having to prove there would be no harm, citizens, with limited time and resources, had to prove there would be.

Birds killed? Sure, Ontario said, but turbines would have to kill so many that entire species would be wiped out. Impossible. (Except when it came to turtles…)

A recent academic paper showed that “the people were not wrong” in their concerns about the dangers to people and the environment that led them to take action. Many of the risks they foresaw in the power development proposals have actually become reality.

Among those, noise is paramount. The Ontario government now has about 7,000 formal complaint records called incident Reports dating back to 2006. There appears to be no process in which these records are collected and submitted to the environment ministry for review, analysis and action. They stay in the District Offices until asked for (which we do, every year.) There are families in Ontario who have been complaining about noise for five years and more—there is no effective response.

The Green Energy Act is not gone

The Green Energy Act may have been repealed in Ontario but the Regulation that governs noise limits and setbacks, Regulation 359/09, still exists, unchanged from 2009.

The Renewable Energy Approval process is likewise unchanged; if there were to be another rush for wind power (like the City of Ottawa is proposing as “local” power), the process will not save anyone from being invaded by huge turbines that will make noise, produce vibration and sound pressure, and will affect wildlife.

Disturbed water wells are another concern: dozens of families in North Kent are awaiting the results of a public health investigation into why their wells, some operating for decades without problems, suddenly stopped working after construction began on a wind power project.

Developers claim that griping “non-participating” landowners are just jealous of the lease fees. It’s true that it is tough when they see leaseholders driving around in new trucks, said one Nation Rise resident. But the reason it’s tough is because their actions left other property owners with homes that have lost value, and are perhaps not even sellable.

Opposition to wind turbine projects continues around the world, and is growing in the U.S. where some states (New York) are actually forcing through legislation to steamroll over local opposition. And there is opposition, with key states being Illinois, Michigan, New York and Vermont, to name a few.

Mr. McGuinty was wrong: we CAN stay mad forever…and we will until there is justice for the unwilling neighbours of industrial wind power projects.

 

Jane Wilson

President

Wind Concerns Ontario

What needs to happen:

  • REVISE Regulation 359/09 with new setback distances and noise limits

  • Revise Renewable Energy Approval process to reflect reality of wind turbine noise emissions

  • Revise and update 2010 Chief Medical Officer of Health statement on wind turbine noise and health

 

Follow us on Facebook

And Twitter @windconcernsONT

 

City of Ottawa missing opportunity on real clean renewable energy: community group

Turbines and transformer substation near Crysler. Industrial use of the land. (Submitted photo)

City of Ottawa doomed to repeat Ontario’s failed experiment with intermittent wind and solar power

In the current edition of Ontario Farmer, is a story “Wind opponents claim Ottawa turbine plan disastrous” by Tom Van Dusen. An excerpt:

City council is ignoring the “disaster” wind power has been for Ontario in encouraging installation of industrial wind turbines in its rural areas as part of a Climate Change Master Plan.

So says the leader of an anti-turbine group Ottawa Wind Concerns (OWC) which for the past several years has been leading the charge in Eastern Ontario.

“While most of us were worrying about the pandemic, council accepted a document titled ‘Energy Evolution: Ottawa’s Community Energy Strategy’,” chair Jane Wilson stated. “What concerned us in the 101-page document is the strategy to achieve Net Zero emissions by 2050 by using industrial-scale wind power.”

The energy document calls for 20 megawatts of wind power by 2025 and 3,218 MW by 2050, the equivalent of 710 turbines…all part of a $57 billion energy transition plan.

Wilson accused the city of ignoring the role wind power played in creating energy poverty in the province “boosting electricity bills by 270 percent.” Turbines, she added, also have a high impact on the environment killing birds and bat, and produce disturbing noise emissions.

Rather, the city should adopt the current provincial position of pursuing “affordable and reliable” energy sources of which wind power isn’t one. Why not, Wilson said, take a serious look at incinerating waste into power and at modular nuclear reactors which the federal government already supports at the demonstration stage.

“Funding is supposed to come from the federal government–so every Canadian taxpayer–as Ottawa repeats the failed experiment with wind power.”

More wind power equals more natural gas.

“Higher electricity bills, more burden on taxpayers, less reliable power, industrialization of quiet communities and takeover of important food land: That’s what will happen if this goes ahead.”

 

The story is not online at ontariofarmer.com

Contact Ottawa Wind Concerns, a community group member of the Wind Concerns Ontario coalition, at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com