“The significant increase in wind capacity is questionable …”
December 14, 2016
As part of the Long Term Energy Planning process, a report that contains information that is highly critical of wind turbines’ role in generating electricity has been produced in response to the Ontario government’s consultation process on the LTEP in the context of the government’s climate change initiatives.
The report, titled Ontario’s Emissions and the Long-Term Energy Plan, is available at this link:
s/Ontarios_Emissions_and_the_ LTEP_-_Ph_2_Report_Final_ December_2016.pdf
The author is Marc Brouillette of the strategic consulting firm Strategic Policy Economics; the report and analysis was funded by Bruce Power, the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries, Powerstream and the Power Workers Union. The report documents the case for nuclear as the long-term stable solution for electrical generation in Ontario and as a cost effective solution to reach the Liberal government’s carbon emission goals.
Expanding Ontario’s wind power generation capacity is “questionable” the authors say, for three reasons:
- Wind generation has not matched demand since its introduction in Ontario;
- Over 70% of wind generation does not benefit Ontario’s supply capability: and,
- Wind generation will not match demand in the OPO Outlook future projections as 50% of the forecasted production is expected to be surplus.
It has been well documented that wind turbines generate power that is out of sync with Ontario’s power demands. This report provides data on the extent of this problem confirming its statement that over 70% of wind generation does not benefit Ontario’s supply capability (page 20).
The report goes on to confirm that when wind generation is available it causes “curtailment (waste) of both nuclear and hydro, exports of wind generated electricity at prices well below the cost of production and reduction of natural gas fired generation” (page 21). This situation may improve going forward, but still, the report concludes, over 50% of wind generation in Ontario is not productively used by Ontarians” (page 22). Further, “it could be viewed as wasted through curtailments and/or via uneconomic exports to neighbouring jurisdictions.”
Cancel the contracts
Wind Concerns Ontario and now more than 116 municipalities as well as other stakeholders and interest groups have repeatedly called for the cancellation of wind turbine contracts. The information in this detailed report supports the case for cancelling the contracts under Large Renewable Procurement I (LRP I) and halting LRP II and FIT 5.0 as well as all wind power projects not yet in commercial production (e.g., White Pines, Amherst Island, Fairview). The government of Ontario will find it difficult to justify these contracts in the context of this data, and in the context of what the Energy Minister has said is an existing “robust” supply of power in Ontario at present.
Parker Gallant in his role as an energy observer estimated that wind power, which has an average contract price in the range of 13.3 cents, actually ended up costing the Ontario electrical system about 30.9 cents over the first six months of 2016.
These data, plus information from the 2015 report by the Ontario Auditor General, indicate that there is substantial benefit for the people of Ontario in cancelling wind power contracts.
The report includes the recommendation that the Ontario LTEP should “seek out the lowest cost, emission-free energy solutions that reflect the integrated costs of generation, transmission, and distribution.”
Wind Concerns Ontario will continue its call to cancel the wind power contracts; our response to the Long-Term Energy Plan will be published shortly.
Peninsula Daily News, Port Angeles, Washington, Dec.9, 2016
Scroll down to:
‘Numbers vary on turbine electrical generation: Intent not power production, City says’
3 small wind turbines at ~ $100,000 cost with now est. power production range of $42-$57 a month.
Salt spray is also an issue with this project.
Scroll down and read at. This is a news story.
Whod a thunk it? Bernie
Very interesting to say the least…. there is no sign of cancellation of the STRONG BREEZE WIND PROJECT in Dutton Dunwich….. the walkers were through the leaseholders property several weeks ago…. they were conducting a “search” for artifacts….. hard working group there…. just thought it was odd that one of the cars in the group would have California license plates??!! Are those the “Green Jobs” Ole Katty Wynnd has created…..
Re: Huron County Health Board meeting. I sent a letter to Erica Clark on December 5, 2016 expressing my concerns about the investigation. Text pasted below.
December 5, 2016
Erica Clark, PhD
Epidemiologist, Huron County Health Unit
77722B London Rd., RR #5
Clinton, ON N0M 1L0
Dear Erica Clark,
Thank you for taking the time to talk with me on Nov 29th.
I wanted to follow up with a summary of how I became involved in this issue, the direction and
current status of my research, and my position on the issue of study of, and response to, the
human health effects caused by exposure to Industrial wind turbines.
1: How I became involved.
I first became aware of this issue in May of 2013 after reading a paper by Carmen Krogh dealing
with adverse health effects caused by Industrial Wind Turbines (link).
I came to believe that what was needed was a way to actually test consenting humans by
exposing them to infrasound in a lab setting and to scientifically document the effects of this
2: Direction and current status of my research.
I started my research by working to develop the best infrasound recording method possible.
In partnership with Professor John Vanderkooy, we developed a method of measuring infrasound
from a single turbine, thereby isolating our results from the “clutter” of other turbines, wind
noise, and other “pollutants”.
We published our work and our paper was accepted for presentation at Wind Turbine Noise
2015, INCE/EUROPE, in Glasgow, Scotland in April 2015 (link).
The next step was to design and build a method of producing infrasound in a lab setting. To be a
useful research tool this infrasound needed to be identical to that produced by IWT’s.This required the mathematical and computational research necessary to generate Sound Wave
output to an exact duplicate of input data, namely actual turbine recordings previously captured.
This would finally allow others at the university, with appropriate medical training and ethics
approval, to scientifically test and document the effects of infrasound produced by IWT’s on
I received university funding for this research from both the Department of Computer Science
and the Office of Research in October 2015 which has allowed me to proceed.
My research over the next six months led to the building of prototype #1, a proof of concept
device which was able to produce infrasound in a lab setting in the range produced by IWT’s,
within a small test chamber.
The system consists of 3 main components: a controllable pressure source, a modulation device
that is responsive to input commands, and measurement, analysis, and recording technology.
Prototype #2 is a fourfold scaled up chamber version of the proof of concept device and
successfully produces infrasound in response to input commands. Prototype #2 is currently being
used to refine design, data collection, and analysis.
Work is currently well along on version #3, a full scale chamber, capable of accommodating a
human subject. This will finally allow others at the university with appropriate ethics approval
and medical training to test the effect of infrasound on consenting human subjects.
3: My current position
I have kept up to date on the most recent scientific evidence on harm in humans and animals
relative to IWT’s
There have also been many surveys and studies regarding human health effects related to
Industrial Wind Turbine exposure. Sadly many of them have actually increased suffering by
concluding that the subjects were imagining their symptoms, and by varying degrees, labeling
them with the “It’s all in your head” designation.
It is also of note that while many people did agree to participate in these surveys and studies in
the hope that their concerns would be heard, they were certainly captive participants by being
forced to live in proximity to the turbines.
This leads me to my use of the word “ethics” and my beliefs regarding the study and information
gathering of a captive group of humans who are currently living in proximity to potential health
effects.I remember during my first year of engineering we were told about an oath and ring ceremony
that professional engineers take prior to receiving their accreditation.
These practices vary within different disciplines but two examples come readily to mind:
The National Society of Professional Engineers (USA) states “Engineers, in the fulfillment of
their professional duties, shall: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”.
Professional Engineers Ontario states: “A practitioner shall, regard the practitioner’s duty to the
public welfare as paramount”
I believe as scientists and researchers, while we were not actually required to pledge to such an
oath, we certainly have a basic moral obligation when we choose to interact with people who are
At a minimum, this should be to clearly point out both the risks and benefits of interacting with
us and to provide referrals to resources and other help related to their suffering. This should be
the core principle of any such undertaking and certainly a legally mandated one by any board of
Thank you again for taking the time to talk with me and if I can be of any help going forward
please don’t hesitate to contact me.
School of Computer Science
Faculty of Mathematics
University of Waterloo
Why is there no mention of the harm these turbines are causing innocent people in rural Ontario?
Who wrote this article?
Wind Concerns Ontario
This is a report by an economics policy consultant: his role was to comment on the mix of sources of power generation in Ontario. His expertise, and his assignment, is not in the area of health.