Don’t blow it, Ottawa

Mimicking Ontario’s guidelines for wind turbine setbacks is a bad idea  By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun
Ottawa is drafting guidelines for wind turbine setbacks from homes, apparently using Ontario’s minimum 550-metre separation as a model. Based on Ontario’s disastrous experiment with wind energy, this is a bad idea. That’s because the province’s plunge into renewable energy, aside from being a financial disaster as documented by Ontario’s Auditor General, has been a social disaster as well.  Canadians, especially those living in rural areas, should be on guard from the moment provincial governments and wind developers show up in their communities touting the joys of wind. Read article

14 thoughts on “Don’t blow it, Ottawa

  1. On Wed. morning Feb 1 Dale Goldhawk received word that the Health Canada committee formed to set the guidelines for the WIND INDUSTRY had disbanded due to a lack of consensus. He had requested the information of who was on the committee and that was their response.
    Appears to be a contentious issue.

  2. Not enough of a common consensus on Health Effects……………..in other words way too much BS coming from the Provincial Government!!!!…………..just a nice way of saying that McGuinty’s department’s input is just too disingenuous to be considered seriously by a Federal Committee!
    In fact I would suggest, maybe hopefully, that McGuinty won’t be around much longer………..he’s basically being attacked hourly by scandals and really bad news stories, even by his own “mouthpiece”, The Star!

  3. For a realistic view of ‘green energy’ in Europe, let’s juxtapose:

    “Hungary has committed to generating 3.6 percent of its electricity needs from renewable energy by 2012.”
    http://www.ebrdrenewables.com/sites/renew/countries/Hungary/default.aspx

    “Hungarian villagers were scavenging for coal with their bare hands on Thursday as a blast of Siberian air killed scores in Eastern Europe and looked set to keep its icy grip on the continent for another week.”

    http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/hungary-villagers-scavenging-for-coal-with-their-bare-hands-in-europes-big-chill/

  4. We can only hope that McGoofy won’t be around much longer.. I also make this prediction of him not being around much longer ..The turdbine fiasco he and his band of thuigs created will certainly go down in History as one, it not THE worst business decision any government has made to date, and it certainly will be hard to top this decision they have made.Quite a legacy for himto be proud of, …I expect McGoofy is planning an exit strategy , but if he isn’t,, he should be..As the rural steamroller gathers momentun, agaimst this crime against humanity,, it will be most interesting to see the outcome,, Stay tuned !!!

  5. IWT “noise” and debris dangers are circular in nature because the turbine turns in circle and mostly the land affected by these dangers is laid out in rectangles.Depending on the size/height of the turbines property rights infringements and flying debris dangers occur due to the long narrow dimensions of the land affected. It’s a matter of simple geometry to prove if the safe distance from IWTs is known and this is 3 1/2 x the turbine height.
    Property rights issues,safe distance and “Noise” are SEPERATE legal issues.But one or more of these issues can affect just one property alone.
    Each property needs to be looked at to determine if installed wind turbines will affect neighbouring properties and in which ways. This can be determined using property dimensions given by local land plots and the calculated safe distances.
    Suspect the “noise” business was done using computer models and not real measurements. Garbage in garbage out with computer models. Computers can be programed to get any answer one desires.

    • An IWT with a safety radius of 400m/1300ft has a circle diameter of 800m/2600 ft and makes a sweep of 2600 feet or 1/2 mile. If the location and height of a turbine is known then the number of properties affected can easliy be determined along with property infringements using local land plot measurements. Land plots will reveal which properties can even be used without causing safety and property infringement issues but the “noise” health problems are in addition to these.
      Keeping the locations and numbers of land options hidden makes it difficult if not impossible to determine the extent of the properties that will be affected by IWT installations.
      Now it is obvious why local planning was removed by the Green Energy Act.

      • If the locations of IWTs are plotted on a local map it can be determined if and where the circular sweeps intersect/meet or overlap for safety issues.

  6. Under the GEA land use and building restrictions now apply only to rural residents, wind corporations are exempt. Here is a response to a concerned resident from the Ausable-Bayfield Conservation Authority :”However, please be aware that when considering a wind turbine installation we are also guided by Bill 150, an act to enact the Green Energy Act, 2009. Bill 150 amended the Conservation Authorities Act such that a Conservation Authority is not allowed to refuse the permission of a renewable energy project or to impose conditions on that permission unless it is necessary to do so to control pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches. In short, this Authority cannot regulate wind turbines due to either natural heritage issues (including wildlife, migration paths etc.) or due to the conservation of land concerns as defined by the Conservation Authorities Act.” So the wind corporations have a carte blanche to do what they wish, while the locals still have to follow the rules,AND live with the noise and health effects from wind turbines.

    • The installation of IWTs in Ontario affected/infringed some peoples’ property rights and this is a legal issue which is actionable and has nothing to do with “noise” but with safety issues. Machines can’t be used on your property which endanger your neighbour by throwing objects at your neighbour which can be deadly to your neighbour. A person has the right to the safe use and enjoyment of all of their property and not just to some of their property.
      Some people are under the impression that this is only a “noise”/infrasound issue including those who want to host IWTs,the companies who want to install IWTs and some politicians.
      Property rights go back at least to the Magna Carta under English Common Law which by the way is also Ontario law.

      • Every day there seems to be more evidence that the government failed to do its home work on IWT’s before allowing them to be built in Ontario. The question is when are we going to have someone in our province lay charges of reckless endangerment against McGuinty and his cabinet ministers?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *