Category Archives: Setbacks

Broken Wind Turbine In Chatham-Kent

Posted on by
190

Photo by Paul Pedro

Blackburn News
Terraform Power crews are investigating after a wind turbine that’s part of a wind energy project just south of Chatham broke in half.

The turbine is located at the corner of Drake Rd. and 16 Line.

Blackburn News has reached out to the Ministry of Energy and Climate Change, the municipality of Chatham-Kent, and officials with Terraform Power for more details.

Chatham-Kent’s fire chief is at the scene and says it is currently disconnected from the power grid.

Workers are currently putting up safety fencing around the broken turbine and Chatham-Kent police are also stationed there. Read article

Dr. Pierpont: “ISO acknowledges motion sickness from low-frequency oscillatory motion below 1 Hz”

Posted on by
5

What’s 64 stories tall? 4.2MW wind turbines planned for Wallaceburg!!

Posted on by
13

David Gough, Chatham Daily News
The 12 wind turbines that are proposed for the Otter Creek Wind Farm, will be significantly taller than wind turbines already erected in Chatham-Kent. The wind farm, which is scheduled to be built north of Wallaceburg, will have Enercon E-141 turbines.

From the ground to the top of the wind blades, the proposed wind turbines at the Otter Creek Wind Farm will measure 195 metres (642 feet). By comparison, the world’s tallest wind turbine in Germany is just under 230 metres (754 feet). Initially 17-20 wind turbines were proposed for the wind farm project. It was scaled back to 12, which Otter Creek officials said was due to public concerns. Most wind turbines in Chatham-Kent are approximately 155 metres (510 feet) from ground to the top of a blade’s tip.

“The reason why these turbines are a little bit higher and a little bit wider in diameter, is to effectively reduce the use of the number of turbines,” said Adam Rosso, who is Otter Creek Wind Farm’s director of development. Rosso said by using fewer turbines it will reduce the visual impact, as well as other impacts. Read article

Fatal collision: van strikes wind turbine’s galvanized hydro pole on Kerwood Rd.

Posted on by
16

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The provincial government, Middlesex County and the wind developers NextEra and Suncor knew the likelihood of a tragic accident would increase because of this massive infrastructure placed too close to the roads. This is the second fatality from these new poles the wind developers installed in Middlesex County. That would be severe and irreversible harm.  We give our sincere condolences to the family for their loss.

Strathroy Today
Fatal collision Tuesday. Just before noon Tuesday, OPP, North Middlesex Fire Services, and the Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services (EMS), responded to a fatal single motor vehicle crash on Kerwood Road, north of Elm Tree Drive. A van was travelling north on Kerwood Road when it left the road, struck a galvanized hydro pole on the east side of the road, and caught on fire. The driver was transported by ambulance to hospital with life threatening injuries. The passenger in the vehicle died at the scene. The identity of the deceased is being with-held pending notification of next-of-kin. As a result, Kerwood Road between Elm Tree Drive and Bornish Drive is closed. An update will be released when more information is available.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

MOECC pulls support for two turbine locations in Clearview Township wind project

Posted on by
Reply

C-K airportWasaga Sun, Ian Adams
The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change is pulling its support for two turbine locations at the Fairview Wind project because of safety concerns at the Clearview Aerodrome.

In the MOECC’s closing argument to the environmental review tribunal reviewing the order approving the renewable energy application, it was determined the location of two turbines conflicted with the privately-owned Clearview Aerodrome.

Dr. Raymond Cox, a risk assessment expert in public safety, energy, and transport, as well as fluid dynamics and turbulence, testified during the hearing in June the two locations were without a five-rotor-diameter distance from the Clearview Aerodrome approach centreline.

“As it was the opinion of all expert witnesses, who opined on turbine wake … that there was an unacceptable safety risk where turbines are located within five rotor diameters from the centreline approach, the director can no longer support the locations of turbines 3 and 7 as currently approved,” wrote MOECC counsel Sylvia Davis and Andrea Huckins in their closing submission to the tribunal in August.

Clearview Aerodrome owner Kevin Elwood, who is one of the appellants to the MOECC’s  decision to approve WPD Canada’s renewable energy application, said it calls to question all eight turbines. Read article

Amherst Island residents worried wind turbine cement plant to be built near school

Posted on by
20

CKWS Newswatch

It’s a heated topic on Amherst Island, the wind turbines. But, this time the concern has shifted. Residents are worried about a cement batch plant said to be a base for the project, that they allege will be built very close to the Amherst Island Public School.

Beth Forester has lived on Amherst Island most of her life, along with 6 generations of her family. She went to this school, as a student and teacher… and now her grandchildren go there. “As far as I know it’s as close as those fence posts over there.”

Forester’s referring to a cement plant that will provide the materials needed for wind turbine footings – that residents say is being built near the school. Beth Forester, concerned Amherst Island resident & grandparent “As a teacher I just can’t not envision a closed up, closed the windows in a country setting, close the windows to keep out the noise, the dust, the nastiness.”

Forester isn’t alone.  Many other residents are concerned too, now not just over the turbine project but the possible location of the plant. Bruce Sudds, Concerned Amherst Island resident & parent “Just over 500 meters behind our school there will also be a base for industrial activities for the building of wind turbines on Amherst Island.” Read article

Wind Turbine Highlights Unifor’s Hypocrisy On Noise Hazards

Posted on by
1

o-WIND-TURBINE-570Karen Hunter, Huffington Post
The National Day of Mourning sends “a strong message to all governments of their obligation and responsibility to strongly enforce health and safety laws and regulations,” says Unifor, Canada’s largest private-sector union, formerly the CAW.

There’s a “serious lack of commitment,” Unifor says of the provincial government, “to enforce the health and safety protections that we have fought for,” so “unfortunately, the suffering continues.” One of the hazardous dangers flagged by the union on its website notice is noise.

Meanwhile, a new online petition targets Unifor for its failure to comply with provincial health and safety protections, specifically noise regulations.

Unifor owns and operates the controversial CAW Wind Turbine, located on its property in Port Elgin, Ontario on the shore of Lake Huron. The turbine began operation in 2013 to generate money for the union. At the time, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) approved the turbine on the condition that the Union would conduct noise audits within the first two years of operation and provide MOE with the results.

Now, as the turbine begins its fourth year of operation, the tests and results are, at a minimum, two years late.

MOE knew — as did everyone else — how important noise monitoring would be. Unifor’s turbine is located just 210 metres from the nearest home, less than half of the 550-metre distance required by provincial noise regulations. MOE approved Unifor’s turbine after the union had the community’s zoning changed from a rural tourist/recreational classification to city semi-urban to allow for increased noise.

To further address noise levels, the union stated that its powerful 800kw turbine would operate at just 500kw (despite reduced revenue generation) and that it would self-monitor its operation. Since its startup, Unifor and MOE have received hundreds of noise complaints, day and night, from the nearly 200 families who live within the turbine’s 550-metre radius. Still, the noise testing has not been done.

Back in 2013, during the turbine’s first six months of operation, 140 noise complaints prompted town council to pass a motion asking the CAW to honour President Ken Lewenza’s commitment to shut down the turbine if it harmed residents. The union dismissed the request. Read article

Terrors and errors with wind turbines

Posted on by
3

2014_06010041by Harvey Wrightman

The wind battles are over in the areas of  Adelaide, Bornish, Bosanquet and the wind company landmen have moved on to “greener” pastures for their prospecting and duping.

In their wake they have left a cluttered mess of leaning towers and graceless power lines above ground, and less noticeably – the barely hidden maze of electrical 34 kV cabling that conveys the power to the substations and the grid. There’s a big punch in those cables when the wind chooses to deliver.

Trenches for these cables meander back and forth from private to public property.  According to the regulations, they must be buried a minimum of only one metre below the surface, but who’s checking.  Regardless, these are very dangerous cables to locate in a zone where others might be digging.  A breached collector cable by an excavator could cause a massive explosion.  We have heard of two incidents where collector cables have been “touched” in the NextEra Jericho wind project in the former Lambton County township of Bosanquet.

In the first case a drainage contractor who was replacing a collapsed header drain along Thomson Line, east of the Arkona Rd., hooked onto the control cable of the adjacent 34 kV collector line.  That would have been very scary!! The line had been marked for location with stakes, but the cables either weren’t where they were supposed to be as they were too shallow, or not ID’d properly by the highly qualified “locate company”.  Regardless, it should never have happened.

A similar incident occurred over on the 8th Concession, only the cable was struck by a post hole auger for a new fence, even though the line had been ID’d by the same locate contractor. See the pattern here? Continue reading →

Germany: Wind turbine blade fragments thrown 500 metres form tower

Posted on by
Reply

Wind turbine accident at Nieder Kostenz in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany – November 15, 2015

Bluewater Gets Reports of “Material” Fall Off Turbines

Posted on by
12

turbinebladeBlackburn News, Bob Montgomery
Bluewater council has asked staff to look into reports that parts of wind turbines are falling off of the blades. Mayor Tyler Hessel reports a few residents have told their councillors that they’ve been told by wind energy company officials not to take crops off near the turbines until they notify the company so they can slow down the turbines.

Hessel points out some of the turbines are near municipal roads so if there is a possibility of parts of the blades falling off the municipality would like to know about it. Hessel adds his understanding is that sensors attached to the blades with adhesive are the source of the consern but stresses at this point the information they’re getting is second hand so they’re looking for confirmation of that and an explanation from the wind energy company.

Hessel adds if there is a possibility of sensors becoming separated from the turbine blade the municipality as well as all of the residents living anywhere near a turbine should be alerted to that possibility.

Ontario wants wind turbines closer than 550m from homes: “new models are taller and quieter” ?!

Posted on by
78

2014_05140205Just when you didn’t think it could get worse, the Ontario government shows they are more vicious than imaginable. They want to put LARGER turbines CLOSER to homes, farms and schools! They are looking to do away with the meagre 550m setback to accomplish this.

Comment Period: 45 days: submissions may be made between August 04, 2015 and September 18, 2015

Environmental Registry

Updates and clarifications to the “Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms”

Description of Regulation:
O. Reg. 359/09 Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Act (REA regulation) is intended to support the Ontario Government’s Green Energy initiative to expand renewable energy generation, encourage energy conservation and promote the creation of clean energy jobs, while upholding our commitment to protecting the environment. The renewable energy approval (REA) process is based on clearly communicated complete submission requirements, whereby proponents of renewable energy projects know in advance what studies and reports are expected of them in preparing a complete application for a REA.

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) is proposing amendments to the REA regulation to reflect the most recent Canadian Standards Association (CSA) 2013 Noise Standard, “Wind Turbine Generator Systems: Acoustic Noise Measurement Techniques”. The CSA Standard is used by proponents for the purposes of determining the sound power level of wind turbines under the REA regulation. The amendments also address advancements in wind turbine technology, issues related to operational flexibility and continued protection of noise receptors. An amendment is also being proposed that relates to the natural feature protection and assessment sections of the REA regulation to reflect current practices in the province. Additional minor amendments are also being proposed to clarify other aspects of the REA regulation.

The ministry is also proposing updates to the Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms. For more details on the proposed changes to the Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms, a link has been provided to the associated Environmental Registry posting.

Descriptions of the key proposed regulatory amendments can be found below.

Adoption of 2013 CSA standard (CAN/CSA-IEC 61400-11, Wind turbines — Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques) 

MOECC’s REA Regulation currently references the CSA 2007 Noise Standard, “Wind Turbine Generator Systems: Acoustic Noise Measurement Techniques”.

An amendment is being proposed to adopt the most recent 2013 CSA standard (CAN/CSA-IEC 61400-11, Wind turbines — Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques) to replace the existing CSA 2007 Noise Standard.

The CSA standard is referenced in the definition of “sound power level” in the REA Regulation and is used by proponents to determine wind facility classification. It is also referenced in the specifications report, which all proponents of Class 3, 4 and 5 wind facilities are required to submit as part of a complete REA application.
Proposed Modifications to the Definition of “sound power level”

To reflect the ministry’s conservative approach to dealing with noise emissions from wind turbines and to support the adoption of the 2013 CSA standard, three amendments are being proposed to the definition of “sound power level” in the REA Regulation to provide clarity:

Clarify that the definition of “sound power level” refers to the rating expressed as an “apparent” value.

This amendment would re-affirm MOECC’s current requirement of the use of the “apparent” sound power level when conducting a noise assessment, and is reflective of the value used by other jurisdictions.
Modify definition to require the inclusion of the positive uncertainty value.

The ministry does not currently require the inclusion of manufacturers’ uncertainty values in its definition of “sound power level”. The “uncertainty value” is a +/- value assigned under the CSA standard to account for potential range of uncertainty in the sound power level rating of a wind turbine.

The ministry is taking the conservative approach in requiring proponents to include the positive uncertainty value, given by a manufacturer of the wind turbines under the CSA Standard, as a conservative value to be accounted for in noise assessments for their project.
Clarify that proponents are not required to use a rounded value when conducting a noise assessment in accordance with the ministry’s Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms.

Proposed Changes to the Classification of Wind Facilities and the Application of the 550 Setback 

Due to technological advancements of wind turbines, such that new models are taller and quieter, amendments are being proposed to the wind facility classification table and to the 550 metre setback. The purpose of the proposed changes is to ensure that all wind turbines used on a commercial scale continue to meet all of the comprehensive standards in the REA regulation that were designed to be protective of human health and the environment.

The proposed regulatory amendment is to include a wind turbine hub height of 70 metres as additional criteria to the existing wind facility classification requirements of greatest sound power level (expressed in dBA). Complementary amendments would also be made throughout the regulation including the provisions governing the noise setbacks.  Continue reading →

Wind turbine fires ignore pathetically short setbacks

Posted on by
26

This is in Estonia. Could be Ontario. Except Ontario firefighters are told to evacuate the area and let it burn out… you can imagine the spread of this fire if the firefighters didn’t put the flying debris’ flames out.

How NexTerror stores their machines for the night

Posted on by
9

april 20 14 006

This on School Road (yes the school is on the other side of the overpass) in NextEra’s Adelaide wind project. The cranes hang like this over the road during the night… as if they don’t have a whole field in the other direction that they could turn to.

This is what the Green Energy Act invasion looks like in Ontario

Posted on by
6

South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent

South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent Burk Line (7)
South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent Burk Line (5)
South-Kent-Wind-Samsung Pattern Chatham-Kent Burk Line 9
South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent Burk Line (8)
South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham-Kent Burk Line
South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent Burk Line (11)
South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent Burk Line (2)
South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent Burk Line (6)
South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent Communication Rd (3)
South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent Communication Rd (5)
South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent Burk Line (4)

West Lincoln residents demand wind permit cancellation

Posted on by
4

South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent Harwich Road 5Hamilton Spec, Amanda Moore
WEST LINCOLN A discovery by a West Lincoln property owner has stalled operation of industrial wind turbines in West Lincoln — for now. A spokesperson for Ontario Environment Minister Jim Bradley confirmed via email Monday the ministry is aware three of the five HAF Wind Energy turbines are in violation of setback requirements. While the turbines are 550 metres from the closest home, three do not meet property line setbacks established by the ministry.

“It appeared to the blind eye that they were too close to my property,” said Anne Meinen, a Beamsville resident who owns property in West Lincoln. Meinen took her concerns to the West Lincoln Glanbrook Wind Action Group, which helped her determine the distance of the turbine from her property.

Group chairman Neil Switzer said the group used a range finder to establish the setback distances to ensure they didn’t encroach on the host property. They found four setback infractions, with the largest affecting Meinen’s property. Read article

WLGWAG Demands Wind Permit Cancellation

Posted on by
5

DSCN1409SMITHVILLE, ON – February 10, 2014
The astounding news that three of the five industrial wind turbines in West Lincoln were constructed in violation of Provincial setback regulations has ignited a chorus of angry neighbours and the West Lincoln Glanbrook Wind Action Group to demand that the MOE cancel this FIT wind energy contract. Confirmation of the setback deficiencies finally came Monday February 3rd when Mr. Vic Schroter, Director of the MOE, Environmental Approvals Branch acknowledged to WLGWAG member Wendy Veldman that an Ontario Land Surveyor had verified that 3 of the 5 turbines are deficient in their property boundary setback requirements and subsequently in violation of their Renewable Energy Approval. Continue reading →

Group says turbine violations should halt project

Posted on by
18

South Kent Wind Samsung Pattern Chatham Kent McKinlay Rd 1St. Catharines Standard, Don Fraser
A group opposed to West Lincoln turbines is demanding the cancellation of the project due to setback violations. It says three of five industrial wind turbines at the location in the west part of the township were constructed in violation of provincial regulations.

In a Monday release, West Lincoln Glanbrook Wind Action Group says the violations in property boundary setback requirements were confirmed by a Ministry of the Environment official. However, another official told the group “a new precedent will be set to legitimize the … deficiencies” by letting the wind company get retroactive permission from affected neighbors to accept reduced turbine setback distances from their property boundaries.

“Once again, the wind industry is not in compliance with regulations,” said action group co-chair Deb Murphy. Read article

NextEra fudges distances to squeeze in more turbines

Posted on by
19

[Ed. Note: This is not a one off case of turbines too close to property lines. Here’s another example in Melancthon for the Dufferin Wind Project.]

Dear Mr. Bradley,
RE: Jericho Wind Project, NextEra Energy Canada

On February 12, 2013, I wrote to NextEra (NE) on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Dayman who own property next to proposed turbine #18.  At that time NE documentation identified turbine #18 as being less than 60 metres (58.5 m) from their property line.  According to Section 53 of the Environmental Protection Act (359/09), the wind developer MUST be a minimum distance of 60 metres from all non-participating properties.  Mr. and Mrs. Dayman requested that NE remove the turbine in order to be compliant with legislation.

Turbine 18

NE responded to this correspondence on February 15, 2013 by claiming that turbine #18 was actually 60.8 metres from the Dayman property line, and was therefore in compliance with the regulations.  Despite numerous requests, an updated map illustrating this change was never provided to the Dayman family. Continue reading →

Samsung wind turbines being built 240m from Platinum Produce greenhouse

Posted on by
8

platinum produce greenhouseEllwood Shreve, Chatham Daily News
Tim Verbeek has grown increasingly frustrated watching two wind turbines be constructed, despite the fact his family business has an appeal concerning the structures before the Environmental Review Tribunal.

A decision is expected Monday over the turbines, and Verbeek, whose family owns Platinum Produce greenhouse located south of Highway 401 on Communications Road, said it appears a concerted effort was made to get the two turbines erected before the decision is handed down. The turbines in question are part of the South Kent Wind Project, a joint venture of Pattern Energy Group and Samsung Renewable Energy Inc.

Verbeek told The Chatham Daily News he findings it “coincidental” the two turbines that are in the appeal were built before others in the area. However, Pattern and Samsung are well within their rights to construct the turbines, said environmental lawyer Eric Gillespie, who is representing Platinum Produce in its appeal to the ERT. Gillespie said sometimes when an ERT appeal is launched, there is an automatic stop of the permit. “In this case, the Ontario government decided to let them go ahead anyway, even if there is an appeal,” he added.

But this isn’t the first time the lawyer has seen this happen. Gillespie, who represented the appellants that challenged the approval of the Kent Breeze Wind Farm near Thamesville in 2011, said Suncor Energy continued with construction of the project despite the matter being before the ERT. “This is where many people would say there is a major disconnect between the government and the people living where these projects are moving ahead,” he said. “The government has given an appeal right, but still allows wind companies to proceed as if there is no appeal,” Gillespie added. “That has been very difficult for many people to understand.” Read article

Survey distances vary on turbine setback

Posted on by
22

CHATHAM-KENT, ONTARIO, INTERNAIONAL POWER GDF SUEZ from Erieau Road 13Shelburne Free Press, Wes Kellar
Scott Funston, a Melancthon non-participating resident in proximity to Dufferin Wind Power Turbines T7 and T8, says he has surveys proving that T7 is less than 550 metres from his home.

But DWP says that “all turbines in the project are in compliance with the minimum setback of 550m,” and that it has sent Mr. Funston aerial maps showing that T7 has been measured at 562 metres, and T8 at 567m.

Mr. Funston says he has a Van Harten survey showing the centre of his house as 548.2 metres from the centre of Turbine T7, which would be 1.8 metres short of 550. He said he considers that the attached garage should be considered as part of the residence. The 548.2 measurement included the garage as part of the residence.

Rebecca Crump, director of development for DWP, however, said on Tuesday that the Ministry of Environment requires setback distances to be measured from the centre of the living space. Read article

Greenhouse operator concerned about location of wind turbines

Posted on by
Reply

platinum produceChatham Daily News
BLENHEIM – Tim Verbeek, co-owner of a large greenhouse operation near here, is accusing developers of the South Kent Wind Project of snubbing the environmental review process. He contacted The Chatham Daily News concerning the construction of a turbine proceeding near Platinum Produce on Communications Road, south of Highway 401, despite the fact the greenhouse currently has an appeal about the location before the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT).

Verbeek said one turbine in question was originally going to be constructed 503 metres from the bunkhouse used by migrant workers employed by Platinum Produce, which violates the minimum 550-metre setback.

Pattern Energy and Samsung Renewable Energy, developers of the South Kent Wind Project, moved the turbine back 50 metres, but Verbeek said it is still 240 metres from a section of the greenhouse. Another turbine, which is part of the ERT, is also close by the greenhouse. Read article

MOE to landowners with wind leases: “Do your own due dilligence”

Posted on by
26

receptorMs. Garcia- Wright, Mr. Chiarelli, Mr. Bradley and Ms. Mathews,

For many months, I have been pursuing the question of health for children whose parents agree to place wind turbines on their properties at less than the 550m setback. I thought the question very important since the government says 550m is protective of human health. That suggests that anything less than 550m is not protective. I was also curious as to whether or not the consent of the affected children is obtained in these situations.

I thought it unreasonable and ridiculous that I had to pursue answers through several different ministries and that it took many months to get a response. However, once I read the response, I realized that there there are much bigger concerns. I had to read the response (attached) that I received from Ms. Garcia-Wright a number of times because I could not believe what I was reading. The government has just essentially said that the health of children living WITHIN the 550m setback from wind turbines is negotiable. This government has decided that they need to play the role of parent when it comes to tanning salons and in school cafeterias yet sees no need to play a role with respect to this issue. If ever an oversight role was required, it is in this situation since decisions with respect to wind turbines are driven by money and judgement can be clouded by money. The wind developers want to make a lot of money and some parents may put the chance of additional income before their own children. In fairness to those parents, and as you are well aware, the opportunistic wind developers would not be pointing out any kind of issue with positioning of the turbines at less than the 550m setback.

This is frightening! I am appalled that your wind energy policy takes precedence over the health of these children. Perhaps you need to alter your claim that 550m is protective of human health. Perhaps it should say that 550m is protective of human health but the health of participating landowners and their children can be sacrificed for money.

I feel I must share this response with Mothers Against Wind Turbines as well as other wind action groups. I also plan to distribute it to media and to every interest group that I can find that represents childrens’ issues. People in this province need to know that the health of these children can be negotiated between two parties for the almighty dollar and that our government condones it.

I do, of course, wish to see a response from one of you or all of you and hopefully it won’t take months.

Bonnie Tuson

 …the response:

Third wind turbine blade breaks in East Central Illinois

Posted on by
8

blade_breakPaxton Record
OAKWOOD — For the third time in 17 months, a wind turbine blade manufactured by General Electric has broken off at an East Central Illinois wind farm. The latest incident occurred about 9 p.m. Nov. 20 in Vermilion County at the California Ridge Wind Farm operated by Chicago-based Invenergy. Another turbine blade broke in that same wind farm in November 2012, following a June 2012 blade break at the Settlers Trail Wind Farm near Sheldon, operated by Chicago-based E.On Climate & Renewables.

All three blades were on 1.6-megawatt turbines manufactured by GE. “We are working with GE, the turbine manufacturer, to determine the cause of this incident,” a statement from Invenergy said Friday. Last March, GE issued a statement saying that an “isolated manufacturing issue” caused the two wind turbines to break in 2012. GE said it had “reviewed the wind farm fleets at both sites to ensure their continued reliability and performance” and “have addressed the manufacturing issue to prevent this from happening in the future.”

GE officials did not immediately return a call requesting comment on the latest incident. Invenergy said the blade broke off and fell to the ground near the base of the turbine, which is located near the intersection of 2150 North Road and 900 East Road near Oakwood. Read article

Voluntary compliance requested

Posted on by
31

C-K airportBy Bob Boughner, Chatham Daily News
It appears Transport Canada hasn’t issued an official order to GDF SUEZ Canada to remove eight turbines south of the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport. The company recently contacted The Chatham Daily News to state it has not received an “order” from Transport Canada. According to the latest response to The Chatham Daily News from Transport Canada, the agency is requesting “voluntary compliance” with the regulations and will work with the company to set a practical deadline. No decision has been made on a date.

At the same time, the response reads: “Transport Canada requires the lowering or removal of the eight wind turbines that were constructed in the area protected under the Chatham Airport zoning regulations.” David Timm, GDF SUEZ Canada vice-president, told The Daily News on Wednesday: “We’re in discussions with Transport Canada on the matter and the other agencies that have jurisdiction over the issue.” He said those discussions will continue, adding he can’t get into the specifics of the discussions “because of the sensitivity of the issue.” Read article

Wind Turbines in Chatham Kent: Too Many , Too Close

Posted on by
2

Chatham Kent International Power GDF Suez project

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Images of International Power/GDF Suez’s massive wind turbines in Chatham-Kent

Posted on by
9

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Wind Turbine Video: Too Close

Posted on by
1

No decision on date to remove turbines

Posted on by
17

C-K airportLondon Free Press
Transport Canada officials will work with a wind turbine company to set a practical deadline for the removal of eight turbines south of the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport. Brooke Williams, a spokesperson for Transport Canada, told The Daily News Monday no decision has been made on a date.

She did say that on at least two occasions prior to installation of the wind turbines, Transport Canada advised the wind farm representatives that height restrictions were in effect in the area around the airport. The Daily News learned in June that Transport Canada was enforcing safety rules and requires the removal of eight wind turbines that are impeding height restrictions imposed by the airport zoning regulations.

Dave Timm, vice-president of GDF Suez Canada Inc., claims the company complied with all the rules and regulations regarding the placement of turbines near the airport. Timm said his company is asking for a meeting with Transport Canada officials to discuss the matter. Read article

C-K council helping keep turbines away from leaseholder homes

Posted on by
4

Read Planning Services Report from Storey Samways Planning Ltd.

Ridgetown Independent News:natvik 001

Pilots sounded alarm about turbines

Posted on by
4

C-K airportLondon Free Press
A long-time Chatham pilot says everyone involved was made aware of concerns about erecting wind turbines around the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport. Jeff Pyefinch, who has been a pilot since 1984, said local pilots voiced their opposition to having turbines built near the airport when the project was in the initial stages during a meeting with interested parties nearly 10 years ago. “We had concerns with it the right from the start,” he said on Saturday.

On Friday, The Chatham Daily News reported that, in an unprecedented move, Transport Canada has ordered the removal of eight wind turbines near the municipal airport for exceeding height restrictions. A company official with GDF Suez Canada – owners of the turbines – told The Daily News on Friday, it hasn’t been contacted by the federal agency about this order. Pyefinch recalled that when these turbines were proposed, “the municipality was very pro-turbine. They wanted to position the municipality as a leader for wind turbines.”

He believes political motivation may have caused the municipality to not seek the protection of the airport, to the extent that was available to them, to prevent turbines from being located nearby. Pyefinch said it was clear the turbines would be within the four-kilometre protected radius around the airport, which is a federal airport zoning regulation. Read article