Trouble revolves around wind turbines

Barrie Examiner

I am a retired engineer from Ontario Power Generation nuclear division. I teach engineering at local colleges and universities.  My wife and I live in a house powered by the sun and the wind, as we chose to experience this.

I have training in the area of renewable energy equipment. I am also very familiar with low frequency sound waves of the type emanating from industrial wind turbines, as I myself did a university project building low frequency loud speakers that could emit sound waves at low enough frequency, that as a side effect would inflict structural damage to buildings.

This was not intentional, just something I learned.

It is also worth noting that sound is used as a weapon of war in some jurisdictions.

I am very concerned about several things to do with industrial wind turbines.

First is health effects.

The blade passing frequency past the tower is a known concern in the engineering of wind turbines, that could cause fatigue damage to the wind turbine, and, of course, also bone vibration of humans and animals in the vicinity, as I have learned from my own loudspeaker project.

People who work in power plants know about the long-term health effects of noise.

Second, the costs passed on to the consumer under the cost plus profit commercial model for electricity production.

I am talking about cost at the gate before distribution adders.

Third, the unsightly landscape that would result in these huge industrial wind turbines everywhere — due to potential replacement of all coal generation 6200 MW is approximately equivalent to 10,000 of the 2.5 MW industrial wind turbines proposed for near Stayner operating at approximately 25% annual capacity factor (IESO data).

That equates to a land area of approximately 150 by 50 kilometres, excluding any buildings needing 550 metre setbacks.

Fourth, the source of all this is the provincial and federal government screw-up of the nuclear bid last summer, to have AECL (which was on the auction block to be sold to potentially one of the competitors) bid on a ‘First of a Kind (FOAK)’ so-called advanced nuclear, when all we needed was a copy of what had already been built as a Candu. There is huge motive to bury the wind concerns under the carpet. We need accountability on this topic also.

These concerns are an issue in Clearview Township within the County of Simcoe.

Eric Jelinski, Stayner

14 thoughts on “Trouble revolves around wind turbines

  1. Confuse a Liberal; use facts and logic!

    The truth is out there…

    B.B.W.

  2. Something to think about!

    It doesn’t take a majority to make a rebellion; it takes only a few determined leaders and a sound cause.
    H. L. Mencken

  3. Thank you Eric Jelinski. Your knowledge of Low Frequency Noise and its danger to humans and animals is very important. Our Chief Medical Officer Dr. Arlene King refuses to address this. She relied on a literature review instead of a real study with real people in Ontario. She is in a conflict of interest as she is paid by the very government that has inflicted this travesty on the people of Ontario. More and more people of Ontario are starting to see the falsehoods and misleading information by our Minister of Energy. The elections next fall will be our chance to demand action from opposition leaders. When the MOE admits that they have no technology to measure Infrasound and only measure decibel noise, it is a classic example as to how this current government has put the cart before the horse. Please keep posting as new people come on this site and need to be educated. We are grateful for your input. Too bad you are not on council representing the people! Have you ever considered running for Mayor??? Oh ya, I heard that your local newspaper took it upon themselves to railroad you. What a shame.

  4. Actually, Melodie, scientifically valid and peer reviewed studies on the effects and use
    of infrasound frequencies on humans are many and in the public domain.

    Just “google” it.

    Of course the windy greenies will have you believe their monstrous babies are silent in this regard, but then produce meaningless measurement after meaningless measurement all of which completely ignore the WHO recommended “C” weighting.

    On this I have posted often.

    It is not hard to say something doesn’t exist if you intentionally don’t bother to look for it.

    Strange, my car keys, hand tools, gloves and other apparel come into and out of existence on a regular basis. My wife always says: “Did you look for them?”Usually, they magically re-appear!

    This will all be resolved in our favor with just one court case where empirical data can be presented…

    Unfortunately, none of the cases presently before the courts are likely to hear this.

    B.B.W.

  5. Excellent points Eric Jelinski,
    — when will “THEY” (our political leaders and medical authorities) wake up and stop that useless and costly exercise?
    — or are “THEY” hoping that “THEY” will be long gone with their wallets full before the s–t hits the fan?

  6. But! They are doing a great job… Just ask them…

    ***********************

    http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2890662

    “The Green Energy Acts spells out what a wind-energy producer needs to do to get a project approved, including minimum setbacks of 550 metres between wind turbines and residences.

    However, Dave Timm, VP of strategic affairs for International Power Canada, Inc., says the minimums are often exceeded.

    “For the most part, we’re exceeding setbacks based on the project design. The regulations set out the minimal requirements that you need to adhere to, in terms of setbacks, public consultation — that’s a minimum requirement. IPC, as we have in every one of our projects, does not design or work to the minimum.”

    That approach is also taken in regards to public consultation required by the Act, he says.”

    *******************

    Our interpretation is clearly all wrong….

  7. The WHO is part of the UN so don’t rely on anything from WHO. The IPCC is also UN and pushing this phony global warming and this will top anything the WHO has to say.

    We got into this wind turbine situation because of UN propaganda just like they did in the U.K. Now the U.K. has energy poverty and we are next.

  8. Thank you Mr. Jelinski for your posting. Isn’t it strange that there are skilled engineers out there with their hands on experience who should be in charge. Instead the Provincial government has committed 1.5 million dollars to fund studies at Waterloo, funding new chairs to come up with answers already in the realm of reality.

  9. Easy Barbara…

    If the WHO guidelines were followed, it is unlikely a large number of wind turbines would be operating today, not only in Ontario, but around the world. As for the IPCC, I have little use for this organization either, however, they do not rank “alternative energy”, including wind, very highly (2%) on its ability to reduce CO2.

    As for the UN itself… DON’T GET ME STARTED!

    Ontario is embracing green energy because a corrupt government chose to embrace a corrupt industry who has seen their green gravy trains emptied in most other jurisdictions as the masses became informed! There is no other reason!

    B.B.W.

  10. Yes Karen, and we will see the results of this 1.5M Waterloo study 5 years from now —

  11. “…There is no other reason!”

    BBW, keep digging.

    There’s a larger agenda at play here. Wind turbines are just one spoke in the wheel.

    The UN was instumental in spreading the lies that green-washed the public and politicians to support such industries.

    Besides, if the UN wasn’t influencing this crap – as a so-called humanitarian / philanthrophic world body, why aren’t they flexing their muscles to put a stop to this?

    They have much more influence than you seem to think.

  12. Ah yes — Consensus science…

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf

    “A recent re-posting on the SPPI blog from the HockeySchtick site, with the title, “The 97% “Consensus” is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists” was a second look1 at the claim first made in January 2009, in a paper called “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by Peter Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, from the department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois.

    This was their stated aim:
    “The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.”

    It was roundly de-bunked at the time by several commentators and it would have been forgotten and consigned to its proper place in the dustbin, if it hadn’t been continually quoted by activists as fact.”

    Not a conspiracy though….

  13. The Climate Consensus science cadre is only interested in keeping the grant money flowing and they are afraid their funds will be cut off.

Comments are closed.