MNR: bald eagles to relocate to allow wind project to “proceed as planned”

To add insult to injury after the bald eagle nest and tree removal 2 days ago, Nextera and Capital Power advance on the area. These images were taken this morning in Haldimand County by Betty Ortt.  Simcoe Reformer reported the MNR saying, “Bald eagles have been known to have alternative nests within their territory,” Jolanta Kowalski, a spokesperson for the MNR, said Monday in an email. “Authorizing the removal of this nest will encourage these bald eagles to relocate farther away from these turbines while allowing the project to proceed as planned.”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

25 thoughts on “MNR: bald eagles to relocate to allow wind project to “proceed as planned”

  1. I saw blades coming over the Dunnville bridge. I oit out of my car and gave them the one finger salute. It may be unladylike but it felt great. Try it, you’ll like it.

    • Hahaha!! I do, Every morning, out my back door, 1-finger salute to Veresen & GVWF T13 & T15. A horrible start to everyday 🙁

  2. “Authorizing the removal of this nest will encourage these bald eagles to relocate farther away from these turbines while allowing the project to proceed as planned.”
    ——————————-
    “Authorizing the removal of this nest will encourage these WIND COMPANIES to BUILD EVEN MORE OF these turbines while IGNORING ANY HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.”

  3. Thank you for the pictures, The one with the Canada geese with the Hihoe in the background is impartant to illustrate the building of turbines in a major bird area.

  4. Ontario is now officially the most corrupt Province in Canada………………again McGuinty has made Ontario number one!
    I’m really ashamed to admit I live here any more!!!!

  5. I share your disgust in the behaviour of the McGuinty government, and all of their allies. It is so hard to trust any government officials on any level because of this huge scam being perpetrated. It is pretty bad when Americans are blogging us telling us they are appalled that Canada would do such a thing. We no longer have anything to be proud of where our government is concerned. They’ve tied our hands behind our backs and made us watch while they are raping our province. I feel enraged and disgusted that this is being allowed to continue, regardless of public outcry. There is NO justice.

  6. NextEra Update
    United States Court of Appeals, Decision, Jan.4,2013
    A petition for review was brought by Beyond Nuclear, New Hampshire Sierra Club and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League.
    Petition for review is denied.
    “Nextera’s report relied on the NRCs GEIS for this propisition that wind power is not suitable for baseload generation because of its intermitent nature.Energy storage mechanisims are too expensive to resolve. The problem of intermittency and the technology for the generation of offshore wind energy is not sufficiently demonstrated at this time.”

    So why is NextEra installing IWTs in Ontario?
    Read the decision here:
    http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=12-1561P.01A

    • This is NextEra court testimony. Compare what NextEra presented as testimony with what the company is telling Ontarians.
      What published information has been circulated in Ontario by this company that is in public hands for comparison purposes? Say one thing one place and something else in another place?

      • The U.S. Court of Appeals decision needs to be in the hands of your MPPs and besides this it is an anti-wind decision. This testimony and not hearsay.

        Might be wise to also let MPPs know what the risks are from using CFL bulbs. Another “green” job that was pulled on the public without any research being done to look for any harmful effects from using them?

      • Wikipedia, The United States Courts of Appeals
        “,the United States Courts of appeals serve as the final arbiter on most filed cases.”
        The next step up is the U.S. Supreme Court but only a few cases ever make it to the Supreme Court as the Supreme Court has to agree to hear a case.There is no automatic appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Courts_of_appeals

      • Barbara! To your next comment rather than this one!
        Niagara Region’s nice glossy recycling newsletter came out today.
        CFL bulbs are now on their Hazardous Waste list…!!!
        Do you recall Suzuki’s TV ads promoting them? They disappeared as soon as folk began to question just how ‘green’ they actually were…………..
        Ethanol plants I believe still only exist with government subsidies, tax money!
        It actually rots engines and, of course, has caused a shortage of corn products available in many third world countries. I don’t think any government has actually made any in depth study but would guess one would show a direct link between ethanol production and lack of basic food in some third world nations.
        Along with wind and solar, neither of the above have done a single thing to alleviate the alleged threat of global warming. If the billions wasted on them worldwide had been spent instead on cleaning up oil production emissions, auto emissions, coal emissions and upgrading the nuclear facilities the environmentalists hate so much the world would likely be in better shape
        than it is. Would we be safer from this alleged global warming? I have no clue as there is nothing we do in Canada that can possibly influence that situation if it actually exists! 🙂
        Andrew Watts

    • http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=12-1561P.01A

      Heavy document; lots and lots of lawyers making lots and lots of money.

      Excerpts:

      At issue here is only one limited portion of
      the environmental report filed with the application on May 25,
      2010, by NextEra.

      Seabrook is New
      England’s largest nuclear reactor, having a capacity of 1245
      megawatts, and provides 8.2% of the actual generation of the
      Independent System Operator New England (“ISO-NE”), which the
      environmental report explains “is a regional network that
      coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts
      of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
      and Vermont.”
      A. NextEra’s Environmental Report
      NextEra’s environmental report, among other things,
      addressed four alternative sources of energy to renewing Seabrook’s
      license that it deemed viable, reasonable alternatives: natural
      gas-fired generation; coal-fired generation; a new nuclear plant;
      and power purchases.
      The report also discussed wind power, of which NextEra is
      the leading generator in North America, but concluded it was not a
      reasonable alternative as a source of baseload electricity during
      the relevant period of time. It is on that point that petitioners
      sought a full hearing before the Commission.

      NextEra’s report relied on the NRC’s GEIS for the
      proposition that wind power is not suitable for baseload generation
      because of its intermittent nature. That intermittent nature meant
      that there had to be energy storage mechanisms. Energy storage
      mechanisms are too expensive to resolve the problem of
      intermittency and the technology for the generation of offshore
      wind energy is “not sufficiently demonstrated at this time.”

      The Board determined that BN’s contention was admissible,
      limiting its scope solely to offshore wind, and specifically citing
      to representations made orally by a BN representative at a hearing.
      The representations were that an exhibit, Ex. 17, University of
      Maine, “Maine Offshore Wind Plan,” establishes that offshore wind
      farms would deliver baseload energy by 2015.6 That representation
      proved to be untrue.

      BN suggests that by requiring an alternative energy
      source to provide baseload power, the NRC defined the objectives of
      the proposed actions so narrowly that it engaged in “outcomecontrolled
      rigging.”

      That is not the case, for reasons both of law and common
      sense.

      NextEra operates a baseload power generator at Seabrook,
      and despite BN’s “outcome-controlled rigging” argument, BN’s own
      brief concedes it was “permissible” for the NRC to consider the
      goal of providing baseload electrical power.

      BN then attempts an argument that the NRC was required to
      consider what alternatives might look like in forty years time.8
      Not so. Here again the NRC has taken a sensible course. The NRC
      stated that “[a]ssessments of future energy alternatives
      necessarily are of a predictive nature,” and that “the applicant —
      and the agency — are limited by the information that is reasonably
      available in preparing the environmental review documents.”
      Because of the inherent difficulty in predicting decades in advance
      the viability of technologies not currently operational and years
      away from large-scale development, “in most cases a ‘reasonable’
      energy alternative is one that is currently commercially viable, or
      will become so in the relatively near term.”
      The NRC acknowledged the need for prediction, and made a
      rational decision that in most instances the best predictor of
      viability of an alternative in the distant future is the near term
      viability of the alternative.9 It did so in compliance with the
      law.

      BN sounds a theme which has no record support — that the
      NRC improperly made a determination as to the reasonableness of
      offshore wind, at the admissibility stage, on the merits. To the
      contrary, the NRC made it clear that it was not doing that, but
      examining BN’s submissions against the admissibility standard. It
      stated that “[BN] has not provided support for its claim that
      offshore wind is technically feasible and commercially viable . . .
      and therefore has not submitted an admissible contention,” and that
      “[BN’s] ‘offshore wind’ contention is not sustainable on its face
      -18-
      because it lacks a supporting basis,” a result reached “without
      improperly resolving disputed facts.”
      This theme by BN is a backdoor challenge to the decision
      made by the NRC in 1989, at the prompting of Congress, to toughen
      the standards for getting a hearing on contentions.

      (requiring agency adjudications
      to be subject to requirement of reasoned decisionmaking). That
      decision is reasonable because BN: (1) failed to even argue that
      the baseload requirement was inappropriate; and (2) its exhibits
      did not raise a genuine dispute as to the viability and feasibility
      of offshore wind to meet baseload requirements by 2030.
      First, BN’s contention did not respond to the requirement
      that a reasonable alternative must provide baseload power. BN did
      not supply information to dispute NextEra’s conclusion that energy
      storage devices are too costly and baseload power generation by
      wind power would require such devices. The relevant exhibit only
      discussed storage potential, but not cost.

      That failure by BN alone is fatal to their claim of
      error.12 We go beyond that and also discuss the NRC’s other factbased
      grounds as contained in the record.

      The exhibit relied upon by BN before the ASLB to support
      their representation — that wind power off Maine’s coast would
      provide baseload power by 2015 — does not support BN’s
      representation. The exhibit does not make any suggestion about
      baseload power, let alone in the 2015 time period. The one-page
      exhibit,13 an illustrative chart, calls for the deployment of one
      3-5 megawatt prototype turbine in 2012-2014 and five turbines
      capable of producing 25 megawatts, combined, in 2014-2016, which
      cannot provide baseload power, much less power on the scale of
      Seabrook.14
      Moreover, the NRC reasonably concluded that BN’s exhibits
      did not raise a genuine dispute as to the technical feasibility or
      commercial viability of offshore wind farms in the relevant time
      period.15 In fact, two of BN’s own exhibits undercut its position.

      15 In its reply brief, BN raises, for the first time, the
      argument that the Commission improperly required it to address the
      commercial viability of offshore wind as a source of baseload
      power. The argument was not raised in the opening brief and is
      waived.

      • Every single logical , reasonable, sensible, ethical , or moral reason that they have been given to prove to them that this is a ridiculous excuse for improving our environment, (it does quite the opposite), and is in fact, harmful, which has been hidden, or when it becomes public, the good people telling the truth about this fiasco, are discredited, and accused of “not caring about the environment!” Only something very bad would require such secrecy and disregard for communities.

      • Thanks for doing the needed “heavy lifting” to bring this decision to light.
        These three groups were hoping to shut down this nuclear plant by getting a court order to not extend the plant’s license.
        Instead the court ruled that offshore IWTs would not be sufficient to provide the needed baseload and that power storage is at present uncertain and very expensive.
        Rasies the question whether or not onshore IWTs can provide baseload electricity needs.
        If offshore IWTs can’t provide baseload then onshore IWTs can do the job either.
        Offshore and storage needs are not feasible options according to the court.

        This ruling must come as quite a shock to Frau Merkel and the German “greenies”.

  7. saying, “Bald eagles have been known to have alternative nests within their territory,” Jolanta Kowalski, a spokesperson for the MNR.

    MY QUESTION IS THIS: where the fu$k does MNR they are going to move to!? On the east side of Nextera is Samsung and on the west side is Capitol. 200 + turbines planned for the immediate vicinity.

    • Perhaps that “person”…(and I use the term loosely), knows of “snowbird” types of eagles that fly down to their condos in Florida when the weather is bad. How well did she know these eagles. Did they really have a second home? Or was that an assumption made to make the crime seem less damaging. How long would it take, (if indeed there was a second nest), for them to steal that one too?

      • They may be lucky and have an old nest that they abandoned where they can seek shelter this winter until a new safe nest can be built in spring. But they won’t breed until they have a safe nest.

      • If you follow Climate Audit you begin to agree with the Host that climatologists and environmentalists seem to “make things up” at times. Perhaps far too many times…

  8. Thank you for this link to the US court of Appeal. The Sierra club does the same intervention for nuclear licensing here. This court decison is touche because some of the US nuclear utilities got conned into setting up wind power divisions that are loosing money, and will loose money big time when the Production Tax Credit ends and it may well end within a year becuase it just got a one year repreave as part of the fiscal cliff agreement. Anyway, the nuclear utilities want out of the wind business becuase wind looses money. Yes, Ontario FIT is the richest popsickle/candy sucker in the world and that is why nextera and others are here…McGuinty invited them, won’t put in the moratorium, he is to blame and he should be jailed just like the Ukraine jailed thier primeminister for making a sweetheart deal on natural gas with Russia…this is all on google.
    Now we have it from a judge that wind is not viable. When will MCguinty pull his head out of his ass? Well, he can’t becuase his head is his ass!

    • This ruling is an event that carries real weight. It means that judges have looked at the issues in this case all the way up through the U.S. federal court system.
      MPPs need good solid ground to stand on when they speak out on issues.

      • You’re right, barbara. MPPs need to be told about these things by the people they represent.

        You can copy and paste this into an email:

        The more we understand about the electricity market, the more it’s apparent that Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers are being lied to.

        Consider the Jan 4, 2013 decision from the US Court of Appeals at this link:

        http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=12-1561P.01A

        “Nextera” runs a nuclear plant called Seabrook – a 1245 megawatt unit — in New Hampshire and was trying to get its licensed extended.

        As part of the decision-making process, the agency responsible for deciding whether to extend the license had to consider the energy production alternatives that are available.

        Interestingly, Nextera submitted as part of this application for license renewal for its nuclear plant, that “wind” was not considered an alternative to nuclear.

        From the Decision:
        “NextEra’s environmental report, among other things,
        addressed four alternative sources of energy to renewing Seabrook’s
        license that it deemed viable, reasonable alternatives: natural
        gas-fired generation; coal-fired generation; a new nuclear plant;
        and power purchases.
        The report also discussed wind power, of which NextEra is
        the leading generator in North America, but concluded it was not a
        reasonable alternative as a source of baseload electricity “

        Even though Ontarians are not being officially told by government and industry that wind turbines are not a “reasonable source of baseload electricity”, there are engineers telling us that the intermittent nature of these wind turbines is causing real havoc–or at least, major inefficiencies–in the power grid: water power is being wasted, nuclear plants are being idled, excess power is being sold at a huge loss, natural gas plants are being built to “back-up” wind turbines, and worst of all, we are burning fossil fuel inefficiently only so that we can accommodate wind power!

        What would it mean for people like me who’ve sustained such huge losses because of the reckless operation of wind turbines too close to our homes, if a ‘post-mortem’ analysis shows that all of this has actually been for zero environmental benefits?

  9. ‘They’ already know that it has been for ‘zero environmental benefits’ as well as uneconomical, unsustainable and unreliable! ‘They’ just don’t care.
    Participating landowners have no more excuse – they’re in it for pure greed.
    Politicians have sold out to foreign and local wind energy companies and do not have the moral courage to admit they have been wrong.
    Government bureaucracy is totally involved and now have an ever growing need to protect all the additional ‘green’ jobs they have been demanding. The staff to receive, process and approve the REAs.
    The wind energy companies are doing exactly what the environmentalists have alleged ‘Big Oil’ have been doing for years, yet they continue to support wind and solar! Just like politicians they do not have the character or courage to admit they are wrong and recognize the wind and solar energy industries as being far bigger ‘corporate crooks’ and polluters than ‘Big Oil’ ever have been.
    And all the above, so far, are being protected by a Canadian justice system that has given up any pretense of protecting the innocent. They are enjoying their tax paid ‘gravy train’ every bit as much as the wind energy companies!
    Andrew Watts

    • ‘Big Oil’ is already the largest corporate
      investor in renewables. These guys know
      where the money is at.

  10. Good point Andrew, and that is why big wind just won’t go away, as long as the FIT is available, we in Ontario (other than Germany) have the biggest trough of free money for corporate plundering in the western world thanks to McGuinty. It is like once somebody has stolen your PIN number, thieves have no morals.

Leave a Reply

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