Wind turbines generate trouble for two Ontario airports

plane chatham airportChristina Blizzard, Toronto Sun
Darwin understood these things so well. Survival of the fittest. Or, more succinctly, people who do dangerous things often don’t survive their own stupidity.

Sadly, when it comes to building wind turbines near airports, the consequences of a foolish act performed in the name of the flawed Green Energy Act are borne by innocent people who had no part in the stupid decision. Two rural airports in this province are facing the serious consequences of wind turbines sited too close to their runways.

Transport Canada recently issued an order forcing the removal of eight turbines near Chatham-Kent’s airport. And Collingwood airport is fighting a plan to place massive turbines close to its runway. Read article

29 thoughts on “Wind turbines generate trouble for two Ontario airports

  1. Just read some of the CHILDISH comments on the airports & IWT issues posted at the Sun on these issues.

    Some people don’t even a clue as to what’s going on in the real world.

  2. Just read some of the CHILDISH comments posed at the Sun on these airport issues.

    Some people don’t even have a clue about what’s taking place in Ontario with IWT issues.

    • Yes, I was amazed at the lack at how juvenile they seemed, so juvenile. This is such a serious subject to rural residents. The potential for negative ramifications for the short sightedness of these wind companies is alarming.

    • A law is a law. Thiis one’s black and white. In this case, the Chatham turbines are physically present, and the distance is known. There is no justification to appeal to a court. A court can only judge on whether an error in judgement occurred. There is no judgement required in this case. If GDF Suez wants the law changed, the courts can’t do it. Parliament changes laws. GDF Suez will need to have Rick Nichols submit a member’s bill before the legislature, and go through the process to change the law.

      However, in Ontario, GDF Suez may gain some traction because of the corruption in the Ont. Gov’t. Airport safety being a federal jurisdiciton, a court should toss out an application for appeal. I might suggest GDF Suez be charged with contempt.

      The premise here is that GDF Suez doesn’t like the law, therefore the law should change. I’ll keep this in mind when I decide I want to travel 160 kph on Hwy. 401, going past Chatham. Think I’d be successful?

      And you’re right. The comments in the Sun article really do show the level of comprehension!

    • Why concern yourself with IWT issues when you can spend time cheering for your favourite sports team… I mean political party? The Sun has never been known to have a readership of high intelligence, so part for the course, I guess.

      • Even reading the comments in the local papers reveals a lack of knowledge on the public’s part about IWT issues.

        There are some who still think that the Old Hydro was broken into private companies which is not true. These are still crown corporations owned by the province.

        This was the ruse used to get around the court ruling that the Old Hydro could not purchase power from private electricity providers. So just break up the Old Hydro and call them private companies.

        The PCs are responsible for this and the Liberals just continued down the same path. So there are no excuses for either party in respect to this situation.

        if the Old Hydro has been sold to real private parties the result would have been the same as all that was needed was to pass laws to require private electric companies to purchase a certain amount of renewable energy from these wind and solar developers.

        The end results would be the same.

      • Creating “private” crown corporations for the purpose of allowing renewable developers to sell electricity to the government could be the reason a cost-benefit analysis was never done.

        No one wanted to prove that this wasn’t feasible on a cost basis?

  3. Mot to be distracted by ‘conversations for another time’…..

    “Toward A Case Definition: brain damage causes support for wind turbines”
    Is it a ‘reading comprehension’ problem, or a psychosis?

      • Isn’t Leventhall the editor (or initiator) of this journal? The pro wind side certainly references him and his work…

      • There is more than one Leventhall/Leventhal when an internet search is done so which one do you mean?

        Appears to be a U.K. journal.

      • I was mistaken. Here is the journal I was referring to:
        http://www.multi-science.co.uk/lowfreq.htm

        I have not had time to investigate the quality and/or peer review of this journal, though…

        Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control
        Associate Editors, including…
        Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise, Vibration and Acoustics, UK

  4. The issue: money

    ‘[excerpt] Under Transport Canada rules, airports have an imaginary circle about four nautical miles wide and 500 feet high in which no tall obstacles are allowed to be built.’

    The municipality of Chatham-Kent gave out ‘building permits’ – to GDF Suez –
    so, it becomes a question – of – who will pay –
    the price for stupidity?

    Mayor Randy Hope –
    is arguing on behave of GDF Suez – hahahahahahaha………
    and, it makes sense to him;
    to save his own pimp-ship –
    and, worse – he thinks he is a hero.

    And – the lawyers – are laughing
    all the way to the bank!

    Welcome to Ontario! – Lawyer Up!

    But the fact still remains:
    ‘[excerpt] Under Transport Canada rules, airports have an imaginary circle about four nautical miles wide and 500 feet high in which no tall obstacles are allowed to be built.’

    And – every pilot expects safety first – will be in place.
    Period!

  5. “Did you just go public?”

    – “No. The P is for provincial.”

    docuse.wordpress.com/opp

    Get ’em while they’re hot!

  6. As Dave B says, a law, except wind developers don’t see it that way. They are conditioned by years of influence with Ont municipal and provincial governments to have their own way, that laws are for the little people. Witness the agreements certain wind companies have with municipal councils to circumvent local road by laws. The attitude is to simply spread a few bucks around and the rules will be ignored. This will not work with the federal government. What Suez really wants is a special law for them, the present one is inconvenient.
    If this case actually goes to court and some judge finds in Suez’s favour, we will know that the corruption runs further than even the provincial cabinet. These towers need to come down and Suez can pay for dismantling them, and returning the land to growing condition.

    I spent a weekend driving to Huron Co with Toronto folks who were unaware that the wind plants were privately owned and leased entities, So there exists a massive ignorance of wind issues in urban Ont and Wynne and her cronies prefer it that way.

  7. Well, if you did dig deep enough, you would find that one of the former Principals of AIM PowerGen/IPC/GDF-Suez WAS ACTUALLY on one of the writing teams for the Green Energy and Green Economy Act.

    DIG, Lassie, DIG.

  8. More Black & White:

    ‘[excerpt] U.S. federal and state prosecutors continue to probe General Motors’ deadly ignition switch fault to determine if criminal charges can be laid.

    Potential criminal charges include mail and wire fraud and could hinge on whether there is evidence that GM attempted to deliberately mislead safety investigators and the public over the ignition switch issue.

    An internal probe of GM’s small cars, especially the Chevrolet Cobalt, uncovered evidence that problems with the switches were discussed at the company several times over the past 10 years.

    Internal investigator Anton Valukas found there was a pattern of management deficiency and misjudgment that led to safety problems being ignored for years, but insisted there did not appear to be a cover-up at GM.
    […]
    “Let’s say that most of North America believes that General Motors was scandalously negligent in responding to the ignition problem. That however is not criminal,” [John Coffee, law professor at Columbia University] added.

    In cases such as Worldcom CEO Bernard Ebbers or Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, the top executive of the company was indicted. But then prosecutors were able to prove that both were running companies whose business model was based on fraud.

    The GM case is different, Coffee said. In order to press a criminal case, prosecutors would have to find that someone made a false statement to a regulatory agency or covered up by destroying documents or obstructing justice.

    “This case, you need more than a charge, more than a theory that is specific, you’re going to need actual witnesses. You can’t make this kind of case just with emails and documents. You’re going to need some officer willing to testify against fellow officers,” Coffee said.

    He said there may be a public appetite to take down someone at the top as a deterrent for other companies.

    However, Barra’s behaviour, testifying before Congress and opening an embarrassing investigation for public scrutiny, may help avert criminal charges against individuals.

    There is precedent for a criminal proceeding against a major automaker over a safety defect. Toyota Motor Corp. reached a $1.2-billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, after a four-year criminal investigation focused on unintended acceleration of its vehicles. It was forced to admit that it misled U.S. consumers over the safety issues, though no charges were laid against individuals within the company.’

  9. “Scandalously Negligent”? Or worse?

    ‘[excerpt] The Canadian Press obtained a heavily censored copy of the commissioner’s findings and recommendations under the Access to Information Act.

    Ottawa-based CSEC monitors foreign communications of intelligence interest to Canada, and exchanges a large amount of information with similar agencies in the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand.
    […]
    The leaked documents revealed that the NSA had quietly obtained access to a broad swath of emails, chat logs and other information from major Internet companies, as well as data about a huge volume of telephone calls. They also told how Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters had tapped fibre-optic cables to extract Internet data.
    […]
    In certain cases the defence minister authorizes CSEC activities that would otherwise risk breaching the Criminal Code provision against intercepting the private communications of Canadians.

    Initial inquiries by the CSEC commissioner found the spy service did take measures to uphold the privacy of Canadians in what it shares with the four chief allies — for instance by suppressing Canadian identities in reports supplied to them.

    However, the commissioner’s office undertook further study to determine how much information about Canadians is being shared with the partners and whether they were fulfilling commitments to protect sensitive details.

    These activities may directly affect the security of a Canadian person,” says the 34-page report, originally classified top secret, for Canadian eyes only.

    “Precision and accuracy of language in exchanges of information can be critical and affect outcomes, including how individuals are treated.”

    In underscoring the potential dangers of losing control of information about Canadians, the report points to the case of Ottawa engineer Maher Arar, who was tortured in a Syrian prison over false terrorism allegations. An inquiry concluded information the RCMP passed to the United States likely led to his ordeal.’

  10. Both Canada and the U.S. have problems with terrorist and other illegal operations and organizations that they never used to have.

    North America used to be isolated from the world’s problems until WW2. There was no overseas travel for the public during WW2. Now people run all over the world.

    Then how do you balance safety/security with privacy?

  11. How to balance safety/security & privacy?

    Let’s start here:

    Did any of the emails or other communications that were intercepted by the spy agencies, contain privileged information between lawyers & clients?

    Are lawyers prepared to sacrifice the right to strategy and confidentiality? And does this achieve safety/security?

  12. Why has it taken Transport Canada so long? The 4km x 500h ft height exclusion zone has been on the books for years. Regardless of the GEA and the wind industry’s propensity for lying, unless TC have been living in a bubble and have never heard of the GEA and wind energy projects in Ontario, then, like so many other of this government’s agencies, they have chosen to ignore what is happening and just continue bank their monthly pay checks!
    The turbines are still up around the Chatham airport I think?
    With Wynne and her crooks now firmly in control I’ll believe it when I see that first turbine taken down and not until! Even then I would think it will be the taxpayer again who will pay and the wind energy company who will be ‘compensated’ for losing his tax subsidized profits!
    Andrew Watts

  13. Not this is an excuse, but GDF Suez has a complex corporate structure with all its subsidiaries and partnerships.

    To serve an order the exact ownership has to be known. A lot of legal papers may have had to be gone through to do this.

    This was probably not required to obtain Ontario permits to install these IWTs at C-K airport.

    Then there is the issue of the French government ~37% ownership of GDF Suez. A diplomatic issue.

    • Two companies:

      GDF Suez Canada Inc.
      GDF Suez Energy Canada Inc.

      Think it is GDF Suez Canada Inc. that the order was issued to, to remove the C-K airport turbines.

Leave a Reply

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