Friday, October 10, 2008
S.O.S. Save Our Skyline
Our local representatives are:
Killaloe
Andrew & Cathy Mask
Brudenell
Peter & Lisa Hubers
Wilno/Barry's Bay
Helen Mandy
Pauline Sedgeman
Lou Eyamie
Bonnechere Valley
Jack Stephenson
Youth Representative
Amber Mullin
For more information please contact: Lou Eyamie, President S.O.S. sos-renfrewcounty@live.ca Phone: 613-756-6018
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Madawaska Valley Council goes on Wind Tour
Posted By Douglas Gloin Barry's Bay "This Week"
The controversy over plans to build a series of wind turbine operations at sites across the region is set to brew up in the next fewdays.
Madawaska Valley councillors just returned last Friday “from a pretty substantive tour” of wind turbine sites in southwestern Ontario, Mayor John Hildebrandt told Monday night’s regular township council meeting.
A company named SkyPower has proposed to build six of the giant wind turbines at sites in the hills north of Wilno. Turbine farms are also being proposed in Bonnechere Valley, Madawaska, Whitney and several other areas.
The Madawaska Valley councillors took the tour to sound out opinions from people involved with, or living near, wind farm sites near the shores of Lake Huron. Councillor Shelley Maika made the contacts for the trip, “nobody else knew where we were going or who we were talking to,” she said.
Hildebrandt said councillors would condense their findings over the next week or so, and then put out a press release. Bonnechere Valley and other area politicians went on a similar trip to wind turbine operations near Sault Ste. Marie as well, and Hildebrandt said he would be comparing notes with them.
Council’s visit was timely. There are two public meetings on the wind farm issue set for this week. The first, organized by SOS, or Save Our Skyline, which is opposed to industrial wind operations in the area as they are currently proposed, is at St. Hedwig’s Church hall in Barry’s Bay on Thursday, Oct. 9 at 7 p.m.
SOS president Lou Eyamie of Wilno says the presentation will be about two hours and will run along the lines of a gathering held during the summer. That meeting featured presentations on reported impacts to health, the environment, wildlife, livestock and property values caused by industrial wind turbines, but did not include any representatives from the other side of the issue.
The second meeting in Whitney is on Saturday (Oct. 11), and concerns a proposal by RES Canada Inc. to build from 40 to 60 turbines near McCauley Lake, about 10 km. from the Algonquin Park border. The plan has particularly alarmed the people who own the 40 cottages on the quiet lake, which is largely undeveloped. In an interview last week, cottager Brent Peterson said the cottagers fear that because they are a small group, and because the proposed wind turbines would be located on Crown lands, they will be unable to stop the turbine operation from being approved.
But Eyamie says a considerable amount of opposition to the wind turbines is building in both Whitney and Madawaska and their views are certain to be represented at the meeting. It is to run from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at St. Martin of Tours hall on Post Street in Whitney.
At a minimum, Eyamie says, he would like to see a full Environmental Assessment done on all wind farm site proposals, including a study of their possible impact on the groundwater. The turbines also need to be built with adequate setbacks that keep them away from neighbouring homes and property.
But Eyamie also believes that the wind farm companies need to explain to citizens what sort of benefits would be forthcoming to the communities that allow them to set up shop.
In a related development, SkyPower sent a letter to Madawaska Valley Council saying they had tried twice to contact Eyamie twice through letters but had heard no response from him. But Eyamie, who was at Monday night’s council meeting, said the first letter arrived just after he left on a three-week trip, and that he has just received the second.
“We’re not ignoring them,” he said. “It’s just a timeline thing.”
Article ID# 1238370 http://www.barrysbaythisweek.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1238370
Councils and Newspaper Go on Wind Tour
Leader staff writer Neil Etienne,at the newspaper’s expense, accompanied three municipal councils and staff –
As wind power is such a contentious local issue and with the depth of the research conducted during the tour, the Leader will present its readers with several weeks of features.
We will take an in-depth look as the weeks progress in such areas as the city of Sault Ste. Marie and its longstanding relation to Brookfield, their experience with the process and feelings now the farm is in place. We will look at the local native influence and experience as well as
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Renfrew County unlikely to halt wind farms
Visneskie, who is also mayor of Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards Township, was speaking during that council’s Sept. 16 regular meeting. During a short presentation to council from industrial wind farm opponent Brian Tyrrell, Visneskie briefly donned her warden’s hat.
“I’ll tell you that … the process of the county is that we do not interfere in a local issue,” Visneskie said, explaining that this is because the county’s 17 member municipalities fought long and hard for the right not to have county council overturn their decisions on issues facing their communities.
“So now, when there’s a controversial decision, the municipalities can’t argue that they want to pass the buck to the county,” Visneskie said. It is they who “are going to have to make those tough decisions” on issues such as whether wind farms should be allowed.
The mayor added that she would soon be making a stop at an industrial wind farm near Goderich, Ont. “just to have a look-see” at the operation.
Several companies have proposed a series of industrial wind turbine projects for locations across the Madawaska Valley/Bonnechere Valley region. In the Township of Madawaska Valley, one proposal by SkyPower would see six of the massive turbines built in the hills north of Wilno.
Opponents of the projects, organized under the banner of Save Our Skyline, warn the turbines will cause health and environmental damage if politicians allow them to be built.
While as yet there are no wind turbine projects proposed for within the borders of Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards, both council and citizens are concerned what sort of impact wind turbine construction will have on township roads and other infrastructure.
Visneskie, stressing that no proposal for road use by wind farm operators has come before her council yet, said the council has not made any decision either for or against wind farms, but councillors nonetheless will be vigilant.
“Our concern is the protection of our roads,” she said. “As a municipality, I will offer to you that we will do everything in our power to protect our roads because we owe that to our taxpayers.”
Tyrrell, who presented council with a study of the Point Petre wind power project, asked council that it ensure that any tour of wind farms by local politicians be independent, not one guided by wind power companies, and that councillors meet with people affected by the projects.
“That’s sort of what we intended to do,” Mayor Visneskie said.
Several municipal councils, including Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards and the Township of Madawaska Valley, are considering a joint tour of wind farms near Sault Ste. Marie.
Tyrrell also read to councillors from a passionate letter by a woman whose home was hard-hit by a massive wind turbine project at Mars Hill, Maine.
Meanwhile, SkyPower Corp., which is involved in several industrial wind farm projects proposed for the Bonnechere/Madawaska Valley region, including the Wilno Hills proposal, put out a news release last week saying it was not involved in the massive bankruptcy process at Lehman Brothers Holdings in the United States.
Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy laws. Barclays Bank in Britain has since announced that it will buy up some of Lehman Brothers U.S. businesses.
SkyPower bills itself as a Lehman Brothers company and has several Lehman executives on its board of directors. However, in a news release on Sept. 17, the company said it “remains focused on its business plan and committed to pursuing the renewable energy projects in its Canadian and international portfolios.”
Also last week, area newspapers including Barry’s Bay This Week published a required notice of an environmental review for SkyPower’s “Hardwood Hills Wind Project” near Eganville.
The notice says the corporation is proposing “the development of a wind energy project southwest of Eganville.” The Bonnechere Valley project would be located near Highway 60 east of Highway 515 and south of Clear Lake.
The company says an environmental screening of the project under the province’s Electricity Projects Regulation has commenced. Under the regulation, SkyPower is required to have a screening of the project and then, if appropriate, a more detailed environmental review. However, SkyPower says that it will undertake an environmental review right from the start. It adds that, “SkyPower is also consulting with federal agencies to determine whether the environmental review will follow the screening requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.”
SOS and other wind farm opponents – citing bird kills, loss of wildlife habitat, harmful low-intensity noise, visual pollution and a host of other environmental impacts linked to the massive industrial wind turbines – have called for a complete federal environmental assessment, not just a provincial review, for any and all proposed wind farm projects in the area.
By Douglas Gloin
Barry’s Bay This Week
24 September 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Know your rights regarding Enevironmental Screening Process
You Have the Right to Ask questions and to be Informed about the Wind Project Proposed for Your Community
Special Thanks to Frank Entwistle and Allen Lewis
This is intended to give some insight into the public’s right to participate in the environmental assessment process regarding this project. Our intention is to respond to an overwhelming number of requests from Ontario rural residents on this subject. Only the original document should be considered correct and complete. It is available on the internet at Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/4021e.pdf
This document contains part only of the 84 page Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects March 2001 Ministry of the Environment Part A – Overview. It was created by computer Cut & Paste, along with our edits, insertions and comments for clarification. The authors do not assure accuracy or correctness.
WHAT IS CONSIDERED THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE ACT?
In the Act, “environment” means,
(a) air, land or water,
(b) plant and animal life, including human life,
(c) the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community,
(d) any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans,
(e) any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting directly or indirectly from human activities, or
(f) any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or more of them,
in or of Ontario
WHY DOES THE PROPONENT (THE DEVELOPER) HAVE TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU?
Under The Environmental Assessment Act it is the proponent’s (developer’s) responsibility to design and implement an appropriate consultation program for the project. The consultation program must provide appropriate opportunities and forums for the public to participate in the screening process. Failure to carry out adequate public consultation or to address public issues or concerns may result in requests to elevate the project (see Elevation Requests below).
WHEN DOES THE PROPONENT (THE DEVELOPER) HAVE TO INFORM YOU?
Proponents (developers) are required to prepare a Notice of Commencement at the beginning of a Screening to formally announce the project is subject to the Environmental Screening Process and is commencing. The Notice of Commencement must provide basic information on the project including a description of the project (proponents must include all phases and components of the project), including construction, turbines, transmission lines, outbuildings, roads, etc., the proposed locations, the proponent’s (developer’s) name and a contact name, address and phone number, the operation, and retirement of the project (the specifics are described in Part B of the Guide).
It is inappropriate for proponents to break up or “piecemeal” a larger project into separate components or phases, with each part addressed as a separate project.
WHO MUST BE INFORMED BY THE PROPONENT (THE DEVELOPER)?
All notices must be mailed or delivered to households in the immediate vicinity of the project and to affected government agencies. The notices should also be mailed or delivered to other potentially interested parties. The proponent (developer) should also mail or deliver the notices to other potentially affected agencies, municipalities, First Nations and other Aboriginal communities, landowners, residents, businesses, and local interest groups, even if they have not previously expressed an interest.
HOW DOES THE PROPONENT (DEVELOPER) SEND YOU INFORMATION?
The proponent is required to mail or deliver all notices to all who have expressed an interest in the project. For this purpose, the proponent (developer) is required to maintain throughout the screening process a mailing list of all persons and agencies that provide comment and input to the process or otherwise express an interest in the project. Proponents (developers) must make supporting information and copies of all correspondence related to the Environmental Screening Process available for public or agency review if requested.
HOW CAN YOU PARTICIPATE?
Conducting a Screening - The proponent (developer) then applies the screening criteria (found in Appendix C of the Guide) to the project as it has been described in the project description outlined above. This involves answering a series of questions, based on the screening criteria, to identify the potential for any negative effects on the environment. The screening criteria are presented in the form of a checklist with the option of a “Yes” or “No” response. The completed Appendix C will form part of the final Screening Report and will be available for public review. Extensive studies and reports must be completed to prove and mitigate all identified potential negative environmental effects.
Public Consultation - The purpose of public consultation in the Environmental Screening Process is to allow the proponent (developer) to identify and address public concerns and issues and to provide the public with an opportunity to receive information about and make meaningful input into the project review and development.
Consultation is necessary for the proponent (developer) to:
- properly notify potentially interested and affected stakeholders;
- identify and assess the range of environmental and socio-economic effects of the project; and
- address the concerns of adjacent property owners, interest groups, First Nations and other Aboriginal communities, and members of the public that may be directly affected by some aspect of the project.
The applicant’s (developer’s) public consultation program should:
- identify potentially affected stakeholders;
- describe how the project may affect the environment;
- provide appropriate notification to identified stakeholders;
- inform the public where, when and how they can be involved;
- identify public concerns and issues related to the project;
- address public concerns and issues raised during the program; and
- document how public input is taken into account in the screening process and in the project planning and development.
THE FINAL NOTIFICATION
Upon completion of a Screening, the proponent (developer) must prepare and distribute a Notice of Completion. This notice is intended to inform public, First Nations and other Aboriginal communities, and agency stakeholders that the proponent (developer) has completed a Screening under the Environmental Screening Process and that the minimum 30-Day Review Period is commencing. The notice must also indicate where copies of the Screening Reports can be obtained or reviewed during the 30-Day Review Period. The notice must be placed in a local newspaper with circulation in the vicinity of the project (or an appropriate equivalent means of notifying the public where no such newspaper exists). THIS IS THE PUBLIC’S OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT DEFICIENCIES AND TO INSIST ON CREDIBLE ANSWERS USING ELEVATION REQUESTS.
YOU HAVE THE LEGISLATED RIGHT RECEIVE CREDIBLE ANSWERS
ELEVATION REQUESTS
Members of the public, First Nations and other Aboriginal communities, or agencies with outstanding environmental concerns regarding a project undergoing the screening process should bring their concerns to the attention of the proponent (developer) as early in the process as possible. If concerns are not resolved, the concerned party can ask the proponent (developer) to voluntarily elevate the project, either before or during the 30-Day Review Period. If the proponent (developer) declines to voluntarily elevate the project during the 30-Day Review Period, the party may write to the Director of the EAAB to request that the project be elevated.
If one or more requests for elevation of the project are received within the 30-Day Review Period by the Director of the Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch (EAAB) of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the project cannot proceed until the Director makes a decision on the request(s) for elevation.
- Director, Certificates of Approvals - Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch is Doris Dumais: doris.dumais@ontario.ca
- Director (Acting) - Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch is Agatha Garcia-Wright: agatha.garciawright@ontario.ca
- Ontario Minister of the Environment: John Gerretsen: jgerretsen.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Abandoned Farms and Hydro Upgrades
"A few weeks ago a friend of mine and I went out to take photos of the new wind turbines put up by Enbridge in Bruce Township, near Kincardine. It was the first time we had been back to his old neighbourhood and he kept remarking on the drastic change to the landscape. We visited a number of his old neighbours who now live beside turbines. Everyone will recall how nobly, and a great expense to themselves, some of the people of this township fought at the public MOD hearing where they were ridiculed and belittled by the Enbridge lawyer and obviously ignored by the chairman.
The photos are revealing in that they demonstrate the enormous number of transmission lines that have been added to these quiet country roads. The photo of the transformer station illustrates the huge footprint taken up by a wind turbine development on the landscape. With its interconnecting transmission lines, it fragments the natural habitat.
The photo from the screen door is taken at the house of a farmer who was forced to sell his farm at a considerable discount because of the arrival of the wind turbines. He feels fortunate, however, to have sold it at all. Many other houses in the district have been for sale without buyers for many months."
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Madawaska Valley Council addressed by S.O.S.
On Monday night, Genevieve Jones of the group Save Our Skylines (SOS) attended the Madawaska Valley council meeting with a list of questions submitted to SOS. Council has indicated it planned to visit a wind farm in the near future and Jones asked that members consider her questions while on the excursion.
“We’re concerned that wind companies are not giving full side of the story,” Jones said.
One question dealt with long-term effects of the wind farms on property values, health, tourism and the environment.
Councillor Phil Conway, who chaired the meeting, said he’d heard at the SOS public information meeting that property values would be lowered, but said he’d also heard that the lands where turbines are installed are often of low value anyway. Councillor Bonnie Mask said she had heard concerns about noise from the turbines and about the deer hunt.
Jones wondered about the safety of groundwater.
“We’ve heard that they will have to do blasting to put the foundations for the turbines in,” she said. “How will that impact groundwater and wells?’
Conway stated the township “has an agreement with these people that they can’t do anything until they report back to this council. That hasn’t happened yet.”
Councillor Sylvie Yantha said council would be better able to answer Jones’ questions after the wind farm tour. Jones asked if the community of Kincardine is on the tour.
The council’s original plans were to visit Shelburne; Councillor Shelley Maika asked why Jones mentioned Kincardine.
“We’ve heard of people who have had to leave their homes” because of the turbines, Jones responded.
CAO/Clerk Pat Pilgrim advised those at the table that the township has been invited to join other municipalities in a bus trip to the Prince Wind Farm near Sault Ste. Marie.
“Bonnechere Valley is organizing this trip; the consensus is that the terrain in that area is similar to ours,” she said.
In a telephone conversation with Bonnechere Valley CAO/Clerk Bryan Martin Tuesday morning, he said it made sense for the municipalities to combine forces.
“Several municipalities have been talking individually about visiting wind farms, so why not save money and go together?” he said.
“There is no sense looking at a wind farm in open farm land in southern Ontario,” he added. “The terrain in the Soo is similar to here.”
Martin said he is hoping those taking the trip will be able to talk to people who live close to the wind farm as well as see the turbines in action. The trip is expected to take place early in October. Madawaska Valley Township has yet to confirm whether it will join the trip to the Soo or visit the Shelburne area on its own.
By Heather Kendall
Barry’s Bay This Week
17 September 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Wilno will experience this!
September 4, 2008
The Town of Barre is about to enter a growing club, comprised of communities that have said YES to wind development. With the passage of their law permitting wind turbines to be built anywhere in the town with minimal setback and noise protections, Barre is ripe for development.
What will Barre’s future look like? Well, now that the Spanish company Iberdrola has managed to bypass the major safeguards usually imposed on utility companies, they are eager to find places to build their tax shelters – er, wind farms. Erecting wind turbines, whether in windy areas or in places where they won’t generate a single kW of electricity (like Barre) will provide them with enough tax credits and subsidies to pay off their investment in a few short years and also shelter them from paying taxes on most of the income that Energy East will earn them in New York State. For some reason, those facts escaped our elected officials, and didn’t deter them from heavily promoting the deal as a good one for New Yorkers (huh?).
But back to Barre, a small, rural, mostly flat township 10 miles south of Lake Ontario in western New York. A few powerful farmers and quarry owners dominate the political landscape here, and soon their wind turbines will dominate the actual landscape. Neighbors are being enticed to sign leases and agreements for a few thousand dollars that will tie up their land for decades and prohibit them from complaining about any of the nuisances that the turbines generate, and from even saying anything to their friends or family members about what they have done. The strain is already starting to be felt: people avoiding one another, refusing to speak openly when asked, or just plain telling others “It’s none of your business.” Funny how putting up a 420 ft. tall machine that may make loud noises just a thousand feet from your home is considered none of your business, but in this community it is. People are afraid to speak out, for fear of severing life-long friendships. Wait until they see what the presence of those machines does to those relationships.
So now the law is passed and Iberdrola has been busy signing people up. Next will come the earth moving equipment to blast and dig holes for the bases, then the trucks carrying 50-ton loads of towers and nacelles and blades, and the giant cranes to erect them. It won’t take long. The parts have been stored off the Thruway at various locations, just waiting for the formality of approval from the Public Service Commission. Now that that charade is over, the trucks will roll!
If it’s not too windy, the towers will go up quickly, mostly by specialized crews from outside our area. Our little restaurants and delis will see a short boom in business while they are here. But before you know it, these workers will be gone, leaving us with several gleaming white towers supporting giant blades that will stand there. And stand there. Our wind in Barre is pretty fickle – too light to drive those giant blades most of the time and too strong for their hubs during times of high winds. So they will produce very little, if any, electricity that can be sold into the grid. We won’t know that, of course, because like the results of the meteorological towers that have been up for a couple years to measure our wind, we will never be allowed to see the results of their meters. The wind industry very carefully guards that information, claiming it is “proprietary” and that releasing it would somehow put them at a disadvantage against their competition. Except that they don’t have any competition. Before Thanksgiving, they will have gotten everyone who can be persuaded to part with their judgment for a few bucks to agree to permit the company to use their land for wind development for decades to come. Why an intelligent person would tie up their land, not only during their lifetime but for the lives of their children, is hard to understand. There is something about having money waved under your nose that makes otherwise good people do truly stupid – even harmful – things.
It probably wouldn’t matter if these greedy fools were the only ones who suffered the consequences. But the tragedy is that the ones who profit the most will probably move south in years to come, leaving everyone else to deal with the mess they have created.
What mess? Well, 60 or more turbines will march across our town in any direction that works for the developer. So expect them all over the most beautiful part of town where the open land and woods harbor all kinds of wildlife. When that room is used up, the turbines will be built 1000 ft. from homes and businesses, so that the maximum number of machines can be squeezed onto the land. If a property is needed for transmission lines, it will be taken by eminent domain and its owner minimally compensated for the loss. No one will be exempt, except those with large parcels who have agreements with the wind developer to keep the turbines away from their homes. Once again, the aristocracy comes out on top, and the rest of us suffer. I thought we lived in a democracy, but I must have been dreaming.
In a decade or two we will look very different from today. Now, we are a bucolic landscape with a few industrial intrusions. Tomorrow we will be an industrial wasteland, with perhaps a few corners of untouched beauty. The aging towers will stand idle, rusting and dripping hydraulic fluid all over the ground, contaminating what was supposed to be returned to farmland when the turbines were no more. But the money that built them will be long gone and its owners untraceable, and the locals will be stuck trying to find a way to finance the demolition of millions of dollars of aging equipment. The bonds and funds promised to pay for this will have proven to be worth no more than recycled paper. Anyone who could afford to leave the area and could manage to find a community where such degradation was not permitted, will have sold and moved away. Those left, the old, the poor, the family-bound, will not be able to deal with the costs. It will be a bleak and lonely landscape, indeed.
But never fear; a savior will rush in! The government of Abu Dhabi, providing Iberdrola with our oil dollars to build their turbines, will be happy to buy our farmland at fire-sale prices. The barren Middle East is facing a food crisis, and fertile farmland, even if somewhat polluted by wind turbines, is exactly what they need to feed their populations.
How will we feed ours, when we’ve industrialized our farmland and then given it away? Apparently nobody in power is concerned about that today. That will be a problem for the next generation to worry about. Our state agencies are more concerned about enriching farmers than they are with preserving farming, or they would never permit the industrialization of prime farmland like that in Barre. And our Barre farmers apparently aren’t very committed to farming, if they would sign deals that will bring such a future to their acreage.
As I read over what I just wrote, I think that I am a lunatic – and you probably do, too. I hope I’m dreaming and will soon wake up from this nightmare. But in case I don’t, hold on to this article for a couple decades and see how much of it comes true. I sincerely hope I am dead wrong, but I have an awful feeling that I have never been so right.
Monday, September 1, 2008
HERE'S THE ANSWER
Here in a nutshell is THE ANSWER! CONSERVATION!
If the Government is offering up billions of taxpayers dollars to offer an "alternative renewable energy resource" instead of allowing a few multi national corporations to grab all that money and plop down a "destructive pile of wind monsters" onto virtually wild, beautiful rural landscapes; why not offer subsidies to individuals who are much more "caring" and responsible" with their own environment.
The following pictures will show what just one family have developed on their little piece of land to "get off the grid". They have used Solar, Wind and Water to generate electricity.
This is a cottage in our beautiful Madawaska Valley that has heated pressurized water for washing and showering. Their small and "green friendly power concept" supplies electricity for lights, TV, fans and small appliances. They use Propane for cooking and though they don't have enough power for things like a freezer or microwave, they enjoy a quality of life that many of us take for granted.
Of course the Government wouldn't want to see a reduction in Hydro Electric use off their grid as then the large Power Corporation would lose valuable revenue.
Somewhat the same problem could arise if everyone would stop buying gasoline. The huge Oil Companies would "lose their shirt!"
All in all this proliferation of Wind Turbine technology that is wiping out wildlife, destroying landscapes, destroying property values and is causing health concerns is all "profit driven" and has nothing to do with "Green Energy"
TRAGIC!
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Madawaska Council to go on Road Trip
Madawaska Valley Councillors will go on “a tour” to investigate how wind turbine operations affect communities.
A controversy is flaring in the area over proposals to erect several wind turbine farms. One of the proposals would see six of the massive turbines built in the hills outside Wilno, Ont. and it has spawned a well-organized opposition movement called SOS, or Save Our Skyline.
Mayor John Hildebrandt, who has spoken in support of wind power, said the tour would likely take place in the third week of September.
Barry’s Bay This Week
The Sault Star
27 August 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Sorry, can't support wind turbines
August 23, 2008 by Dr. Ben Hoffman in The Daily Observer
There is a real conflict emerging over the proposed wind turbines apparently to be installed from Dacre, all along the Opeongo Line through Wilno, Barry's Bay and to Algonquin Park.
Neighbors are getting set against one another over this; even some families have started to split, brother against brother.
The issue has serious implications for all of Renfrew County.
Wind turbines sound great when you first hear about them. Who is against renewable energy?
Farmers who struggle to make a living are eying up the $9,000 they are to receive per turbine per year.
Ten turbines is a retirement income of $90,000!
Who would blame the farmers! And the Bonnechere and Madawaska township councils can see much-needed tax dollars flowing in. But there are problems with the whole scheme.
Considerable forest will have to be cut to install them, roads built to service them, skylines altered as hundreds pepper the horizon, their red lights flashing at night; and they are noisy too.
I know, because I went to Shelburne Ontario to see them.
So if you are not someone who is going to benefit directly, why support them? Maybe there is a way.
Imagine if only a few were placed strategically along the mountain range.
Out of the way, with little negative environmental and esthetic impact?
Imagine if our provincial and federal members of Parliament went to Queen's Park and insisted that our hydro rates (already higher than in Toronto) be reduced because we are sending alternatively- generated electricity south.
And imagine if the township councils guaranteed every taxpayer a cheque in the mail each year from this new revenue source (like Alberta has done with oil revenues).
These things, however, will likely never take place.
A few turbines make no business sense for the windpower companies.
They will want to install hundreds, as they have in Shelburne.
Our elected politicians will hardly persuade Ontario Hydro to lower our rates.
Township councils will not send us a cheque every year. Except for our few neighbors who will get some money, there seems no net financial, esthetic or green value in having the turbines here at all.
Without turbines what is our economic, social and lifestyle vision for Renfrew County?
Only five per cent of our workforce is now employed in logging and farming. Forty-five per cent of our jobs are in commerce and retail, and tourism.
Reality is that small business, eco-tourism, and potential retirement communities will be strong elements in the future. If we preserve our natural beauty.
Let's make sure that if we choose to install hundreds of 400- foot high turbines in our heritage countryside we do so from informed choice.
My sense is that once we are all informed and determine the net impact, we will choose to say to our would-be wind-farmer neighbor, as I have done with mine, "Sorry old friend, I can't support this project."
The author is the Federal Green Party Candidate, Eganville, ON
Web link: http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx...
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Saturday, August 2, 2008
SOS Group Speaks up
While still far from certain, several companies have made serious inroads into making large scale wind generation here a reality, with others making inquiries.
Test sites and leasing agreements with landowners are being lined up, some of which could be ready to proceed as early as the next year or two.
So far four companies have been working on projects within the Madawaska and Bonnechere Valley regions.
SkyPower Corp. is proposing four individual projects within Renfrew and South Algonquin Counties, consisting of six turbine sites each for Wilno, Foymount, Killaloe and Madawaska.
Renewable Energy Systems Canada or RES is looking at sites in the Denbigh and Whitney/Madawaska areas.
Action In Motion Power Gen, or AIM for short, has property under option with an eye to erect wind turbines along the Opeongo Line.
Brookfield Renewable Power, a Gatineau, Quebec company that owns generation facilities around the western hemisphere, has been busy negotiating with local landowners to secure leasing rights to use their properties as wind turbine sites, should the project proceed. The Canadian company is considering setting up a wind generation site south of Dacre, within an area bordered by Flat Road to the south and Highway 41 to the east.
This is not a small undertaking.
The wind turbines themselves are massive structures. Each turbine weighs 253 tonnes, with its engine nacelle the size of a school bus. Sitting atop towers some 270 feet tall -equivalent to the height of Parliament Hill’s Peace Tower in Ottawa -the turbines possess three blades, each the length of a Boeing 737 jetliner, with a sweep the size of three NHL regulation sized hockey rinks. The tower’s concrete base runs up to 10 metres deep.
A wind turbine needs a site several acres in size, making it necessary for companies building the structures to negotiate with landowners to work out long-term leasing agreements for the land.
This is to protect the investment of the company, which needs to guarantee electricity generation to utilities such as Hydro One.
This explosion in activity has alarmed some residents within the southern municipalities of Renfrew County, who are concerned about the impact windmills and turbines will have on the landscape, the environment and their everyday lives.
One of these proposed SkyPower sites within Madawaska Valley Township is beside the Wilno farm of Lou Eyamie and Pauline Sedgeman, who attended information sessions hosted in May by the wind power company. Not satisfied by the answers being provided, the couple did some research on their own.
This led to the two organizing their own public meeting at the beginning of July at the Killaloe Lions Hall, which sparked the creation of SOS, Save Our Skyline, a grassroots group formed to oppose wind power developments within the county.
Mr. Eyamie, the newly elected president of SOS, said the whole idea behind the meeting was to inform the public of the other side of the story.
“They need to know that (wind turbines) are not efficient, they’ll create havoc with our environment, will have a severe and long-lasting impact on our economy, and will put our property values and health at risk,” he said. “These things are monsters.”
Mr. Eyamie said the towers are unsightly, and require three to five acres of land which must be cleared around them to make room. Service access must also be provided to each tower, meaning roads have to be built.
He said property values around other wind power sites in the country have dropped in their presence, the turbine blades pose a risk to birds and other animals, and the health impacts of the low intensity noise given off by the machines a serious matter worth consideration.
The wind turbines also consume power on days of light to no wind, as the blades must keep turning regardless.
“People are totally unaware of the downside, that there are no benefits at all to these turbines, except for the people who have land leases to host them, and the power companies who own them,”Mr. Eyamie said.
The best way to battle the wind turbines is public education, he said. The members of SOS are certain once the public and local councillors hear more about the towers, they are certain the outcry will stop the different projects in their tracks.
“We’re taking the time to verify every fact we can,”Mr. Eyamie said, so SOS can be certain it is standing on firm ground as it runs its opposition campaign.
The group plans to hold public information meetings starting this fall.
While Mr. Eyamie sees problems on the horizon, Craig Kelley sees the potential for opportunity. But he is being cautiously optimistic.
Madawaska Valley Township’s community development officer said the municipality is working through the process with SkyPower as the company makes the appropriate zoning applications to proceed with their development. Realistically, he doesn’t see any groundwork starting for at least another year, once one factors in the length of the approval process and the short construction season.
This length of time works in their favour, as it allows council members to educate themselves on what permitting wind turbines will mean to Madawaska Valley.
“This is such new territory,” Mr. Kelley said, noting Ontario has made provision for renewable energy within its power grid, but questions do remain.
“Is this going to be the smart way to go when the leases are up in 20 years? We don’t know.”
To try and find answers, Mr. Kelley said select staff and members of council will be embarking on a road trip this fall to see for themselves how such wind turbine developments have impacted other communities, and how their councils have handled the issue.
He said they will be visiting Ontario wind power operations in Kincardine, Goderich and Raleigh to get some idea of what is being proposed.
“You cannot get the sense of scope of this until you see it in person,”Mr. Kelley said.
The council members will also take the time to chat with their counterparts within the host municipalities, as well as local people to try and get a better idea of the process to establish such operations, and the impacts it is having on the area.
“There are people who have learned lessons here with knowledge we could benefit from,” he said.
Mr. Kelley said there will be a number of public meetings which will occur as this process is ongoing, likely starting this fall, where the public will get a chance to air their concerns. He said he hopes all sides on this issue will attend.
“We’re doing the best we can with the tools we’re given,” he said. “We’re not rushing forward, but taking the time to do things right.”
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke MPP John Yakabuski is wearing several hats when it comes to the wind turbine issue. As representative of the constituency where it is happening, he has been hearing from all sides on the matter. As the Tory energy critic, it is his business to know all about power generation and its pluses and minuses. As a proud Barry’s Bay boy, his roots are located right in the centre of it.
“There is certainly controversy swirling around them,” he said, “in which the two groups have become polarized about wind turbines.”
Of the number of problems people have against the towers, Mr. Yakabuski said he has heard at the top of the list is the visual impact of seeing the turbines across the landscape, with the noise generated by the turbines close behind, followed by other potential environmental affects.
“The visual will never be settled,” he said. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the two groups never will meet on this.”
Other environmental matters such as bird strikes, the long-term affects of low-intensity noise, and working out the proper setbacks from towers are matters which should be resolved, the MPP said, but exactly how needs to be worked out.
“There have been questions forwarded to us whether the province has a proper environmental assessment process in place to address this sort of development,” he said. “That is a fair question.”
The MPP said those in support of the project see wind as playing a major role in the development of green power, that is, power without emissions.
Mr. Yakabuski said while wind will play a part in Ontario’s energy grid, it will never be a replacement for other sources of energy.
“I neither stand for or against it,” he said. “It is there, and it will play a role, but we can’t solve our energy problems with wind power alone.”
The problem with wind is it is too intermittent to be a reliable power source, and the wind turbines themselves need power to keep turning during calm days.
“The wind is what it is,” he said, “and we don’t control it.”
Mr. Yakabuski said it is up to the municipalities to decide whether or not to have this sort of development inside their borders. The province placed that responsibility in the hands of local councils.
The MPP’s advice to municipalities is to use prudence before agreeing to permit their development.
“At the end of the day, it will be up to the municipal councils whether they allow wind turbines within their municipalities,” he said.
“They have the right to say yes or no to these.”
By Stephen Uhler
Staff Writer
2 August 2008
CBC "Ontario Today" generates comments....
"Skypower and other wind companies are here too, in the Madawaska Valley, luring poor landowners with the promise of thousands of dollars per year to sign a 20 year lease. That document includes a gag order and denies any responsibility on the part of the wind company for any kind of damage. The municipal government seems all too ready to swallow Skypower's promises and misleading advertizing, reluctant to ask tough questions, like:
Which nuclear plant will shut down because of these turbines?
Why will our Hydro costs go up, not down?
Who will pay to widen our roads for transporting the tower components, and to fix the roads after tower construction?
Who will pay for fire control when a turbine is hit by lightning, and how will we prevent forest fires like the ones industrial wind turbines caused in Australia?
How will we prevent our property values from plummeting as they have in other areas when these turbines were erected?
What will happen to people who get sick from the low frequency noise, can't sleep, and can't move because no one will buy their house? Will they have to abandon their homes, as others have in Ontario?
What exactly is the benefit to our township, other than the privilege of making the Skypower shareholders rich and allowing our government to call itself 'green'?
The public must get informed, and fast, before the contracts are signed. If not, we'll go down the same road as so many other communities before us, and live to regret it.
Check out www.wind-watch.org for detailed information, links to groups all over the world working to prevent industrial wind turbines and a response plan for when your community is targeted by a wind company."
Friday, August 1, 2008
Welcome to the Wilno Wind Power Coalition!
Hopefully by showing the visual impact that these huge industrial turbines will have on our local landscape we can all share the concerns held by many of our fellow neighbours.
We also have a section that will bring anyone who is interested in knowing more about these machines "up to speed" fairly quickly so that informed decisions can be made.
Enjoy and feel free to post your comments whether it is positive or negative.
Open dialogue is the corner stone of a democratic process and the more "open" a discussion is the better it will reach a FAIR conclusion.