Cielo Wind Power has been thinking about building a wind farm somewhere on Port of Brownsville property for a decade or so.
The Austin-based company is still thinking about it, and it's by no means certain all the pieces will fall into place and all the obstacles will be cleared away for such a project to become a reality.
So says Walter Hornaday, who founded Cielo in 1998. According to its website, the firm has completed more than a dozen wind farm projects, most of them in Texas and two in New Mexico. The company recently began another wind farm outside Amarillo that will feature 87 GE wind turbines.
Brownsville is a promising site for a wind farm, though the project could meet an obstacle in the form of Brownsville South Padre Island International Airport's plans to extend its runway, Hornaday said.
A longer runway would mean planes on approach would fly lower farther away from the airport, which could preclude construction of towering wind turbine.
It's premature to say, though, since it all comes down to where Cielo wants to build versus how airspace is affected. Airport officials hope to extend the main runway from its current 7,400 feet to 10,000 feet or longer. An environmental review is still under way, though, and no funding has been allocated for the project yet.
"Obviously if you extend the runway there's more airspace that's going to be covered," Director of Aviation Larry Brown said. That said, it's not yet clear to what extent changes in airspace would affect Cielo's plans, he said.
"Until we know more details, we can't answer the question," Brown said. "It's all going to be a function of math."
He said Corpus Christi's airport is dealing with airspace issues arising from wind farms located south and east of Sarita.
Hornaday said he hopes Cielo, if it does decide to move forward with a project at the port, can come to an arrangement with the airport amenable to all parties concerned.
"We're trying to see what they will allow to be done," he said. "It's highly speculative at this point. It's a great, windy area. The pieces are there. It's a good wind resource and there's a growing demand for electricity, but there are a lot of moving parts."
We suspect those opposed to energy generated by wind turbines will be rubbing their hands together with a good deal of glee this morning, following revelations that the wind farm industry is being propped up by domestic energy bills.
New figures indicate that wind turbine owners received 1.2 billion in consumer subsidies last year. That is, unquestionably, a staggeringly large amount to draw from the public purse at any time, let alone in this period of austerity.
So it seems clear that this assessment of the balance sheet for wind power will be another blow for an industry already reeling from the Government's recent announcement that new rules will give people greater powers to block turbine applications, when they are proposed near where they live.
We do not, however, subscribe to the view that all wind turbines must therefore be uprooted and dismantled. Far from it. wind energy is a new technology that should and does command significant investment. There is no doubt that wind energy is here to stay. It must surely be allowed to play a part in helping keep the lights on as traditional high-carbon energy sources diminish.
2013年6月17日 星期一
Wind farm rallies blow into town
Opposing sides of an increasingly bitter wind farm debate will rally in Canberra on Tuesday, with supporters gathering in the city and opponents at Parliament House.
Wind farms bring billions of dollars in new investment to regional areas according to their supporters, but households are being slugged with higher power bills, according to opponents.
Crookwell grazier Charlie Prell, who wants to host residential wind turbines, said opponents were wealthy, well-connected landholders who did not want to look at the turbines.
"To be honest, we need to stand up and fight for what we believe in," Mr Prell said. He is a spokesman for NSW Regional Renewables Alliance, a group of 70 landholders and regional businesses, and said the rally in Garema Place at noon would be supported by various groups, including chief organisers Friends of the Earth and the online activist group GetUp! Action for Australia.
In a statement Mr Prell said the Renewable Energy Target had generated $18.5 billion over 12 years and reduced electricity prices by 8 per cent.
Alliance member, Goulburn earthmoving contractor Andy Divall said the RET was making a big difference in regional NSW.
"In the 25 years we have been in business we haven't seen anything like the opportunities the renewables industry will bring to the region," he said. Another alliance member, Tarago farmer Joan Limon said: "There are six turbines on my property. They take up very little land. The closest is 800 metres from my house and they don't worry me, my sheep or my cattle."
Rallying from 11am under a "Wind Power Fraud" banner, critics will say every turbine is issued between 8000 and 10,000 renewable energy certificates every year, which translates into a tax on power consumers.
Friends of Collector president Tony Hodgson said the rally at Parliament House would show growing opposition to industrial wind power because of rising costs to the community for no benefit.
Mr Hodgson said $52 billion in wind subsidies would ultimately be paid by electricity consumers and taxpayers over the next 18 years.
"The 63 turbines at the proposed wind farm at Collector alone could attract almost $1 billion in that time if the same system of RECs remains in place."
Joining the anti-wind farm rally will be Boorowa and Yass "landscape guardians". Mary Ann Robinson from the Yass group said their battle with wind farm proponent Epuron was in flux because Epuron had to re-submit planning documents for a large project west of the town.
Wind farms bring billions of dollars in new investment to regional areas according to their supporters, but households are being slugged with higher power bills, according to opponents.
Crookwell grazier Charlie Prell, who wants to host residential wind turbines, said opponents were wealthy, well-connected landholders who did not want to look at the turbines.
"To be honest, we need to stand up and fight for what we believe in," Mr Prell said. He is a spokesman for NSW Regional Renewables Alliance, a group of 70 landholders and regional businesses, and said the rally in Garema Place at noon would be supported by various groups, including chief organisers Friends of the Earth and the online activist group GetUp! Action for Australia.
In a statement Mr Prell said the Renewable Energy Target had generated $18.5 billion over 12 years and reduced electricity prices by 8 per cent.
Alliance member, Goulburn earthmoving contractor Andy Divall said the RET was making a big difference in regional NSW.
"In the 25 years we have been in business we haven't seen anything like the opportunities the renewables industry will bring to the region," he said. Another alliance member, Tarago farmer Joan Limon said: "There are six turbines on my property. They take up very little land. The closest is 800 metres from my house and they don't worry me, my sheep or my cattle."
Rallying from 11am under a "Wind Power Fraud" banner, critics will say every turbine is issued between 8000 and 10,000 renewable energy certificates every year, which translates into a tax on power consumers.
Friends of Collector president Tony Hodgson said the rally at Parliament House would show growing opposition to industrial wind power because of rising costs to the community for no benefit.
Mr Hodgson said $52 billion in wind subsidies would ultimately be paid by electricity consumers and taxpayers over the next 18 years.
"The 63 turbines at the proposed wind farm at Collector alone could attract almost $1 billion in that time if the same system of RECs remains in place."
Joining the anti-wind farm rally will be Boorowa and Yass "landscape guardians". Mary Ann Robinson from the Yass group said their battle with wind farm proponent Epuron was in flux because Epuron had to re-submit planning documents for a large project west of the town.
2013年6月12日 星期三
Wind farm generates fund money
The county's biggest wind farm has handed over its first community payment to surrounding villages. The 11-turbine Swinford wind farm, south of Lutterworth, has been generating green electricity since November.
As part of the planning approval, the company agreed to set up the community fund. Energy firm Vattenfall marked the project's first six months generating power at the weekend with a day of fun, games and activities for the family at the wind farm site and at South Kilworth.
The company also handed over 44,000, the first of 25 annual payments which will go into the combined fund during the life of the wind farm.
Michael Murphy, chairman of the community fund, who supported the project, said: "Vattenfall's contribution to a community fund will greatly help community life over the next two decades.
"Applications have been received for the fund to support a range of projects, from sports equipment for young people to community buses.
"I would encourage anyone who has any other suggestions to get in touch. Application forms can be picked up from parish councils."
Thousands of residents opposed the scheme and raised more than 50,000 to fight it at a planning inquiry.
However, the go-ahead was granted by then Secretary of State, John Denham, with the project due to power up to 12,000 homes a year.
Graham Hart, county councillor for the area, said: "Not everyone, myself included, welcomed the idea of wind turbines initially.
"But we're now delighted Vattenfall is investing in the future of our communities, with the parish councils and young people having their say in how the money is spent."
The family day featured a marquee full of arts, crafts and games, and saw the announcement of the winners of a turbine-naming competition run with children from South Kilworth and Swinford School.
Seven-year-old Harvey Everton, from Swinford School, won the overall prize for his artwork and naming one of the turbines Swift.
Later in the day, the event moved to South Kilworth village hall, where there was live music, activities for children, along with food and refreshments. The project took just over a year to construct and UK companies received key contracts.
Piers Guy, Vattenfall's head of onshore wind development in the UK, said: "It was great to see so many of the community taking part in the inauguration event.
"Being on site not only gave them the opportunity to get involved in the activities on the day, but also gave them the chance to see the wind farm up close.
"We were very happy to present the first year of community funding, which we are sure will have a very real impact in the area."
The turbine towers were constructed in south Wales and another British company was contracted to carry out all the civil engineering work on site.
Businesses in the area also received contracts to provide environmental and geographical surveying, site security, and gravel for the access tracks was supplied by a nearby quarry.
As part of the planning approval, the company agreed to set up the community fund. Energy firm Vattenfall marked the project's first six months generating power at the weekend with a day of fun, games and activities for the family at the wind farm site and at South Kilworth.
The company also handed over 44,000, the first of 25 annual payments which will go into the combined fund during the life of the wind farm.
Michael Murphy, chairman of the community fund, who supported the project, said: "Vattenfall's contribution to a community fund will greatly help community life over the next two decades.
"Applications have been received for the fund to support a range of projects, from sports equipment for young people to community buses.
"I would encourage anyone who has any other suggestions to get in touch. Application forms can be picked up from parish councils."
Thousands of residents opposed the scheme and raised more than 50,000 to fight it at a planning inquiry.
However, the go-ahead was granted by then Secretary of State, John Denham, with the project due to power up to 12,000 homes a year.
Graham Hart, county councillor for the area, said: "Not everyone, myself included, welcomed the idea of wind turbines initially.
"But we're now delighted Vattenfall is investing in the future of our communities, with the parish councils and young people having their say in how the money is spent."
The family day featured a marquee full of arts, crafts and games, and saw the announcement of the winners of a turbine-naming competition run with children from South Kilworth and Swinford School.
Seven-year-old Harvey Everton, from Swinford School, won the overall prize for his artwork and naming one of the turbines Swift.
Later in the day, the event moved to South Kilworth village hall, where there was live music, activities for children, along with food and refreshments. The project took just over a year to construct and UK companies received key contracts.
Piers Guy, Vattenfall's head of onshore wind development in the UK, said: "It was great to see so many of the community taking part in the inauguration event.
"Being on site not only gave them the opportunity to get involved in the activities on the day, but also gave them the chance to see the wind farm up close.
"We were very happy to present the first year of community funding, which we are sure will have a very real impact in the area."
The turbine towers were constructed in south Wales and another British company was contracted to carry out all the civil engineering work on site.
Businesses in the area also received contracts to provide environmental and geographical surveying, site security, and gravel for the access tracks was supplied by a nearby quarry.
Offshore Wind Rules Set New Standard
The new Rules form part of the wider Mobile Offshore Unit Rule set 2013 launched by Lloyd’s Register in June, and is for vessels engaged in installation and/or maintenance activities relating to offshore wind turbines. It covers a number of unit types as well as liftboats, whose primary function is to provide support services to offshore wind turbine installations or other types of offshore installation.
Vessels which comply with the requirements of the new Rules will be eligible for a new classification notation.
The release of the new Rules and Guidance Notes coincides with reports that operators are suffering from the substantial incremental rise in the cost of constructing offshore wind assets and is casting new light on the value of independent third-party assurance, and how certification authorities are informing asset design and construction.
Rob Whillock, Offshore Renewables Lead Naval Architect at Lloyd’s Register said, “It is critical that throughout the process of independent assurance, there is an eye to the future of the industry as well as current guidelines.”
Offshore wind projects have tended to run late and over-budget, but the industry is forecast to grow at pace. The European Environment Agency’s (EEA) estimates that Europe’s offshore wind potential is able to meet the continent’s energy demand seven times over.
Whillock states that modern certification authorities have to offer technical solutions that recognize industry’s future growth.
“As the industry matures, we will see a greater number of larger turbines being installed in deeper water and further from shore, such as the planned 9GW wind farm at Dogger Bank, which lies some 125km off the east coast of England,” said Whillock. “Such developments will require owners and operators of offshore wind farms to rethink their installation and service vessels entirely. The new Lloyd’s Register Rules highlight the importance of independent technical assessment of structures, systems and capabilities. We are demonstrating to the world that our offshore Rules reflect best practice.”
The intention of the new Lloyd’s Register Rules is to help clients understand the classification process and clearly set out the rules to be applied to various vessels and unit types, from the Lloyd’s Register classed ship to the Mobile Offshore Unit.
To support the development of these new Rules, Lloyd’s Register developed a set of client guidance notes (titled Mobile Offshore Units - Wind Turbine Installation Vessels) which were also approved at the recent Offshore Technical Committee where more than 100 industry stakeholders attended Lloyd’s Register’s Singapore based Group Technology Centre. These guidance notes provide summary information on classification rules and regulations, national administration requirements, documentation required to be submitted, and the Rules requirements for various types of units used in installing and maintaining offshore wind turbines.
More information about the program is available on the web site at www.scfwindturbine.com.
Vessels which comply with the requirements of the new Rules will be eligible for a new classification notation.
The release of the new Rules and Guidance Notes coincides with reports that operators are suffering from the substantial incremental rise in the cost of constructing offshore wind assets and is casting new light on the value of independent third-party assurance, and how certification authorities are informing asset design and construction.
Rob Whillock, Offshore Renewables Lead Naval Architect at Lloyd’s Register said, “It is critical that throughout the process of independent assurance, there is an eye to the future of the industry as well as current guidelines.”
Offshore wind projects have tended to run late and over-budget, but the industry is forecast to grow at pace. The European Environment Agency’s (EEA) estimates that Europe’s offshore wind potential is able to meet the continent’s energy demand seven times over.
Whillock states that modern certification authorities have to offer technical solutions that recognize industry’s future growth.
“As the industry matures, we will see a greater number of larger turbines being installed in deeper water and further from shore, such as the planned 9GW wind farm at Dogger Bank, which lies some 125km off the east coast of England,” said Whillock. “Such developments will require owners and operators of offshore wind farms to rethink their installation and service vessels entirely. The new Lloyd’s Register Rules highlight the importance of independent technical assessment of structures, systems and capabilities. We are demonstrating to the world that our offshore Rules reflect best practice.”
The intention of the new Lloyd’s Register Rules is to help clients understand the classification process and clearly set out the rules to be applied to various vessels and unit types, from the Lloyd’s Register classed ship to the Mobile Offshore Unit.
To support the development of these new Rules, Lloyd’s Register developed a set of client guidance notes (titled Mobile Offshore Units - Wind Turbine Installation Vessels) which were also approved at the recent Offshore Technical Committee where more than 100 industry stakeholders attended Lloyd’s Register’s Singapore based Group Technology Centre. These guidance notes provide summary information on classification rules and regulations, national administration requirements, documentation required to be submitted, and the Rules requirements for various types of units used in installing and maintaining offshore wind turbines.
More information about the program is available on the web site at www.scfwindturbine.com.
2013年6月7日 星期五
Wind farms are a 'complete scam'
Wind farms have been branded a 'complete scam' by Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, reigniting coalition battle over green power.
As the government unveiled new powers for local residents to block turbines blighting their villages, Mr Paterson condemned many planned schemes as 'deeply unpopular' and causing 'huge unhappiness' across the country.
The outspoken remarks from a senior Tory minister in charge of environmental policy risks a furious reaction from Liberal Democrats pushing for more renewable power projects.
The Conservatives have taken a tougher line on wind farms in recent months, and this week unveiled plans to give communities a powerful 'veto' over controversial new onshore developments.
Schemes will have to gain local residents' consent before a planning application can even be made, effectively handing them the power to prevent turbines being erected.
Planning rules are also to be changed so that the drive for renewable energy can no longer be used as a reason for overriding environmental and other concerns.
Mr Paterson signalled that plans for wind farms will have to take into account the impact on the countryside and views as well as the desire to save the planet.
In an extraordinary intervention at the Royal Cornwall Show yesterday, the Tory Cabinet minister said: 'Turbines are regarded as a complete scam, but as of today we have given power to local communities to decide.
'The criteria is now that environment and landscape will have to be taken into consideration as well as the national energy requirement.'
Under the new rules councils must look at the cumulative impact of wind turbines and reflect the effect on landscape and local facilities.
There is also a major increase promised in the amount developers pay local communities to win them over, including long-term electricity bill discounts of up to 20 per cent.
However, Mr Paterson suggested anger with many schemes would not be overcome by additional bribes.
He added:'I know there is huge unhappiness with some of these projects, both from what I hear nationally and from my own constituency in Shropshire.
'There are places where these projects are well prepared, the community wants it and it will be worthwhile. But in inland areas they are very often deeply unpopular,' the Western Morning News reported.
Leila Deen, Greenpeace energy campaigner, said: 'Wind farms may seem like a scam to a Government minister who questions the science of climate change and who's pushing for his Shropshire constituency to be fracked for shale gas.
'The public disagrees - two thirds of people would rather have a wind turbine near their home than a fracking site.
'Onshore wind powered almost 2.5 million homes in 2011, is falling in cost and will play a key role in our future energy mix.'
Mr Paterson's appointment to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last September was controversial, with allies forced to deny he was a climate change denier.
In 2007, he described wind farms as ridiculous, claiming they 'demand vast amounts of public subsidy and do not work'.
As the government unveiled new powers for local residents to block turbines blighting their villages, Mr Paterson condemned many planned schemes as 'deeply unpopular' and causing 'huge unhappiness' across the country.
The outspoken remarks from a senior Tory minister in charge of environmental policy risks a furious reaction from Liberal Democrats pushing for more renewable power projects.
The Conservatives have taken a tougher line on wind farms in recent months, and this week unveiled plans to give communities a powerful 'veto' over controversial new onshore developments.
Schemes will have to gain local residents' consent before a planning application can even be made, effectively handing them the power to prevent turbines being erected.
Planning rules are also to be changed so that the drive for renewable energy can no longer be used as a reason for overriding environmental and other concerns.
Mr Paterson signalled that plans for wind farms will have to take into account the impact on the countryside and views as well as the desire to save the planet.
In an extraordinary intervention at the Royal Cornwall Show yesterday, the Tory Cabinet minister said: 'Turbines are regarded as a complete scam, but as of today we have given power to local communities to decide.
'The criteria is now that environment and landscape will have to be taken into consideration as well as the national energy requirement.'
Under the new rules councils must look at the cumulative impact of wind turbines and reflect the effect on landscape and local facilities.
There is also a major increase promised in the amount developers pay local communities to win them over, including long-term electricity bill discounts of up to 20 per cent.
However, Mr Paterson suggested anger with many schemes would not be overcome by additional bribes.
He added:'I know there is huge unhappiness with some of these projects, both from what I hear nationally and from my own constituency in Shropshire.
'There are places where these projects are well prepared, the community wants it and it will be worthwhile. But in inland areas they are very often deeply unpopular,' the Western Morning News reported.
Leila Deen, Greenpeace energy campaigner, said: 'Wind farms may seem like a scam to a Government minister who questions the science of climate change and who's pushing for his Shropshire constituency to be fracked for shale gas.
'The public disagrees - two thirds of people would rather have a wind turbine near their home than a fracking site.
'Onshore wind powered almost 2.5 million homes in 2011, is falling in cost and will play a key role in our future energy mix.'
Mr Paterson's appointment to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last September was controversial, with allies forced to deny he was a climate change denier.
In 2007, he described wind farms as ridiculous, claiming they 'demand vast amounts of public subsidy and do not work'.
Wind farm seeks permit to avoid fines in case of eagle deaths
A wind farm being developed in Osage County has applied for federal bald eagle "take" permits for the deaths of up to three of the protected birds each year for at least five years.
Opponents of the permit, including conservationists and tribes in the area, say they aren't against "green" energy investments. However, they are firmly against the placement of the planned 94-turbine wind farm, which is surrounded within five miles by several active bald eagle nests.
Wind Capital Group, a St. Louis-based energy organization, battled the Osage Nation - which has local interests in oil and gas - until late 2011 over the right to build the wind farm on land the tribe said was former hunting grounds and would be damaged by the project.
Tom Green, senior manager of project development for Wind Capital Group's Osage Wind farm, said he's eager to get the project built and confident that turbine construction will begin soon and finish next year.
"When I started in this business, I never imagined that people would think that wind was the environmental problem," Green said.
Steve Sherrod, executive director of the Sutton Avian Research Center in Bartlesville, said wind farms can lead to a multitude of environmental problems for eagles and ground animals.
Animals can mistake the moving shadows of wind turbine for predators, said Sherrod, whose organization helped rehabilitate the bald eagle population by raising eagles from hatchlings and releasing them into the wild.
Eagles may travel up to 50 miles between feeding area and nest, according to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, and Sherrod said he's opposed to the wind farm's being so close to the eagles' hunting grounds.
"If you look at one site, it's not that big of a deal, but you look at all the sites ... collectively, you're looking at a huge impact," he said.
According to the Department of Wildlife Conservation, 800 to 2,000 eagles inhabit Oklahoma each year, with peak numbers in January and February.
Sherrod said wind farms across the nation are being built in previously untouched areas and upset the ecosystem not just for eagles but for all wildlife.
The permit for Osage Wind - filed late last year - has not been approved, but Green said the government agency has been positive about its outcome and that the construction of turbines is still planned to start as soon as this summer.
Green said the company is working to protect eagles alongside the project as much as possible and that in the permit process it included plans to help the eagle population.
"The eagle permit is something that has been developed over the last several years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, environmental groups and outside agencies," he said.
The killing of bald eagles - even incidentally as part of some other action - violates federal law. The acquisition of permits to kill them is voluntary and is taken as a precaution to avoid steep fines of up to $500,000 per offense under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Scott BigHorse, assistant principal chief of the Osage Nation, said that during the ongoing battle between the tribe and Wind Capital, it has wanted the business to compromise on the land use and project scope. He said the plans for the property began in 2007 but that little to no interaction took place with the tribe.
"These were our hunting grounds. It was our domain," BigHorse said. "I don't know why they didn't come to the tribe. ... We could have sat down at the table, ... and we could have strategically placed these wind turbines to where they are not so much in the path."
BigHorse said the issue is also of high cultural significance to the tribe because of the importance of eagle feathers. The feathers are used in rituals "from when their (Indian children's) little feet hit the ground to the time of their passing, when we put them in the ground."
Opponents of the permit, including conservationists and tribes in the area, say they aren't against "green" energy investments. However, they are firmly against the placement of the planned 94-turbine wind farm, which is surrounded within five miles by several active bald eagle nests.
Wind Capital Group, a St. Louis-based energy organization, battled the Osage Nation - which has local interests in oil and gas - until late 2011 over the right to build the wind farm on land the tribe said was former hunting grounds and would be damaged by the project.
Tom Green, senior manager of project development for Wind Capital Group's Osage Wind farm, said he's eager to get the project built and confident that turbine construction will begin soon and finish next year.
"When I started in this business, I never imagined that people would think that wind was the environmental problem," Green said.
Steve Sherrod, executive director of the Sutton Avian Research Center in Bartlesville, said wind farms can lead to a multitude of environmental problems for eagles and ground animals.
Animals can mistake the moving shadows of wind turbine for predators, said Sherrod, whose organization helped rehabilitate the bald eagle population by raising eagles from hatchlings and releasing them into the wild.
Eagles may travel up to 50 miles between feeding area and nest, according to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, and Sherrod said he's opposed to the wind farm's being so close to the eagles' hunting grounds.
"If you look at one site, it's not that big of a deal, but you look at all the sites ... collectively, you're looking at a huge impact," he said.
According to the Department of Wildlife Conservation, 800 to 2,000 eagles inhabit Oklahoma each year, with peak numbers in January and February.
Sherrod said wind farms across the nation are being built in previously untouched areas and upset the ecosystem not just for eagles but for all wildlife.
The permit for Osage Wind - filed late last year - has not been approved, but Green said the government agency has been positive about its outcome and that the construction of turbines is still planned to start as soon as this summer.
Green said the company is working to protect eagles alongside the project as much as possible and that in the permit process it included plans to help the eagle population.
"The eagle permit is something that has been developed over the last several years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, environmental groups and outside agencies," he said.
The killing of bald eagles - even incidentally as part of some other action - violates federal law. The acquisition of permits to kill them is voluntary and is taken as a precaution to avoid steep fines of up to $500,000 per offense under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Scott BigHorse, assistant principal chief of the Osage Nation, said that during the ongoing battle between the tribe and Wind Capital, it has wanted the business to compromise on the land use and project scope. He said the plans for the property began in 2007 but that little to no interaction took place with the tribe.
"These were our hunting grounds. It was our domain," BigHorse said. "I don't know why they didn't come to the tribe. ... We could have sat down at the table, ... and we could have strategically placed these wind turbines to where they are not so much in the path."
BigHorse said the issue is also of high cultural significance to the tribe because of the importance of eagle feathers. The feathers are used in rituals "from when their (Indian children's) little feet hit the ground to the time of their passing, when we put them in the ground."
2013年6月2日 星期日
No Wynne on wind
Premier Kathleen Wynne last week promised to give municipal governments a greater say in the location of industrial wind turbines (IWTs) in their communities, short of being able to veto them.
In other words, she’s promising residents across Ontario battling the imposition of industrial wind factories on their communities any and all assistance, short of help.
Given the Liberals’ appalling history on this issue, skepticism is justified about anything they say.
Indeed, the determination of Wynne’s predecessor, Dalton McGuinty, to ram IWTs down the throats of communities across Ontario is one of the most shameful episodes in the Liberals’ 10-year record of government.
People who objected to IWTs were mocked as suffering from NIMBYism (not-in-my-backyard syndrome) by McGuinty.
His Green Energy Act took away the rights of local municipalities to any say in the location of these giant, industrial wind factories.
When people started complaining about adverse health effects from wind turbines, environment ministry officials lied to them.
They told them they were the only ones complaining — implying it was all in their heads — when in fact the ministry was receiving hundreds of complaints from across Ontario.More information about the program is available on the web site at www.scfwindturbine.com.
A 2011 CBC news investigation, which obtained 1,000 pages of internal government documents through a Freedom of Information request, revealed that even as the environment ministry was publicly downplaying the growing controversy, it was internally warning the government its noise limits and setbacks for wind turbines were flawed, inadequate, hard to monitor and difficult to enforce.
Meanwhile the Liberals publicly mouthed the same platitudes as the wind industry they were enriching by paying outrageous prices for unreliable electricity.
That fiasco was fully documented by then auditor general Jim McCarter in his devastating 2011 assessment of the Liberals’ renewable energy program. He concluded poor Liberal decision-making will cost Ontarians billions of dollars on their hydro bills for generations to come.
Meanwhile, back on the health front, the Liberals and the wind industry insisted scientific studies, often funded by the wind industry, showed turbines were safe.
They also cited a 2010 literature review by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health which found no “direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.” At the same time, wind companies were buying out families driven from their homes by turbine noise, vibration and flickering, while making them sign confidentiality agreements, so they couldn’t talk about it.
More recently, however, there has been a growing pushback against the Liberals’ scurrilous suggestion anyone complaining about adverse health effects from wind turbines must be a NIMBY or nuts.
An article in the May issue of Canadian Family Physician — official journal of The College of Family Physicians of Canada — warns doctors to brace for increasing numbers of medical complaints from people living close to industrial wind turbines.
“Adverse health affects of industrial wind turbines”, by Dr. Roy D. Jeffery, Carmen Krough and Brett Horner notes, “people who live or work in close proximity to IWTs have experienced symptoms that include decreased quality of life, annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headache, anxiety, depression and cognitive dysfunction. Some have also felt anger, grief or a sense of injustice. Suggested causes of symptoms include a combination of wind turbine noise, infrasound, dirty electricity, ground current and shadow flicker.”
The article cited a 2011 Ontario environmental review tribunal which concluded: “This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.”
In other words, she’s promising residents across Ontario battling the imposition of industrial wind factories on their communities any and all assistance, short of help.
Given the Liberals’ appalling history on this issue, skepticism is justified about anything they say.
Indeed, the determination of Wynne’s predecessor, Dalton McGuinty, to ram IWTs down the throats of communities across Ontario is one of the most shameful episodes in the Liberals’ 10-year record of government.
People who objected to IWTs were mocked as suffering from NIMBYism (not-in-my-backyard syndrome) by McGuinty.
His Green Energy Act took away the rights of local municipalities to any say in the location of these giant, industrial wind factories.
When people started complaining about adverse health effects from wind turbines, environment ministry officials lied to them.
A 2011 CBC news investigation, which obtained 1,000 pages of internal government documents through a Freedom of Information request, revealed that even as the environment ministry was publicly downplaying the growing controversy, it was internally warning the government its noise limits and setbacks for wind turbines were flawed, inadequate, hard to monitor and difficult to enforce.
Meanwhile the Liberals publicly mouthed the same platitudes as the wind industry they were enriching by paying outrageous prices for unreliable electricity.
That fiasco was fully documented by then auditor general Jim McCarter in his devastating 2011 assessment of the Liberals’ renewable energy program. He concluded poor Liberal decision-making will cost Ontarians billions of dollars on their hydro bills for generations to come.
Meanwhile, back on the health front, the Liberals and the wind industry insisted scientific studies, often funded by the wind industry, showed turbines were safe.
They also cited a 2010 literature review by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health which found no “direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.” At the same time, wind companies were buying out families driven from their homes by turbine noise, vibration and flickering, while making them sign confidentiality agreements, so they couldn’t talk about it.
More recently, however, there has been a growing pushback against the Liberals’ scurrilous suggestion anyone complaining about adverse health effects from wind turbines must be a NIMBY or nuts.
An article in the May issue of Canadian Family Physician — official journal of The College of Family Physicians of Canada — warns doctors to brace for increasing numbers of medical complaints from people living close to industrial wind turbines.
“Adverse health affects of industrial wind turbines”, by Dr. Roy D. Jeffery, Carmen Krough and Brett Horner notes, “people who live or work in close proximity to IWTs have experienced symptoms that include decreased quality of life, annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headache, anxiety, depression and cognitive dysfunction. Some have also felt anger, grief or a sense of injustice. Suggested causes of symptoms include a combination of wind turbine noise, infrasound, dirty electricity, ground current and shadow flicker.”
The article cited a 2011 Ontario environmental review tribunal which concluded: “This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree.”
訂閱：
意見 (Atom)