The most thorough study to date into the potential health effects of living near wind turbines says the evidence so far is clear: they don’t directly make people sick.

But the independent expert panel that prepared the wind-industry study, to be released today, conceded that some people can get stressed out by the “swishing” sound wind turbines often make.

“A small minority of those exposed report annoyance and stress associated with noise perception,” the panel concluded, pointing to similar annoyances that can come from highway or city traffic, local industry and airplanes. “Annoyance is not a disease.”

Life is full of choices, four doctors argue, and wind turbines are more healthy than the alternatives.
Some quotes from the article:

“Ontario is weaning itself from its addiction to coal, due to the high health costs. Every year, according to the Ontario Medical Association, the province’s coal plants kill 668 people while causing 1,100 emergency-room visits and more than 300,000 minor illnesses. For hundreds of thousands of people, this is real suffering. These costs are not factored into electricity bills.”

“The fact remains that there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that wind turbines are themselves harmful to human health. A handful of Ontario MDs have made assertions to the contrary, insisting that anecdotal evidence from studies with non-representative samples constitute binding and thorough research. Fortunately, others in the province’s medical profession have been less susceptible to these arguments. David Colby, acting medical officer of health for Chatham-Kent, recently observed that, “Although opposition to wind farms on aesthetic grounds is a legitimate point of view, opposition to wind farms on the basis of potential adverse health consequences is not justified by the evidence.”

Dr. Howard and Dr. Bell are chair and past founding president, respectively, of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Dr. Abelsohn and Dr. Vakil are CAPE board members.

Wind energy, according to flyers handed out by some anti-wind activists, is a sham designed to exploit society’s inclination to go green.
“Large wind farms barely have an impact on efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions”, they argue. They say utility-scale wind farms are uneconomic and make our electricity system unstable. The turbines also make people sick and cause property values to fall, not to mention the danger to bats, birds and butterflies, detractors say.
“There are legitimate concerns out there, and you’ve got to listen to them. That’s what distinguishes between social friction and NIMBYism. But there are other concerns that aren’t real,” says Kris Stevens, executive director of the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association.  Stevens has closely studied the nature of social friction in Ontario’s electricity sector, which is also the subject of his Master’s thesis in environmental studies. Some people “don’t like change,” he says. “They’re stuck in an older paradigm.”

This article addresses many of the inaccurate statements made by the anti-wind lobbyists about Carbon reductions, Performance and Costs.

It is perfectly legitimate to hate wind power. But it is more convincing if you do your homework first. In his Financial Post Comment 8 April 2009, Michael J. Trebilcock appears to be willing to
jeopardize his academic reputation by putting forward a series of wrong claims and false, suspect or irrelevant citations, mainly about wind power in Denmark.

Mr. Trebilcock claims that “Denmark …. has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant”. There is no citation for this claim. Wise in a sense, for the claim is wrong. Denmark has closed several coal and
oil fired plants in the last ten years.

Mr. Trebilcock claims that wind power “… requires 50% more coal generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability…”. Wrong again. One megawatt of wind power does not increase conventional power requirements – it saves 0,2-0,4 megawatts of conventional capacity.

Mr. Trebilcock claims that CO2 emissions went up by 36% in 2006 as a result of wind power.  And of course this does not make sense. If a unit of wind electricity is added
to any electricity system with fossil plants, production on a fossil plant will have to be reduced by one unit. Mr. Trebilcock quotes “recent academic research” for a claim that wind power
increases CO2 emissions. He does not specify which “recent academic research” he is referring to.

Mr. Trebilcock quotes Flemming Nissen from ELSAM power company. Not only is the quote misleading (at best). But Mr. Nissen has not been in ELSAM for years, and the company no longer
exists. Mr. Trebilcock quotes Niels Gram of the Federation of Danish Industries. But it is years since he left.

Mr. Trebilcock claims that Denmark’s electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe. Again without quotation. And again wrong. The 2008 electricity price in Denmark to medium-sized industries is 7.85 eurocents/kWh, which is below the European average of 9 eurocents/kWh.  Source: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Mr. Trebilcock may confuse electricity prices with electricity taxes. Danish taxes are high, yes, but this has nothing to do with wind power.

Denmark gets around 20% of it’s electricity from wind power. Is this a challenge? Absolutely. But it can be done. On the system operator website:
Danish Wind Power you can follow the
Danish power production real-time.

Please see the full article for details of the numerous errors, false claims and incorrect citations, with references. 

Premier says businesses, workers and government all have a role to play to build a stronger economy.
“To this end, the first bill we will introduce when the Legislature returns will be a new Green Energy Act. We’re doing this for two important reasons.

First, it will create 50,000 new green jobs. Those jobs will be found in the manufacturing, installation and operation of new wind turbines, solar panels and biofuel plants. We will make it easier and faster to get these new industries up and running in Ontario.

Second, we want to welcome new sources of clean, green energy into our electricity system. Green energy will power our economy and help us fight climate change.

In short, it will help us deliver what Ontarians want: jobs, clean electricity and a greener, healthier planet for our children.

And we will ensure that all of our renewable energy projects meet high safety and environmental standards.”

Misleading, outdated information about wind turbines is causing unnecessary alarm. I’m all for citizen involvement – having been a community environmental activist for years – but let’s get some perspective here. Study after study demonstrates that the trigger point for severe climate change is closer than previously thought, and the consequences even more dire. To put a fine point on it, we need action now.We just don’t have the luxury of stringing out alternative energy project processes for years. We need solutions now.
So I say urgently to my friends who care about the environment and future generations, we cannot be split on this issue. We want coal plants closed, no new nuclear or gas plants and we hate the dirty Alberta tar sands. We are going to be laughed out of town if we don’t fully and aggressively support all forms of renewable power – including wind power.

Global climate change is having environmental impacts that make short-term concerns about wind turbines pale in comparison. We need these projects and we are going to need a lot more like them if we are to wean ourselves off fossil fuel energy.Ontario has the chance to seriously tackle climate change, shut down its coal plants and, as a very important added benefit these days, stay competitive with the United States under a pro-green Obama administration.

We can be world leaders, build the technology here, employ thousands of Ontarians and save our planet all at the same time.

Let’s not blow it.

Taking a swipe at those who oppose wind turbines off the Scarborough Bluffs, Premier Dalton McGuinty stated that only safety and environmental concerns will be legitimate objections to biofuel plants, solar panel fields and wind turbines under a green energy act to be proposed this month.

“We’re going to say to Ontarians that it’s okay to object on the basis of safety issues and environmental standards; if you have real concerns there, put those forward and we must find a way to address those,” McGuinty told reporters. “But don’t say, “I don’t want it around here.”

He’s counting on the act, of which few details have been released, to help create 50,000 jobs over the next three years and boost the amount of renewable energy feeding into the electricity grid to fight climate change.

Hot Air or Clean Air- the 2009 Federal Budget.

January 28, 2009
“Although this budget has some pockets of green spending, overall it represents a missed opportunity for the government to position Canada as a leader in the green economy of the future. Contrast this with what our major trading partner, the U.S., is doing under President Barack Obama. President Obama just announced $55 billion in immediate green stimulus spending. Meanwhile, less than five per cent of Canada’s budget is allocated to immediate green stimulus spending.”

Peter Robinson, CEO, David Suzuki Foundation

Here are some comments from the David Suzuki Foundation about the 2009 budget’s implications for the environment:

Green Stimulus Measures in the 2009 Budget

Like our neighbor to the south, Canada needs its own “green revolution”, and right now we’re only looking at half measures. This budget has a significant amount of government spending for harmful projects such as expanding highways that lead to long-term problems like urban sprawl, traffic congestion, harm to human health, and fractured wilderness areas. It contains small victories for the environment but leaves us questioning the government’s willingness to make Canada a global leader in the new green economy.

Positive green stimulus measures in the 2009 budget include:
• $1 billion was allocated over five years to research and develop green technologies to help Canada lower greenhouse gas emissions. However, just $200 million of that will be made available this year and millions of public dollars will subsidize the tar sands industry instead of ensuring that the industry is held accountable for the pollution it produces. According to the science, Canada’s minimum targets for emission reductions should be set at 25 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020. The government’s current targets will only decrease emissions by three per cent from 1990 levels by 2020. The only technology mentioned as a potential source of funding is not a green technology but rather “large-scale carbon capture and storage”.

• $407 million was committed over two years for passenger rail (VIA Rail). This will encourage travellers to commute in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

• $300 million was dedicated over two years for home retrofits for energy efficiency. This incentive will help Canadians conserve energy at home.

• An undisclosed portion of $1 billion over two years will go to energy-efficiency retrofits for social housing.

Green Stimulus Measures Missing in Action in the 2009 Budget

The David Suzuki Foundation is concerned about the 2009 budget’s missed opportunity to invest in protecting and restoring nature. Most notably, the government missed the chance to implement measures that would help Canada cap greenhouse gas emissions. Canada continues to lag behind the rest of the world in having a credible climate change plan.

Tackling these issues would have allowed Canada to achieve meaningful environmental progress and become a global leader in tomorrow’s green economy.

The 2009 budget fails to meet the test of a green stimulus budget on several fronts, including:

• No funding was committed to the government’s renewable power program (ecoEnergy for Renewable Power Program), whose existing funds have been fully allocated. A similar U.S. program, already more generous, was extended for three years on January 26, 2009. The Canadian government has also refused to join the International Renewable Energy Association, sending a clear message to the wind, solar, and other clean-energy industries in Canada that they are not a priority. Expect renewable energy investments to flow to the U.S.

• Some spending measures in the budget will move Canada further away from the clean-energy transition that is needed and will further entrench Canada’s reliance on unsustainable and dirty sources of energy. The government is providing accelerated capital-cost allowance for investments in carbon capture and storage (CCS), on top of a substantial portion of the “Green Energy Economy” program funding that could go to CCS. Moreover, an additional $351 million (a one-year bump) will go toward Canada’s nuclear energy program.

• Billions of dollars are allocated to expanding roadways and bridges but not to expanding cycling and walking paths.

• No green strings were attached to subsidies for the auto and forestry industries.

• No money was allocated to wind-energy projects. This will likely result in wind-energy investments flowing to the U.S.

Toronto, Jan. 23, 2009 – The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) has awarded long-term contracts for six green energy projects. These projects will help create about 2,200 jobs and power a cleaner, greener, energy future for all Ontarians.

The six new wind power projects - three to be located in Chatham-Kent and one each in Essex, Prince Edward County and Thunder Bay - will provide enough electricity for more than 120,000 homes.

In about a month, Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman will unveil his plan for Ontario’s renewable energy future.
Here’s hoping he’ll unshackle the program that’s most likely to increase our supply of electricity from wind, solar, biomass and other alternative sources.

Link to Full Article: Giving Green Energy a Leg Up

In the face of predictions, rhetoric and warnings about the planet’s environmental crisis, one man stands alone as a revolutionary who is transforming a country. Hermann Scheer is a German parliamentarian who has turned ideas into practical solutions. Because of the laws that bear his name, Germany is now a solar-paneled, windmill-building, job-producing green powerhouse of the industrialized world.The Gospel of Green then turns to Canada and asks: if one man can transform a country whose climate and economy is so similar to that of Ontario, why can’t, and why isn’t, that province embracing Scheer’s gospel of green?

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/the_gospel_of_green/video.html

Energy underpins everything we do. Human societies have become increasingly complex, requiring ever larger-scale sources of continuous energy. Now, energy fuels not only our activities but our economies as well. If we don’t choose our energy sources wisely, we can do more harm than good. 

The Ontario Government is planning to spend upwards of $59 billion to
rebuild much of the province’s electricity system. However, the plan
developed by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) for replacing dirty coal- fired
generation and aging nuclear units is heavily focused on maintaining
the status quo of a highly centralized generation system that serves
electricity consumers through a system of long-distance high-voltage
transmission lines.
This decision to maintain the status quo will be costly for Ontario.  However, Ontario could use the current need for a major renewal of its
electricity system to rebuild it on a new, more modern foundation.
Many other jurisdictions are moving away from such inflexible and
inefficient systems toward what are called “distributed” energy systems.
In distributed systems, the emphasis is on meeting electricity needs in the
most efficient and lowest cost manner possible. Many smaller generation
sources located near centres of electricity demand are used instead of a
handful of large power stations. This
approach offers multiple benefits, from more efficient industries and new
business (and job) opportunities to cleaner air and lower costs.
Green Futures Article

PINCHER CREEK, ALTA.—As you drive south from Calgary, they first appear just past the town of Claresholm - tiny spikes in a line across a ridge on the distant horizon.Turning west on Highway 3, with the Rockies silhouetted in the distance, they’re on the left, the right, then dead ahead, like clusters of sentinels on the hills and ridges, their three arms revolving languidly in the wind.

Many communities around the world have achieved energy independence as far as their electricity goes. Citizens in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the U.K., and even in the U.S. have established community wind operations. Simply put, community wind is citizens in an area, who organize and eventually purchase, operate, and maintain their own wind generator(s).

SHELBURNE — As Andria Hutchinson watched the giant wind turbines being erected around her home two years ago, she grew uneasy. The windmills, with their massive concrete columns and large fiberglass blades, were beginning to dominate the flat farmland of Melancthon Township, just west of Shelburne.

Jim Fonger’s head is twirling after Caledon council spun around and revoked its decision to spend $50,000 for a feasibility study on some modern day windmills proposed by Windy Hills Caledon.