;hgjhb
gvvnmhhljk mknkll bmoujhbjEditor: Read this post and then please leave a comment explaining it’s importance and the ramifications for Canada
Canada dead last on climate change
We can no longer use the U.S. as an excuse for inaction
By GERALD BUTTS, FreelanceJuly 8, 2009
Here is a sobering thought to consider as Canada prepares to assume the presidency of the G8 following this week’s meeting in Italy: Canada has for the first time replaced the United States as the worst performer on tackling climate change among G8 nations. This was revealed in the recent G8 Climate Scorecard, released jointly by WWF, the global conservation organization, and the global insurance company Allianz.
The report confirms recent events in North America: There is a new worldview in the U.S. as it rejoins the global community, while Canada continues with the “No, we can’t” approach adopted by successive Canadian governments.
The fact that the U.S. is rapidly leaving Canada in its wake on climate change is particularly important, as Canada’s political leaders have repeatedly claimed that Canada couldn’t afford to move faster or further than our major trading partner.
If that argument ever had merit, it certainly doesn’t now as we see the difference that political leadership can make.
More has been done in the U.S. in the last six months than in the last 30 years. We have seen tough new standards for greenhouse-gas emissions from cars introduced by the Obama administration. There have been massive investments in energy efficiency, green power and public transit. A renewed respect for science, backed by new funding. Climate legislation that would cap emissions from large industrial polluters has been passed by the House of Representatives, and could become law before the international negotiations over a new global deal on climate action in Copenhagen later this year.
As we prepare to participate in the Copenhagen climate summit in December and to play host to next year’s G8 meeting in Huntsville, Ont., we should be taking the longer view and building a legacy of a green economy that will make Canadians proud. The good news is that progress in the U.S. shows how much can change, and how quickly, with a simple change in mindset, from “No we can’t” to “Yes we can.”
Full Story at the Gazette
A powerful wake up call from Tom Adams concerning the Green Energy Act in Ontario.
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Editor:
Carol Mitchell, through her office staff, was invited to attend the taping of a television program at the Ripley wind farm. She never showed up. Granted the invite was on short notice but there was concern for her when she failed to show.
On the evening of June 22, it was understood she was scheduled to attend a Wind Turbine regulations public meeting in Port Elgin where approximately 180 citizens anticipated her arrival . She did not show up.
I don’t wish to alarm anyone by calling the police at this time. If you know of her whereabouts please ask her to contact me.
Carol Mitchell may or may not be sporting a small green tattoo.
Your attention in this matter is appreciated!
The above artricle is satire !
Dalton McGuinty and George Smitherman need to come clean with Ontario.
How is it that most people now know that global warming is a scam, yet those in the highest office of the Province of Ontario still don’t get it.
Are our elected officials stupid, incompetent, or are they willing participants in the Global Warming/Climate Change Scam?
We know where David Suzuki and Al Gore stand – What about you Dalton and George? Are willing to go down with the ship taking the Province of Ontario with you?
The Scam is coming apart at the seams. Bail out while you can.
Watch the Video!
No Compromise on Health News release
Toronto, April 27, 2009 -Wind Concerns Ontario is encouraged that the Premier of Ontario has committed to an examination of the health issues involved with industrial wind turbines.
“We’ll take advantage of the very best information that’s out there to make sure that we’re doing something that’s intelligent.”
~Premier Dalton McGuinty The Canadian Press April 24, 2009
The Premier will need to go well beyond speaking only to the manufacturers of these turbines and the Canadian Wind Energy Association lobby in order to rely on the “best information” available. There are and have been better sources of information for several years. Other jurisdictions with far greater experience have implemented stronger regulations that Ontario has so far chosen to ignore. To date the “best” Ontario Health Effects information is the Wind Concerns Ontario survey presented by Dr. Robert McMurtry to the Standing Committee on the Green Energy Act on April 22.
Wind Concerns Ontario repeats its demand that Premier McGuinty apply the precautionary principle and conduct a full epidemiological study into health effects of wind turbines before any more industrial wind projects are installed in Ontario closer than 2km to any residence. This is the only way to avoid causing serious harm to those who live beside industrial wind turbines. Medical authorities elsewhere have already recommended precautionary setbacks.
The Government of Ontario must consider these various national standards:
- Scotland requires setbacks of at least 2 km from cities, towns and villages.
- The United Kingdom’s Noise Association recommends a one-mile (1.6 km) setback.
- France will soon add the International Standards Organization’s absolute level of 25 dBA, as measured inside homes in response to the National Academy of Medicine’s earlier recommendation of 1.5 km. setbacks,
- Germany specifies maximum noise levels for three different environments or “regions”:
- quiet 35dBA (Setbacks in quiet or country locations are typically 1000-1500 meters)
- middle, 40 dBA
- standard, 45 dBA
- Denmark, Holland, and Sweden have a maximum noise level of 40 dBA.
- South Australia’s standard is 35dBA or background +5dB
- New Zealand is now reviewing its secondary noise limit of 35dBA for evening and nighttime in low background
The Canadian Wind Energy Association recommends noise levels of 40-53 dBA. They state that setbacks are normally 300-600 meters but in some cases “separation distances of less than 250 meters may achieve acceptable sound levels” (CanWea paper, “Addressing Concerns with Sound from Wind Turbines,” January 2009).
Ontario’s Ministry of Environment presently does not specify setback distances. It has established only ‘regulatory guidelines’ that allow wind turbines, depending on the wind speed, to produce from 40 to as high as 51 dBA of noise, measured not at property lines but outside homes.
The present standards for Ontario are not nearly the best but rather nearly the worst.
If the Government of Ontario aspires to be a world leader in wind energy, it should also lead the world in protecting its citizens from harmful side effects of this industry. In addition to setting world-class standards for low noise levels on the dBA scale, Ontario must determine appropriate levels on the dBC scale for low frequency sound, reported increasingly as a health concern.
Editor: Can it get any more ridiculous?
Ontario is hell bent to close our coal plants and replace them with intermittent wind farms and solar parks – backed up by expensive gas plants.
If you asked someone to design the worst electrical system they could, it would likely be the one described above. The very things you would want to avoid if possible. Expensive and unreliable.
How do you promote an expensive, unreliable electrical system?
Are you stupid? Own a business?
Ontario is the place for you!
Shouldn’t the growers be using renewables like wind and solar? Not if you want your tomatoes.(wind and solar create carbon credits. We need reliable cost effective energy)
Dump the green lobbyists today – Call in the engineers and lets get a system that is cost effective and reliable. I have said this too many times but I will say it once more.
I had a long talk with the senior policy adviser for the Ministry of Energy and he agreed that the best system for Ontario was to put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build a nuke. 10 billion. Cost effective and as clean as we will get.
The green lobbyists plan-60+ billion (that’s a lot of your taxes wasted) for a system that is more expensive, unreliable and in the end not likely any cleaner than the one the policy adviser would build.
“This is about politics” I was told by the adviser. Well folks – heat your home or greenhouse with politics.
Read the story and if you are not outraged by this govt. – you probably work for them or one of the lobbyists.
.
More growers turn to coal
TORONTO STAR PHOTO ILLUSTRATION
Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter
“Coal is expanding in the province, despite a policy to phase out coal,” says Roger Samson, executive director of REAP-Canada, an independent group that encourages sustainable farming practices. “The Ontario government has no plan on how to mitigate this.”
How much coal, potentially, are we talking about? The energy demands of a typical greenhouse are enormous. Shalin Khosla, a greenhouse specialist with the agriculture ministry, says anywhere between 35 per cent to 50 per cent of the costs of operating a modern vegetable greenhouse goes toward energy consumption. The figure is closer to 20 per cent for flower growers.
It’s estimated that greenhouses in Ontario cover 2,823 acres, and that the average greenhouse requires 9,500 gigajoules of energy per acre every year. This works out to 26.8 million gigajoules annually.
Convert that energy into electricity potential and it works out to 7.44 terawatt-hours a year – more than three times the 2004 electricity output of the Lakeview coal-fired generating station in Mississauga (which has since been closed down and demolished).
That’s equivalent to more than one million tonnes of coal being burned annually.
It’s a mathematical exercise that raises a serious public policy question: What’s preventing the entire greenhouse industry from moving to coal, and in doing so, undermining the spirit of the McGuinty government’s coal phase-out strategy?
Not much, it appears. Unlike power plants and other major industrial facilities, greenhouses can burn whatever fuel they want without much scrutiny.
Keith Stewart, an energy expert with WWF-Canada and author of a book on Ontario’s electricity system, calls the situation “perverse” and a reflection of inconsistent government policy.
“Outdated energy policy is giving us coal-fired tomatoes,” he says.
full story at the Toronto Star
Tyler Hamilton can’t seem to write a story without including Keith Stewart in it. Tyler, go find some engineers. Stewart has a Phd in political science and environment. He is not a energy expert nor is the WWF.
I haven’t read his book but I have read enough “green” policy papers to pretty much know what it says. Green politics does not make an energy expert.
Stewart is a lobbyist for the green movement. Gerald Butts the ex-principal Secretary for McGuinty is now with the WWF. Robert Hornung of CanWEA and the Pembina Institute along with his friend David Suzuki are all involved in pressuring the govt. to adopt their policies and in the process are doing great harm to this Province and Canada.
None of these people are employed by the govt. nor are they elected and I don’t believe any of them are engineers.
They are promoters of a massive fraud that goes by the name of “Man Made Global Warming”.
So butt the fuck out of our electrical system.
If you don’t like Canada – go join your mentor Maurice Strong in China. They use lots of coal there. Go bother the Chinese
If any of you mentioned above would like to enter into an open debate, or have a comment-I’m available.
Germany Plans Boom in Coal-Fired Power Plants
Premier, Dalton McGuinty powers a press conference with wind energy
Editor:
It is quite unfortunate that a man like Mr. Carr, former CEO of the Ontario Power Authority, who has known for a long time, the problems with wind energy, declined to step forward until now.
Many families in the province have had their lives ruined while he and his colleagues remained silent.
That said, maybe his words will encourage others to step forward.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who refused, to shut up, lay down or go away. Be proud of the fight you have, and continue to wage. Truth and justice are always worth the effort.
May other citizens learn from your example.
Jan Carr, former OPA CEO, will now tell you exactly what we have been saying for years.
Thanks for coming forward Mr. Carr, and welcome aboard the truth train.
Mr. Carr’s letter to the Globe and Mail.
.
Green, not dumb
Toronto — My wife suggested Murray Campbell’s use of “old” in “dumb old utility guys” should be my basis for a complaint to a human rights tribunal (’Dougs’ Take Warning: Curious George Is Keen On Green – Sept. 25), as the former CEO of the Ontario Power Authority.
Let the facts speak for themselves. The OECD’s International Energy Agency and the websites of the European utilities themselves say it all. In spite of hype about their innovation in renewable energy, both Germany and Denmark derive half of their electricity from coal-fired stations. As its nuclear generating stations reach the end of their design-lives, Germany will have to decide between building new coal-fired generation (it already has 10 times the amount that Ontario has) and abandoning its no-new-nuclear policy. With a quarter of its supply coming from renewables and more on the way, Ontario’s electricity is already considerably greener than Germany’s and soon will take league leadership from Denmark.
Then check electricity prices. Germans pay double and Danes triple what Ontarians do.
From the Globe and Mail
Today at noon, Ontario’s 672MW’s of wind were producing 32MW’s
Editor:
As happy as I am to see this article show up in a “Mainstream Canadian Newspaper”, I still have to ask-why has it taken so long to expose the scam that is the wind industry?
Hell, Enron started this scam years ago. Google- Enron, Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton. Like the media never noticed what was going on.
I’ve noticed the Globe and Mail reading my blog lately ’site tracker’ and that’s good. But, why does it take so long to get a story out. People have been sending the mainstream papers this same information for years. Why have they remained silent for so long?
Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted, landscapes ruined and peoples lives destroyed, while the media sat on the information.
I called the head office of CanWea two years ago this coming Nov. I told them the wind scam would be shut down within two years. I still believe it is possible.
It’s time for journalists to shake the cobwebs from their brains, remember the journalist oath and get back to doing what they are supposed to do- inform the public of the truth.
Leave the lies and bullshit to the politicians and industry.
As J. Lennon said “Just give me the truth”
Anyway, I thank Mr. Reynolds for this story. Good work-even if it’s years late.
NEIL REYNOLDS
OTTAWA — Republican presidential candidate
Senator John McCain travelled to Oregon in mid-May to deliver the
definitive climate change speech of his campaign. He spoke in Portland,
at the U.S. headquarters of Vestas Wind Systems AS, a Danish company
that markets wind turbines around the world. He started on a
self-deprecating note. “Today is a kind of test run for this company,”
he said. “They’ve got wind technicians here, wind studies and all these
wind turbines. But there’s no wind. So now I know why they asked me to
come and give a speech.”
It was perhaps his most perceptive statement of the day. Five
sentences later, Mr. McCain made perhaps his least perceptive. “Wind,”
he said, “is a predictable source of energy.”
Really? Define predictable. Wind turbines operate occasionally with
remarkable efficiency at 100 per cent capacity. More often, they
operate with 20 per cent capacity. Once in a while, they operate with
subzero capacity – taking electricity from the grid to keep themselves
running until they get hit again by a restless wind.
British energy consultant Hugh Sharman, based in Denmark, documented
wind power’s capacity for subzero performance in a report published by
Civil Engineering magazine in 2005. With more wind power per capita
than any other country, Denmark (population 5.4 million) is the world’s
showroom nation for this highly fashionable form of renewable energy.
Why, then, does Denmark export almost all of its wind power – at a
revenue loss? Why, then, does Denmark still operate all of its
conventional coal-fired power plants? In a phrase, Mr. Sharman says,
the reason is Denmark’s “wildly fluctuating wind power.”
It turns out that Denmark’s vast array of turbines often produce
minimal electricity when demand is high, maximum electricity when
demand is low. Basing his analysis on data from a single year (2002),
Mr. Sharman reported that wind power produced less than 1 per cent of
the country’s electricity supply on 54 different days. On one of these
54 days, the wind turbines took more power from the grid than they
produced. (Wind turbines consume considerable electricity whether winds
are blowing or not blowing.)
British author and energy analyst Tony Lodge makes the same point in
a report by the Centre for Policy Studies, a London think tank. “Not a
single conventional power plant has been closed in the period that
Danish wind farms have been developed,” he says. “Because of the
intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants
have had to be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand
for electricity and to provide backup.”
Mr. Lodge says it is not practical to turn coal-fired plants off and
on as winds rise and fall – because ramping them up consumes more fuel
(and emits more carbon dioxide) than running them at a constant rate.
Thus Denmark relies almost exclusively on coal-fired plants for its own
consumption and exports its wind power at whatever off-peak price it
can get.
Only 3.3 per cent of Denmark’s wind power gets “accepted” on the
grid for domestic consumption. In 2003, Denmark exported 84 per cent of
its wind-generated electricity at money-losing rates. And CO{-2}? In
2006, Denmark produced 36 per cent more carbon emissions than the year
before.
Messrs. McCain, Dion and Pickens notwithstanding, winds do not blow
predictably. Without an energy storage battery the size of Mount
Everest, most wind-powered electricity will be wasted and will almost
certainly increase a country’s carbon emissions – albeit inadvertently.
When your power plant operates at only 20 per cent capacity (or less),
you have to build four or five times as many plants as you need. For
reliable backup, you still need either coal, gas or nuclear power – all
of which are cheaper than wind.
The conclusion seems self-evident. Apparently it isn’t. Fortunately,
you can test wind power for yourself. Go outside on a hot and humid
day. Feel the breeze. Or don’t
