Page last updated at 12:28 GMT, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 13:28 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Intricate bat 'love songs' decoded
Matt Walker
Editor, Earth News
Advertisement
A male bat sings while performing a wing flapping display in front of his territory
Male free-tailed bats sing intricate and complex "love songs" to woo prospective female mates, new research has found.
A detailed analysis of the structure of the bats' song has found they use a defined syntax and order of syllables.
That makes the bats' songs more similar to those produced by birds than by other mammals such as mice.
Among mammals, only whales may produce more complex songs, scientists report in the journal PLoS One.
In 2008, a team of researchers including Dr Kirsten Bohn of Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, US discovered that Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) sang songs that appeared to contain defined phrases and syllables.
Within the broad rules, the bats are quite versatile
Dr Kirsten Bohn
"But we only had songs from a few individuals in a captive colony," says Dr Bohn.
Now Bohn and her colleagues have examined over 400 songs produced by 33 individual free-tailed bats living in different colonies in two different regions.
The researchers found that all the bats produce songs with a common hierarchical structure.
"All are constructed from the same four types of syllables and all syllables are combined in the same way to form three types of phrases," says Dr Bohn.
These phrases can be either chirps, trills or buzzes.
"This type of hierarchically structured vocalisation is extremely rare in mammals," she adds.
Songs of attraction
The Brazilian free-tailed bat is common from California to Mexico.
During the mating season, the males establish territories, which they vigorously and aggressively defend against other encroaching males.
But males do let females enter, and the males' love songs are thought to both attract these females and deter rival males.
Free-tailed bats listen out for each others' tunes
As well as finding that all the males structured their songs similarly, the scientists discovered that individual males also add their own particular flourishes.
"Even though these songs are highly structured and follow specific rules, they are also quite variable both for any particular bat and across bats," Dr Bohn explains.
At various times, individual males changed the number of syllables they combined into each of the three phrases, and they also varied the number of times a phrase was repeated within any one song.
"Within the broad rules, the bats are quite versatile," says Dr Bohn.
She suspects that males may vary their songs to generate different meanings, or make themselves more attractive to females, ideas that she now hopes to test.
Other mammals such as mice have in the past few years been shown to produce songs, whilst one other bat species, the Greater sac-winged bat (Saccopteryx bilineata) is also known to sing, though it sings quite differently and evolved this ability independently.
Bat Love Songs
A captive free-tailed bat takes flight
But the hierarchy and complexity of the free-tailed bats love songs make them stand out among mammals.
Only birds and among mammals, the whales, can compare, says Dr Bohn.
"Bird and whale songs have units, syllables or notes, that are combined into specific phrases, or themes, that are combined to form songs," she says.
"In most other mammals, including mouse songs, sequences are produced non-randomly. But there is no evidence as yet for specific syntactical rules and hierarchical structure."
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Bats Can Be Saved
sciencedaily.com:
Scientists at the University of Calgary have found a way to reduce bat deaths from wind turbines by up to 60 percent without significantly reducing the energy generated from the wind farm. The research, recently published in the Journal of Wildlife Management, demonstrates that slowing turbine blades to near motionless in low-wind periods significantly reduces bat mortality.
Read the whole story: sciencedaily.com
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/28/bats-and-wind-turbines-sc_n_302085.html
Scientists at the University of Calgary have found a way to reduce bat deaths from wind turbines by up to 60 percent without significantly reducing the energy generated from the wind farm. The research, recently published in the Journal of Wildlife Management, demonstrates that slowing turbine blades to near motionless in low-wind periods significantly reduces bat mortality.
Read the whole story: sciencedaily.com
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/28/bats-and-wind-turbines-sc_n_302085.html
Could We Have This in Canada?
This is a much better idea! Could we do that here??
WCSH6.com reports:
VINALHAVEN (NEWS CENTER) -- Maine's first "community wind power" project is nearing completion, and a lot of people are watching very carefully.
The three 1.5 megawatt turbines are being built on the island of Vinalhaven, and will provide electricity to that island and neighboring North Haven. This is the first wind project in the state where the power generated will be used locally.
The commercial wind farms sell power to the electric grid. But Fox Island Wind, the name of the local non-profit formed to develop the project, will use most of the electricity right on the two islands.
George Baker, CEO of Fox Island Wind, says in the winter months, when the wind blows the most, the turbines should provide more than enough electricity for the islands. In summer, he says, when there is less wind, they may have to buy power from CMP. Any extra electricity generated will be sold to CMP.
Projections show the project should generate slightly more power than the islands consume, and that's why the project is so important to island communities.
Vinal Haven and North Haven residents currently pay about twice as much for electricity as people on the mainland. Building the wind turbines, says Baker, will stabilize their electric rates for the next twenty years. And those rates will be an estimated 15 to 20 percent less than they pay now.
Now several other island communities, and some on the mainland, are talking with Baker about copying what Vinalhaven and North Haven have done.
For the moment, the Fox Island project is moving ahead quickly. Cianbro project managers say the third and wind turbine should be complete by the end of this week or early next week. Then crews will complete wiring, and General Electric, which makes the actual generating equipment, will then be brought in for a final inspection. Once everything is ready, they expect to begin generating power sometime in November.
http://www.foxislandswind.com
WCSH6.com reports:
VINALHAVEN (NEWS CENTER) -- Maine's first "community wind power" project is nearing completion, and a lot of people are watching very carefully.
The three 1.5 megawatt turbines are being built on the island of Vinalhaven, and will provide electricity to that island and neighboring North Haven. This is the first wind project in the state where the power generated will be used locally.
The commercial wind farms sell power to the electric grid. But Fox Island Wind, the name of the local non-profit formed to develop the project, will use most of the electricity right on the two islands.
George Baker, CEO of Fox Island Wind, says in the winter months, when the wind blows the most, the turbines should provide more than enough electricity for the islands. In summer, he says, when there is less wind, they may have to buy power from CMP. Any extra electricity generated will be sold to CMP.
Projections show the project should generate slightly more power than the islands consume, and that's why the project is so important to island communities.
Vinal Haven and North Haven residents currently pay about twice as much for electricity as people on the mainland. Building the wind turbines, says Baker, will stabilize their electric rates for the next twenty years. And those rates will be an estimated 15 to 20 percent less than they pay now.
Now several other island communities, and some on the mainland, are talking with Baker about copying what Vinalhaven and North Haven have done.
For the moment, the Fox Island project is moving ahead quickly. Cianbro project managers say the third and wind turbine should be complete by the end of this week or early next week. Then crews will complete wiring, and General Electric, which makes the actual generating equipment, will then be brought in for a final inspection. Once everything is ready, they expect to begin generating power sometime in November.
http://www.foxislandswind.com
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Denmark's Wind Power Experience
Over the last eight years West Denmark has exported (couldn't use), on average, 57% of the wind power it generated and East Denmark an average of 45%....The wind power that is exported from Denmark saves neither fossil fuel consumption nor CO2 emissions in Denmark, where it is all paid for. By necessity, wind power exported to Norway and Sweden supplants largely carbon neutral electricity in the Nordic countries. No coal is used nor are there power-related CO2 emissions in Sweden and Norway.
Wind energy has replaced some thermal generation in Denmark. It has saved an average emission of about 2.4 million tonnes per year CO2 at a total subsidy cost of ... $124 per ton of CO2. Wind power has proven to be an expensive way to save CO2 emissions.
...
...wind power's one striking advantage is that, like nuclear, its marginal costs of operation are very small once the capital [to build it] has been paid. However, unlike nuclear, many ten to fifteen year-old turbines are past their useful life. By contrast, most conventional rotating power plants can enjoy a working life of 40 to 60 years, as evidenced by most power plants in Europe today. This puts into question the strategic, economic and environmental benefits of a power plant that may have to be scrapped, replaced and re-subsidized every ten to fifteen years.
...in 2025 50% of Denmark's electricity demand must come from renewable resources, mostly wind power. The Ecogrid Study Group has concluded that if the extra wind power is to achieve this aim, drastic re-engineering of the whole energy system will need to take place, including the retirement of much expensive, high quality, existing capacity.
On employment benefits of the subsidized wind industry in Denmark, the study concludes:
Substantial subsidies have been directed to the Danish wind mill industry over years....The Danish Wind Industry counts 28,400 employees....the effect of the government subsidy has been to shift employment from more productive employment in other sectors to les productive employment in the wind industry. As a consequence, Danish GDP is approximately... $270 million lower that it would have been if the wind sector work force was employed elsewhere.
Wind energy has replaced some thermal generation in Denmark. It has saved an average emission of about 2.4 million tonnes per year CO2 at a total subsidy cost of ... $124 per ton of CO2. Wind power has proven to be an expensive way to save CO2 emissions.
...
...wind power's one striking advantage is that, like nuclear, its marginal costs of operation are very small once the capital [to build it] has been paid. However, unlike nuclear, many ten to fifteen year-old turbines are past their useful life. By contrast, most conventional rotating power plants can enjoy a working life of 40 to 60 years, as evidenced by most power plants in Europe today. This puts into question the strategic, economic and environmental benefits of a power plant that may have to be scrapped, replaced and re-subsidized every ten to fifteen years.
...in 2025 50% of Denmark's electricity demand must come from renewable resources, mostly wind power. The Ecogrid Study Group has concluded that if the extra wind power is to achieve this aim, drastic re-engineering of the whole energy system will need to take place, including the retirement of much expensive, high quality, existing capacity.
On employment benefits of the subsidized wind industry in Denmark, the study concludes:
Substantial subsidies have been directed to the Danish wind mill industry over years....The Danish Wind Industry counts 28,400 employees....the effect of the government subsidy has been to shift employment from more productive employment in other sectors to les productive employment in the wind industry. As a consequence, Danish GDP is approximately... $270 million lower that it would have been if the wind sector work force was employed elsewhere.
To Marilla Stephenson, Writer, Chronicle Herald
In regards to Marilla Stephenson's comments about the wind turbine issue on Digby Neck,
I find Marilla's comments misleading. She claims "benefits" to wind turbines but cannot list one. A person she interviewed suggests, in connection with placing turbines on Digby Neck, the arrival of jobs and young people. Sentences later, he admits wind turbines "will not fix that". So by her own article, wind turbines will neither bring jobs, nor people to the area, and the only other benefit she could list is for the tax collector.
How would you feel if you knew that wind turbines did not reduce the use of fossil fuels? Isn't that the reason why we're all jumping on the green bandwagon? To reduce emissions from fossil fuels? I was all for wind turbines. However, I am hearing, in my occupation, from Europeans who have many turbines in their countries, that they did not reduce the use of fossil fuels at all, and, in fact "were a farce".
I am pro green Power, I think we all want green power, and we need to meet some Kyoto guidelines, but I think we need to get these questions answered before slapping down turbines everywhere, on a mirage that the public's demand for saving our world is being addressed. There needs to be appropriate standards, for wind farms, yes, but first and foremost, even before that, does it actually accomplish what the public believes it would do? I don't know, now.
Kathleen Gidney
I find Marilla's comments misleading. She claims "benefits" to wind turbines but cannot list one. A person she interviewed suggests, in connection with placing turbines on Digby Neck, the arrival of jobs and young people. Sentences later, he admits wind turbines "will not fix that". So by her own article, wind turbines will neither bring jobs, nor people to the area, and the only other benefit she could list is for the tax collector.
How would you feel if you knew that wind turbines did not reduce the use of fossil fuels? Isn't that the reason why we're all jumping on the green bandwagon? To reduce emissions from fossil fuels? I was all for wind turbines. However, I am hearing, in my occupation, from Europeans who have many turbines in their countries, that they did not reduce the use of fossil fuels at all, and, in fact "were a farce".
I am pro green Power, I think we all want green power, and we need to meet some Kyoto guidelines, but I think we need to get these questions answered before slapping down turbines everywhere, on a mirage that the public's demand for saving our world is being addressed. There needs to be appropriate standards, for wind farms, yes, but first and foremost, even before that, does it actually accomplish what the public believes it would do? I don't know, now.
Kathleen Gidney
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Printable Solar Cells- from Tom
Subject: Printable nanomaterial solar cells transform windows into energy generators
Printable solar cells transform windows into energy generators
Added: August 25, 2009
GLOBE-Net (August 25, 2009) One of the biggest drawbacks of solar cells available on the market today is their high cost, which keeps homeowners from opting for renewable energy generation. A research conducted at the University of Texas At Austin could answer the problem with the development of a new type of solar cells, which could easily be printed like a newspaper.
Thin-film solar technology, a process that involves coating surfaces with inky, light-absorbing materials, could reduce solar energy costs by a factor of 10, said chemical engineering professor Brian Korgel, who oversees research in the field.
"We’re essentially making material you can pat onto a surface and make solar cells that way," Korgel said. "With our process, you can basically print solar cells like you print newspaper."
The researchers are aiming to reduce the cost of solar cells by as much as 90% by replacing the expensive gas-phase deposition in a vacuum chamber with a new nanomaterial solution. The cells are based on the use of specialized inks that can be printed using a roll-to-roll printing process on a plastic substrate or even stainless steel.
The light-absorbing nanomaterials are 10,000 times thinner than a strand of hair and because of this microscopic size they carry better physical properties that can enable their use in higher-efficiency devices. Currently the cells developed are only 1% efficient, but the research team is hoping that the final version, which could take about 5 years to develop, will be at least 10% efficient.
The cost of solar energy in its current form can make it an unrealistic option for many homeowners. The average pricetag of a 3-kilowatt solar system, which is most often the system installed in homes, is $22,000, said Austin Energy spokesman Ed Clark.
See also this article: Plan to turn rooftops, walls and windows into cheap solar cells
Source: University of Texas .
Printable solar cells transform windows into energy generators
Added: August 25, 2009
GLOBE-Net (August 25, 2009) One of the biggest drawbacks of solar cells available on the market today is their high cost, which keeps homeowners from opting for renewable energy generation. A research conducted at the University of Texas At Austin could answer the problem with the development of a new type of solar cells, which could easily be printed like a newspaper.
Thin-film solar technology, a process that involves coating surfaces with inky, light-absorbing materials, could reduce solar energy costs by a factor of 10, said chemical engineering professor Brian Korgel, who oversees research in the field.
"We’re essentially making material you can pat onto a surface and make solar cells that way," Korgel said. "With our process, you can basically print solar cells like you print newspaper."
The researchers are aiming to reduce the cost of solar cells by as much as 90% by replacing the expensive gas-phase deposition in a vacuum chamber with a new nanomaterial solution. The cells are based on the use of specialized inks that can be printed using a roll-to-roll printing process on a plastic substrate or even stainless steel.
The light-absorbing nanomaterials are 10,000 times thinner than a strand of hair and because of this microscopic size they carry better physical properties that can enable their use in higher-efficiency devices. Currently the cells developed are only 1% efficient, but the research team is hoping that the final version, which could take about 5 years to develop, will be at least 10% efficient.
The cost of solar energy in its current form can make it an unrealistic option for many homeowners. The average pricetag of a 3-kilowatt solar system, which is most often the system installed in homes, is $22,000, said Austin Energy spokesman Ed Clark.
See also this article: Plan to turn rooftops, walls and windows into cheap solar cells
Source: University of Texas .
Labels:
solar power green technology
Gulliver's Cove- Chronicle Herald
Wind may be Gullivers Cove’s most solid hope
By MARILLA STEPHENSON
Wed. Sep 23 - 4:46 AM
DIGBY NECK — AS THE MEANDERING roadway winds between the modest homes toward the shore, one realizes it could be any tiny coastal community in Nova Scotia.
This is Gullivers Cove on Digby Neck. And there was a time here when fish was king.
At the end of that strip of asphalt sits the aged remnants of a broken-down wharf, sagging, decrepit buildings and the hulls of two abandoned fishing boats that sit high on the rocky beach.
Faded black paint on the pointlessly bolted door of one particularly perilous-looking fish shack says: "For key, call 245- . . . ." Surely, no one would take the risk to enter.
There is still a small fish processing operation up the road, but in Gullivers Cove, fish is king no more. The talk, these days, is all about windmills.
High ridges stretch along the evergreen landscape that envelopes the cove from both sides. Some of the locals call them mountains, but that’s a stretch. These ridges are set to become home to Nova Scotia’s next wind farm, a 20-turbine, $82-million project proposed by SkyPower and Scotian WindFields in Dartmouth.
The province last month approved an environmental assessment for the project, with conditions. Road construction is expected over the winter, with turbine installation planned for next summer.
The turbines are to be erected on the lands of private landowners, who have signed lease agreements with SkyPower. People who signed agreements received $500 for signing and will be paid roughly $5,000 per year for every turbine located on their property. The rural Municipality of the District of Digby will collect about $165,000 a year in tax revenues, based on power production.
It’s a project that has stirred debate on Digby Neck and even divisions within one family.
Debi VanTassel, who with her husband Davy runs an emu farm in Gullivers Cove, says the distance of the turbines from local homes are her biggest concern. A sign on her property calls for a setback of 2,400 metres. The approval from the province allows windmills to be located within 750 metres of homes.
That is significantly more than what has been allowed in other municipalities, including a wind farm in Pubnico that has a turbine within 400 metres of a residence. But many in the Digby area are looking forward to the benefits the project will bring. VanTassel acknowledges that relatives in Gullivers Cove are among those who have signed lease agreements with SkyPower.
"There is Davy’s aunt and her next door neighbour who we do not talk about the windmills to, because we know it causes problems in the family. It causes some people to have some ideas, and some to have others."
That’s putting it mildly. Digby Neck, that narrow stretch of land that runs along the Bay of Fundy shore on the southwestern end of the province, has had more than its share of development controversies over the past few years.
First, it was the uproar over a quarry company that wanted to locate there. They eventually quit and ran.
Next, it was a bottling plant planned for Gullivers Cove that fell flat.
Now, it’s the wind farm.
And some folks have had enough with determined efforts to kill every investment proposal that comes to the area.
"It’s a benefit to have it for cleaner power," says David Graham, who, along with his wife Linda, owns a cottage rental outfit aimed at the tourism market.
They live a few miles down the road from Gullivers Cove and run their property completely from solar and wind power. They have a small windmill and they are not connected to the Nova Scotia Power grid. They reject any suggestion that a turbine farm will hurt tourism in the area.
"People are not looking at the bright side of it," says David. "We’ve got a handful of people here, mostly retirees, and they’ve got absolutely nothing else to do but to try to stop just about everything that’s going to happen around here."
Linda was initially somewhat opposed to the turbine project because, she says, it would not have brought many jobs for local residents, as the quarry and water plant would have. She believes the area has developed an anti-development reputation that will further reduce the dwindling population and make it even tougher for local communities to survive.
"Fishing is going," she states bluntly. "Other than that, there is nothing around here other than our seasonal residents.
"If you don’t have the jobs, you don’t have the young people. Our schools, they need the young people, they need the kids. Our fire department is all volunteers, but they need more young people.
"The windmills won’t fix that, but if it’s going to help by giving money to our municipality and a few of our residents, then it does have benefits. It’s cleaner energy and that’s a big plus."
( mstephenson@herald.ca)
Note: This is the first of a two-part series. In tomorrow’s Chronicle Herald: How close is too close? Should the provincial government decide?
By MARILLA STEPHENSON
Wed. Sep 23 - 4:46 AM
DIGBY NECK — AS THE MEANDERING roadway winds between the modest homes toward the shore, one realizes it could be any tiny coastal community in Nova Scotia.
This is Gullivers Cove on Digby Neck. And there was a time here when fish was king.
At the end of that strip of asphalt sits the aged remnants of a broken-down wharf, sagging, decrepit buildings and the hulls of two abandoned fishing boats that sit high on the rocky beach.
Faded black paint on the pointlessly bolted door of one particularly perilous-looking fish shack says: "For key, call 245- . . . ." Surely, no one would take the risk to enter.
There is still a small fish processing operation up the road, but in Gullivers Cove, fish is king no more. The talk, these days, is all about windmills.
High ridges stretch along the evergreen landscape that envelopes the cove from both sides. Some of the locals call them mountains, but that’s a stretch. These ridges are set to become home to Nova Scotia’s next wind farm, a 20-turbine, $82-million project proposed by SkyPower and Scotian WindFields in Dartmouth.
The province last month approved an environmental assessment for the project, with conditions. Road construction is expected over the winter, with turbine installation planned for next summer.
The turbines are to be erected on the lands of private landowners, who have signed lease agreements with SkyPower. People who signed agreements received $500 for signing and will be paid roughly $5,000 per year for every turbine located on their property. The rural Municipality of the District of Digby will collect about $165,000 a year in tax revenues, based on power production.
It’s a project that has stirred debate on Digby Neck and even divisions within one family.
Debi VanTassel, who with her husband Davy runs an emu farm in Gullivers Cove, says the distance of the turbines from local homes are her biggest concern. A sign on her property calls for a setback of 2,400 metres. The approval from the province allows windmills to be located within 750 metres of homes.
That is significantly more than what has been allowed in other municipalities, including a wind farm in Pubnico that has a turbine within 400 metres of a residence. But many in the Digby area are looking forward to the benefits the project will bring. VanTassel acknowledges that relatives in Gullivers Cove are among those who have signed lease agreements with SkyPower.
"There is Davy’s aunt and her next door neighbour who we do not talk about the windmills to, because we know it causes problems in the family. It causes some people to have some ideas, and some to have others."
That’s putting it mildly. Digby Neck, that narrow stretch of land that runs along the Bay of Fundy shore on the southwestern end of the province, has had more than its share of development controversies over the past few years.
First, it was the uproar over a quarry company that wanted to locate there. They eventually quit and ran.
Next, it was a bottling plant planned for Gullivers Cove that fell flat.
Now, it’s the wind farm.
And some folks have had enough with determined efforts to kill every investment proposal that comes to the area.
"It’s a benefit to have it for cleaner power," says David Graham, who, along with his wife Linda, owns a cottage rental outfit aimed at the tourism market.
They live a few miles down the road from Gullivers Cove and run their property completely from solar and wind power. They have a small windmill and they are not connected to the Nova Scotia Power grid. They reject any suggestion that a turbine farm will hurt tourism in the area.
"People are not looking at the bright side of it," says David. "We’ve got a handful of people here, mostly retirees, and they’ve got absolutely nothing else to do but to try to stop just about everything that’s going to happen around here."
Linda was initially somewhat opposed to the turbine project because, she says, it would not have brought many jobs for local residents, as the quarry and water plant would have. She believes the area has developed an anti-development reputation that will further reduce the dwindling population and make it even tougher for local communities to survive.
"Fishing is going," she states bluntly. "Other than that, there is nothing around here other than our seasonal residents.
"If you don’t have the jobs, you don’t have the young people. Our schools, they need the young people, they need the kids. Our fire department is all volunteers, but they need more young people.
"The windmills won’t fix that, but if it’s going to help by giving money to our municipality and a few of our residents, then it does have benefits. It’s cleaner energy and that’s a big plus."
( mstephenson@herald.ca)
Note: This is the first of a two-part series. In tomorrow’s Chronicle Herald: How close is too close? Should the provincial government decide?
Monday, September 21, 2009
To: editor digby courier
Cc: dan mills
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:02 PM
Subject: NIMBY REPUTATION
I am originally from NewBrunswick, and of late I have been hearing the wonderful restoration to environmental health of the mighty Miramichi where I spent my first twenty five years. The Atlantic salmon, which all but vanished from that river and its tributaries, after generations of unmitigated exploitation at the hands of the sacred cow, economic development, is making a comeback.
My granddad, born in 1889 on that river, often spoke of twenty six sawmills there when he was a boy. They gave way to "the invention of the wheel" and all that followed it, from what became frowned upon as the uncomely bucksaw to the powersaw and on to a machine which can clearcut in twenty-four hours what would have taken him years to cut as a youth, and in that time the forest would retore itself.
Large powerful mills were erected to handle the huge amounts of timber that could be torn from its roots.And with it came the invisible effluents pouring forth into the dumping place, the beautiful River, and silently and slowly killing the life the waters carried. Concomitantly, the giant stacks- to chimneys what wind turbines are to wind mills,- carried off into the air that which would pollute the air we breathed, and when the wind was blowing just right, you had to close your windows to prevent the noxious fumes coming through our walls from miles away.
Money was a-plenty, so they said. That was new! But so was cancer which through the years continues to take lives of people in their prime, like an ongoing plague inspired or concocted by greed. The River that drew thousands to its waters, and the tourism dollars that brought,all but died a painful death by choking.
The forest too is all but dead at the hands of machines which rape and render sterile the land as they cut the trees. So the mills now are all gone, and so the multi-dollars. The cancered victims lie in cemeteries along the river banks.
In two or three short years, the mighty river once again witnesses the grilse and salmon in their graceful dance at sunset, as they reclaim their waterway as the Creator had deigned it to be.The rebirth of nature despite humanity's poor care for it! Will we learn at all?
Ms.Herron seems to have missed that side of what the economic drive in the Picture Province may easily forget. But I'll say to her that the great tragedy there as elsewhere is that there were not NIMBY's around then that I recall.We fell numb to consumerism and greed.
Although I accept that Mr.Donham floating on a log in the Sydney tarponds,( for that I believe is where he went to work after he and Harry went their separate ways,) may choose to wax disparagingly as he will to up his charm for those like him, would label people he has never met. However he may dare! That one from our midst who knows the people here so well would consider jumping on his log with him and appear to lower her nose with him at them, and look down it so seemingly with righeous indignation, because they love their home, their families, and neighbors and simply want that truth be pursed - well, to an outsider reading it and looking for a home may well turn his nose and hear the call:"Go west, young man, go west!"
Thank-you for fair and equal space.
Daniel Mills
902-245-5171
Cc: dan mills
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:02 PM
Subject: NIMBY REPUTATION
I am originally from NewBrunswick, and of late I have been hearing the wonderful restoration to environmental health of the mighty Miramichi where I spent my first twenty five years. The Atlantic salmon, which all but vanished from that river and its tributaries, after generations of unmitigated exploitation at the hands of the sacred cow, economic development, is making a comeback.
My granddad, born in 1889 on that river, often spoke of twenty six sawmills there when he was a boy. They gave way to "the invention of the wheel" and all that followed it, from what became frowned upon as the uncomely bucksaw to the powersaw and on to a machine which can clearcut in twenty-four hours what would have taken him years to cut as a youth, and in that time the forest would retore itself.
Large powerful mills were erected to handle the huge amounts of timber that could be torn from its roots.And with it came the invisible effluents pouring forth into the dumping place, the beautiful River, and silently and slowly killing the life the waters carried. Concomitantly, the giant stacks- to chimneys what wind turbines are to wind mills,- carried off into the air that which would pollute the air we breathed, and when the wind was blowing just right, you had to close your windows to prevent the noxious fumes coming through our walls from miles away.
Money was a-plenty, so they said. That was new! But so was cancer which through the years continues to take lives of people in their prime, like an ongoing plague inspired or concocted by greed. The River that drew thousands to its waters, and the tourism dollars that brought,all but died a painful death by choking.
The forest too is all but dead at the hands of machines which rape and render sterile the land as they cut the trees. So the mills now are all gone, and so the multi-dollars. The cancered victims lie in cemeteries along the river banks.
In two or three short years, the mighty river once again witnesses the grilse and salmon in their graceful dance at sunset, as they reclaim their waterway as the Creator had deigned it to be.The rebirth of nature despite humanity's poor care for it! Will we learn at all?
Ms.Herron seems to have missed that side of what the economic drive in the Picture Province may easily forget. But I'll say to her that the great tragedy there as elsewhere is that there were not NIMBY's around then that I recall.We fell numb to consumerism and greed.
Although I accept that Mr.Donham floating on a log in the Sydney tarponds,( for that I believe is where he went to work after he and Harry went their separate ways,) may choose to wax disparagingly as he will to up his charm for those like him, would label people he has never met. However he may dare! That one from our midst who knows the people here so well would consider jumping on his log with him and appear to lower her nose with him at them, and look down it so seemingly with righeous indignation, because they love their home, their families, and neighbors and simply want that truth be pursed - well, to an outsider reading it and looking for a home may well turn his nose and hear the call:"Go west, young man, go west!"
Thank-you for fair and equal space.
Daniel Mills
902-245-5171
Wind Farm Scam- U.K.
Environmental scientist exposes wind farm scam
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/09/15/environmental-scientist-exposes-wind-farm-scam/
In The Wind Farm Scam, to be released on 30th September 2009, Dr. John Etherington argues that wind farm technology is a wholly counter-productive and undesirable response to the problems of climate change and electricity generation. Dr. Etherington is a former Reader in Ecology, Thomas Huxley Medallist at the Royal College of Science and former co-editor of the Journal of Ecology.
The Wind Farm Scam explains that the intermittent nature of wind power cannot generate a steady output, a fact that necessitates back-up systems from coal and gas-powered plants that significantly negate any reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, there are the ecological drawbacks, including damage to habitats and wildlife, and the far from insignificant aesthetic drawback of the assault upon natural beauty which wind turbines entail.
Moreover, wind power is being excessively financed at the cost of consumers who have been neither consulted nor informed that this subsidy is being paid from their bills to support an industry that cannot be cost-efficient.
With the recent proliferation of local groups opposing wind farm planning applications (now over 300), and the increasingly frequent and challenging discussions on wind farms in all the media – including a round condemnation by James Lovelock on the BBC’s Hard Talk programme – this meticulously researched and compellingly-argued book could not be more timely.
As Christopher Booker says in his introduction:
“Eventually the obsession of our politicians with tower blocks was seen to be one of the greatest follies of the age. In time to come – it may be sooner than we think – the obsession with wind power will likewise come to be seen as an even greater folly”
The Wind Farm Scam: Isbn 9781905299836, £9.99, published 30th September 2009 by Stacey International
Please contact David Birkett on 020 7221 7166, 07982 75 4646 or by e-mailing him at marketing@stacey-international.co.uk
Notes for Editors
Publication of The Wind Farm Scam comes at a crucial time, as our government appears determined to confront public opposition to deployment of wind power. Just a few months ago Energy Secretary Ed Miliband publicly stated “It is socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines.” And more recently Huw Irranca-Davies, DEFRA minister for marine and natural environment, supported the fast-tracking of wind power through the planning system by allowing developers to finance local projects. Such action is contrary to the government’s own 2007 policy set out in “Delivering Community Benefits from Wind Energy Development: A Toolkit” which contained the categorical statement that: “To put it simply, planning permission cannot be ‘bought’.”
Despite the government’s statement that 81% of people are in favour of wind power and that 62% would be happy to live within 5 km of a wind power development, media polls have recently shown a consistent 70% to 90% of people opposing local wind farm development. For example, whilst this book was in press, the Scottish “Lochaber News” asked if councilors should approve a plan for wind turbines, to which question the poll gave a resounding “No – 90%”. We are not alone. In Germany, usually presented as a showcase for wind power, the response to the State of Brandenburg’s decision to increase the already large areas covered by wind farms, was a local petition of 27,000 signatures opposing the decision.
Proponents of wind power repeatedly stress that opposition is based primarily on the impact on landscape, but justify this by the need to “tackle climate change” through reduction of carbon dioxide emission. As this book shows, the saving of CO2 proposed by government’s own 2010 target for electricity generated by renewables is a minute 0.04% of the global total and, by 2020 this will not have grown in any way comparably with the huge increases of emission from the developing world. To achieve the target, installed capacity of wind will have grown to near 50 gigawatts which according to predictions by wind farm operators E.ON UK and Iberdrolla, will necessitate up to 90% of this 50 GW being backed-up by conventional power stations. Paradoxically then, we need to build more CO2-emitting power stations to allow deployment of hugely subsidized wind farms.
The title of this book expresses the author’s belief that wind power is an institutional confidence trick – succinctly summed-up by Lord David Howell, former Secretary of State for Energy in Mrs. Thatcher’s government: “Extensive wind farm developments will be seen in due course to have taken public opinion for a colossal ride.” It is indeed colossal – electricity compulsorily priced at two or three times its real value, saving a derisory amount of CO2 emission and, as conceded last year by the British Wind Energy Association, mitigating only half the amount of CO2 emission which was claimed for most wind farms already installed.
14th September 2009
stacey-international.co.uk
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/09/15/environmental-scientist-exposes-wind-farm-scam/
In The Wind Farm Scam, to be released on 30th September 2009, Dr. John Etherington argues that wind farm technology is a wholly counter-productive and undesirable response to the problems of climate change and electricity generation. Dr. Etherington is a former Reader in Ecology, Thomas Huxley Medallist at the Royal College of Science and former co-editor of the Journal of Ecology.
The Wind Farm Scam explains that the intermittent nature of wind power cannot generate a steady output, a fact that necessitates back-up systems from coal and gas-powered plants that significantly negate any reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, there are the ecological drawbacks, including damage to habitats and wildlife, and the far from insignificant aesthetic drawback of the assault upon natural beauty which wind turbines entail.
Moreover, wind power is being excessively financed at the cost of consumers who have been neither consulted nor informed that this subsidy is being paid from their bills to support an industry that cannot be cost-efficient.
With the recent proliferation of local groups opposing wind farm planning applications (now over 300), and the increasingly frequent and challenging discussions on wind farms in all the media – including a round condemnation by James Lovelock on the BBC’s Hard Talk programme – this meticulously researched and compellingly-argued book could not be more timely.
As Christopher Booker says in his introduction:
“Eventually the obsession of our politicians with tower blocks was seen to be one of the greatest follies of the age. In time to come – it may be sooner than we think – the obsession with wind power will likewise come to be seen as an even greater folly”
The Wind Farm Scam: Isbn 9781905299836, £9.99, published 30th September 2009 by Stacey International
Please contact David Birkett on 020 7221 7166, 07982 75 4646 or by e-mailing him at marketing@stacey-international.co.uk
Notes for Editors
Publication of The Wind Farm Scam comes at a crucial time, as our government appears determined to confront public opposition to deployment of wind power. Just a few months ago Energy Secretary Ed Miliband publicly stated “It is socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines.” And more recently Huw Irranca-Davies, DEFRA minister for marine and natural environment, supported the fast-tracking of wind power through the planning system by allowing developers to finance local projects. Such action is contrary to the government’s own 2007 policy set out in “Delivering Community Benefits from Wind Energy Development: A Toolkit” which contained the categorical statement that: “To put it simply, planning permission cannot be ‘bought’.”
Despite the government’s statement that 81% of people are in favour of wind power and that 62% would be happy to live within 5 km of a wind power development, media polls have recently shown a consistent 70% to 90% of people opposing local wind farm development. For example, whilst this book was in press, the Scottish “Lochaber News” asked if councilors should approve a plan for wind turbines, to which question the poll gave a resounding “No – 90%”. We are not alone. In Germany, usually presented as a showcase for wind power, the response to the State of Brandenburg’s decision to increase the already large areas covered by wind farms, was a local petition of 27,000 signatures opposing the decision.
Proponents of wind power repeatedly stress that opposition is based primarily on the impact on landscape, but justify this by the need to “tackle climate change” through reduction of carbon dioxide emission. As this book shows, the saving of CO2 proposed by government’s own 2010 target for electricity generated by renewables is a minute 0.04% of the global total and, by 2020 this will not have grown in any way comparably with the huge increases of emission from the developing world. To achieve the target, installed capacity of wind will have grown to near 50 gigawatts which according to predictions by wind farm operators E.ON UK and Iberdrolla, will necessitate up to 90% of this 50 GW being backed-up by conventional power stations. Paradoxically then, we need to build more CO2-emitting power stations to allow deployment of hugely subsidized wind farms.
The title of this book expresses the author’s belief that wind power is an institutional confidence trick – succinctly summed-up by Lord David Howell, former Secretary of State for Energy in Mrs. Thatcher’s government: “Extensive wind farm developments will be seen in due course to have taken public opinion for a colossal ride.” It is indeed colossal – electricity compulsorily priced at two or three times its real value, saving a derisory amount of CO2 emission and, as conceded last year by the British Wind Energy Association, mitigating only half the amount of CO2 emission which was claimed for most wind farms already installed.
14th September 2009
stacey-international.co.uk
Health Canada from Grey Highlands
Health Canada Disagrees
Health Canada is now advising the wind industry
The wind industry and its supporters like to tell you
For example, despite overwhelming worldwide evidence
Health Canada begs to disagree.
Would the wind industry say Health Canada is “making things up”?
It’s easy to discredit people with sweeping but baseless generalizations.
We expect our governments to protect us.
Isn’t it time you asked our local MPP, Bill Murdoch, to listen
We also suggest it’s time you started asking wind proponents to back up
their claims
A public service message paid for by the citizens who
seek to preserve the quality of living in Grey Highlands.
People who actually live here and who care about this community.
Health Canada is now advising the wind industry
The wind industry and its supporters like to tell you
For example, despite overwhelming worldwide evidence
Health Canada begs to disagree.
Would the wind industry say Health Canada is “making things up”?
It’s easy to discredit people with sweeping but baseless generalizations.
We expect our governments to protect us.
Isn’t it time you asked our local MPP, Bill Murdoch, to listen
We also suggest it’s time you started asking wind proponents to back up
their claims
A public service message paid for by the citizens who
seek to preserve the quality of living in Grey Highlands.
People who actually live here and who care about this community.
Green Spaces in Ontario
I too live in a beautiful area of Ontario where we have wilderness all
about us..in fact a Black Bear wanders by every night to check out our
BBQ............. however I have a short experience to
relate.................My son got married up our way last weekend and the
Bride's parents came up from Peru for the event.
The Father could not believe the clean air, fresh water and abundance
of trees but his biggest surprise is that we did not lock our cars or doors
to our homes! We were at a Lodge locally for 3 days and throughout that
time were not home and our house was open...............he immediately fell
in love with our area and now wants to buy a summer cottage to experience
the "taken for granted by us" feeling of security in our own homes. This si
something most Canadians take for granted and must start to appreciate
because if this Industrial menace and our disgusting Government continues on
the path they are on we lose all of the above!
Thanks for listening
Carl
Madawaska Valley, Ontario
about us..in fact a Black Bear wanders by every night to check out our
BBQ............. however I have a short experience to
relate.................My son got married up our way last weekend and the
Bride's parents came up from Peru for the event.
The Father could not believe the clean air, fresh water and abundance
of trees but his biggest surprise is that we did not lock our cars or doors
to our homes! We were at a Lodge locally for 3 days and throughout that
time were not home and our house was open...............he immediately fell
in love with our area and now wants to buy a summer cottage to experience
the "taken for granted by us" feeling of security in our own homes. This si
something most Canadians take for granted and must start to appreciate
because if this Industrial menace and our disgusting Government continues on
the path they are on we lose all of the above!
Thanks for listening
Carl
Madawaska Valley, Ontario
Friday, September 18, 2009
My Own Thoughts
A faded talkshow host g(r)asps for last chance at limelight
What do you do, when your ego has depended for years on hearing your own opinions and having others hear your voice? The soon silence of oblivion or the oblivion of silence is unbearable, so you make one last g(r)asp for attention. You won’t, you CAN’T, you JUST CAN’T BE forgotten, can you?
What do you do? Hmmm…create controversy and bring your name to mind one more time. NOT, albeit, by initiating your own novel idea, but by entering an existing controversy. And not, either, by entering a controversy in your own area, and adding input however questionable there, but by insulting a community dealing with its own issues.
Yes, an insult to somebody or some community would get attention, wouldn’t it. Way to go, P. Dum-man! I’m not so dumb to give you the attention you desire for your memorial, so I’ve changed your name. Trouble is, what memorial, what legacy do you leave, on your way out? Slapping other people? Perhaps that’s what you did on your show. I don’t know, I don’t listen to talkshow hosts for the reason of them wanting to hear their own voices and opinions and the ego that involves, despite the delusion of pretending to hear other voices. Maybe you do hear other voices, I don’t know.
But again, what legacy do you leave, on your way out? Do you pretend to be leaving the world a better place, after they hear your opinion, and your slaps? The people of Digby Neck are trying to KEEP their world a better place! There are fewer and fewer “better places” on this earth, and Digby Neck is one of them. You should see and hear the comments people from other places on this globe say about Digby Neck! I will gladly share them with you. And please see one of them on the Digby Courier, hopefully this week coming. It’s only one of many.
Our place will have more and more value over the days and years to come as one of the few pristine and lovely places left on earth. Don’t you think that should be preserved? Or do you not care, since you are leaving it. ?
I’m asking the question: do you think we should preserve the diminishing green places on earth? Or is your legacy to fill every existing spot with the most detrimental objects or operations of industry? Hmmm?
When you live out in the country for a long time, perhaps all your life, and haven’t seen much of the world like the visitors of mine have, you tend to take your area for granted. “Oh, Digby Neck is just this s_ _t stick of land with nothing on it. Who cares? We might as well do “something” with it.” Ya, right. Number one, it is a beautiful stretch of land, embraced by the awesome wonder of the magnificent Bay of Fundy on one side, and the beautiful and more gentle waters of St. Mary’s Bay. Green spaces, and flora and fauna abound, not only in these surrounding waters, but on the so called s- - t stick of land itself. Deer graze in my orchard daily, the grey heron stalks the brook for trout, eagles hawks bats and owls soar and grace the unsullied skies (there is no smog here, you know).
There are no skyscrapers, no pulpmills, no tar sands, there are no dust clouds from blasting or quarries and the water is clean and clear. Do you want otherwise for us? Wish these other things on your own area, P. Dum-man.
Digby Neckers, at least some of them, are good “shoppers”. It’s not that they don’t want business on this land. Small business is up and coming now. They don’t want businesses with major detriments, that’s all. The big proposals for this area all had and have major detriments to the area and its people. There is, maybe, a downside to every major industry, but these people wish to select the ones with the fewest negative environmental and social impacts. Can you blame them? Wouldn’t you wish this for your area?
There’s no reason why the projects with the worst impacts should be placed here. We don’t have the best wind sites in the country- the turbines are best placed in the best wind areas of the country so they get more bang for the buck! Solar power projects could be placed in the sunniest areas of the country. Tidal projects and turbines should be placed in the areas in which they can provide the best results for their purchase! Isn’t that what good shopping and thinking people would do? You would think it would be good business practice as well. Digby Neck may not have the best return for these investments.
Digby Neck has inherent value, however. It’s assets are what it has, and once you remove the assets or destroy its assets, it no longer will have value. To willingly promote and accept detrimental industry is like…well…shitting in your own bed, you know? Or do you want US to do it, and not you, in YOUR county of Nova Scotia?
The Digby area in general has not refused every business, large or small, that came to be placed on the table. Therefore Digby County cannot be accused of the misnomer of Nimbyland. Walmart arrived with little either fanfare or protest. Sobey’s and Superstore arrived and were not rejected. There is a greenhouse operation on Digby Neck. And a gas station. Even the now enormous, in my view, Wharf Rat Rally has been accepted, although some people leave town during that event.
What this evidences is the good shopping practices as I’ve mentioned before. We are sane, here, and in our rationality and good senses are, even through the fights, allowing growth at a gentle (in every aspect) pace and in a gentle way. Isn’t this a good way? I think so. I just wish we didn’t have to fight so.
There’s no reason that we can’t cherry pick the industry or industries that propose to come here. “Cherry-pick” is not a bad thing. It’s picking the best of the bunch. And, I’d say, rejecting the rotten ones.
I’m talking about bigger industry, here. Small business is coming along fine, on Digby Neck, I’d say, in the way that small business, from fishing to farming to tourism always has. Digby Neck is not going to disappear from small moderate growth. And the kids always go away and always come back. Digby Neck will, however, disappear under the weight and with the destructiveness of large enterprises, unless the cherry-picking is done. The North Mountain Range would disappear with the removal of….wait for it….the North Mountain Range, just as an instance. Basalt is one of Digby Neck’s assets and its presence forms the familiarity of our landscape and protects this narrow band of land from inundation. To use this asset in a destructive way and to lose this asset that gives value to this land by its very being there, is …not rational.
On this very erudite question, I leave you: If you pee or spit into the wind, how is that rational? Mr. Dum-man, I am a female, and cannot, exactly, pee into the wind, like you can, but I sure can spit. And I’m NOT going to do that, because I love my face, such as it is, and I’m rational. It would be a “self-detriment” that I’m not going to pursue, no matter how well another might think it would look good on me. Get my drift?
Kathleen Gidney
In Lovely Digby County, Nova Scotia
What do you do, when your ego has depended for years on hearing your own opinions and having others hear your voice? The soon silence of oblivion or the oblivion of silence is unbearable, so you make one last g(r)asp for attention. You won’t, you CAN’T, you JUST CAN’T BE forgotten, can you?
What do you do? Hmmm…create controversy and bring your name to mind one more time. NOT, albeit, by initiating your own novel idea, but by entering an existing controversy. And not, either, by entering a controversy in your own area, and adding input however questionable there, but by insulting a community dealing with its own issues.
Yes, an insult to somebody or some community would get attention, wouldn’t it. Way to go, P. Dum-man! I’m not so dumb to give you the attention you desire for your memorial, so I’ve changed your name. Trouble is, what memorial, what legacy do you leave, on your way out? Slapping other people? Perhaps that’s what you did on your show. I don’t know, I don’t listen to talkshow hosts for the reason of them wanting to hear their own voices and opinions and the ego that involves, despite the delusion of pretending to hear other voices. Maybe you do hear other voices, I don’t know.
But again, what legacy do you leave, on your way out? Do you pretend to be leaving the world a better place, after they hear your opinion, and your slaps? The people of Digby Neck are trying to KEEP their world a better place! There are fewer and fewer “better places” on this earth, and Digby Neck is one of them. You should see and hear the comments people from other places on this globe say about Digby Neck! I will gladly share them with you. And please see one of them on the Digby Courier, hopefully this week coming. It’s only one of many.
Our place will have more and more value over the days and years to come as one of the few pristine and lovely places left on earth. Don’t you think that should be preserved? Or do you not care, since you are leaving it. ?
I’m asking the question: do you think we should preserve the diminishing green places on earth? Or is your legacy to fill every existing spot with the most detrimental objects or operations of industry? Hmmm?
When you live out in the country for a long time, perhaps all your life, and haven’t seen much of the world like the visitors of mine have, you tend to take your area for granted. “Oh, Digby Neck is just this s_ _t stick of land with nothing on it. Who cares? We might as well do “something” with it.” Ya, right. Number one, it is a beautiful stretch of land, embraced by the awesome wonder of the magnificent Bay of Fundy on one side, and the beautiful and more gentle waters of St. Mary’s Bay. Green spaces, and flora and fauna abound, not only in these surrounding waters, but on the so called s- - t stick of land itself. Deer graze in my orchard daily, the grey heron stalks the brook for trout, eagles hawks bats and owls soar and grace the unsullied skies (there is no smog here, you know).
There are no skyscrapers, no pulpmills, no tar sands, there are no dust clouds from blasting or quarries and the water is clean and clear. Do you want otherwise for us? Wish these other things on your own area, P. Dum-man.
Digby Neckers, at least some of them, are good “shoppers”. It’s not that they don’t want business on this land. Small business is up and coming now. They don’t want businesses with major detriments, that’s all. The big proposals for this area all had and have major detriments to the area and its people. There is, maybe, a downside to every major industry, but these people wish to select the ones with the fewest negative environmental and social impacts. Can you blame them? Wouldn’t you wish this for your area?
There’s no reason why the projects with the worst impacts should be placed here. We don’t have the best wind sites in the country- the turbines are best placed in the best wind areas of the country so they get more bang for the buck! Solar power projects could be placed in the sunniest areas of the country. Tidal projects and turbines should be placed in the areas in which they can provide the best results for their purchase! Isn’t that what good shopping and thinking people would do? You would think it would be good business practice as well. Digby Neck may not have the best return for these investments.
Digby Neck has inherent value, however. It’s assets are what it has, and once you remove the assets or destroy its assets, it no longer will have value. To willingly promote and accept detrimental industry is like…well…shitting in your own bed, you know? Or do you want US to do it, and not you, in YOUR county of Nova Scotia?
The Digby area in general has not refused every business, large or small, that came to be placed on the table. Therefore Digby County cannot be accused of the misnomer of Nimbyland. Walmart arrived with little either fanfare or protest. Sobey’s and Superstore arrived and were not rejected. There is a greenhouse operation on Digby Neck. And a gas station. Even the now enormous, in my view, Wharf Rat Rally has been accepted, although some people leave town during that event.
What this evidences is the good shopping practices as I’ve mentioned before. We are sane, here, and in our rationality and good senses are, even through the fights, allowing growth at a gentle (in every aspect) pace and in a gentle way. Isn’t this a good way? I think so. I just wish we didn’t have to fight so.
There’s no reason that we can’t cherry pick the industry or industries that propose to come here. “Cherry-pick” is not a bad thing. It’s picking the best of the bunch. And, I’d say, rejecting the rotten ones.
I’m talking about bigger industry, here. Small business is coming along fine, on Digby Neck, I’d say, in the way that small business, from fishing to farming to tourism always has. Digby Neck is not going to disappear from small moderate growth. And the kids always go away and always come back. Digby Neck will, however, disappear under the weight and with the destructiveness of large enterprises, unless the cherry-picking is done. The North Mountain Range would disappear with the removal of….wait for it….the North Mountain Range, just as an instance. Basalt is one of Digby Neck’s assets and its presence forms the familiarity of our landscape and protects this narrow band of land from inundation. To use this asset in a destructive way and to lose this asset that gives value to this land by its very being there, is …not rational.
On this very erudite question, I leave you: If you pee or spit into the wind, how is that rational? Mr. Dum-man, I am a female, and cannot, exactly, pee into the wind, like you can, but I sure can spit. And I’m NOT going to do that, because I love my face, such as it is, and I’m rational. It would be a “self-detriment” that I’m not going to pursue, no matter how well another might think it would look good on me. Get my drift?
Kathleen Gidney
In Lovely Digby County, Nova Scotia
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Fundy Tidal Project
The Canadian Press
Firms hurry to get test projects in water after N.S. government gives OK
By Michael Tutton (CP) – 2 days ago
HALIFAX, N.S. — A tidal power turbine up to 10 metres in diameter will be installed in the Bay of Fundy this fall, as companies begin testing methods of harnessing some of the earth's mightiest water flows.
The Nova Scotia government and the federal Fisheries Department announced environmental approval Tuesday for test projects for three companies to place their turbines in the inner bay, where the world's highest tides rush in and out each day.
There is one small existing tidal power station at the mouth of the Annapolis River, providing sufficient power for 6,000 homes.
However, the test projects would be the first step towards installing multiple, undersea turbines in the bay, with the goal of eventually creating an array of generators to collect a portion of the tidal energy in the inner bay, along the Minas Passage.
The Nova Scotia Power (TSX:EMA) turbine - which looks somewhat like an underwater jet-engine turbine set on a large tripod - will be the first to go in the waters off Parrsboro, with installation plans set for late October.
That will be followed by the installation of a turbine by Clean Current Power Systems Inc., a British Columbia-based firm.
Scott Travers, the president of Minas Basin Pulp and Power Co. Ltd., said during a speech in Saint John, N.B., that his firm's turbine is expected to go in the water next summer.
He told the audience, which included the premiers of Canada's eastern provinces and New England governors, that the potential source of energy is immense in an area where the tides fall so dramatically twice a day that vessels are left perched on the mud.
"The shift of the current, and its predictability, you can bank on it," he said.
The three companies are spending a total of $60 million to $70 million to build the test system.
Nova Scotia's Energy Department said the test system will be linked together next year, with the possibility of creating enough energy to power 4,000 homes, or about 3.5 megawatts. Nova Scotia Power said the test system will not be hooked up to province's electrical grid.
Travers said the tidal projects are currently at the "Kitty Hawk stage" of development, comparing them to the earliest days of flying machines, and it will be several years before commercial scale production is achieved - estimated to be enough power for 100,000 homes.
He said results of the test phase would take one year to 18 months, and at that point proposals could go forward for commercial developments, and a new round of environmental assessments.
"The first multi-unit system will be right in our backyard. It's going to put us on the map, and from there it will grow ... and then we target Newfoundland's coast, Prince Edward Island," Travers said.
Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau said the reduction in greenhouse gases would benefit Nova Scotia, which is heavily dependent on coal-fired generators.
But he said the province could close down the test system quickly if there are signs it is damaging the endangered Atlantic salmon or the lobster fishery.
"I have the authority to stop that (project) as simply as walking over and turning off that light switch, and I wouldn't hesitate if the science and adverse effects are there," said Belliveau.
The studies will also include a look at potential impact on plankton, the microscopic plant life that flows through the bay.
In its July submission to the province's Environment Department, the Ecology Action Centre said the impact of undersea tidal projects "have been consistently underestimated, and in some cases, ignored."
A group of inshore fishermen also sent in their concerns to the department, saying plans to eventually put hundreds of turbines in the bay must not proceed.
"To consider putting hundreds of these units out into the Bay of Fundy doesn't make sense to us. It will ruin the fisheries of not only this area, but many others as well," wrote the Heavy Current Fishers Association in a July 17 submission.
"Millions upon millions of fish, of different species, migrate through the northern shore of the Minas Channel and Passage on their way to spawning grounds all around the basin."
Canada has enough tidal energy to power most of the country's homes and the lion's share of it lies in this bay, according to Natural Resources Canada.
Nova Scotia wants 25 per cent of its energy to come from renewable sources by 2020, and it sees tidal power as a means to get there.
Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Note from Kathleen: There was a photo of a tide turbine with this article. There does not appear to be any sheild around the blades protecting sea life from damage in and by the turbines
Firms hurry to get test projects in water after N.S. government gives OK
By Michael Tutton (CP) – 2 days ago
HALIFAX, N.S. — A tidal power turbine up to 10 metres in diameter will be installed in the Bay of Fundy this fall, as companies begin testing methods of harnessing some of the earth's mightiest water flows.
The Nova Scotia government and the federal Fisheries Department announced environmental approval Tuesday for test projects for three companies to place their turbines in the inner bay, where the world's highest tides rush in and out each day.
There is one small existing tidal power station at the mouth of the Annapolis River, providing sufficient power for 6,000 homes.
However, the test projects would be the first step towards installing multiple, undersea turbines in the bay, with the goal of eventually creating an array of generators to collect a portion of the tidal energy in the inner bay, along the Minas Passage.
The Nova Scotia Power (TSX:EMA) turbine - which looks somewhat like an underwater jet-engine turbine set on a large tripod - will be the first to go in the waters off Parrsboro, with installation plans set for late October.
That will be followed by the installation of a turbine by Clean Current Power Systems Inc., a British Columbia-based firm.
Scott Travers, the president of Minas Basin Pulp and Power Co. Ltd., said during a speech in Saint John, N.B., that his firm's turbine is expected to go in the water next summer.
He told the audience, which included the premiers of Canada's eastern provinces and New England governors, that the potential source of energy is immense in an area where the tides fall so dramatically twice a day that vessels are left perched on the mud.
"The shift of the current, and its predictability, you can bank on it," he said.
The three companies are spending a total of $60 million to $70 million to build the test system.
Nova Scotia's Energy Department said the test system will be linked together next year, with the possibility of creating enough energy to power 4,000 homes, or about 3.5 megawatts. Nova Scotia Power said the test system will not be hooked up to province's electrical grid.
Travers said the tidal projects are currently at the "Kitty Hawk stage" of development, comparing them to the earliest days of flying machines, and it will be several years before commercial scale production is achieved - estimated to be enough power for 100,000 homes.
He said results of the test phase would take one year to 18 months, and at that point proposals could go forward for commercial developments, and a new round of environmental assessments.
"The first multi-unit system will be right in our backyard. It's going to put us on the map, and from there it will grow ... and then we target Newfoundland's coast, Prince Edward Island," Travers said.
Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau said the reduction in greenhouse gases would benefit Nova Scotia, which is heavily dependent on coal-fired generators.
But he said the province could close down the test system quickly if there are signs it is damaging the endangered Atlantic salmon or the lobster fishery.
"I have the authority to stop that (project) as simply as walking over and turning off that light switch, and I wouldn't hesitate if the science and adverse effects are there," said Belliveau.
The studies will also include a look at potential impact on plankton, the microscopic plant life that flows through the bay.
In its July submission to the province's Environment Department, the Ecology Action Centre said the impact of undersea tidal projects "have been consistently underestimated, and in some cases, ignored."
A group of inshore fishermen also sent in their concerns to the department, saying plans to eventually put hundreds of turbines in the bay must not proceed.
"To consider putting hundreds of these units out into the Bay of Fundy doesn't make sense to us. It will ruin the fisheries of not only this area, but many others as well," wrote the Heavy Current Fishers Association in a July 17 submission.
"Millions upon millions of fish, of different species, migrate through the northern shore of the Minas Channel and Passage on their way to spawning grounds all around the basin."
Canada has enough tidal energy to power most of the country's homes and the lion's share of it lies in this bay, according to Natural Resources Canada.
Nova Scotia wants 25 per cent of its energy to come from renewable sources by 2020, and it sees tidal power as a means to get there.
Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Note from Kathleen: There was a photo of a tide turbine with this article. There does not appear to be any sheild around the blades protecting sea life from damage in and by the turbines
Energy EFFICIENCY new buzz word
Energy efficiency should get as much attention as green power
09/17/2009
from the Kennebec Journal
from Gordon Weil
Everybody seems to be agog about green power.
It will reduce dependence on polluting electric power, create thousands of new jobs and even make us independent of foreign oil and natural gas. At least, that's what we are promised.
Green power is a good idea, but it is oversold.
Let's look at some of the myths about green power.
1. Green power is such a good idea that it is beyond controversy.
There has never been an energy resource without opponents.
Nuclear power scares people. Hydro power prevents fish passage. Wind power kills birds, is unsightly and makes noise. Tidal power interferes with commercial fishing. Oil-fired power makes us too dependent on imports. Natural gas needs some liquefied imports, but the terminals are too large, and the tankers could be blown up. We don't have enough sun to waste time with solar power.
That's what opponents say. It makes you wonder what source is acceptable to people who want the lights to go on, computers to work and industry to provide jobs.
Green power will happen, but not without a fight with someone.
2. Green power will reduce the cost of electricity, because it is renewable and local.
Green power will raise the cost of electricity.
New transmission lines need to be built to allow wind and tidal power to get to the grid. Developers want to roll the transmission costs into everybody's electric rates. Otherwise, the consumers of green power will have to pay.
Given the variations in wind and tidal power, they require conventional and more reliable backup power, and that will add to the cost.
Green power developers receive the same rate paid to the most expensive resource used to supply even the smallest part of the market. Even if they have no fuel cost, they will be paid as if they were using natural gas.
So every time legislators require more green power, they also are raising electric rates.
3. Green power will be a boon to the economy.
About a half dozen places in the United States, including Maine, have been told they are "the Saudi Arabia of wind."
The Saudi princes got rich from oil, so we ought to get rich from wind, right? Of course, the princes own the oil and we don't own the wind.
Federal taxpayer-financed green power projects will create jobs. The timing is good as a way to combat the recession. But the impact will only be relatively short-term.
Without subsidies, green power will be less attractive. And only a handful of people are needed to operate green power facilities after they are built.
4. Green power will transform our energy supply mix.
No credible observer believes that wind, solar and tidal power together will amount to even 10 percent of our total energy supply. There is simply not enough wind or other resource opportunities.
Meanwhile, hydro power, the classic American green resource, is in decline as dams are being torn down to increase fish passage.
New hydro power seems to be out of the question.
Probably the only non-fossil fuel energy resource that could cover a substantial part of our needs is nuclear power, which has a limited future, because of failure to agree on how to dispose of radioactive waste.
Does all of this mean that green power is not worth the effort?
On the contrary, green power can help us deal with the pressing problem of global warming by reducing emissions. This is a worthwhile public objective, and it is worth paying for. That is just what will happen as green power is increasingly used.
We should not overlook a much less dramatic approach to making the country more energy independent and reducing emissions. It can have a major impact.
It is the more efficient use of energy. When we use less or can match our energy use to times when electricity supplies are readily available, we can avoid building new power plants and power lines.
People don't want to wash clothes at 3 a.m. Fortunately, we won't have to go such extremes, thanks to "smart grid."
It is the remote control of power usage so that it has almost no discernable negative effect on human activities.
Smart grid and other efficiency measures can deliver everything that green power offers with less transmission cost. They leave more green in our pockets.
Legislators and regulators need to focus now as much on promoting and funding less glamorous energy efficiency as they do on green power.
Gordon L. Weil, a weekly columnist for this newspaper, is an author, publisher, consultant and former international organization, U.S. and Maine government official.
09/17/2009
from the Kennebec Journal
from Gordon Weil
Everybody seems to be agog about green power.
It will reduce dependence on polluting electric power, create thousands of new jobs and even make us independent of foreign oil and natural gas. At least, that's what we are promised.
Green power is a good idea, but it is oversold.
Let's look at some of the myths about green power.
1. Green power is such a good idea that it is beyond controversy.
There has never been an energy resource without opponents.
Nuclear power scares people. Hydro power prevents fish passage. Wind power kills birds, is unsightly and makes noise. Tidal power interferes with commercial fishing. Oil-fired power makes us too dependent on imports. Natural gas needs some liquefied imports, but the terminals are too large, and the tankers could be blown up. We don't have enough sun to waste time with solar power.
That's what opponents say. It makes you wonder what source is acceptable to people who want the lights to go on, computers to work and industry to provide jobs.
Green power will happen, but not without a fight with someone.
2. Green power will reduce the cost of electricity, because it is renewable and local.
Green power will raise the cost of electricity.
New transmission lines need to be built to allow wind and tidal power to get to the grid. Developers want to roll the transmission costs into everybody's electric rates. Otherwise, the consumers of green power will have to pay.
Given the variations in wind and tidal power, they require conventional and more reliable backup power, and that will add to the cost.
Green power developers receive the same rate paid to the most expensive resource used to supply even the smallest part of the market. Even if they have no fuel cost, they will be paid as if they were using natural gas.
So every time legislators require more green power, they also are raising electric rates.
3. Green power will be a boon to the economy.
About a half dozen places in the United States, including Maine, have been told they are "the Saudi Arabia of wind."
The Saudi princes got rich from oil, so we ought to get rich from wind, right? Of course, the princes own the oil and we don't own the wind.
Federal taxpayer-financed green power projects will create jobs. The timing is good as a way to combat the recession. But the impact will only be relatively short-term.
Without subsidies, green power will be less attractive. And only a handful of people are needed to operate green power facilities after they are built.
4. Green power will transform our energy supply mix.
No credible observer believes that wind, solar and tidal power together will amount to even 10 percent of our total energy supply. There is simply not enough wind or other resource opportunities.
Meanwhile, hydro power, the classic American green resource, is in decline as dams are being torn down to increase fish passage.
New hydro power seems to be out of the question.
Probably the only non-fossil fuel energy resource that could cover a substantial part of our needs is nuclear power, which has a limited future, because of failure to agree on how to dispose of radioactive waste.
Does all of this mean that green power is not worth the effort?
On the contrary, green power can help us deal with the pressing problem of global warming by reducing emissions. This is a worthwhile public objective, and it is worth paying for. That is just what will happen as green power is increasingly used.
We should not overlook a much less dramatic approach to making the country more energy independent and reducing emissions. It can have a major impact.
It is the more efficient use of energy. When we use less or can match our energy use to times when electricity supplies are readily available, we can avoid building new power plants and power lines.
People don't want to wash clothes at 3 a.m. Fortunately, we won't have to go such extremes, thanks to "smart grid."
It is the remote control of power usage so that it has almost no discernable negative effect on human activities.
Smart grid and other efficiency measures can deliver everything that green power offers with less transmission cost. They leave more green in our pockets.
Legislators and regulators need to focus now as much on promoting and funding less glamorous energy efficiency as they do on green power.
Gordon L. Weil, a weekly columnist for this newspaper, is an author, publisher, consultant and former international organization, U.S. and Maine government official.
Live Earth: Mobs and Movies
From Live Earth
Sept. 21 Global 'Wake-Up Call'
On Monday September 21, Avaaz.org and the tcktcktck campaign are organizing flash mobs around the world to press our leaders to take action on the climate.
Sign up to join one of 1,000+ climate "wake-up calls" or register an event near you. It's simple for everyone involved!
Click here for more info.
3 New Environmental Movies!
Some excellent films about the climate crisis are opening in theaters this month:
The Age of Stupid -- An old man living in the devastated world of 2055, watching 'archive' footage from 2008, asks: why didn't we stop climate change while we had the chance?
No Impact Man chronicles the real-life adventures of the Beavan family striving to drastically reduce their carbon footprint and leave no impact on the environment while living in Manhattan.
Crude -- The inside story of the controversial "Amazon Chernobyl" environmental
Sept. 21 Global 'Wake-Up Call'
On Monday September 21, Avaaz.org and the tcktcktck campaign are organizing flash mobs around the world to press our leaders to take action on the climate.
Sign up to join one of 1,000+ climate "wake-up calls" or register an event near you. It's simple for everyone involved!
Click here for more info.
3 New Environmental Movies!
Some excellent films about the climate crisis are opening in theaters this month:
The Age of Stupid -- An old man living in the devastated world of 2055, watching 'archive' footage from 2008, asks: why didn't we stop climate change while we had the chance?
No Impact Man chronicles the real-life adventures of the Beavan family striving to drastically reduce their carbon footprint and leave no impact on the environment while living in Manhattan.
Crude -- The inside story of the controversial "Amazon Chernobyl" environmental
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Bay of Fundy Tidal Power
CBC News
Fundy tidal power demonstration approved
Last Updated: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 | 2:16 PM AT Comments37Recommend32CBC News
The Fundy tidal power demonstration project in the Minas Basin, near Parrsboro, was given the green light Tuesday by Nova Scotia's Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau.
The project, first announced in January 2008, would set up $10-million research facility to test underwater turbines to convert tidal energy into electricity, subject to passing a strategic environmental assessment.
The Environment Department said the project has passed the assessment and will be subject to strict conditions to protect the environment.
Among the conditions are that Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy is responsible for developing a comprehensive environmental effects monitoring program and establishing an environmental effects advisory committee.
The marine demonstration site will consist of three underwater berths for turbines located in the Minas Passage, home of the highest tides in the world.
Belliveau said he sees tidal power as a way of helping Nova Scotia meet 25 per cent of its energy requirements from renewable sources.
But he's also a longtime commercial fisherman who knows the lobstermen in the Bay of Fundy are worried the turbines may change fish migration patterns.
"These questions are not going to be addressed unless you have a demonstration project. I think you can basically cannot sit in a conference room and get the answer to that," Belliveau said.
"You have to go out in the real world. There's going to be further environmental studies that will have to be done if the project is going to go to the next stage, to the commercial. This information will be a valuable tool in making recommendations at that given time."
Belliveau said fishermen must be included on an advisory committee, and the companies must monitor the impact of tidal turbines on birds and fish.
If there are any adverse consequences, Belliveau said he wouldn't hesitate to quash the project.
"The minister of environment has the authority to stop it any time, and I would not hesitate if the science and adverse effects were there," he said.
Mark Taylor, who fishes for lobster in the bay, has concerns about the technology, but he said he is willing to accept the environment minister's assurances.
"I think we'd be agreeable to that as long as he holds to his word that he will pull them out if there's any effects. I mean we're losing fishing ground as it is and we should be compensated for that, if nothing else," he said.
The objectives of the demonstration facility project as proposed by the proponent are to:
Build and operate a tidal energy demonstration facility to test the commercial potential of in-stream tidal-energy devices designed to convert tidal kinetic energy to electrical energy.
Acquire information necessary to assess the performance of tidal energy devices including their effect on the environment and the effect of the environment on the devices.
Develop monitoring techniques and methodologies for these devices in the tidal environment.
The three companies chosen for the project are:
Minas Basin Pulp and Power.
Nova Scotia Power.
B.C.-based Clean Current.
Nova Scotia Power is working toward putting a commercial size turbine in the bay by October, while Minas Basin Pulp and Power is aiming for next spring.
Fundy tidal power demonstration approved
Last Updated: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 | 2:16 PM AT Comments37Recommend32CBC News
The Fundy tidal power demonstration project in the Minas Basin, near Parrsboro, was given the green light Tuesday by Nova Scotia's Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau.
The project, first announced in January 2008, would set up $10-million research facility to test underwater turbines to convert tidal energy into electricity, subject to passing a strategic environmental assessment.
The Environment Department said the project has passed the assessment and will be subject to strict conditions to protect the environment.
Among the conditions are that Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy is responsible for developing a comprehensive environmental effects monitoring program and establishing an environmental effects advisory committee.
The marine demonstration site will consist of three underwater berths for turbines located in the Minas Passage, home of the highest tides in the world.
Belliveau said he sees tidal power as a way of helping Nova Scotia meet 25 per cent of its energy requirements from renewable sources.
But he's also a longtime commercial fisherman who knows the lobstermen in the Bay of Fundy are worried the turbines may change fish migration patterns.
"These questions are not going to be addressed unless you have a demonstration project. I think you can basically cannot sit in a conference room and get the answer to that," Belliveau said.
"You have to go out in the real world. There's going to be further environmental studies that will have to be done if the project is going to go to the next stage, to the commercial. This information will be a valuable tool in making recommendations at that given time."
Belliveau said fishermen must be included on an advisory committee, and the companies must monitor the impact of tidal turbines on birds and fish.
If there are any adverse consequences, Belliveau said he wouldn't hesitate to quash the project.
"The minister of environment has the authority to stop it any time, and I would not hesitate if the science and adverse effects were there," he said.
Mark Taylor, who fishes for lobster in the bay, has concerns about the technology, but he said he is willing to accept the environment minister's assurances.
"I think we'd be agreeable to that as long as he holds to his word that he will pull them out if there's any effects. I mean we're losing fishing ground as it is and we should be compensated for that, if nothing else," he said.
The objectives of the demonstration facility project as proposed by the proponent are to:
Build and operate a tidal energy demonstration facility to test the commercial potential of in-stream tidal-energy devices designed to convert tidal kinetic energy to electrical energy.
Acquire information necessary to assess the performance of tidal energy devices including their effect on the environment and the effect of the environment on the devices.
Develop monitoring techniques and methodologies for these devices in the tidal environment.
The three companies chosen for the project are:
Minas Basin Pulp and Power.
Nova Scotia Power.
B.C.-based Clean Current.
Nova Scotia Power is working toward putting a commercial size turbine in the bay by October, while Minas Basin Pulp and Power is aiming for next spring.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Maine Medical Assoc. Speaks on Wind Turbines
Maine Medical Association
Resolution RE: Wind Energy and Public Health
WHEREAS, proposals to locate and build wind energy facilities in the State
have at times proven controversial, due to concerns regarding potential
effects of such facilities on the public health, and
WHEREAS, the trade off between the public good of generating electricity and
the adverse health effects warrant appropriate evidence-based scientific
research, and
WHEREAS, assessing the potential health impact of wind turbines has been
difficult to measure but if present would be of significant concern. This is
especially apparent regarding the noise level and other noise
characteristics specific to industrial wind turbines, and
WHEREAS, there is a need for modification of the State's regulatory process
for siting wind energy developments to reduce the potential for controversy
regarding siting of grid-scale wind energy development and to address health
controversy with regulatory changes to include, but not limited to:
a) Refining certain procedures of the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection and the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission to reflect
scientific evidence regarding potential health effects, and to further
explore such potential health effects;
b) Judging the effects of wind energy development on potential public health
by avoiding unreasonable noise and shadow flicker effects, with development
setbacks and incorporating upto date noise regulations specific for
industrial wind turbines adequate to protect public health and safety.
Therefore be it resolved that the Maine Medical Association work with health
organizations and regulatory agencies to provide scientific information of
known medical consequences of wind development in order to help safeguard
human health and the environment.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Maine Medical Association 1) work with
other stakeholders to encourage performance of studies on health effects of
wind turbine generation by independent qualified researchers at qualified
research institutions; 2) ensure that physicians and patients alike are
informed of evidence-based research results
Resolution RE: Wind Energy and Public Health
WHEREAS, proposals to locate and build wind energy facilities in the State
have at times proven controversial, due to concerns regarding potential
effects of such facilities on the public health, and
WHEREAS, the trade off between the public good of generating electricity and
the adverse health effects warrant appropriate evidence-based scientific
research, and
WHEREAS, assessing the potential health impact of wind turbines has been
difficult to measure but if present would be of significant concern. This is
especially apparent regarding the noise level and other noise
characteristics specific to industrial wind turbines, and
WHEREAS, there is a need for modification of the State's regulatory process
for siting wind energy developments to reduce the potential for controversy
regarding siting of grid-scale wind energy development and to address health
controversy with regulatory changes to include, but not limited to:
a) Refining certain procedures of the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection and the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission to reflect
scientific evidence regarding potential health effects, and to further
explore such potential health effects;
b) Judging the effects of wind energy development on potential public health
by avoiding unreasonable noise and shadow flicker effects, with development
setbacks and incorporating upto date noise regulations specific for
industrial wind turbines adequate to protect public health and safety.
Therefore be it resolved that the Maine Medical Association work with health
organizations and regulatory agencies to provide scientific information of
known medical consequences of wind development in order to help safeguard
human health and the environment.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Maine Medical Association 1) work with
other stakeholders to encourage performance of studies on health effects of
wind turbine generation by independent qualified researchers at qualified
research institutions; 2) ensure that physicians and patients alike are
informed of evidence-based research results
Letter to paper- Dan Mills
From: danmills@eastlink.ca
To: voice of the people halifaxherald
Cc: dan mills
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 1:43 PM
Subject: WIND OR HOT AIR?
Dear Editor:
Last week the voice of Scotian Windfields reverberated on the CBC air waves
all over New Scotland. How well he did indeed by distracting people from the
truth of the issue and using the tactics of The National Enquirer to
ridicule the Voices of Dissent on Digby Neck. That's OK and the reason for
which he gets the big bucks.
But "sticks and stones" cannot break the truth. The truth is that Wind
Turbines are not all they are cracked up to be. Mounting evidence around the
world bears witness daily to that.
Since the Minister of the Environment forced the relocation of three
turbines from behind a local Spiritual Center and Hermitage,at this time
there is only one local landowner who will have turbines on his land.The
other fifteen, and very likely the three to be relocated, will be on lands
owned by people off Digby Neck and out of province and country.
The remaining lessors will derive some small pittance, and as I understand
it, will be restricted in what land use can be undertaken.
Another truth strikes at democracy itself. The same spoke out about
consultation with the people. He applauded a large turn-out the day of the
announcement of Wind Rigs coming to town. What he did not acknowledge was
that that meeting was to be held in secret. The numbers beyond the invited
surged when someone let the cat out of the bag and we crashed the
party.Digby Neckers know what is going on!
Again, the proponent engaged the services of a pollster who did a telephone
survey in the municipality. The figures astound me: Digby Neck 9 % were
polled; Town of Digby 20%; and the rest of the Municipality 71%. That's
one sure fire way to stack the books in favor of wind power whatever be the
costs to man and beast.
Our Municipal fathers and mothers did not see fit to consult us; our
provincial government has taken the thirty three pieces of silver and will
close their eyes and ears; and the proponent, if it can find the lucre that
makes the world and the turbine spin, will tell the world that "It's all in
the NIMBY's heads!"
All will have bypassed truth itself by failing to listen to and to be
informed in the latest medical information.
The Interviewed gentleman spoke not one of these truths but took the route
of denial and rather chose to disparage and belittle his opponents...Do you
think his company will make a good neighbor? That presence will signal a
drop in property values right away!
Daniel Mills
902-245-5171
To: voice of the people halifaxherald
Cc: dan mills
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 1:43 PM
Subject: WIND OR HOT AIR?
Dear Editor:
Last week the voice of Scotian Windfields reverberated on the CBC air waves
all over New Scotland. How well he did indeed by distracting people from the
truth of the issue and using the tactics of The National Enquirer to
ridicule the Voices of Dissent on Digby Neck. That's OK and the reason for
which he gets the big bucks.
But "sticks and stones" cannot break the truth. The truth is that Wind
Turbines are not all they are cracked up to be. Mounting evidence around the
world bears witness daily to that.
Since the Minister of the Environment forced the relocation of three
turbines from behind a local Spiritual Center and Hermitage,at this time
there is only one local landowner who will have turbines on his land.The
other fifteen, and very likely the three to be relocated, will be on lands
owned by people off Digby Neck and out of province and country.
The remaining lessors will derive some small pittance, and as I understand
it, will be restricted in what land use can be undertaken.
Another truth strikes at democracy itself. The same spoke out about
consultation with the people. He applauded a large turn-out the day of the
announcement of Wind Rigs coming to town. What he did not acknowledge was
that that meeting was to be held in secret. The numbers beyond the invited
surged when someone let the cat out of the bag and we crashed the
party.Digby Neckers know what is going on!
Again, the proponent engaged the services of a pollster who did a telephone
survey in the municipality. The figures astound me: Digby Neck 9 % were
polled; Town of Digby 20%; and the rest of the Municipality 71%. That's
one sure fire way to stack the books in favor of wind power whatever be the
costs to man and beast.
Our Municipal fathers and mothers did not see fit to consult us; our
provincial government has taken the thirty three pieces of silver and will
close their eyes and ears; and the proponent, if it can find the lucre that
makes the world and the turbine spin, will tell the world that "It's all in
the NIMBY's heads!"
All will have bypassed truth itself by failing to listen to and to be
informed in the latest medical information.
The Interviewed gentleman spoke not one of these truths but took the route
of denial and rather chose to disparage and belittle his opponents...Do you
think his company will make a good neighbor? That presence will signal a
drop in property values right away!
Daniel Mills
902-245-5171
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Wind Concerns Ontario News Release
News release
CANADIAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION MEETS WITH STRONGEST CRITICS:
WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO
September 11, 2009- John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario and a small delegation of mainly health specialists met with Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). The Canadian Wind Energy Association represents and promotes the interests of industrial wind developers in Canada. The meeting, at Mr. Hornung’s request, was held in Ottawa at the offices of CanWEA.
During the meeting Wind Concerns Ontario asserted that CanWEA must recognize the real adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines which are now causing significant damage to peoples’ health and quality of life. Those affected are ill because these wind turbines have been installed too close to their homes.
Members of the Wind Concerns Ontario delegation urged CanWEA to establish much greater distances or setbacks from people’s homes in order to make sure that human health is protected. Mr. Hornung has stated publicly that although CanWEA is aware of reports of health issues due to industrial wind plants CanWEA’s assumption is that the cause is not industrial wind turbines. Wind Concerns Ontario could not disagree more and made that clear to Mr. Hornung at last week’s meeting.
Wind Concerns Ontario has been carrying out a health survey which exposes the fact that people have developed symptoms such as cardiac arrhythmia, hypertension, nosebleeds, tinnitus, nausea and fatigue. Findings also show that those symptoms are gone once residents have left their homes for another location far away from the wind turbines.
In view of the adverse health effects being reported, the question was repeatedly asked whether CanWEA supported the conduct of an evidence-based health study including epidemiology to determine the adverse health affects of industrial wind turbines. The question was never answered
Wind Concerns Ontario reiterates its demand that a moratorium be placed on further wind development until such studies are done.
John Laforet stated, ‘We will continue to stand up and oppose irresponsible projects, until CanWEA and its members join us in supporting setbacks and regulations that protect human health.’
For more information contact:
Beth Harrington John Laforet
Media Relations President
Wind Concerns Ontario Wind Concerns Ontario
647 588-8647 416 879-2628
CANADIAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION MEETS WITH STRONGEST CRITICS:
WIND CONCERNS ONTARIO
September 11, 2009- John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario and a small delegation of mainly health specialists met with Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). The Canadian Wind Energy Association represents and promotes the interests of industrial wind developers in Canada. The meeting, at Mr. Hornung’s request, was held in Ottawa at the offices of CanWEA.
During the meeting Wind Concerns Ontario asserted that CanWEA must recognize the real adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines which are now causing significant damage to peoples’ health and quality of life. Those affected are ill because these wind turbines have been installed too close to their homes.
Members of the Wind Concerns Ontario delegation urged CanWEA to establish much greater distances or setbacks from people’s homes in order to make sure that human health is protected. Mr. Hornung has stated publicly that although CanWEA is aware of reports of health issues due to industrial wind plants CanWEA’s assumption is that the cause is not industrial wind turbines. Wind Concerns Ontario could not disagree more and made that clear to Mr. Hornung at last week’s meeting.
Wind Concerns Ontario has been carrying out a health survey which exposes the fact that people have developed symptoms such as cardiac arrhythmia, hypertension, nosebleeds, tinnitus, nausea and fatigue. Findings also show that those symptoms are gone once residents have left their homes for another location far away from the wind turbines.
In view of the adverse health effects being reported, the question was repeatedly asked whether CanWEA supported the conduct of an evidence-based health study including epidemiology to determine the adverse health affects of industrial wind turbines. The question was never answered
Wind Concerns Ontario reiterates its demand that a moratorium be placed on further wind development until such studies are done.
John Laforet stated, ‘We will continue to stand up and oppose irresponsible projects, until CanWEA and its members join us in supporting setbacks and regulations that protect human health.’
For more information contact:
Beth Harrington John Laforet
Media Relations President
Wind Concerns Ontario Wind Concerns Ontario
647 588-8647 416 879-2628
Tide, Wind Power PLANNING AND REGULATION
There's a planning process in other countries.
From RenewEngland.com
September 11, 2009
The Straw Proposal: Offshore Wind and Tidal Power Seek Surer Footing on Maine’s Submerged Lands
Maine’s Ocean Energy Task Force (OETF) Regulatory and Permitting Subcommittee met this Tuesday, September 8th, to discuss a Straw Proposal for a set of recommendations to the full OETF. The Subcommittee chair, State Planning Office (SPO) Director of Coastal Zone Management Planning, Kathleen Leyden, and SPO staffer Todd Burroughs reviewed the proposal with Regulatory Subcommittee members, accepting comments from members of the public. The Subcommittee meeting minutes will be posted at its page on the OETF website.
The Straw Proposal would establish that development of renewable ocean energy resources, including tidal and wind power, is an authorized use of state submerged lands. But some commenters noted that the proposed language requiring "due consideration" and even compensation to be provided by renewable developments for other existing commercial uses, such as fishing, gives commercial fishing a superior right to use of submerged lands, rather than putting renewable resource uses on equal footing with fishing interests. It was noted that the Subcommittee Recommendation to the OETF should include the option that renewable energy projects be recognized as an appropriate use of submerged lands, equal (or even higher) in priority to other uses, given the urgency of the need for renewable energy.
Tidal developers also pointed out that the straw proposal is focused exclusively on wind, and has not taken into account the unique aspects of tidal power projects. DEP and SPO staff indicated that they believe that the Maine Waterways Act is sufficient to regulate tidal power, and that only the submerged lands, tax, and federal state coordination provisions of this proposal would apply to tidal power. Members of the public were encouraged to provide more detailed commentary on this point, especially the unique aspects of the FERC Pilot Project process used for tidal projects.
The Subcommittee has been asked to complete its recommendation on legislation to the OETF by September 15, 2009.
For more information regarding the Straw Proposal or OETF, please contact Lib Butler, Sarah Verville or Chip Ahrens.
From RenewEngland.com
September 11, 2009
The Straw Proposal: Offshore Wind and Tidal Power Seek Surer Footing on Maine’s Submerged Lands
Maine’s Ocean Energy Task Force (OETF) Regulatory and Permitting Subcommittee met this Tuesday, September 8th, to discuss a Straw Proposal for a set of recommendations to the full OETF. The Subcommittee chair, State Planning Office (SPO) Director of Coastal Zone Management Planning, Kathleen Leyden, and SPO staffer Todd Burroughs reviewed the proposal with Regulatory Subcommittee members, accepting comments from members of the public. The Subcommittee meeting minutes will be posted at its page on the OETF website.
The Straw Proposal would establish that development of renewable ocean energy resources, including tidal and wind power, is an authorized use of state submerged lands. But some commenters noted that the proposed language requiring "due consideration" and even compensation to be provided by renewable developments for other existing commercial uses, such as fishing, gives commercial fishing a superior right to use of submerged lands, rather than putting renewable resource uses on equal footing with fishing interests. It was noted that the Subcommittee Recommendation to the OETF should include the option that renewable energy projects be recognized as an appropriate use of submerged lands, equal (or even higher) in priority to other uses, given the urgency of the need for renewable energy.
Tidal developers also pointed out that the straw proposal is focused exclusively on wind, and has not taken into account the unique aspects of tidal power projects. DEP and SPO staff indicated that they believe that the Maine Waterways Act is sufficient to regulate tidal power, and that only the submerged lands, tax, and federal state coordination provisions of this proposal would apply to tidal power. Members of the public were encouraged to provide more detailed commentary on this point, especially the unique aspects of the FERC Pilot Project process used for tidal projects.
The Subcommittee has been asked to complete its recommendation on legislation to the OETF by September 15, 2009.
For more information regarding the Straw Proposal or OETF, please contact Lib Butler, Sarah Verville or Chip Ahrens.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Tidal Power Generation
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Energy Minister Says Nova Scotia's Tidal Power Decisions Have No Impact on NB
(Energy Minister Jack Keir - file photo)
Energy Minister Jack Keir says Nova Scotia's decision on whether it will okay more development in tidal power generation will have no bearing on New Brunswick. An announcement between Ottawa and Nova Scotia is expected as early as this week on whether three companies will be approved to place turbines in the Bay of Fundy. Keir tells CHSJ news there would be no competition between the provinces.
Irving Oil and Huntsman Marine Science Centre are collecting data on how much energy can be generated in the Bay and what type of equipment should be used. Keir says it will be more than a year before that data is collected.
Posted by CHSJ News at 10:40 AM
Energy Minister Says Nova Scotia's Tidal Power Decisions Have No Impact on NB
(Energy Minister Jack Keir - file photo)
Energy Minister Jack Keir says Nova Scotia's decision on whether it will okay more development in tidal power generation will have no bearing on New Brunswick. An announcement between Ottawa and Nova Scotia is expected as early as this week on whether three companies will be approved to place turbines in the Bay of Fundy. Keir tells CHSJ news there would be no competition between the provinces.
Irving Oil and Huntsman Marine Science Centre are collecting data on how much energy can be generated in the Bay and what type of equipment should be used. Keir says it will be more than a year before that data is collected.
Posted by CHSJ News at 10:40 AM
The world’s very first floating fullscale offshore wind turbine has officially been inaugurated in the North Sea off the coast of Norway.
The turbine even has a name: Hywind. It measures 213 feet tall and weighs 5,300 tonnes, and it rests on a floating stand which is filled with water and rocks to provide balast. Three powerful cables anchor the stand to the seafloor.
» See also: Lights Out: EU Bans Inefficient, Incandescent Light Bulbs
» Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.
vote
nowBuzz up!StatoilHydro, the corporate energy giant which owns Hywind, plans to use it as a test for the next two years before building any more floating wind turbines. But if everything runs smoothly, they hope to set up floating turbines around the world for international partners, locations which are likely to include California, Japan, South Korea and Spain.
The biggest advantage to floating turbines is that they can operate out at sea at depths between 120 and 700 metres, much deeper than conventional offshore turbines. Winds are usually much stronger in deeper seas, meaning the new technology could also generate a lot more power.
And for those people who find wind turbines aesthetically unpleasing, floating turbines put further out to sea also mean they’ll be out of sight.
Currently floating turbines are significantly more expensive to build, but due to their many advantages, StatoilHydro believes that the costs should come down over time. “Our goal is to bring down the price to the level of fixed wind turbines that are currently installed in waters some 60 metres deep,” said Anne Stroemmen Lycke from StatoilHydro.
Hywind should begin fanning over the North Sea and generating electricity within the next couple of weeks.
Source: Physorg
The turbine even has a name: Hywind. It measures 213 feet tall and weighs 5,300 tonnes, and it rests on a floating stand which is filled with water and rocks to provide balast. Three powerful cables anchor the stand to the seafloor.
» See also: Lights Out: EU Bans Inefficient, Incandescent Light Bulbs
» Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.
vote
nowBuzz up!StatoilHydro, the corporate energy giant which owns Hywind, plans to use it as a test for the next two years before building any more floating wind turbines. But if everything runs smoothly, they hope to set up floating turbines around the world for international partners, locations which are likely to include California, Japan, South Korea and Spain.
The biggest advantage to floating turbines is that they can operate out at sea at depths between 120 and 700 metres, much deeper than conventional offshore turbines. Winds are usually much stronger in deeper seas, meaning the new technology could also generate a lot more power.
And for those people who find wind turbines aesthetically unpleasing, floating turbines put further out to sea also mean they’ll be out of sight.
Currently floating turbines are significantly more expensive to build, but due to their many advantages, StatoilHydro believes that the costs should come down over time. “Our goal is to bring down the price to the level of fixed wind turbines that are currently installed in waters some 60 metres deep,” said Anne Stroemmen Lycke from StatoilHydro.
Hywind should begin fanning over the North Sea and generating electricity within the next couple of weeks.
Source: Physorg
MLA Re: turbine issue
Subject: Re: Digby Wind Turbine project
Dear Mr. Mills,
Thank you for your messages regarding the wind turbine project in Digby.
As you are aware, the Environment Minister has approved the wind turbine
project on Digby Neck. The minister did include consideration of some
requests we made, specifically, requiring a mechanism for dealing with noise
complaints.
The minister did not approve three turbines deemed to be questionable in
terms of location relative to residences, although it is expected a new
application for these three turbines will be forthcoming in the coming
months with new locations.
As you are aware from your experience, the responsibility for zoning and
siting of turbines is a municipal one. I am disappointed that the current
government has not already engaged the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities
in establishing clear and uniform guidelines and planning legislation for
locating turbines. Consistency and clarity would benefit both residents, who
must deal with projects individually, and the renewable energy industry.
The Liberal Caucus met and discussed the Digby Wind Turbine project, and
other wind projects in general, on Wednesday afternoon. We are concerned
that the lack of clear guidelines and uniformity in regulations hurt both
residents and the industry. We also are concerned about the difficulty you
have had in getting information throughout this process.
I recognize that while we achieved some improvements through the EA, you and
many of the other residents, will still not be happy with the outcome. I am
prepared to bring any specific concerns or questions to the attention of the
company, to ensure any additional efforts the company can make to minimize
impact are given consideration even though the project is approved.
As the House of Assembly prepares to begin sitting for its fall session, I
will be calling on the government to do the necessary work and engage
residents and the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities in establishing clear
and consistent rules for wind turbine projects. I welcome any input you may
have.
Sincerely,
Andrew Younger
MLA Dartmouth East
Liberal Energy / Environment Critic
Dear Mr. Mills,
Thank you for your messages regarding the wind turbine project in Digby.
As you are aware, the Environment Minister has approved the wind turbine
project on Digby Neck. The minister did include consideration of some
requests we made, specifically, requiring a mechanism for dealing with noise
complaints.
The minister did not approve three turbines deemed to be questionable in
terms of location relative to residences, although it is expected a new
application for these three turbines will be forthcoming in the coming
months with new locations.
As you are aware from your experience, the responsibility for zoning and
siting of turbines is a municipal one. I am disappointed that the current
government has not already engaged the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities
in establishing clear and uniform guidelines and planning legislation for
locating turbines. Consistency and clarity would benefit both residents, who
must deal with projects individually, and the renewable energy industry.
The Liberal Caucus met and discussed the Digby Wind Turbine project, and
other wind projects in general, on Wednesday afternoon. We are concerned
that the lack of clear guidelines and uniformity in regulations hurt both
residents and the industry. We also are concerned about the difficulty you
have had in getting information throughout this process.
I recognize that while we achieved some improvements through the EA, you and
many of the other residents, will still not be happy with the outcome. I am
prepared to bring any specific concerns or questions to the attention of the
company, to ensure any additional efforts the company can make to minimize
impact are given consideration even though the project is approved.
As the House of Assembly prepares to begin sitting for its fall session, I
will be calling on the government to do the necessary work and engage
residents and the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities in establishing clear
and consistent rules for wind turbine projects. I welcome any input you may
have.
Sincerely,
Andrew Younger
MLA Dartmouth East
Liberal Energy / Environment Critic
Oversight Agency for Wind Farms
Here is the real question. As shown there are real gaps in the HGC study
and there is more than enough basis for at the very least a "review" of the
HGC report and then mitigation should follow. "Where would a Canadian
Citizen go for such mitigation?" Simple question but can anyone supply an
answer?
From everything I have researched I can find absolutely not one agency, not
one single person in the Provincial or Federal Government where one can go
for help!
Our Provincial and Federal Governments have effectively dismantled any
oversight agency and eliminated any law or statute that would previously
have protected us from a "runaway" industry such as Wind.
The only law over development that we had left was at the Municipal level
under the Planning Act and now in Ontario that is gone!
Basically we are on our own with a huge industry all financed by our very
own hard earned tax dollars "putting the boots to us"..............What are
we going to do about it?...........there's another question that needs
answering.
Regards
Carl
and there is more than enough basis for at the very least a "review" of the
HGC report and then mitigation should follow. "Where would a Canadian
Citizen go for such mitigation?" Simple question but can anyone supply an
answer?
From everything I have researched I can find absolutely not one agency, not
one single person in the Provincial or Federal Government where one can go
for help!
Our Provincial and Federal Governments have effectively dismantled any
oversight agency and eliminated any law or statute that would previously
have protected us from a "runaway" industry such as Wind.
The only law over development that we had left was at the Municipal level
under the Planning Act and now in Ontario that is gone!
Basically we are on our own with a huge industry all financed by our very
own hard earned tax dollars "putting the boots to us"..............What are
we going to do about it?...........there's another question that needs
answering.
Regards
Carl
Labels:
wind farm oversight agency
Wind Concerns Coalition
Please welcome a new group to the coalition:
NVoIWT (Norfolk Victims of Industrial Wind Turbines)
E-mail: NVoIWT@live.com
Contact: Bert Seeliger - Clear Creek, Ontario
NVoIWT (Norfolk Victims of Industrial Wind Turbines)
E-mail: NVoIWT@live.com
Contact: Bert Seeliger - Clear Creek, Ontario
Monday, September 7, 2009
Eat Atlantic
Hi Friends,
Eat Atlantic: Friday Sept. 4. Eat only food from the Atlantic
Provinces - Register and you can win a basket full of Atlantic food:
www.eatatlantic.ca
register each member of your family. It's a challenge amongst the Atlantic
Provinces - we can win! Good tips down the Home page : "So many
choices, Great Atlantic Food Ideas".
Go for it - feast on Atlantic Food - the Best!!! and good for the
environment.
Margrit
Eat Atlantic: Friday Sept. 4. Eat only food from the Atlantic
Provinces - Register and you can win a basket full of Atlantic food:
www.eatatlantic.ca
register each member of your family. It's a challenge amongst the Atlantic
Provinces - we can win! Good tips down the Home page : "So many
choices, Great Atlantic Food Ideas".
Go for it - feast on Atlantic Food - the Best!!! and good for the
environment.
Margrit
Labels:
Eat Atlantic Atlantic foods
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Opposition to Wind Farms- Building Community
Would more people like to communicate with John? I am interpreting from his email below that he wouldn't mind. Together we can find commonality and share ideas that work or may be more useful/helpful in achieving our goals. You are welcome to write the blog keeper as well (kathleen1954@auracom.com) Kathleen
Here's John's addy: john.laforet@larforet.ca
Here's John's addy: john.laforet@larforet.ca
Friday, September 4, 2009
Off Shore Wind Farms
Report suggests locations for Michigan wind farms
News
From ConnectMidMichigan.com
TRAVERSE CITY (AP) -- A new report says about 20 percent of Michigan's Great Lakes bottomlands have water depths that would allow offshore wind turbines.
But most of that territory still is not suitable for wind energy generation. Turbines might cause environmental problems such as endangering fish spawning areas, or would be too close to navigational channels or parks.
The report was submitted Wednesday to Gov. Jennifer Granholm by the Michigan Great Lakes Wind Council. It's designed to guide the state's efforts to develop offshore wind energy.
It says the best potential locations for wind farms are the northern shoreline of Lake Michigan in the Upper Peninsula and the middle of Saginaw Bay.
The council plans to spend the next year narrowing down specific locations for offshore wind farms
News
From ConnectMidMichigan.com
TRAVERSE CITY (AP) -- A new report says about 20 percent of Michigan's Great Lakes bottomlands have water depths that would allow offshore wind turbines.
But most of that territory still is not suitable for wind energy generation. Turbines might cause environmental problems such as endangering fish spawning areas, or would be too close to navigational channels or parks.
The report was submitted Wednesday to Gov. Jennifer Granholm by the Michigan Great Lakes Wind Council. It's designed to guide the state's efforts to develop offshore wind energy.
It says the best potential locations for wind farms are the northern shoreline of Lake Michigan in the Upper Peninsula and the middle of Saginaw Bay.
The council plans to spend the next year narrowing down specific locations for offshore wind farms
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Energy from Oceans and Rivers
From: "The X Journals"
Assessing Impact of Renewable Power from the Natural Movement of Oceans and Rivers
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has been awarded $3.45 million over three years to examine the environmental impacts of marine and hydrokinetic power. The project will include field tests to investigate the risks that these kinds of power generation can have on the environment and wildlife. (Courtesy of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)
The Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory will receive more than $6.8 million over three years to advance the production of renewable power from the natural movement of oceans and rivers.
The bulk of the funding - $3.45 million, or $1.15 million per year - allows PNNL to lead a project that will examine the environmental impacts of marine and hydrokinetic power. Marine power includes power harnessed from the flux of ocean tides and waves, while hydrokinetic refers to power generated from flowing freshwater without dams. The project will prioritize the risks that these kinds of power generation can have on the environment and wildlife; conduct laboratory and field experiments to further investigate certain risks; and predict the long-term impact of full-scale energy installations.
“Understanding how harnessing marine and hydrokinetic energy can affect the environment is key,” said Charlie Brandt, director of PNNL’s Marine Sciences Laboratory in Sequim, Wash. “This work will help remove the roadblocks that currently prevent developers from putting tidal-, wave- and current-powered machines in the water.”
Some of the issues researchers will examine include how fish and marine mammals are directly affected by water power devices - including induced electromagnetic fields, noise and blade strike - and whether producing these kinds of power could create “dead zones” by interfering with the ocean’s circulation and nutrient patterns.
Staff from PNNL’s offices in Seattle, Richland and Sequim, Wash., and Portland, Ore., will work together on the project. The study will also be done in collaboration with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center (to which Oregon State University and the University of Washington belong), the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth and Pacific Energy Ventures, an Oregon renewable energy consulting firm.
DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy also announced that PNNL would support four other advanced water power technology projects being led by other national laboratories. For two of the projects, PNNL will partner with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories to use computational fluid dynamic models to develop and evaluate marine and hydrokinetic power devices. PNNL will also work with Argonne National Laboratory on advanced water flow forecasting to optimize the efficiency and environmental performance of hydroelectric power plants. And, finally, PNNL will team with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to increase fish passage safety and power production at existing dams, study how fish and wildlife are affected by the variable stream flows from dams, and measure and predict greenhouse gas emissions from dam reservoirs.
Assessing Impact of Renewable Power from the Natural Movement of Oceans and Rivers
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has been awarded $3.45 million over three years to examine the environmental impacts of marine and hydrokinetic power. The project will include field tests to investigate the risks that these kinds of power generation can have on the environment and wildlife. (Courtesy of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)
The Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory will receive more than $6.8 million over three years to advance the production of renewable power from the natural movement of oceans and rivers.
The bulk of the funding - $3.45 million, or $1.15 million per year - allows PNNL to lead a project that will examine the environmental impacts of marine and hydrokinetic power. Marine power includes power harnessed from the flux of ocean tides and waves, while hydrokinetic refers to power generated from flowing freshwater without dams. The project will prioritize the risks that these kinds of power generation can have on the environment and wildlife; conduct laboratory and field experiments to further investigate certain risks; and predict the long-term impact of full-scale energy installations.
“Understanding how harnessing marine and hydrokinetic energy can affect the environment is key,” said Charlie Brandt, director of PNNL’s Marine Sciences Laboratory in Sequim, Wash. “This work will help remove the roadblocks that currently prevent developers from putting tidal-, wave- and current-powered machines in the water.”
Some of the issues researchers will examine include how fish and marine mammals are directly affected by water power devices - including induced electromagnetic fields, noise and blade strike - and whether producing these kinds of power could create “dead zones” by interfering with the ocean’s circulation and nutrient patterns.
Staff from PNNL’s offices in Seattle, Richland and Sequim, Wash., and Portland, Ore., will work together on the project. The study will also be done in collaboration with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center (to which Oregon State University and the University of Washington belong), the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth and Pacific Energy Ventures, an Oregon renewable energy consulting firm.
DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy also announced that PNNL would support four other advanced water power technology projects being led by other national laboratories. For two of the projects, PNNL will partner with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories to use computational fluid dynamic models to develop and evaluate marine and hydrokinetic power devices. PNNL will also work with Argonne National Laboratory on advanced water flow forecasting to optimize the efficiency and environmental performance of hydroelectric power plants. And, finally, PNNL will team with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to increase fish passage safety and power production at existing dams, study how fish and wildlife are affected by the variable stream flows from dams, and measure and predict greenhouse gas emissions from dam reservoirs.
Labels:
energy from water,
green energy,
renewable energy
To All Opposing the Negative Aspects of Wind Farms
Letter from Kathleen Gidney
to John Laforet
From: Kathleen Gidney
Date: 9/2/2009 8:50:53 PM
To: john.laforet@laforet.ca
Subject: Re wind farms
John, it is so good that you contacted me about my blog. It seems that there is a move toward building "connectedness" in regards to opposing wind farms or the negative aspects of wind farms. We can help each other- with information, communication, support and possibly cooperative efforts. So often with these things it is "divided we fall" and the big agencies are not unaware of this. Let's keep the dialogue going, and if there are ways we can help each other, let's do it! Kathleen
to John Laforet
From: Kathleen Gidney
Date: 9/2/2009 8:50:53 PM
To: john.laforet@laforet.ca
Subject: Re wind farms
John, it is so good that you contacted me about my blog. It seems that there is a move toward building "connectedness" in regards to opposing wind farms or the negative aspects of wind farms. We can help each other- with information, communication, support and possibly cooperative efforts. So often with these things it is "divided we fall" and the big agencies are not unaware of this. Let's keep the dialogue going, and if there are ways we can help each other, let's do it! Kathleen
Building Connections re:wind farms opposition
To: john.laforet@laforet.ca
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Digby Turbine Proposal
John,
Dan Mills from here has been in communication with Maureen Anderson of WCO...and some of our stuff (SkyPower obituary and photos of our roadside signs) has been posted on their website.
Right now, Nova Scotia is relying on municipal governments to specifically regulate wind power projects through land use by-laws. However, many of our rural municipalities do not have comprehensive land use by-laws in place. This means that new uses (such as industrial wind generating facilities) are not automatically prohibited until addressed through new regulations. Some municipalities have enacted by-laws to specifically address this one use. Our municipality (Municipality of the District of Digby) worked on this last year and recently Council voted NOT to adopt it under pressure from SkyPower and Scotian.
Other than municipal regulation, projects over 2 MW have to go through provincial Environmental Assessment to comply with the NS Environment Act. "Our" project did that this summer and just got their approval. The province has published guidelines for proponents in applying for the provincial permits (Proponent's Guide to Wind Power Projects updated September 2008).
At some point, the proponent has to go through a federal CEAA screening because it seems that all these projects have asked for federal funding (1 cent per kwh) through NRCan.
Unfortunately for us, it seems that approvals are all politically enabled (though not scientifically justified) because of the Renewable Energy Standards legislated through the NS Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act (2007) http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/bills/60th_1st/3rd_read/b146.htm Six wind farms were accepted by our province-wide utility, Nova Scotia Power Inc (NSPI) in the first months of 2008 to be in service by the end of 2009 in time for a January 1, 2010 deadline.
We are in contact with Kristen and Susan Overmyer of the Eco-Awareness Society in Pictou County where Shear Wind is proposing to build the Glen Dhu wind farm. Kristen's email is ko@ezfzx.com and he as a mechanical engineer (originally from Michigan) is very knowledgeable on the science of noise.
Also, we keep Lisa Betts of the Pugwash area informed. She has a blog http://pugwashwindfarm.blogspot.com/ I understand "their" project was withdrawn before it even really got going, after Anne Murray got involved in the opposition a couple of years ago. Lisa's email is ljbetts@seaside.ns.ca. Lisa is in contact with a group in the Amherst NS area on the NB border where another of these six ill-conceived (and hopefully ill-fated) wind farms is proposed. With the approval of the Digby Wind Power Project (aka Digby Wind Park), all six proposals are now approved by NS dept of Environment (NSE). Only one (RMSenergy's Dalhousie Mountain project) is being built on schedule.
Hope this helps. We do benefit from what you're doing in Ontario, at least in terms of the public's perception of wind farms and the downsides. We're still waiting for the government to catch up.
Judith Peach
Waterford, Digby Neck
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Digby Turbine Proposal
John,
Dan Mills from here has been in communication with Maureen Anderson of WCO...and some of our stuff (SkyPower obituary and photos of our roadside signs) has been posted on their website.
Right now, Nova Scotia is relying on municipal governments to specifically regulate wind power projects through land use by-laws. However, many of our rural municipalities do not have comprehensive land use by-laws in place. This means that new uses (such as industrial wind generating facilities) are not automatically prohibited until addressed through new regulations. Some municipalities have enacted by-laws to specifically address this one use. Our municipality (Municipality of the District of Digby) worked on this last year and recently Council voted NOT to adopt it under pressure from SkyPower and Scotian.
Other than municipal regulation, projects over 2 MW have to go through provincial Environmental Assessment to comply with the NS Environment Act. "Our" project did that this summer and just got their approval. The province has published guidelines for proponents in applying for the provincial permits (Proponent's Guide to Wind Power Projects updated September 2008).
At some point, the proponent has to go through a federal CEAA screening because it seems that all these projects have asked for federal funding (1 cent per kwh) through NRCan.
Unfortunately for us, it seems that approvals are all politically enabled (though not scientifically justified) because of the Renewable Energy Standards legislated through the NS Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act (2007) http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/bills/60th_1st/3rd_read/b146.htm Six wind farms were accepted by our province-wide utility, Nova Scotia Power Inc (NSPI) in the first months of 2008 to be in service by the end of 2009 in time for a January 1, 2010 deadline.
We are in contact with Kristen and Susan Overmyer of the Eco-Awareness Society in Pictou County where Shear Wind is proposing to build the Glen Dhu wind farm. Kristen's email is ko@ezfzx.com and he as a mechanical engineer (originally from Michigan) is very knowledgeable on the science of noise.
Also, we keep Lisa Betts of the Pugwash area informed. She has a blog http://pugwashwindfarm.blogspot.com/ I understand "their" project was withdrawn before it even really got going, after Anne Murray got involved in the opposition a couple of years ago. Lisa's email is ljbetts@seaside.ns.ca. Lisa is in contact with a group in the Amherst NS area on the NB border where another of these six ill-conceived (and hopefully ill-fated) wind farms is proposed. With the approval of the Digby Wind Power Project (aka Digby Wind Park), all six proposals are now approved by NS dept of Environment (NSE). Only one (RMSenergy's Dalhousie Mountain project) is being built on schedule.
Hope this helps. We do benefit from what you're doing in Ontario, at least in terms of the public's perception of wind farms and the downsides. We're still waiting for the government to catch up.
Judith Peach
Waterford, Digby Neck
Help Requested
Dan, please forward to everyone you know in Nova Scotia......
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jean and Bill Palmer
Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 7:31 AM
Subject: [windconcerns] Fwd: d'Entremonts and NextEra
Cc: Daniel d'Entremont
Many of you will know the story of Daniel d'Entremont and his family. They have what seems to be the unenviable record of being perhaps the first family in Canada forced to move from their home because a wind farm was built in their neighbourhood. In their case, there are 17 turbines in the Pubnico Point wind power development, with the closest turbines (Vestas V80 machines on 80 metre towers) located closer than 400 metres from their home. Friends from the Bruce who went to visit Daniel and his family with their trailer, described staying there as like being inside a washing machine at night.
Since 2006, Daniel's family has been out of their home, which he and his wife built themselves, and raised their family in. The wind power development was sold by the original developer to NextEra. You may recall that a few weeks back a NextEra representative spoke to Brockton Council saying that they had never had a complaint, about two weeks after meeting with Daniel. His government has taken no action to help him, even though they had inadequate standards to protect the family when they approved the wind farm originally.
Daniel is asking for our help, to forward letters to Mr. Robert Cushman of NextEra (from Florida) who is in charge of the Pubnico Point wind energy development in Nova Scotia. I plan to write him, and invite as many of you as feel called to do so to also write. It is time that there be some justice in this case. Being bought out of your family home that you developed and hoped to stay in is bad enough, as you loose your memories, but at least it would allow Daniel and his family to start rebuilding a future, hopefully distant from wind turbines.
Bill Palmer
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Daniel d'Entremont"
Date: August 31, 2009 9:25:56 PM EDT (CA)
To: palmer.b@bmts.com
Subject: d'Entremonts and NextEra
Hi Bill,
Today I spoke with Robert Cushman from NextEra.He's in charge of the Pubnico Point windfarm as well as a number of others.He's the one who sent Winston Kutte,Nicole Geneauand Josie Hernandez to Pubnico.Last week he was travelling with Mitch Davidson who is the CEO of NextEra Energy Resources.I've been trying to speak with Mitch Davidson but Robert Cushman says "that's not going to happen".
Robert Cushman told me that they were sending more people to Pubnico to determine if our land and house would be useable for the company.They are suposed to send me a letter stating their intention to revisit our location.They may get down here in late september.He even mentionned speaking with our realtor.We've been waiting for a breakthrough for so long now it's difficult to put our hopes up.
We were thinking that perhaps if many people were to write,email or phone Robert Cushman,he might just want to get this over with as soon as possible.Would you and others contact Rob Cushman on our behalf imploring him to buy our property.Everyone should do it in their own unique style.
Robert Cushman
NextEra Energy Resources
700 Universe Blvd Mail Stop
FEJ/JB Juno Beach
Florida
33408
(561)304-5362
robert.cushman@nexteraenergy.com
In South West Nova Scotia we are having a problems in a number of lakes with a blue green algae growing.Many people are blaming it on the run off from nearby mink ranches.It makes these lakes unsafe for swimming and recreation.There is a new mink ranch being proposed near a spring fed lake which is crystal clear.There is a lot of opposition to this mink ranch.At one of the public meetings our realtor spoke up and said that "she had a property near a windfarm that was impossible to sell and this mink ranch would be another albatross".This was broadcast over the radio all day long.I even recorded it.She got her point across.It didn't do us any good but probably didn't do any harm either.
Thank You,
Daniel
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jean and Bill Palmer
Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 7:31 AM
Subject: [windconcerns] Fwd: d'Entremonts and NextEra
Cc: Daniel d'Entremont
Many of you will know the story of Daniel d'Entremont and his family. They have what seems to be the unenviable record of being perhaps the first family in Canada forced to move from their home because a wind farm was built in their neighbourhood. In their case, there are 17 turbines in the Pubnico Point wind power development, with the closest turbines (Vestas V80 machines on 80 metre towers) located closer than 400 metres from their home. Friends from the Bruce who went to visit Daniel and his family with their trailer, described staying there as like being inside a washing machine at night.
Since 2006, Daniel's family has been out of their home, which he and his wife built themselves, and raised their family in. The wind power development was sold by the original developer to NextEra. You may recall that a few weeks back a NextEra representative spoke to Brockton Council saying that they had never had a complaint, about two weeks after meeting with Daniel. His government has taken no action to help him, even though they had inadequate standards to protect the family when they approved the wind farm originally.
Daniel is asking for our help, to forward letters to Mr. Robert Cushman of NextEra (from Florida) who is in charge of the Pubnico Point wind energy development in Nova Scotia. I plan to write him, and invite as many of you as feel called to do so to also write. It is time that there be some justice in this case. Being bought out of your family home that you developed and hoped to stay in is bad enough, as you loose your memories, but at least it would allow Daniel and his family to start rebuilding a future, hopefully distant from wind turbines.
Bill Palmer
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Daniel d'Entremont"
Date: August 31, 2009 9:25:56 PM EDT (CA)
To: palmer.b@bmts.com
Subject: d'Entremonts and NextEra
Hi Bill,
Today I spoke with Robert Cushman from NextEra.He's in charge of the Pubnico Point windfarm as well as a number of others.He's the one who sent Winston Kutte,Nicole Geneauand Josie Hernandez to Pubnico.Last week he was travelling with Mitch Davidson who is the CEO of NextEra Energy Resources.I've been trying to speak with Mitch Davidson but Robert Cushman says "that's not going to happen".
Robert Cushman told me that they were sending more people to Pubnico to determine if our land and house would be useable for the company.They are suposed to send me a letter stating their intention to revisit our location.They may get down here in late september.He even mentionned speaking with our realtor.We've been waiting for a breakthrough for so long now it's difficult to put our hopes up.
We were thinking that perhaps if many people were to write,email or phone Robert Cushman,he might just want to get this over with as soon as possible.Would you and others contact Rob Cushman on our behalf imploring him to buy our property.Everyone should do it in their own unique style.
Robert Cushman
NextEra Energy Resources
700 Universe Blvd Mail Stop
FEJ/JB Juno Beach
Florida
33408
(561)304-5362
robert.cushman@nexteraenergy.com
In South West Nova Scotia we are having a problems in a number of lakes with a blue green algae growing.Many people are blaming it on the run off from nearby mink ranches.It makes these lakes unsafe for swimming and recreation.There is a new mink ranch being proposed near a spring fed lake which is crystal clear.There is a lot of opposition to this mink ranch.At one of the public meetings our realtor spoke up and said that "she had a property near a windfarm that was impossible to sell and this mink ranch would be another albatross".This was broadcast over the radio all day long.I even recorded it.She got her point across.It didn't do us any good but probably didn't do any harm either.
Thank You,
Daniel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
