Mr.MacAlpine, I appreciate your fixation on decibel measurement, but
I want to relate a story of my own.
You know where I live...on top of Seawall Hill. It was very still here this
morning and the stillness brought to mind nights when I am kept awake or
awakened by noise. I jumped in my car and calculated the mileage from my
door to the site of numerous beach parties on the shore in summer.
My bedroom faces the east. Many a night when the young are celebrating their
lives, I not only hear the noise of music and talking; I can understand
every word distinctly - every cuss word and expetlive, even the words of the
playing music as if it was outside my open window.
It is 1.5 km. from my driveway to the shore. How do you set a proper
distance with the decibel measure as all you've got and seem to trust in?
There are nights when I close my window and bedroom door and move accross
the hall to a bedroom on the western side.
Let me add another true story. On Saturday last, a wedding took place at a
neighbors nearby. Again it was a fairly still evening. I heard nothing at my
place, but in another direction a neighbor cleary heard the music at 300 m.
away.
That may not seem so strange.However,over the mountain, 3700 m. away from
the party, according to the map,in Gullivers Cove just below the mountains
crest, the music from the party was heard, not as clearly assuredly as at
300 m., but nonetheless it was heard clearly enough that a resident stepped
outside to see if the music was coming from the nearby woods, if not
consistently but certainly with some sporadic regularity.
I am not criticizing my neighbour for celebrating a family members wedding.
It's the bravest who have the courage to marry today. They need to be
celebrated. My question is: "What distance would a bylaw have to set, and
what sort of decibel measurement would be effective in that case? Noise
differs, of course, when the grass is long than when it is flattened by the
elements...., when trees are cut or grow, and countless other factors.
It seems to me that determining a fixed decibel maximum would be
commensurate with shooting yourself in the foot.
Dan Mills
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Dr. Pierpont and Health Issues
Leading article: Wind power – a cautionary word
Sunday, 2 August 2009
All new technologies carry risk. That is true of benign new technologies as well as the old industrial sort. This paper's report on the potential health hazards of wind turbines, generators of eco-friendly wind power, will be unwelcome for many environmentalists and indeed for the Government, which for entirely creditable reasons is committed to a great increase in their number. But a new book by a New York paediatrician, Dr Nina Pierpont, on which our report is based and which draws on international studies, ought not to be ignored.
This paper is in favour of wind turbines. But Dr Pierpont suggests that the vibrations and low-level subsonic noise that is emitted can cause a range of health problems, including sleep disorders, and may aggravate more serious underlying conditions. She attributes this to the fact that the human ear is far more sensitive to vibrations, not merely audible noise, than we have assumed. And the disruption to the ear's vestibular system – directly linked to our sense of balance – caused by vibrations and low-level noise from turbines is a factor that the British Government has not, so far, taken into account in assessing whether to commission wind farms. For the sake of public reassurance, it should.
Related articles
Are wind farms a health risk? US scientist identifies 'wind turbine syndrome'
This newspaper believes that Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy, ought to study these findings, as indeed should the Department for Health. And we do so as firm supporters of the principle that Britain must take its environmental responsibilities seriously, and as a supporter of Mr Miliband's radical White Paper on energy. It is not incompatible with support for green issues to suggest that the move towards renewable energy sources should take account of human health concerns. Indeed, the Government stands a far greater chance of winning public support for reducing carbon emissions if it shows it is receptive to new scientific findings. Public health issues and eco-sensitivity must not be mutually exclusive if people are to be won over to the larger project of changing our patterns of energy consumption.
We hope, therefore, that Mr Miliband will not simply dismiss Dr Pierpont's book, which will be published in October, simply as ammunition for what he describes as "socially unacceptable" opposition to wind power. Dr Pierpont's research was self-funded, and she is not personally opposed to wind turbines. Only last week, we saw the consequences of a cavalier attitude to health in the decommissioning of the steelworks at Corby, which resulted in some children conceived at the time being born with deformities. If the Government were to continue to commission and site wind farms without regard for these new scientific findings, ministers, or their successors, may be laying the taxpayer open to the possibility of large claims for compensation. More importantly, they may be exposing innocent members of the public, including children, to avoidable health problems.
The obvious recommendations that flow from the new research about the effects of wind turbines on a range of health issues – effects that also flow, to a lesser extent, from reflected light off the blades – are actually relatively modest. Foremost, there is an urgent need for credible official research into the health effects of the turbines. Then there is a prudential argument for postponing the commissioning of land-based wind farms until they are shown to be safe. At the very least, they should be treated like electricity pylons, and houses should not be built close by – the French government allows a radius of 1.5km for residential developments near wind turbines, while Dr Pierpont recommends a radius of 2km.
This approach may seem contrary to a vigorous commitment to greener energy, but it need not be. Additionally, wind power is just one of several good options. It may seem perverse just now, given the weather, to argue for solar energy, but the German government has made huge strides in the past decade in promoting the production and use of solar energy panels. It has set a useful example, which the White Paper seeks to emulate, in encouraging citizens to generate solar energy for sale to the national grid. Japan too, has embraced solar energy. There is also wave power, a potentially vast source of energy, which should be explored further.
In any event, Dr Pierpont has made an important contribution to a debate about wind turbines that should be conducted not between champions and opponents of renewable energy, but within the community of those who want this country to behave in an environmentally responsible way. That we can and should do.
Sunday, 2 August 2009
All new technologies carry risk. That is true of benign new technologies as well as the old industrial sort. This paper's report on the potential health hazards of wind turbines, generators of eco-friendly wind power, will be unwelcome for many environmentalists and indeed for the Government, which for entirely creditable reasons is committed to a great increase in their number. But a new book by a New York paediatrician, Dr Nina Pierpont, on which our report is based and which draws on international studies, ought not to be ignored.
This paper is in favour of wind turbines. But Dr Pierpont suggests that the vibrations and low-level subsonic noise that is emitted can cause a range of health problems, including sleep disorders, and may aggravate more serious underlying conditions. She attributes this to the fact that the human ear is far more sensitive to vibrations, not merely audible noise, than we have assumed. And the disruption to the ear's vestibular system – directly linked to our sense of balance – caused by vibrations and low-level noise from turbines is a factor that the British Government has not, so far, taken into account in assessing whether to commission wind farms. For the sake of public reassurance, it should.
Related articles
Are wind farms a health risk? US scientist identifies 'wind turbine syndrome'
This newspaper believes that Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy, ought to study these findings, as indeed should the Department for Health. And we do so as firm supporters of the principle that Britain must take its environmental responsibilities seriously, and as a supporter of Mr Miliband's radical White Paper on energy. It is not incompatible with support for green issues to suggest that the move towards renewable energy sources should take account of human health concerns. Indeed, the Government stands a far greater chance of winning public support for reducing carbon emissions if it shows it is receptive to new scientific findings. Public health issues and eco-sensitivity must not be mutually exclusive if people are to be won over to the larger project of changing our patterns of energy consumption.
We hope, therefore, that Mr Miliband will not simply dismiss Dr Pierpont's book, which will be published in October, simply as ammunition for what he describes as "socially unacceptable" opposition to wind power. Dr Pierpont's research was self-funded, and she is not personally opposed to wind turbines. Only last week, we saw the consequences of a cavalier attitude to health in the decommissioning of the steelworks at Corby, which resulted in some children conceived at the time being born with deformities. If the Government were to continue to commission and site wind farms without regard for these new scientific findings, ministers, or their successors, may be laying the taxpayer open to the possibility of large claims for compensation. More importantly, they may be exposing innocent members of the public, including children, to avoidable health problems.
The obvious recommendations that flow from the new research about the effects of wind turbines on a range of health issues – effects that also flow, to a lesser extent, from reflected light off the blades – are actually relatively modest. Foremost, there is an urgent need for credible official research into the health effects of the turbines. Then there is a prudential argument for postponing the commissioning of land-based wind farms until they are shown to be safe. At the very least, they should be treated like electricity pylons, and houses should not be built close by – the French government allows a radius of 1.5km for residential developments near wind turbines, while Dr Pierpont recommends a radius of 2km.
This approach may seem contrary to a vigorous commitment to greener energy, but it need not be. Additionally, wind power is just one of several good options. It may seem perverse just now, given the weather, to argue for solar energy, but the German government has made huge strides in the past decade in promoting the production and use of solar energy panels. It has set a useful example, which the White Paper seeks to emulate, in encouraging citizens to generate solar energy for sale to the national grid. Japan too, has embraced solar energy. There is also wave power, a potentially vast source of energy, which should be explored further.
In any event, Dr Pierpont has made an important contribution to a debate about wind turbines that should be conducted not between champions and opponents of renewable energy, but within the community of those who want this country to behave in an environmentally responsible way. That we can and should do.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Friday Deadline
From: Tom Haynes-Paton
Date: 8/4/2009 11:06:36 AM
Subject: FRIDAY DEADLINE: Eight Reasons the Digby Wind Power Project is a bad fit for Digby Neck
Tom's note: I favor wind energy. But because of the serious potential health threats to residents, not when located in the midst of a residential community like Digby Neck.
And also for economic/environmental reasons not on Digby Neck, because it will seriously disrupt and damage our area's primary eco-tourism destination. My business dropped 50% for a 4-week period while they merely resurfaced the Digby Neck highway. Many tourists, told about the disruptions, went via the South Shore instead. The wind farm construction is to take more than a year. And worse, with permanent industrial wind installations, "The best kept eco-tourism secret Digby Neck" will become industrial-park Digby Neck.
Skypower Inc. is now trying to flood Nova Scotia Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau with a "I support the Digby Neck wind farm" form letter.
Please mail or email EA@gov.ns.ca your own concerns by this Friday's postmarked deadline to:
Environmental Assessment Branch
Nova Scotia Environment
PO Box 442
Halifax, NS B3J 2P8 Or phone the Review Manager at 902-424-7630
For further background information, see the helpful summation article below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fntp1@ns.sympatico.ca
To: fntp1@ns.sympatico.ca
Subject: Eight Reasons the Digby Wind Power Project is a bad fit for Digby Neck
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:42:01 -0300
Digby Neck needs your help again if it is to remain unmolested by thoughtless industrialization.
Perhaps you have heard that a 20 turbine wind farm, "Digby Wind Park", is proposed for the Gulliver's Cove/Rossway area of Digby Neck. Construction is scheduled to begin in September with an April 2010 "in service" date for the 30 megawatt facility.
The proponent is a partnership of Scotian WindFields Inc. of Nova Scotia and SkyPower Corp. of Toronto.
The project is currently undergoing a provincial Environmental Assessment (EA).
SkyPower's EA, prepared by Jacques Whitford Stantec Ltd., was filed on April 30, 2009. On June 19, the Deputy Minister of the Environment found it lacking and gave the proponent a year to come up with additional information.
Two weeks later on July 3, SkyPower filed their Addendum with most of the additional information in the form of a new turbine layout.
The deadline for comments on the Addendum, which can include comments on the original EA, is next Saturday August 8. All documents are available for review on the Department of Environment website www.gov.ns.ca/nse/ea
Please take the time to send your comments on this proposed project to the NS Department of Environment. Contact information is at the end of this email.
-------------------------------------------------
Regardless of how you feel about the benefits of wind power, the Digby Wind Power Project should not be allowed to go ahead for the environmental and health reasons summarized below:
1) According to the Addendum, there are 113 residences within 2 km of a proposed turbine. Of these, 39 are within 1 km of a turbine - several are 600 to 700 metres away from a turbine even in the latest turbine layout.
There is peer-reviewed medical evidence that there are likely to be health effects among some of these residents. Current knowledge indicates that these health effects are caused by the low frequency noise (LFN) created by the 77 metre diameter rotors (rotating blades) slicing through the air, not from the mechanical noise of the gears in the nacelle. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a medical doctor in private practice in upstate New York has studied cases of people affected by large turbines. She suggests turbines be located a minimum of 2.4 km (1.5 miles) from occupied buildings.
Though the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) cites the opinions of acousticians to dispute Dr. Pierpont’s work, we know of no medical doctor who has reviewed her work and found her methods or conclusions to be unscientific. See www.windturbinesyndrome.com for more on Dr. Pierpont's work.
With the Addendum, the proponent submitted a paper prepared by CanWEA that "reiterates that peer-reviewed scientific literature have consistently found no evidence linking wind turbines to human health concerns."
2) Health Canada, in their submission on the EA, asked the proponent to Please ensure that the environmental assessment contains a discussion regarding the audibility of the turbines and it is advisable to also develop a communication strategy to accurately disclose the potential noise related to the project to nearby residents prior to project construction....Please provide a discussion of the potential for low frequency noise at the nearest residential receptors, and provide an assessment of whether or not monitoring for low frequency noise is warranted.
In the Addendum, the proponent responded there is no evidence that the wind turbine technology proposed for the Project presents any potential problems related to the generation of infrasound energy. Infrasound is generally accepted to be frequencies ranging from 0 to 20 cycles per second (Hz). Low frequency noise (LFN) is 20 to 200 cycles per second (Hz). They are clearly avoiding the question.
3) If any residents in the local communities of Gulliver's Cove, Rossway and Waterford do end up being affected by the 118 metre tall machines, the 35.4 kilovolt overhead connector lines running between them, the substation, or the new 69 kilovolt transmission line to be built to connect to the grid at Digby, the proponents offer no mitigation other than creating a registry for complaints.
4) If residents wish to sell their homes and move away, rather than live with the noise and annoyance of the machines, or the drastic change in their landscape, the proponents offer no guarantee that their homes won't have lost most of their current value by being within a wind farm. Many people will have no option but to continue living in what may become a very undesirable and disturbing place. Many local families have lived in the area for generations.
5) The proponent states that the project will have no significant negative effect on tourism in the area. NS Tourism, Culture and Heritage in their submission on the EA stated that the general area does have an extensive history and natural beauty which gives it tourism appeal and potential. The department has several concerns about the impact of the project on the area and its people. These concerns about the impact of the project on tourism in the area are not addressed in the Addendum as they were not specifically spelled out in the Deputy Minister's decision.
6) The new turbine layout creates a row of ten turbines along approximately 2500 metres of the ridge of the North Mountain, west of the village of Gulliver's Cove.
Digby Neck in this area is about 3 km wide and the turbines would occupy the northern half of the width for a distance of 2.5 km along the Neck. Digby Neck is a known bird migration corridor, particularly during the fall migration (flying north to south). Nearby Brier Island has the international designation "Important Bird Area".
There is no discussion in the Addendum of the impact of the latest turbine configuration on migrating birds or bats. The conclusions in the EA are that Although Digby Neck itself is considered to be an important bird migration corridor, no such importance has been identified for the Project area itself. The mitigation proposed, in the event of bird or bat fatalities, is that "it is likely" they will count the bodies for two years after construction.
7) Ecology Action Centre which, like many environmental groups, supports the development of this type of wind project expects that municipal land use by-laws will make sure they are sited in locally appropriate places.
In Digby Municipality, a draft by-law was developed over the past year by the Planning Advisory Committee with input from concerned residents. This by-law was then rejected by Council on July 20, after the proponent strongly voiced their objections to it during the final hearing on June 29. Incredible as it may seem, three of the four councillors who voted against the draft by-law also sit on the Planning Advisory Committee which developed it.
Though we participated in the municipal planning process in good faith we remain without any protection from a local land use by-law to regulate wind development in Digby Municipality.
8) Lease agreements for the lands to be used for the wind farm were negotiated in secret. There was no public consultation about the project by the proponent until months later.
Two members of council were informed of the proposal at a secret meeting in July 2007, reportedly after key lands had been secured through lease options. The ill-fated by-law process was begun the following spring as additional Lease Options were being signed.
The first public meeting, in open house format, was held by the proponent in November 2008. Between the Deputy Minister's decision on June 19, 2009 and the upcoming deadline for comments on the Addendum, August 8, there will have been three additional open houses.
Repeated requests from concerned residents for a formal, recordable public meeting to answer our questions have been rejected by the proponent. This lack of true public consultation during the planning stages of the project is unacceptable to us.
--------------------------------------------
We urge you to submit a short comment to the Department of Environment on or before the Saturday, August 8, 2009 deadline.
Please email your comments to EA@gov.ns.ca, phone the Review Manager at 902-424-7630, or mail them to Environmental Assessment Branch, Nova Scotia Environment, PO Box 442, Halifax, NS B3J 2P8 postmarked on or before August 8.
Thank you!
A Growing Number of Concerned Residents of Digby Municipality
Date: 8/4/2009 11:06:36 AM
Subject: FRIDAY DEADLINE: Eight Reasons the Digby Wind Power Project is a bad fit for Digby Neck
Tom's note: I favor wind energy. But because of the serious potential health threats to residents, not when located in the midst of a residential community like Digby Neck.
And also for economic/environmental reasons not on Digby Neck, because it will seriously disrupt and damage our area's primary eco-tourism destination. My business dropped 50% for a 4-week period while they merely resurfaced the Digby Neck highway. Many tourists, told about the disruptions, went via the South Shore instead. The wind farm construction is to take more than a year. And worse, with permanent industrial wind installations, "The best kept eco-tourism secret Digby Neck" will become industrial-park Digby Neck.
Skypower Inc. is now trying to flood Nova Scotia Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau with a "I support the Digby Neck wind farm" form letter.
Please mail or email EA@gov.ns.ca your own concerns by this Friday's postmarked deadline to:
Environmental Assessment Branch
Nova Scotia Environment
PO Box 442
Halifax, NS B3J 2P8 Or phone the Review Manager at 902-424-7630
For further background information, see the helpful summation article below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fntp1@ns.sympatico.ca
To: fntp1@ns.sympatico.ca
Subject: Eight Reasons the Digby Wind Power Project is a bad fit for Digby Neck
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:42:01 -0300
Digby Neck needs your help again if it is to remain unmolested by thoughtless industrialization.
Perhaps you have heard that a 20 turbine wind farm, "Digby Wind Park", is proposed for the Gulliver's Cove/Rossway area of Digby Neck. Construction is scheduled to begin in September with an April 2010 "in service" date for the 30 megawatt facility.
The proponent is a partnership of Scotian WindFields Inc. of Nova Scotia and SkyPower Corp. of Toronto.
The project is currently undergoing a provincial Environmental Assessment (EA).
SkyPower's EA, prepared by Jacques Whitford Stantec Ltd., was filed on April 30, 2009. On June 19, the Deputy Minister of the Environment found it lacking and gave the proponent a year to come up with additional information.
Two weeks later on July 3, SkyPower filed their Addendum with most of the additional information in the form of a new turbine layout.
The deadline for comments on the Addendum, which can include comments on the original EA, is next Saturday August 8. All documents are available for review on the Department of Environment website www.gov.ns.ca/nse/ea
Please take the time to send your comments on this proposed project to the NS Department of Environment. Contact information is at the end of this email.
-------------------------------------------------
Regardless of how you feel about the benefits of wind power, the Digby Wind Power Project should not be allowed to go ahead for the environmental and health reasons summarized below:
1) According to the Addendum, there are 113 residences within 2 km of a proposed turbine. Of these, 39 are within 1 km of a turbine - several are 600 to 700 metres away from a turbine even in the latest turbine layout.
There is peer-reviewed medical evidence that there are likely to be health effects among some of these residents. Current knowledge indicates that these health effects are caused by the low frequency noise (LFN) created by the 77 metre diameter rotors (rotating blades) slicing through the air, not from the mechanical noise of the gears in the nacelle. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a medical doctor in private practice in upstate New York has studied cases of people affected by large turbines. She suggests turbines be located a minimum of 2.4 km (1.5 miles) from occupied buildings.
Though the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) cites the opinions of acousticians to dispute Dr. Pierpont’s work, we know of no medical doctor who has reviewed her work and found her methods or conclusions to be unscientific. See www.windturbinesyndrome.com for more on Dr. Pierpont's work.
With the Addendum, the proponent submitted a paper prepared by CanWEA that "reiterates that peer-reviewed scientific literature have consistently found no evidence linking wind turbines to human health concerns."
2) Health Canada, in their submission on the EA, asked the proponent to Please ensure that the environmental assessment contains a discussion regarding the audibility of the turbines and it is advisable to also develop a communication strategy to accurately disclose the potential noise related to the project to nearby residents prior to project construction....Please provide a discussion of the potential for low frequency noise at the nearest residential receptors, and provide an assessment of whether or not monitoring for low frequency noise is warranted.
In the Addendum, the proponent responded there is no evidence that the wind turbine technology proposed for the Project presents any potential problems related to the generation of infrasound energy. Infrasound is generally accepted to be frequencies ranging from 0 to 20 cycles per second (Hz). Low frequency noise (LFN) is 20 to 200 cycles per second (Hz). They are clearly avoiding the question.
3) If any residents in the local communities of Gulliver's Cove, Rossway and Waterford do end up being affected by the 118 metre tall machines, the 35.4 kilovolt overhead connector lines running between them, the substation, or the new 69 kilovolt transmission line to be built to connect to the grid at Digby, the proponents offer no mitigation other than creating a registry for complaints.
4) If residents wish to sell their homes and move away, rather than live with the noise and annoyance of the machines, or the drastic change in their landscape, the proponents offer no guarantee that their homes won't have lost most of their current value by being within a wind farm. Many people will have no option but to continue living in what may become a very undesirable and disturbing place. Many local families have lived in the area for generations.
5) The proponent states that the project will have no significant negative effect on tourism in the area. NS Tourism, Culture and Heritage in their submission on the EA stated that the general area does have an extensive history and natural beauty which gives it tourism appeal and potential. The department has several concerns about the impact of the project on the area and its people. These concerns about the impact of the project on tourism in the area are not addressed in the Addendum as they were not specifically spelled out in the Deputy Minister's decision.
6) The new turbine layout creates a row of ten turbines along approximately 2500 metres of the ridge of the North Mountain, west of the village of Gulliver's Cove.
Digby Neck in this area is about 3 km wide and the turbines would occupy the northern half of the width for a distance of 2.5 km along the Neck. Digby Neck is a known bird migration corridor, particularly during the fall migration (flying north to south). Nearby Brier Island has the international designation "Important Bird Area".
There is no discussion in the Addendum of the impact of the latest turbine configuration on migrating birds or bats. The conclusions in the EA are that Although Digby Neck itself is considered to be an important bird migration corridor, no such importance has been identified for the Project area itself. The mitigation proposed, in the event of bird or bat fatalities, is that "it is likely" they will count the bodies for two years after construction.
7) Ecology Action Centre which, like many environmental groups, supports the development of this type of wind project expects that municipal land use by-laws will make sure they are sited in locally appropriate places.
In Digby Municipality, a draft by-law was developed over the past year by the Planning Advisory Committee with input from concerned residents. This by-law was then rejected by Council on July 20, after the proponent strongly voiced their objections to it during the final hearing on June 29. Incredible as it may seem, three of the four councillors who voted against the draft by-law also sit on the Planning Advisory Committee which developed it.
Though we participated in the municipal planning process in good faith we remain without any protection from a local land use by-law to regulate wind development in Digby Municipality.
8) Lease agreements for the lands to be used for the wind farm were negotiated in secret. There was no public consultation about the project by the proponent until months later.
Two members of council were informed of the proposal at a secret meeting in July 2007, reportedly after key lands had been secured through lease options. The ill-fated by-law process was begun the following spring as additional Lease Options were being signed.
The first public meeting, in open house format, was held by the proponent in November 2008. Between the Deputy Minister's decision on June 19, 2009 and the upcoming deadline for comments on the Addendum, August 8, there will have been three additional open houses.
Repeated requests from concerned residents for a formal, recordable public meeting to answer our questions have been rejected by the proponent. This lack of true public consultation during the planning stages of the project is unacceptable to us.
--------------------------------------------
We urge you to submit a short comment to the Department of Environment on or before the Saturday, August 8, 2009 deadline.
Please email your comments to EA@gov.ns.ca, phone the Review Manager at 902-424-7630, or mail them to Environmental Assessment Branch, Nova Scotia Environment, PO Box 442, Halifax, NS B3J 2P8 postmarked on or before August 8.
Thank you!
A Growing Number of Concerned Residents of Digby Municipality
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wind Farm telephone survey
Subject: Wind Farm Telephone Survey today---Please participate if calledþ tomhaynespaton
To South West Nova Residents:
If you are called by a company carrying out a survey about "local issues",
please participate.
I have just been called by a New Brunswick company asking if I was willing
to participate in an 8 min. survey about issues affecting my local area. When I
asked details, she said the Digby local area. And then said energy issues.
Only after I agreed to participate and got into the interview did I realize
that the questions were specifically dealing with the "Digby Neck wind farm
issue".
The first question was, what is the most important issue facing Nova Scotia
as a province. Then, the most important issue facing "your local area".
It is a good survey, well balanced. There are even places when you can add
anything else that is important to you, a freely expressed opinion in addition
to multiple choice questions, (agree or disagree, strongly or not...) Also, she
let me go back and change answers when I heard the following questions.
Does anyone know who would be footing the bill for this survey?
Cheers,
Tom
To South West Nova Residents:
If you are called by a company carrying out a survey about "local issues",
please participate.
I have just been called by a New Brunswick company asking if I was willing
to participate in an 8 min. survey about issues affecting my local area. When I
asked details, she said the Digby local area. And then said energy issues.
Only after I agreed to participate and got into the interview did I realize
that the questions were specifically dealing with the "Digby Neck wind farm
issue".
The first question was, what is the most important issue facing Nova Scotia
as a province. Then, the most important issue facing "your local area".
It is a good survey, well balanced. There are even places when you can add
anything else that is important to you, a freely expressed opinion in addition
to multiple choice questions, (agree or disagree, strongly or not...) Also, she
let me go back and change answers when I heard the following questions.
Does anyone know who would be footing the bill for this survey?
Cheers,
Tom
Labels:
wind farm telephone calls
A Visitor's Comments
Digby, July 29 2009
Dear Madam/Sir,
Yesterday I came especially to Digby Neck to do the whale watching tour: nature is so beautiful and unspoiled here. I live in Belgium, Europe where nature is gone.
I do not know if the people of Canada realize what a treasure they have: beautuful nature with lakes and rare animals.
I hope if I visit Canada again, it will still be there.
Best Regards,
Nicole De Laeter
Belgium
Europe
Dear Madam/Sir,
Yesterday I came especially to Digby Neck to do the whale watching tour: nature is so beautiful and unspoiled here. I live in Belgium, Europe where nature is gone.
I do not know if the people of Canada realize what a treasure they have: beautuful nature with lakes and rare animals.
I hope if I visit Canada again, it will still be there.
Best Regards,
Nicole De Laeter
Belgium
Europe
Monday, July 27, 2009
Harnessing Tidal Power
by Malcolm
Harnessing Tidal Power
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocean has huge energy which needs to be harnessed properly for its usage. Tidal power is the most predictable and reliable source, that is based on tried & tested principles of hydrodynamics and electrical engineering. Tides occur reliably and predictably, irrespective of weather changes. Ocean power energy can be created using tides and ocean current.
Tides help in production of tidal energy through tidal dams and tidal turbines. In case of tidal dams, power is created using a barrage at a bay or estuary with large tidal range. Tidal turbines take advantage of fast-flowing ocean currents to create energy. The most prolific tidal turbines are horizontal axis turbines that in many ways are analogous to wind turbines. The main difference is size. Tidal turbines generating 1 MW of power can be up to one-third the size of a wind turbine with a similar generating capacity.
Ocean current also holds a great amount of strength and energy. The total power of waves breaking around the world's coastlines is estimated at 2-3 million megawatts, which can be captured directly from surface waves or from pressure fluctuations below the surface.
Harnessing Tidal Power
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocean has huge energy which needs to be harnessed properly for its usage. Tidal power is the most predictable and reliable source, that is based on tried & tested principles of hydrodynamics and electrical engineering. Tides occur reliably and predictably, irrespective of weather changes. Ocean power energy can be created using tides and ocean current.
Tides help in production of tidal energy through tidal dams and tidal turbines. In case of tidal dams, power is created using a barrage at a bay or estuary with large tidal range. Tidal turbines take advantage of fast-flowing ocean currents to create energy. The most prolific tidal turbines are horizontal axis turbines that in many ways are analogous to wind turbines. The main difference is size. Tidal turbines generating 1 MW of power can be up to one-third the size of a wind turbine with a similar generating capacity.
Ocean current also holds a great amount of strength and energy. The total power of waves breaking around the world's coastlines is estimated at 2-3 million megawatts, which can be captured directly from surface waves or from pressure fluctuations below the surface.
Labels:
tidal power
Tidal Wave Energy
From Home Security Blog
The Tidal wave energy is an alternative energy source that has been in use for decades. Tidal mills were constructed by people who used it to grind grain, and this was the first use of tidal energy for power in olden days. The Tidal power generation is a clean process.
Another alternate energy source is Solar Energy that is used for generating electricity, heating water and it is also used to create fuel for your vehicles. Most of the countries are promoting and encouraging the use of solar power by giving rebates and tax credits on the solar panels purchased by people.
The burning or decomposition of corn, corn stalks, wheat, twigs,pine cones or bark generated biomass energy.This energy is used as fuel to run the vehicles or produce heat at homes. Over 100 years back only such technology of energy generation was practised. The biodiesel fuels that are used to run the vehicles are ethanol or methane.
Today,the hydrogen energy is considered as the future generation of alternate source of energy because of its availability in abundance. One can idealize driving their vechiles on pure water. It has been done as a matter of fact. Our vechiles will have an electrolysis unit that will generate HHO,this increaes the gas mileage by over 20-50% with a low-budget of less than $100.
The Tidal wave energy is an alternative energy source that has been in use for decades. Tidal mills were constructed by people who used it to grind grain, and this was the first use of tidal energy for power in olden days. The Tidal power generation is a clean process.
Another alternate energy source is Solar Energy that is used for generating electricity, heating water and it is also used to create fuel for your vehicles. Most of the countries are promoting and encouraging the use of solar power by giving rebates and tax credits on the solar panels purchased by people.
The burning or decomposition of corn, corn stalks, wheat, twigs,pine cones or bark generated biomass energy.This energy is used as fuel to run the vehicles or produce heat at homes. Over 100 years back only such technology of energy generation was practised. The biodiesel fuels that are used to run the vehicles are ethanol or methane.
Today,the hydrogen energy is considered as the future generation of alternate source of energy because of its availability in abundance. One can idealize driving their vechiles on pure water. It has been done as a matter of fact. Our vechiles will have an electrolysis unit that will generate HHO,this increaes the gas mileage by over 20-50% with a low-budget of less than $100.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
