Clearview Stayner WPD Fairview Wind Project Display Boards

Comment to Stantec August15 2011

I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the WPD proposal.  My detailed comments are included in point form beside each of the points of interest in this report for ease of understanding the comment.

I summarize my comments as follows:

1.  Clearview is not a designated growth area under the Ontario Places to Grow Act and Amendment 1.

https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=210&Itemid=15&lang=eng

Therefore, I find it contradictory for the provincial government to approve this large FIT project of WPD Fairview Stayner.  The energy needs of the province of Ontario are best served by having the sources of energy closely matched and in proximity where the energy is being used, ie. where growth is occurring, not withstanding other concerns about these industrial wind turbines.  A copy of these comments is included to the Minister of Energy, and the Minister of Infrastructure, and also Agriculture.

2.  This WPD Fairview Project Document describes a completely different project, than the project description released months earlier. I am concerned about the lack of consistency of the documentation and interaction with the public.   What are we commenting on, if Project Documents change and describe different wind turbine placements?  Where are the the project controls?

3.  Airport safety:  The issues about the two airports should have been resolved to the satisfaction of the two local airport operators prior to making this document ie. the wind turbine plan public.  I am concerned about how this project seems to be in hurry-up and wait mode with significant changes in between revisions of “the plan”.   Safety is number one; and why place large tall obstructions at the end of runways.  Every pilot knows they have to make decisions upon landing and take-off should something happen, like an engine failure.  There is no need to complicate the operation of aircraft and critical pilot decisions unnecessarily by placing wind turbines at the ends of runways.  You wouldn’t do this at Pearson.  Why are you or WPD trying to do this in Clearview?

4. Based on data from OPA and IESO, I expect these machines to only deliver 25% annually of what they are installed for.  Moreover, when air-conditioning loads are at the highest in the summer, there is virtually no wind.  These machines will be useless 75% of the time, hence I am not in favour of this project.  

5.  Based on item 4 above, what are the plans for local gas fired back-up generation?

6.  Clearview is an agricultural based community and wind turbines are not agriculture.  It is sad to see the statement that wind turbines will provide extra income to farmers.  Wind turbines should not be treated as part of government farm policy.  Only 2 farmers locally are getting income from leases from Fairview, and I am of the opinion these leases are quite ‘rich’ such that you do not actually need to farm if you have 4 or 8 turbines on your property.   And if you needed this kind of money to support your farm operation, then you really should not be farming in the first place.  The provincial policy on agriculture needs vast improvement.

7. The esthetics and concerns of those living close by to these large ‘whirl gigs’ speaks for itself, given the low capacity factor, noise, bird and bat kill, and need for back up power.   The energy density of wind is of the lowest compared to even solar.  Where is the conservation program at? 

8.  You talk about re-powering without any details.  This report is deficient in this area, and re-powering needs to be discussed in greater detail as part of the overall lifecycle.

9.  Much of this Fairview Project Document is an advertisement for renewable energy and does not address the specific nature of this jobs.  50,000 jobs is overblown.  How many jobs will this 9 month project actually create?  And what are the job classifications?  What are the incremental tax benefits to the municipality?  This issue of taxes needs clarification as I had understood that renewable energy projects were not to be taxed by municipalities.  

10.  I expect reports such as this prepared by engineers to be SMART. ie. Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Realistic and Time based.  Therefore your reports need to be written in this manner that is specific to the project in all aspects of the report in order for there to be meaningful public comment from the taxpayers of Clearview.

I trust that you will accept these comments, and respond with a point by point disposition to comments as that is what I have over my 30 years working in industry have come to expect when documents are issued for comment. 

Copy is sent to the Council of Clearview.

Yours, truly,    Eric

Eric Jelinski  M. Eng. P. Eng.

Stayner Ont