The Nor’Wester Mountain Escarpment Protection Committee (NMEPC) was created and driven by volunteers due to the need to protect the Nor’Wester Mountain Escarpment from development that has the potential to harm the natural environment and the health of the residents.
The purposes of the NMEPC include the protection of the wildlife, water and the natural environment of the Nor’Wester Mountain Escarpment and Loch Lomond Watershed, educating and informing the community of the steps that can be taken to protect this area through meetings and seminars, and to conducting research on protecting the unique environment of Nor’Wester Mountains and the health of its residents.
OUR MISSION
To stop the development of a proposed Industrial Wind Turbine Installation. The NMEPC believes that the City of Thunder Bay should demonstrate due diligence by evaluating the value and potential of the 17,000 acres of land known as the Loch Lomond Watershed and the encompassing the Nor’Wester Mountain Escarpment in the Municipality of Neebing. The NMEPC believes this evaluation should be consistent with the City of Thunder Bay Corporate Policy and Community Environmental Action Plan and therefore provide proper stewardship of this asset, while recognizing the impact on the citizens, businesses and first nations in close proximity to this land.
OUR VISION
To ensure the Nor’Wester Mountain Escarpment and the land known as Loch Lomond Watershed protected for the value that it has in it’s natural state for future generations.
This site is intended to provide information and research on the risks of Industrial Wind Turbines, inform you of upcoming events, meetings and seminars in our community, and help you get involved!
We hope that you will find a wealth of information and references in this site.
Contact the Norwester Mountain Escarpment Protection Committee at: savethenorwesters@gmail.com
I support your Committee’s efforts to encourage greater public information about the status of the wind farm on the Norwesters. Surely, there should have been public information, notification and consultation on the project. Why were people caught off guard?
I support your efforts in finding out if this is a “done deal” and whether the process has followed proper procedures and is transparent. I hope the officials and elected councillors and MPPs in the area realize that Thunder Bay is a gateway to the wilderness and that it has so many natural features of beauty that should be preserved–particularly at a time when the wilderness areas of the globe are shrinking. As the extraction industries of Thunder Bay decline, I believe that its economic future lies in the knowledge economy, services and tourism. The region’s natural beauty will become more valuable as wilderness becomes more scarce. Eventually people (Europeans, Asians, others) will pay “big bucks” to experience wilderness and recreational pursuits. Thunder Bay (and area) should be laying the foundation for that tourism economy now, not marring it with windfarms on a rare geological formation. Surely the windfarm could be sited somewhere else in the region, not on such a magnificent formation as the Norwesters.
I am not against windfarms per se, but I think there has to be a better location than the Norwesters.
Thanks!
By: Linnea Sage on October 24, 2009
at 8:24 pm
Hi,
there is a family who is interested in getting more information on the proposed wind farm. They have two children that attend the Nor’Westerview Elementary School. My email is down at the moment and I cannot forward them any info. Could you please add them to your email list. Thanks
There email address is : leaper@shaw.ca
By: Roger Leclerc on November 1, 2009
at 5:15 pm
Blasting and construction methods to develop an area with industrial sized wind turbines can impact watersheds. Risk of contamination to soils, watersystems and surrounding air can be realized with turbine failures. Up to 600 l or more of oil plus other lubricants can be associated with one turbine. Fluid leakages which make contact with the blades will be flung into the air and dispersed within a larger radius. Few developments contain contamination containment plans and if they do it is a paragraph indicating they will follow MOE guidelines. There are no guidelines specifically for contaminant containment for industrial wind turbines. Cleanup may be difficult if not impossible. Damage could be irreversible.
Check page 6 for average oil volume of a 1.5 MW wind turbine
http://www.klueber.com/Kontakt/Kontakt_Unterseiten/pdf-broschueren/Konzept_Windenergieanlagen-EN.PDF
Accidents can be expected more frequently as turbines age.
http://www.windaction.org/releases/18394
The three blade technology may not be the best option. There are better designs out there.
Better planning is needed. A defendable benefit analysis is needed to justify the known costs to a speific site.
By: Ralph on November 11, 2009
at 3:46 pm
The escape of lubrication is an aspect that I had never considered. I was under the impression that these wind mills would be similar to regular generators. More like an electric motor working in reverse. After looking at the link you posted, I can see that there’s a huge set of planetary gears involved. Six hundred litres of oil is equivalent to three 45 gallon drums. That’s a fair amount of oil.
Have you any idea what the failure rate for these turbines are? Particularly lubrication loss? Considering that they have hundreds of windmills installed in the sea off the coast of Denmark, one would think that they should be pretty safe.
Nonetheless, it is an important ecological concern.
By: Don on November 12, 2009
at 3:17 am
ecological concern , so are the sport utes running out of that area!!
By: jerry t on November 15, 2009
at 8:55 pm
WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO CONTACT SOMEONE ,TO LET US KNOW WHERE TO PURCHASE THE LAWN SIGNS.
WOULD APPRECIATE IF SOMEONE WOULD CONTACT US AND GIVE US SOME DIRICTION.
HOME PH NO 577-9893
CELL NO 628-7896
By: DEBBIE AND RICK BLINN on November 22, 2009
at 9:01 pm
I’m not entirely sure how you can claim not to be a NIMBY (not in my backyard) reaction to the proposed wind-farm. Most of the links you post as affiliates have grown out of exactly the same kind of NIMBY responses.
Assuming that you are a strictly volunteer group that hasn’t received any funding (have you?) are you aware that many of the anti-wind groups are actually funded by oil companies? A particularly notable example of this trend: http://www.capecodtoday.com/news365.htm
Unsurprisingly many of the anit-climate change groups are also funded by oil companies (see
Greenpeace’s list of organizations that have received “donations” from oil companies
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php ) and do a very good job of making circle arguments, changing the focus, and eliciting emotional over rational responses. (See also Fitjarald’s comments on the solutions page).
If you look at DeSmogBlog.org you’ll see a lot of similarities in the methods of climate change denialists and the ‘evidence’ offered here against wind power.
Stop being sheep people – consider only actual published peer-reviewed scientific evidence from people whose educational and professional merits qualify them to speak knowledgeably about the subject you’re interested in. If there are concerns ask for an environmental review by a *qualified and unbiased* third party.
How are we ever going to leave a more sustainable earth for our children if everyone cries “Not in my backyard!” every time someone wants to move forward? Isn’t a little sacrifice now, especially if it’s only aesthetic, worth the preservation of our planet later?
By: penumbra on February 2, 2010
at 5:55 pm
Penumbra; I totally agree with you. We would like to consider more peer-reviewed evidence from people who speak knowledgeably about the issue. So far the WEA (Wind Energy Association) has been posting material called scientific evidence on studies they paid to conduct. That’s like having ENRON or Chrysler audit their bankruptcy case. The NMEPC is a small group of people in the Thunder Bay area who are concerned about the project. Quite a few members don’t live anywhere near the proposed area (including myself), so this is not a NIMBY issue. Personally, I have no problem being called a NIMBY as I don’t think these turbines should be in anyone’s back yard let alone the folks in the Nor’Wester area. I have to disagree with your final paragraph. Giving in to blind faith to a company that doesn’t care about our well being or future is not smart thinking. If it was, we’d welcome hosting spent nuclear fuel too. Nobody wants that stuff in their backyard, so why is this any different? I guess it’s different because we know the affects of radiation. But look at our past. As humans we’ve embraced many technologies, only to find years later the affects it has on us. We have the opportunity today to evaluate and learn from other’s mistakes. I haven’t found one group of people who live near turbines who say they made the right choice. In the beginning, they thought it was a good deal. They signed off to recievehousands of dollars in rent while thinking they were helping the environment.
The people who aren’t complaining are ones who have wind farms far away from people. And that is the entire point of this group.
It’s also not a matter of being sheep people. It’s a matter of reviewing the issues, not jumping to quick decisions and weighing all the options. We are not funded at all. This website is freely hosted and is maintained by volunteers from many different walks of life. I don’t discredit the groups out there that may be funded by oil companies. But, we are not one of them.
By: norwesterescarpment on February 2, 2010
at 11:22 pm
Well said Penumbra. Its just like how the Tobacco companies paid doctors and groups to deny that cigarettes cause cancer. Big energy companies have a great interest in slowing the adoption of renewable energy so they are more than willing to fuel this false debate. Way to be tools for big oil guys!!!! Frankly I’m more interested in ensuring my children get the same quality of life I enjoy.
By: disgusted on May 29, 2010
at 4:06 pm
Exactly! Right now our government is trying to tell us that there’s nothing wrong with wind energy. This is the same government (federal and provincial) that didn’t think second hand smoke wasn’t an issue. Years later, they had to back pedal. Your comments are totally contradictive to other comments on this forum. At one point you blame us for the oil spill and here you say you want your kids to enjoy the same quality of life you currently enjoy. You’re not utilizing wind energy yet, so that quality of life must stem from fossil fuels. Which side are you on?
By: norwesterescarpment on May 31, 2010
at 4:04 am
“You’re not utilizing wind energy yet, so that quality of life must stem from fossil fuels. Which side are you on?”
No I’m not using wind energy yet but I will be once Big Thunder Wind Park is erected. Even you must realize that there is not an infinite amount of oil (or coal, copper, gold etc…) on the planet. If we use it all up we are basically stealing from our children. We need to get these wind turbines on line NOW so that there is still enough resources left for the future.
By: Disgusted on May 31, 2010
at 4:23 pm
No, we’re just being realistic. If what you wrote was attainable, I’d say sure. But your pipedreams are littered with holes. Corn replaces a few fuels, but won’t work as a lubricant due to viscosity issues. When has a drought caused majour Hydro outages (Kakebeka doesn’t count)? Droughts are rare. Calm days are frequent. That’s my point. Electric companies don’t guarantee 100% service. Your backup plan of base supply doesn’t fly. You can’t store power like that. It’s rarely windy at night so chances that diverting power at 3am would be scarce.
We’re not trying to scare people here, but it seems many supporters don’t like some of the realities we are all dealing with. I’d like to believe what the wind companies are telling us. But when a company like Horizon starts a confidential deal with the city, does not consult with the resedents, promises hundreds of jobs and perhaps a factory (not likely) to gain support, that’s where I have an issue. This city is hurting for work and prosperity. The company pitches thousands of dollars and jobs when in reality (and they have now admitted this in their report), there will only be 3 full time jobs. Rent will be paid but we as taxpayers will foot the bill for connection to the grid, we’ll pay their higher 13 cents kw/hr and will have to pay for decomissioning after their done. Oil may not be our future, but they didn’t bulldoze into town forcing us to pay for them to set up shop.
That’s where the real argument is. I don’t think anyone in this group is disputing the merits of wind energy. It’s the way the deal is being struck. Industrial wind turbines don’t belong near residental areas. The word industrial should be a hint.
By: norwesterescarpment on June 1, 2010
at 1:36 pm
Your wrong about a cleaner future being a pipe dream. You just want to act like it is because you don’t want to have to make any sacrifices to achieve that dream. Shame.
By: Disgusted on June 1, 2010
at 6:50 pm
ok, we’re done here. You obviously don’t read what I write as you are still missing the point and are only trying to discredit the group. I wish you well.
By: norwesterescarpment on June 2, 2010
at 12:49 pm
Oh I read what you wrote. Its just, like most people, I’m not falling for it.
By: Disgusted on June 2, 2010
at 7:08 pm
Right….this coming from the credibility of a person who hides their identity with a fake email address such as disgusted@yourignorance.ca. How do you start a conversation with such hostility in their identity as you present? We get what you are about. You’ve made your point, and we wish you well.
By: norwesterescarpment on June 3, 2010
at 3:33 pm
Disgusted: There’s a great mathematical equation that you seem to fall into. You should get the t-shirt:
Normal Person + Anonymity + an Audience = Total Internet Dickwad
http://www.pennyarcademerch.com/pat070381.html
By: George on June 3, 2010
at 7:56 pm
Ok kids, if you can’t play nice it’s time to close this thread. In the future, please follow a code of conduct.
By: norwesterescarpment on June 3, 2010
at 8:02 pm
Yeah thanks George. At least on some level you consider me a normal person:) Here’s an equation YOU might find interesting:
ResourcesRemaining = EarthsTotalResources – UsedResources
where EarthsTotalResources is a constant.
Hint
Eventually ResourcesRemaining = 0
By: disgusted on June 3, 2010
at 11:57 pm
I would like to know the composition of this committee….in other words, who they are, names, residential location, etc.
By: WaYnE on June 19, 2010
at 6:30 am
Seriously? Why do you need to know our address? You are welcome to attend our open house meetings where you can be introduced to the members face to face. Not all the members live in the Neebing area. There are members spread throughout the city. You are stepping across the line asking for our personal addresses.
By: norwesterescarpment on June 21, 2010
at 4:13 pm
I would also on behalf of the taxpayers of Thunder Bay, would like to know the committee’s credentials and expertise with respect to wind turbines and alternative sources of energy.
By: WaYnE on June 19, 2010
at 7:44 am
What credentials do you need to get the message out that turbines do not belong where people live?
By: norwesterescarpment on June 20, 2010
at 9:38 pm
Good Morning,
I am a fourth year student at Lakehead University and am looking into the benefits wind development as a whole but also the shortcomings to the process and the difficulties environmentally surrounding it. However I am looking at gaining a locally centric view surrounding a topic. Therefore I was wondering if I could meet and have a discussion with any member of your committee within the coming weeks at your ledger and in turn discuss why the Nor’Westers are not the best location for the turbines and the problems your group associates with them. Thank you and I am available though my email.
Sincerely,
Mac
By: Mac on September 23, 2010
at 3:37 pm
As a former resident of Thunder Bay, and an historic environment professional, I have to say that the proposal to site wind turbines along the Nor’wester escarpment is just plain wrong-headed and barking mad. The escarpment is not just a physiographic feature but is also an iconic ‘place’, an historic landscape seen, envisaged, perceived, remembered, used in language, metaphor, histories, and people’s sense of place. If I say “Nor’westers”, people immediately think of a wild, romantic skyline, redolent of history and locality, much the same as people think of the Matterhorn, Sugar Loaf mountain in Rio, or the conical hills in Guilin in China. In the rest of the world, such landscapes are protected from inappropriate development. They don’t put wind turbines in the Black Hills, the Yorkshire Dales, Uluru in Australia. Why put them on the Nor’westers to ruin OUR PLACE, our historic landscape, our identity? In fact, I don’t believe the developer has done any research into this aspect of the development, required if the environmental assessment had been done in any other country. Why don’t we get a judicial review into why a proper EA has not been done? We don’t want your windy-sticks degrading our place.
Neil Campling
By: Neil Campling on July 17, 2011
at 4:26 pm