The NMEPC believes that any “green” energy project be well planned and include community input.
As David Suzuki said best “wind farms, like any development need to be sited properly and appropriately placed in areas where they can have the greatest possible effect with the smallest environmental footprint. After all, the whole point of clean energy is to reduce our environmental burden…not make it worse”
Therefore, the NMEPC endorses and believes plans for Wind Turbine Installation should:
1) be placed where existing infrastructure exists — ie. existing logging roads, etc. and not on pristine forest of rare northern trees (sugar maples, white pines, yellow birch, cedars)
2)be placed close to existing transmission lines — not requiring new installations and creating major environmental issues
3) not be placed near people and especially schools!
4)not be placed on sensitive sites — ie. natural, historical, recreational or scenic
WE NEED YOUR IMPUT — It appears Council intends to lease City land for the $$$$ in the name of “GREEN ENERGY”
If NOT the Nor’Wester’s — What is your proposal? Remember, they want City-owned land.
Wait, wait, wait, wait… Are these conditions being put forward by the people who cleared “pristine forest with rare northern trees” to build their new subdivisions, complete with roads, new hydro lines, and water infrastructure? I sure hope not, because that would be hypocritical and selfish!
By: Fitjarald on November 6, 2009
at 9:03 pm
You’re kidding, right? I’m sure the area you live had pristine trees there at one time. Please have a look at some of the videos. I think you’re missing the point.
By: norwesterescarpment on November 9, 2009
at 4:52 pm
No, I believe you are missing the point. The only thing that you care about is having the turbines where you can see them, which is why you keep pushing to have them put anywhere else (and this is stated on your website, you cannot argue with that). Your arguments are false, and only serve to pull at heart strings, while drawing attention away from the actual issues so that people will get emotionally passionate about the issue, and rally behind your opinion.
If you were truly concerned about facts, you would understand the global benefit that renewable energy offers, despite the minor inconveniences it may cause a few discontent people. You elude to care about school children, and residences lying near the proposed building sight, yet do you not care about the toxic waste dumped into streams where the coal for our plants is mined? Your mindset has been twisted around so much that your morals turn into personal gain, and that facts that do not effect you play no role in your decision making process. You really should watch the videos not created from a bias standpoint, and begin to understand the true global issues.
By: Fitjarald on November 11, 2009
at 8:27 pm
What’s wrong with putting them where we can’t see them? We’re not dispuiting this claim. No need to point it out
You seem to spend so much writing with contradictory comments with no backing to your claims. I look forward to your citations of research. Also, if you have some links to non-biased sources as you say, we’d be happy to have a look.
By: norwesterescarpment on November 16, 2009
at 9:28 pm
There is nothing wrong with putting the turbines where they cannot be seen! But question why they are being put where they can be seen: a stronger more consistent wind on top of the Nor’Wester’s, pehaps? I don’t know, but that could be one explination. Perhaps a lesser wind than is available up there would make them economically unfeasible, so they must go there?
I apologize if I came across as stating my support of turbines in locations where people have to see them. However, most of your arguments are on affects that will occur no matter where the wind turbines are placed, and then you turn around and say (and i quote):
“We’re not against the technology of Wind energy. We’re also not suggesting that we do nothing. The plan is to rethink the LOCATION of where these turbines are placed.”
To me, you are arguing in circles, stating negative impacts regardless of location, and then stating that your fine with the turbines, so long as they change the location.
Now, for articles:
This is an excellent, sourced, peer reviewed article (website) that lists the benefits and disadvantages of wind energy (compared with conventional energy production techniques), and shows the overwhelming advantages of wind energy (while still making note of the negative impacts):
http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/home–about-the-project.html
This is a scientific, peer reviewed article with proper sources stating the PROVEN negative environmental and health impacts of coal mining and burning, of which we do here in Thunder Bay:
http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf
This is another scientific, peer reviewed article with proper sources stating the PROVEN negative environmental and health impacts of large scale hydro-electric generating facilities:
http://geography.lakeheadu.ca/cag/ersg/McMillan2009.pdf
This is a brochure with ok sources (not great) stating the benefits to the environment of switching to a low impact source of energy, backed by the EcoLogo certification (which is a Canadian certification, respected globally):
http://www.canwea.ca/images/uploads/File/5_environment.pdf
This is an unsourced journal article, stating both advantages and disadvantages, similar in credibility to the relevant sources stated on your website:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/advantages-disadvantages-wind-energy.html
Must I go on? These sources state the distinct advantages of supporting clean green energy, and the health and environmental benefits that you get from moving away from conventional energy sources.
However, this requires us (the consumers) to push to keep the wind produced energy in the north, in order to mitigate the negative impacts of coal and hydro power, and that is a common issue I can relate to you on, and work with you towards.
By: Fitjarald on November 17, 2009
at 6:07 pm
My home on Tuxedo Drive is in the Broad Oaks subdivision you speak of – it was built on former farm land that was cleared long, long ago – the undeveloped property behind us still contains the remnants of barbed wire fences that kept in livestock. The residents here have spent many thousands of dollars landscaping their properties because all that was here prior to the subdivision was treeless grassland. Come and drive through our neighbourhood – it’s easy to imagine the prior farm land – the majority of this development and the Caspian/Cypress development across Mountain Road from us is flat and clear, and the only trees in our yards are those we have planted ourselves!
By: Shannon Johnston on November 9, 2009
at 10:21 pm
Clearing forest for farmland and clearing forest for residential subdivisions are two completely different scenerios. You cannot compare a farmland that grows crops to feed people close to home and reduces shipping emissions, chemicals, and promotes a healthy local economy, to a home that is built from toxic materials shipped halfway across the world, with basements and driveways that severely damage the natural groundwater flow, require new hydro, sewage, road, and water infrastructure be brought to them, and do not allow northern native grassland species to grow (or do you not have a lawn?). In fact, I would be willing to bet that you planted trees not native to northwestern ontario, as most people do.
By: Fitjarald on November 11, 2009
at 8:31 pm
My point was that it was not the current property owners in our neighbourhood who cleared the “pristine forest” as you suggested for the subdivision we live in.
By: SJ on November 12, 2009
at 7:47 pm
I stand corrected. Sorry to point the accusing finger at the wrong generation. However, hopefully you find relevance in my argument of the affects of farmland vs. developed subdivisions, and the irony contained within of objection the windfarm with similar impacts?
By: Fitjarald on November 17, 2009
at 6:23 pm
Would Mission Island would be a good spot ???
By: Denis on November 7, 2009
at 10:24 pm
Quote from Fitjarald:
“Wait, wait, wait, wait… Are these conditions being put forward by the people who cleared “pristine forest with rare northern trees” to build their new subdivisions, complete with roads, new hydro lines, and water infrastructure? I sure hope not, because that would be hypocritical and selfish.”
Don’t want to come across as argumentative but,….
We all need somewhere to live and if we decide to live in an area designated by the authorities as residential, and it also happens to be a nice rural location, so be it. Seems like a normal practice pretty much everywhere that type of development is available.
Being that our homes are not four hundred feet tall and not spinning at 150 to 200 miles an hour, I’m having difficulty understanding how one could compare our homes to a giant huge wind turbine?
Help me out here…..
By: Don on November 10, 2009
at 3:10 am
Hi Don,
Thanks for the response! Argument is good, and offers an opportunity for both sides to learn and understand their shortsightedness!
My point is that one of the major arguments put forth by this website and the people behind it is to “protect pristine forest,” which, of course, is an absurd argument, as these turbines would make such a small dent in our forest, and would result in saving forests elsewhere from being cleared for strip mines to access coal reserves. In fact, housing and commercial building development is the number one “deforestation” industry in Canada. Every time a new subdivision is zoned, new infrastructure is brought in, and we only see this as economic growth. However, when something that has little negative impact on the environment, and subsequently reduces our further environmental impact, people get up in arms about it, and the environmental destruction it causes.
I might also draw attention to the lack of education put into their arguments/propositions. For instance, they list one of the “pristine northern forest species” as being sugar maple. If you walk around in our northern forests, you will rarely see a sugar maple, because it is not suited and not native to this environment. In fact, it generally only grows on southern slopes of mountains. They argue to put turbines where infrastructure to transport the power exists – doesn’t it make sense to put it close to this infrastructure, rather than on a far north logging road, where kilometers more installation will be required?
When it comes down to it, people pick and choose their battles, and make arguments towards them (I am doing it myself). However, to make an argument, and then turn around and do the exact opposite is emitting such a closed mindset, and displays a selfish attitude. Maybe, instead of raping land that we cannot see, and affecting people that are not our neighbors through our current practices, we should start to take responsibility for our energy needs, and be willing to accommodate a renewable, clean energy source, instead of being worried about inconsequential opinions.
By: Fitjarald on November 11, 2009
at 8:16 pm
I have to comment however, on the Sugar Maples. Agreed, you rarely see them here….and they’re not suited for this environemnt. But, I’ve been up there. They’re there….in abudnance. 150 year old sugar mapes. It’s a small grove, but once destroyed will take years, if ever to replace due to the rarity. We’ve posted some photos of the grove. It’s up there. It is quite a site to walk through the trail on a bright sunny day. Thanks for your comments.
By: norwesterescarpment on November 11, 2009
at 10:17 pm
All this discussion about forests and natural species brings to light a much larger issue than protecting the trees on the Nor Wester escarpment. Northwestern Ontario is blessed with a small portion of natural forest known as the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Forest Region.
If one looks into this, they’ll find that it comprises a relatively small portion of the northern forest which is largely predominantly boreal forest. Now, to get to the point, we are losing vast tracts of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Forest Region every year! Literally thousands upon thousands of acres of this unique and relatively rare forest is destroyed annually by forestry harvesting methods and by tree re-planting practices. I have a camp in the Northern Light Lake area. I see thousands of acres of once GLSL forest being cut down and replaced with mono culture boreal species. If people want to have real cause to champion, it should be saving the Great Lakes St. Lawrence forest region from being transformed into a boreal forest.
However, that is another battle I guess.
By: Don on November 12, 2009
at 10:47 pm
actually, it is hypocritical for anyone who lives in a house in a developed area of any city to point the finger at anyone else for clearing land.
As a biologist who has conducted environmental assessment (EA) programs for large scale wind farm developments in the province, I can state with authority that a component of the legally required EA process is based on socio-economics. Of course the developers will cry that it is a case of not in my back yard, but it is the legal right of the property owners in the area to question the validity of this project. It is, in turn, a legal obligation on the part of Horizon to consider that people don’t want these wind turbines “in their back yards”. Given that Thunder Bay and surrounding area have a surplus of power, as well as no means to distribute it past the transmission line bottleneck near White River, it makes little sense to add a wind farm in the area that is placed in a questionable location. Long story short…..we create too much power as it is and have no where to send surplus until the province upgrades the transmission lines east of the city.
There are unknown medical issues that are associated with wind turbines, and Horizon must provide proof that these turbines will not harm the residents in the shadow of the turbines.
Another issue is the ecological aspect of the project area location. I have conducted wildlife studies in the project area, and know that there are peregrine falcons nesting at Mt. McRae. The Provincial Policy re. species at risk states that any development within 1km of the nest sites must include an impact assessment to prove that the species and their habitat will not be negatively impacted. This will be difficult to prove considering that Peregrine Falcons habitat will include approximately 3 to 15 km of habitat adjacent to their nest sites (the breeding pair on Mt. McRae have 2 active nest sites there). Habitat concerns with regards to peregrine include the air space above their nests (approx. 30 m above ground level to nest and up from there). The area also conatins several migratory routes for other bird species. I know first hand that birds are not that big an issue with regards to turbines if the habitat in the area is not in direct competition with the turbines. This remains to be seen. This is a concern that must be addressed, particulalry with a species that relies upon the norwesters as hunting grounds.
More of an issue than birds are bats. These turbines will be a huge issue with the resident bat populations. Unlike birds that will avoid the area for the most part due to the turbines (an issue in itself), bats rely on sonar for navigation. Turbines disrupt navigation as sonar signals do not bounce back to bats directly, thus creating a false “safe route” for them to follow. The result can be devastating to bat populations.
In short, wind power is a good thing, but it does have to be implemented using sound scientific study results in placement locations of turbines. City council has dropped the ball on this land lease agreement. They should have had conditions in place regarding the longevity of the lease based on ecological and socio economic factors (to name a few). There are plenty of well suited locations for a wind farm in the area. Horizon, however, has spent too much money on their studies thus far and will never drop the project or make appropriate ammendments to the locations regarding the footprint of this project.
The end result of this project will likely be an elevation request for an individual EA to the Minister of the Environment. You can read up on the process at the MOE website….here is the link. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/4021e.pdf
Once in the Ministers hands, and depending on how much political clout Horizon has, the decision will be made as to whether or not the project will be allowed to move forward.
By: Andreac on May 18, 2010
at 4:38 am
How does one get up there? Where’s the access trail to the top? I’d like to go up there.
By: Don on November 12, 2009
at 1:03 am
If you would like to go up there you can gain access thru big thunder
By: angie on October 19, 2010
at 2:35 pm
Fitz has hit it on the spot IMHO.
But look at the issues. Fitz pulls the majority of them apart.
Many of them are a sham. And i would say residents: get some better evidence .
Lets look at Sugar maples. Rare : nope. I am sure their are thousands of old growth groves of this species all over the norwester mountian range. Logic dictates this, but for some reason this “one grove is special”.
Noise : A very valid issue . I have personally seen and been up close to these windmills, in a few foreign countries Right under and close to many running all out in a full breeze, and they are almost noiseless .
Noise that is NOT audible ?? well has this area been tested for any noise that was not audible before!! the lift at loch lomond running at night mid winter?? I think not.
As to the related article about low frequency noise is this REAL science or anecdotal experience?? It seems the author picks apart many studies related to wind turbines and the possible effect on people.
But sadly what she does NOT do is offer any real evidence as to why they are so bad.
Anything to that effect is anecdotal . Better to get a real scientific study, published in an appropriate journal.
2. Oil pollution from gearboxes, hmm i bet the oil dropped from everycar in this city from leaky gaskets is worse. So why not fight that “real” issue .
3. construction site : wow ask anybody building a new house in that area to stop….. then see what happens.
4 bird migartory route. If fauna was so importnat lets see folk in this area stop driving their cars , and stop hitting deer. But birds ahhh that easy. All of a sudden birds matter!!!
Most if not all of these arguments are just arguments scraped together to support the real ” hey not in my backyard”reactions.
We have seen this happen to soup kitchens , and shelter houses that have been proposed to be built in thunder bay.
Whats new ??
By: Edwin P on November 12, 2009
at 9:54 pm
Given the fact it takes 150 years to reproduce a sugar maple it doesn’t matter where they are. Governments have impeded other projects based on environment so why should this be any different?
Almost noiseless? Do you have some numbers to support this?
There is lots of scientific research on LF noise and flicker. Have a look at this site http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/environment/ There are studies still being conducted in Europe on similar issues. Let’s take this a step further. Let’s say the studies come back negative, and they are no bad effects. What have we lost? Some turbines moved out of the areas of residences. But what if they do produce some serious long term effects….and we find this out a few years from now. Who’s going to be accountible?
Let’s step back and look at the real big picture. Why are they coming to Thunder Bay in first place let alone the NorWester Escarpment? We don’t need the power. It’s not staying here anyway. It’s southern ontario who doesn’t want them in their back yards. It’s interesting to see that the Niagara Escarpment refuses to house turbines. Hmmm, why is that? No one is calling them whiners, or rich people with hidden agendas. This is not a NIMBY issue. They simply don’t belong in residential areas.
By: norwesterescarpment on November 16, 2009
at 12:45 am
Well, seeing as to how our forests are ecologically programmed to burn every 80 – 150 years, those “old growth” stands shouldn’t even exist.
Now, to further the discussion of NIMBY issues, please look at the following link:
http://www.opg.com/power/OPGmap0309.pdf
You will see that southern Ontario does, in fact, already have them in their back yards, at a production capacity of 2.6 MW. Now, if you’re talking about preserving green space, why are you fighting for a section of land in the middle of a city, with a coal plant and paper mill close by, not to mention the shipping industry and surrounding residential zones? Wouldn’t it make sense to maintain green spaces that have not already been altered by industrialization and urbanization? And, instead of preserving, wouldn’t it make even more sense to manage said space in a way that the environment is designed to behave? And hey, if you want to preserve green spaces, why don’t we eradicate the ski hill, and plant more of your beloved sugar maples? And restrict new residential developments, so that they have to have a certain amount of residents per square foot? Now that would be preserving green space!
This is a NIMBY issue, led by those who are set in their ways, who have vested interests in the areas, and followed by those unable to think critically for themselves.
By: Fitjarald on November 16, 2009
at 8:43 pm
I didn’t say they didn’t have any down south. I don’t think you’ll disagree that they are greatest comsumers of the power.
What is YOUR problem with not having them located where they are? And why are you so focussed on green space from a ski hill? It was put there 50 years ago. No one has complained since. That’s like saying, hmmm why did they clear the trees in Northwood.
Again you’re missing the point. We don’t need the power. So why do we need the turbines? No one has come up with a decent reply addressing this question. It’s so easy to poke holes at a business person or an establed area. It’s much easier than addressing the issue and digging up the real reasons why we’re here in the first place.
I said it before in a recent post. The Niagara Escarpment has an embargo on any turbines in their area. No one will touch them. Why is that? The place is loaded with rich wine companies and “beautiful” tourist areas. The government seems ok with that response. Why should this be any different? We don’t need the power. We are not going to get the power. Why should we host their power facilities?
By: norwesterescarpment on November 16, 2009
at 9:41 pm
Excellent points! Your comment about the Niagara Escarpment being a money maker for the government, therefore gaining immunity is probably very correct, as that seems to be the way our governments work. Everything ties back to making money. I also agree that Southern Ontario is the greatest consumer of power (of the two regions), and rightfully so, as they have many times the population, plus a larger industrial sector than we do in Northern Ontario. And does their need give them the right to rape our landscape to feed their power needs? Absolutely not! You’re correct.
However, lets examine that line of thinking, and apply it to ourselves. Currently, we receive 85% of our power from coal plants (as stated by Thunder Bay Hydro and OPG independantly, though I welcome a different source), which means that we are raping someone elses landscape to acquire the coal that we burn for our plant. Even if that 85% is much lower, the landscape destruction that happens due to coal extraction far exceeds that which is caused by wind turbines, and while the turbines disrupt and clear parts of the forest, it is a one time occurance at a set level, while coal is an ongoing destructive pattern, with other impacts such as water and soil contamination. So, if Southern Ontario doesn’t have the right to destroy our back yards, why do we have the right to do the same to someone else?
Currently, we don’t need the extra power, however, if you look at my other comments, once the coal plant is decommissioned, we will need the power, as the hydro power we receive is barely enough to supply our peak amounts of power, and that’s leaving no room for further industrial development, or for the paper mills to start back up. So, we will need the power!
When I address the issue of green spaces, I was talking about your lack of unity in your argument for the protection of green spaces, and your possible lack of understanding of what a natural green space in northern Ontario should look like (although this is an assumption, feel free to correct me). I propose if you’re going to argue to protect green spaces, argue to protect real green spaces, not a place that has trees that you think looks pretty. (BTW – why did they clear northwood? It’s a swamp, and the water table was drastically affected by the removal of the trees, and now homeowners in that area are faced with constant maintenance costs. A poor location to develop, excellent point!)
So, thinking forward, and trying to address all issues, instead of bantering back and forth, how about this? Why don’t we approach our city council with the request to keep the power generated from these turbines in the North, to encourage further industrial development? Instead of being guilty of the same things we’re accusing southern Ontario of doing, let’s find a happy medium. Let’s ask for the reasons of using the Nor’Westers as a location for the turbines, and perhaps we’ll discover that the wind blows stronger and more consistently up there! Perhaps there’s another place with the same potential! But let’s be proactive! We will need change, and we will need more power, so instead of going against something because of property values, lets constructively examine the issue. And hey, to quote a famous book, “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
By: Fitjarald on November 17, 2009
at 4:46 pm
Yeah, I guess Northwood is a poor example at best (no offence to you Northwooder’s!), but I think you get the point. I also don’t think anyone here disagrees that coal fired plants are not without hazards. It would seem that no matter what method you use to produce electricity there is going to be some by product that is either harmful to the environment or humans. We learn from our mistakes, and we learn from our research. I think that even if wind energy causes a small number of health problems in humans that the technology be re-evaluated…not scrapped, but re-evaluated. If we have the opportunity to carefully plan such a project (as well as earn some proper revenue), then let’s not rush this. I agree with your last paragraph however, I used to work for a company that facilitated the monitoring of wind up on Mt. Baldy. Three years ago the results were more than positive. I wonder why that project was shelved. North east of Mount Baldy is uninhabited. Hmmm.
By: norwesterescarpment on November 18, 2009
at 2:00 am
FYI, the Mount Baldy project is still on the books and its my understanding that it will be proceeding in 2010. There is also another wind power project North East of Mount Baldy around Greenwich Lake (North West of Dorion Twp) which is proceeding to construction in the begining of 2010.
By: Dave on December 30, 2009
at 4:17 pm
Funny how all other projects slated for the region are all in non-residential areas. I live on Broad Oaks, if the City is willing to reduce my property taxes by 30-40% I’m happy to have them, and if someone can cover the extra 30-40% devalued property loss I’m about to experince even better. Ask any new resident from the past 2 years if they would have purchases knowing this was in the works, far as I’m concerned that’s grounds for a lawsuit (I’m sure a lawyer can figure out a way to make a buck off of that one).
Yes I’m a NIMBY person, I feel the city has done this deal without consulting the residents, call me a whiner, dam rights, try experincing it and you’d be the same. I paid $5400.00 last year in taxes, I have one of the worst roads in the area. Let’s put it in the pro-wind users backyard and we’ll discuss this further, otherwise… go with the wind…
By: Dano on February 28, 2010
at 1:47 am
Holy crap that was a long comment! Sorry for the wordiness…
By: Fitjarald on November 17, 2009
at 4:46 pm
I am a longtime resident of the area. I have been approached by opponents ( petitioners) of the windmills and have raised my opinion of support, only get back angry attitude.
I found this site and here is my opinion.
Now to add I find this website is not about unbiased debate.
Which it should be !!
It finds arguments against , not open discussion about the whole concept.
It talks about noise, land clearing ,oil pollution, things that are bad for children, and wildlife.
But does it look at real life solutions for these problems how they exist now?
Pre windmill?
Example , lets look at one facet of how these windmills could interact negatively with people.
Lets take kids . They are our best future.
Anybody done a study on the longterm effects of kids videogames, ( many violent )overuse of the home computers ,cellphones and I pods ( turned up loud I bet!
Better off then blaming their possible ills on these things rather then preconception of naughtly windmills!!
I could go on and on but other arguments have been dealt with here already.
Windmills have become a scape goat, for issues. Heart string ( kids) pulling issues, that lead to knee jerk angry reactions without looking at real solutions.
I was here long before many houses were built here. How do you think I felt about the farmland around me getting filled with people?? Or people who are even now are planning to build there own huge houses here!!
Business owners, ( ski-hills/resorts) professionals, people with clout and cash spearhead this effort. People who want to maintain their own personal status quo , and build and develop their own empires.
Shame on you !
Where is the transparency.
Who funds this website, where do you live and what business do you have or where are you building?? i want to know!
I want transparency.
By: anonymou on November 15, 2009
at 5:32 pm
This site is unbiased since we are printing your post. This site however, is not about everything that is bad for you. You’re missing our point. Windmills have NOT become a scapegoat. I could say the same about your post is a knee jerk reaction without looking at the real issue. You obviously haven’t read through this site; otherwise you would see that we’re not against Wind Energy. We’re against the proposed location.
Does it really matter who spearheads this effort? It’s it’s the rich, they’d be criticized. If it’s the powerful, they’d be criticized. Shame on you for not identifying yourself yet criticizing the organization. This webiste is freely hosted. There is no funding as there have been no costs putting it together. As the author of this website, I live in the north end of Thunder Bay. I do not have a business but am concerend with the issue. If you’re willing to identify yourself (in private), I would be happy to get together to dicuss this further.
By: norwesterescarpment on November 16, 2009
at 12:34 am
If you are not against wind energy, then why do your arguments against the proposed location have to do with construction destroying the environment, oil cast off, and migratory bird routes being disrupted? All of these impacts will occur no matter where the turbines are built.
Again, this boils down to the “not in my back yard” attitude. If these were any where else, then you wouldn’t make a peep. If I’m wrong, feel free to offer resources of your efforts to stop other such developments throughout the world, since you seem so concerned about human health. I, myself, am willing to offer oodles of information on my actions to stop negative impacts to human health from truly harmful energy production techniques. But really, mine are more globally based, while your concerns are selfish, centered only around how this may (allegedly) affect you.
So, in fact, I do believe that you are missing the point. This whole “stop the turbines” movement is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to something you perceive as a negative situation for yourself, built on false science and opinion articles. Really, renewable energy is about building a better global environment, and increasing everyones ability to leave clean, green, and healthy. This website is only about protecting a piece of land you think is special.
Again, I would draw your attention to our current forms of energy production: hydro and coal, both of which are extremely environmentally damaging, of which i have FACT (ie. scientific, peer reviewed articles) to back up. Why are you opposing a source of energy that does not have proven negative environmental and health impacts, and has, in FACT, been applied with great success all throughout the world for hundreds of years? Again, simply because this is a NIMBY, knee jerk reaction website.
If you would like to self identify yourself to me, I would be more than happy to meet with you as well, and discuss some real issues.
By: Fitjarald on November 16, 2009
at 8:31 pm
Feel free to contact us at: savethenorwesters@gmail.com
By: norwesterescarpment on November 16, 2009
at 11:46 pm
As a resident of the area of the proposed wind farm I am astounded by some of the comments that I am reading. Would not any person facing an issue that would destroy what they’ve come to love not stand up and fight for it? What seems to be getting lost in this whole issue is the manner in which this whole wind farm has been thrust at us. It is quite easy for those of you not living in this area to point fingers at us. The bottom line is that this wind farm DOES NOT belong on the Norwesters, it DOES NOT belong close to a residential area.
All of the issues that have been researched are not false claims, they are there for everyone to read if they care to take the time. The more I delve into this issue the scarier it becomes for me. This does not belong in anyone’s backyard!
By: baby maple on November 21, 2009
at 1:26 am
What is wrong with NIMBY? I have no problem with the concept. Selfish, perhaps – but I don’t want to see these everyday, I don’t want my children exposed to any “possible” adverse health effects while at school. I don’t want to lose 15-40% of the value of my home (and I live in an older, modest home, not a mansion).
The Shelbourne, ON turbines have forced some residents from their homes due to health issues. A real estate company has refused to list homes in the area due to potential legal action. That’s enough reason for me. I wouldn’t want this in anyone’s back yard.
By: resident on November 17, 2009
at 3:54 am
Well, I would suggest that your comment contains what’s wrong with NIMBY: selfishness. But, for those who are not convinced that selfishness is a problem, here’s an article, containing peer reviewed sources, on the PROVEN negative health and environmental impacts of coal mining:
http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf
Currently, this is what you are exposing your children to, and this is what you are exposing other peoples back yards to, as you are using power made in a coal plant.
Here is another article, complete with more peer reviewed sources, on the PROVEN negative health and environmental impacts of hydro dams as a power source:
http://geography.lakeheadu.ca/cag/ersg/McMillan2009.pdf
Again, this is all the consequences of our current power production, both environmental and health.
Now, I ask, why do you not want your children exposed to the “possible” adverse health affects of wind power generation, when by stopping this type of generation, you are supporting more exposure to the PROVEN health impacts of hydro and coal power production?
Mow, 15% – 40% of your property value is a large chunk, and as I recently purchased my first house, I can empathize with your concerns. I cannot, however, as a responsible adult, continue to pursue the same power generation that may give myself or my kids cancer (therefore negating the enjoyment of my house, and therefore negating the value of it), or that may give you or your kids cancer, when a better alternative is known and is making itself available. That is why clean and green energy production has my two thumbs up, despite the economic impacts, as it drastically reduces the health and environmental impacts of our current power consumption, of which i feel responsible for.
By: Fitjarald on November 17, 2009
at 5:02 pm
Look, I’m not here to disagree with everything this website presents. However, I am here to champion truth, to offer more of a complete overview of the energy crisis, rather than the flaws of one type of energy production. Wind is not the be-all, end-all of our energy needs, but keep it in perspective! If you view any one thing too closely, of course you’ll find flaws! Comparing it to other sources of energy doesn’t remove those flaws, but it shows them as less impacting than the flaws of other types of energy. Your loosely sourced, biased, contradictory, irrelevant, and sometimes false information is being viewed with an island mindset (just looking at wind energy): why not COMPARE wind energy to what we’re using now, rather than saying “Wind energy is bad because it might have negative health impacts and is ugly, and who cares if coal pollution causes chronic lung problems, because wind energy is bad.” EXPAND your mindset to a global level, care about ALL of humanity, not just yourself, and rally together to fight against KNOWN issues with PROVEN solutions! Don’t fight against PROVEN solutions to KNOWN problems because they carry less impacting problems then we’re currently faced with…
By: Fitjarald on November 17, 2009
at 6:12 pm
Just curious here….
How close would the nearest home be to one of the proposed windmill sites? What’s the effective radius of a windmill’s negative health issues?
By: Don on November 19, 2009
at 11:09 pm
If you want to see a good example of wind generator proliferation, use Google Earth and take a look at the hills just north west of Sault Ste. Marie Ontario.
Looks like there’s around 100 of them up there.
By: Don on December 1, 2009
at 3:25 am
Firstly, I would like to say I agree one hundred percent with Fitjarald. This is a scapegoat and I have been saying that in my other comments as well. I just cannot wrap my head around why this is a concern. With regards to the “noise pollution” and all the diseases that the noise from the turbines will cause, can you tell me what people in big cities do? Do they all have diseases from too much noise? What about people living next to highways?Also, norwesterescarpment asked”We don’t need the power. So why do we need the turbines?” are you serious? please tell me your not. Are you suggesting that we should wait until it is too late to get more power? why do we have to be running out of power to be more efficient? Why can’t we replace what power we’re using now with green energy? You are suggesting there that until we are in a doomsday situation we should not worry about our energy.
Also- from a comment written a while ago, at the very beginning of the page, you said “i look forward to your citations of research” regarding his toxic waste comments. um, you don’t need peer reviewed research to know that waste is dumped in streams and coal is bad for the environemnt and if you DO require that- you are not intelligent enough to even be using a computer or making a website. Its common sense- everyone knows that.
To the “resident” who doesnt want her kids exposed to the health affects- do your kids watch t.v- do they eat all their fruits and vegetables? They better not be obese, do they have a cell phone? do you have a cell phone? Do you drive a car? Is there a computer in your house? All these things emit radiation or toxic fumes that you expose your children to everyday. It seems as though you heard one thing someone said and agreed with them instead of thinking for yourself and askign what else is bad for children. And as for your house- it is people like you- only concerned for their own personal benfit that make the world a bad place. your in the category with poachers, illegal loggers and all other criminals, because you are preventing a source of energy that can benefit thousands so protect yourself and your money.
One more thing. Sugar maples? seriously? I am a forest conservation student in university- and im all for saving trees, but the picture is bigger here. Sugar maples are abundant- and sometimes you must sacrifice a little to get a lot. The benfits of wind energy out way the costs of losing some maple trees. If your worried about losing your walking path, try walking around the hundred other scenic areas in Thunder Bay.
By: autumn on December 15, 2009
at 2:02 am
You’re missing the points…
There’s a difference between industrial noise and sub-audible noise. Law enforcement uses sub-audible noise for crowd control. Why? becuase it’s annoying, and it works.
Yes we are serious. Do some reading. Not only do we not need the power, Horizon has no plans to keep the power here. Who’s running out of power? WE SELL IT to southern Ontario, the west and south (I’m speaking for the region, not just TBay). Autumn, again you’re missing the point. We’re not disagreeing with your concerns of the environmental issues you speak of. We’re also not against wind energy (just the placement that hasn’t been carefully thought out). My comments of citation come from the constant display of comments that come from speculation, hate, and un-educated sources. Perhaps before you spout off with immature comments about intelligence and criticize our view on coal energy perhaps you should read the background of this group. Your credibilty is slipping quickly.
You’re a forestry major and you support saving trees….sounds hypocritical to me based on your comments. Sugar maples are abundant here? Seriously? Maples yes, but sugar maples, not so much. I’m curious to know your grades.
By: norwesterescarpment on December 15, 2009
at 3:43 pm
I cannot believe the ignorant comments made by “autumn”. Sounds to me like you need to do your own research into wind turbines before calling down those of us who oppose this project. Do you think that these monstrosity’s will be gently placed on top of the escarpment, do you think that all of the documented cases of people suffering health issues are fabricated? As for your comment regarding the abundance of sugar maples in this area you are once again showing your ignorance. We are not against green energy and we certainly are not against wind energy. This is not the site to put in a project of this magnitude, the energy is not for us. The Norwesters are one of Thunder Bay’s most beautiful and scenic areas and it would be a crime to lose this because of greed and lies.
By: baby maple on December 18, 2009
at 8:47 pm
Can you please be quiet about the sub-audible noise? It seems like that is your only point! You keep say oh SUB-audible noise, nightmares, poor child development, but cannot really back your statements up with hard evidence, except for some flimsy, poorly made pdf file…
By: Norwesterview Student on December 15, 2009
at 4:09 pm
Yes but, it’s a good point. And a valid point. We’ve backed up our statements. Where’s yours?
By: norwesterescarpment on December 30, 2009
at 6:58 pm
I just read all of this and I would like to say at first I was on the fence about this. I understand that we need to do something about relying on coal for all our power needs but I thought that who would want to come to Thunder Bay and first and only thing they really see is a run down old town and some huge wind turbines sitting in our background.
Fitz through his quite lengthy and well written comments has totally sold me on the fact that we really need this. Thunder Bay needs to stop trying to hold back any type of progress that is offered to us, I feel as a young home owner and well traveled individual (within our beautiful country) that our city needs to stop trying to hold back progress, and get rid of this small town backwater mentality. To me personally, it is no wonder why any industry that thinks of coming to Thunder Bay pulls the plug before the project gets started, we have these “good ol’ boys” that try to raise a stink about everything for their own greed weather it be over property value or for quite frankly an “f’n” view…. come on now, give your head a shake.
For my child’s sake, I hope we all change around this town, or I would rather pick up my family and leave before I watch my childhood home turn into a run down ruin of what I remember to be the best city in the country!
By: West Fort Resident on December 18, 2009
at 12:46 am
The Mt. Baldy project is totally different. North East of Mt. Baldy is far away from residences. The noise, flicker and LF noise is sheltered by the adjacent southern hills and mountains. This is the proper design and research that Horizon should have looked at with this project.
By: norwesterescarpment on December 30, 2009
at 7:11 pm
The turbines have obviously been placed for the best amount of wind…..not because there’s residences there. Do you seriously not think that maybe the company would like to avoid any possible resistence from local residences where they can?? As for the power being sold to Southern Ontario, you should probably look into that a little farther….We CAN NOT provide power past Wawa. There is a gap in the grid that only a small amount of power can pass. I’m sure in the distant future this might change, but this is not part of the current issue. I as well was on the fence about this issue, and am currently considering purchasing a house in the Loch Lomond Area. If anyone in this group that is concerned about reduced value of your house, let me know….I’ll buy it! I live in Westfort less than 1 km from our beloved….or your beloved Coal plant…..and I’ll take your norwesters with or without turbines any day!
By: Mike on January 13, 2010
at 7:26 pm
I think many are missing one of the most important points here. Why is this company so eager to build these wind turbines at all? Could it be for the 20 year contract with the Ontario Power authority that gaurantees to buy whatever power they produce for an outrageous fee many times higher than what they actually sell it to consumers for? Whatever (very expensive) power these turbines produce will displace our power generated very cheaply (say 1/40th the cost) and cleanly by our present Hydro (water) power system. With most of the industry shut down in this region our coal power plant had run less than 25 days last year. Why are we committing to such an expensive energy soucre that our children will be (over)paying for for the next 20 years. Didn’t the ontario government make this same mistake years ago with our clean, safe and cheap(?) nuclear plants?? Look at the math and see how this can make any sense….
By: Jim on January 21, 2010
at 10:05 pm
Anyone who considers that IWTs are great need to consider the impacts of the increased electricity rates that come with the more expensive wind and solar. More so as it pushes out and has priority over the cheaper and more reliable sources of electricity. Wind has never replace coal generation stations anywhere and technically never could. Even though IWTs could over a time period produce 30% capacity, the amount produced at any one moment is anyone’s guess and the only thing that can be guaranteed is it will change. The change is even greater when production is close to capacity. If wind speed increase above safe levels the IWT must shut down and will produce 0. IWTs must be immediately backed up by other reliable power sources or the grid will fail. Failure of the grid means no electricity. Very rarely do IWTs produce near capacity so the minor input of IWTs are somewhat manageable. IWTs companies target economically depressed areas for a reason. It is easier to make people believe the false promises made. If you feel the need to support this type of “Rube Goldberg” concept read articles by Jon Boone or Eric Rosenbloom. An article called The Great Windmill Scam – by Iens Elliot Nyegaard – Environment & Climate News is another good one to scan through. IWTs are expensive machines not capable to deliver much and will cost us all dearly in the end. IWTs are less to do about producing electricity from wind and more to do with how much money can be taken from consumers. This site is tame. IWTs are a lot worse than you could imagine.
By: Ralph on January 23, 2010
at 2:03 am
K, first off, David suzuki is a huge liar anyways, don’t listen to the guy, global warming isn’t caused because of is and their are way too many facts to prove that.
Second, in the very near future their will be an extreme economic collapse due to the price of oil skyrocketing again and the demand will reach the amount in reserve. Thunder bay would be ahead of the game if we had wind power to power 9,000 homes.
You people are morons to only point out the negatives about a couple people who live kind of close to the turbines, (Kind of like the people near where they were going to put the flying J, which would have brought alot of money to the city also).
In europe all they have are wind turbines on top of the mountains and their making a step in the right direction.
We can’t let this tiny minority of people living near the mountains ruin this project for the rest of the people in Thunder Bay,.
By: Koss on January 25, 2010
at 12:28 am
Thanks Koss for your informative and mature comments. In the future, some backup to your claims might add some credibility and believability to your posts.
By: norwesterescarpment on January 25, 2010
at 2:33 pm
The council members went into this agreement without knowing all the facts. Negative impacts of IWTs were known in 2007. What other industry would get a signed lease without a clause to protect the interests of the citizens of Thunder Bay? How did council members get persuaded into such a one sided lease agreement? Whose interests were the council members representing? The residents of Thunder Bay will be paying with devalued properties, sleepless nights, higher electricity prices and loss of landscape views (a feature that keeps some people in Thunder Bay). Higher electricity prices will deter potential industrial development and will hurt existing businesses. Some more than others.
By: Ralph on January 31, 2010
at 2:18 pm
“I think that even if wind energy causes a small number of health problems in humans that the technology be re-evaluated…not scrapped, but re-evaluated.”
If you’re saying the technology should be re-evaluated, does that mean you are in fact not in favour of wind-energy, as you previously stated you were?
If this is truly your stance shouldn’t you then be lobbying most seriously for a re-evaluation of North America’s coal plants which have much more significant *known* problems. Can you demonstrate for us your efforts in this regard?
If you believe that our current reliance on non-renewable sources of energy is preferable, would you be willing to have a coat plant in your backyard? No? Why?
This most definitely is an issue of selfishness and lack of concern for the global population (which includes all of us and our children) who are being affected and WILL CONTINUE to be affected by our reliance on non-renewable resources.
If I had to choose between a wind-farm, a coal plant and a nuclear reactor in my backyard, I think I’d be significantly in favour of wind-power, any way you slice it. Wouldn’t you?
Our demands for electricity are increasing every day. Shouldn’t we start changing the ways we get out energy now, instead of waiting for a crisis situation to develop?
Do you prefer we build more nuclear power plants? Would you offer our lovely town as a disposal site for the nuclear waste? It has to go somewhere. Why is it ok as long as it’s in someone else’s backyard?
Re-evaluating wind-power and the location is just a ploy to delay and stall development of this technology until they can find a way to make it go somewhere else.
Step up Thunder Bay, we have the potential to make a difference here and sticking our heads in the sand like ostriches isn’t helping anybody.
By: penumbra on February 2, 2010
at 7:18 pm
The question with regards to which someone would rather live next to an industrial wind development, coal or nuclear generating station is rather strange to ask. We will continue to require nuclear and coal unless other energy sources of on-demand capacity are developed. Industrial wind does not provide on-demand capacity. So the question really is “Why should more people have to live next to an industrial wind development?”
By: Ralph on February 12, 2010
at 11:25 pm
Recently announced improvements to the transmission system will help with many projects of this nature. We have the wind resources, solar, and hydro. It is true we don’t need the power, right now, but infrastructure improvements willmean that we can export it to the south (U.S) as well as our own south. Both coal plants will likely be switched to wood pellets over the next few years. There are also a number of hydro projects recently completed and more on the way.
As for the low frequency impacts on humans, many creatures use low frequencies to communicate over great distances. Elephants and whales come to mind. These are frequencies we can’t hear with our ears, but our bodies feel them. Stand beside a new car stereo with a sub woofer turned up loud and you’ll experience a blast to your body as well as your ears. It certainly needs to be studied more, imagine the lawsuits if it turns out to harm people. Look at them today in regard to other untested technologies that caused harm.
As for the ‘white noise’ that we can hear with our ears, in the examples provided at the presentation; that is exactly like the sound used to interogate, combined with sleep deprivation and constant standing leaning forward with your forehead against a wall-hands behind your back, used by the central american governments not so long ago. I can understand why listening to it all night would harm one. Just my opinion!
A company in Toronto called Whale Power, has patented technology that is being applied to wind turbine blades which eliminates the whooshing sound. It also increases the power output by harvesting more of the energy of the existing wind. lets hope that it gets applied to all turbines everywhere.
The number of turbines proposed will require at least 2 high voltage lines, if not 3. Thats 3 big wires on 2 or 3 big seperate towers all the way to which ever sub station they connect to.
I wonder if the Horizon people read this?
By: Carl on February 21, 2010
at 5:08 am
Industrial wind power costs more to produce than normally sold for as most power from wind is produced when power demand is lowest. Denmark sells power and overall does so at a loss. Denmark consumers pay the highest rates in Europe to cover that loss. To find out more on Denmark read the report at http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf
In Ontario we would pay wind companies over 13 cents per kW when prices are at times as low as 3 cents.
We are different from Denmark in that to sell energy we would have to ship it further, so technically our losses would be greater as transmission lines cost money to maintain and monitor. Additional transmission lines also require energy to maintain. Energy loss increases with each km of line built. The power source, if wind, would not be enough to maintain the line, so additional energy would be used from on demand sources. Wind is an expensive energy source to waste on line maintenance and too expensive to sell. Remember wind companies would always get a high price for the electricity produced. Who loses? We cannot expect the answer to be different from Denmark.
By: Ralph on March 13, 2010
at 11:58 am
Update on what power is selling for: March 13, 2010 at 7 am power is selling for close to 0 cents per kWh at 5 one hundredth of a cent per kWh. Wind companies prices are fixed at 13 cents per .kWh. Right now they are producing over 888 MW when we don’t need expensive power on line.
By: Ralph on March 13, 2010
at 12:25 pm
I can see you good people are opposed to the Wind Farm. Instead what about a…
Nuclear plant?
Coal fire plant?
Natural gas?
Prison?
Affordable Housing?
Hog farm?
Rendering plant?
Methadone Clinic?
Drive in Theatre?
Outlet Mall?
Water Park?
Landfill?
Retirement Home?
Toxic waste facility?
Drag racing strip?
I see you can appreciate the need for any of these you just don’t want it near you. However the community down the road feels the same way. All NIMBY movements eventually become NOPE (Not on Planet Earth) or CAVE (Citizens Against Virtually Everything).
By: Tom on March 30, 2010
at 2:00 pm
Tom;
It is so easy to immaturely label a group and cloud the issue by thowing a dozen other unrelated issues than having to research the issue yourself and come up with an informed decision on your own. What is your point? None of the other issues you mentioned are on the table, so why did you bring them up?
If you take the time to see what we are about you will realize that we’re not against the project, just the location. Read on…you’ll be surprised.
By: norwesterescarpment on April 3, 2010
at 3:15 pm
to answer a few questions…….wind power will run in the area of 11 cents per kWh…when you add the costs of environmental impact remediation, etc. to conventional power supplies, it will not cost any more than coal or hydro.
Thunder Bay coal plant has a max capacity of 100MW, the hydro electric power output of the region is 600MW….so the majority of power is not actually produced by coal. And…our coal plant has never run at max capacity.
That said……I am a supporter of development, but not when it effects people the way this project is. We do need to look into alternative power, but it has to be done properly.
The argument from the norwester area residents is that the turbines are poorly placed given that there are too many variables involved that offer unanswered questions. I am not a resident of the area….just someone who can put myself in their shoes.
Whether you call it NIMBY or not, it is what it is, and that is unhappy residents that deserve to be heard.
All those people that keep adding that these people are just against it because it will effect their happy lives……damn straight! I would have no problem stating that if the issue existed in my backyard.
What you are failing to see is that there are genuine scientific concerns that need to be addressed. These issues legally have to be addressed in the environmental assessment process that Horizon must complete prior to any power purchase contracts from the province.
I have completed EA programs on much larger wind farm projects, and I know first hand that you will always have someone unhappy with the development. What needs to happen is a clear and concise evaluation of the scientific data gathered in the EA process, and issues need to be mitigated. Socio economic issue legally have to be mitigated (not just discussed….solutions need to be put forth by Horizon). The resident of the area are legally able to request an elevation of the wind farm EA to an individual EA process (much more in depth than the EA process prescribed initially in these types of projects (according to the Ministry of the Environment guidelines re. power development projects).
By: Andreac on May 18, 2010
at 5:20 am
Fitzgerald is quite a good debator, I’d almost suspect that Horizon hired you!
I don’t know the answer to this, so help me if you can.
Who runs the Hydro dam? What happens to that now? To truly do the environmentally responsible thing, shouldn’t we use the Hydro energy while the dam still has lots of life to make up for the investment put into it (both financially and environmentally)
Also, If another company with tonnes of money wanted to develop an alternative energy source around here, would they have a chance, or does Horizon have the monopoly if this goes through?
By: Chunks on August 16, 2010
at 9:05 pm
Are the NMEPC for the project on the Norwesters if the Wind Farm were to be located 1500-1600 metres away from residences and the ski hill such as the France and UK information quoted on the fact sheets?
By: Calvin on September 16, 2010
at 5:44 pm
[...] Mountain Escarpment Protection Committee website >>> Horizon Big Thunder Wind Park website >>> This entry was posted in Platform. Bookmark [...]
By: FOR IT- Horizon: Big Thunder Wind Park | RedRiverWard.com on October 8, 2010
at 6:43 pm
Im new to all this wind farm stuff, but are these generators are being built on top of that hill that only a short few years ago had no name….no one even knew what it was…..it was abandoned by even the ski jumpers…..is this the same hill that remained nameless and had no attention payed to it for 100 years…….yes it is…….isnt that called a bandwagon that everyone jumped on?
Save the trees….save the pencils and chairs……..how about we save this city..the wind farm is a great idea!!!..perhaps not in everyone’s eyes..but untill the ringleaders of the windfarm hate club come up with better ideas that are actually viable……how about cooling it a little….
I agree that maybee the location is not perfect..and the money is not perfect….heck…nothing is perfect….but everythign i read on here is nothign but pipe dream ideas….if there was one single solid concrete idea that coudl be put into action who would not listen…i mean really…..its a hate club now….and the whole thing is blown out of proportion. Goodness..you people would have the world believinng that with the single flash look at a wind turbine your retina will be welded shut and you will have brain damage and all of our future generations will be born with 3 eyes……its actually funny.
This city has shot down way to many ideas…..had way to many people controling thigns with self motivating ideas…….its time to move away from that…with new people, new ideas and new innovation…….we need more ideas like the wind farm.!!!
By: gem on February 1, 2011
at 1:43 am
I believe you have the wrong mountain. The one you mention is the old Big Thunder Ski Park. You are correct in saying it’s been abandon, but it’s not from the lack of local interest groups wanting to revitalize the area. The problem is, the Government of Ontario who owns the land and park area, has refused to allow any groups the opportunity to develop a number of projects put forth. Horizon originally wanted to place the turbines on these mountains, however for reasons unknown to most but a select few the government at the last minute cancelled the tentative agreement they had.
We are in no way a “HATE CLUB” as you put it, but rather a group of concerned citizens who feel they’ve been hoodwinked by both the developer, province of Ontario as well as the City of Thunder Bay. Obviously based on the current situation, ie: the Lawsuit filed by Horizon (do you really want to deal with a company that sues every city it’s currently dealing with?), the city’s realization that this in fact a bad deal for all those involved, this is not the “Good Deal” which was promised now is it?
For the record, we are not against wind farms (despite the presses eagerness to show otherwise) we are in fact very support of the idea, while the technology is flawed at best, we know that we need alternate sources of electricity. We are against this fiasco that the city has gotten us into and the matter in which it took place and still does to this date.
We thank you for your opinion on the matter and unlike the other sites, we fully respect yours.
By: Dan Fiorito on February 19, 2011
at 2:28 pm