And shame on you for not bothering to make reference to the gruesome maiming and deaths of our beautiful flying creatures, bats and birds.

See article by David Orton on the deep ecology concerns of turbines.

Problem solved.

Which, of course, explains why Denmark, Germany, and Spain have declared moratoria on further installations, the UK is in an uproar, and Norway has decided not to allow them in in the first place.

Has anyone considered that wildlife — deer, bear, foxes, even raccoons — who don't have to worry about mortgages and property lines simply leave? In West Virginia, for example, mountain woods that used to teem with deer are now completely deserted for about five miles in all directions from these installations.

As to offshore, the low-frequency noise of these things (and by the way, it should always be measured C-weighted, not A-weighted as the developers love to do), which travels dozens of miles underwater, is so stressing seals that many, many baby seals either born dead or abandoned are being found at a breeding ground off the English coast.

In a generation, when all of these monstrosities are decommissioned and removed, probably at enormous taxpayer expense, we need to leave several of them standing to hang the likes of Whittaker and his political cronies.

http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com

Other concerns should be investigated and where health issues are identified standards should be established to protect people while still allowing technology to be improved as issues are addressed. (ie. If infrasound is a concern then at what level?)

Wind energy has demonstrated its incredible potential throughout the world without creating the health problems that it is being accused of here in Ontario. If in Ontario we do have an issue that is causing health problems it is not intrinsic to wind power and can be addressed by working together to identify and mitigate it. Wind has nothing to fear from science and an honest assessment of health impacts but we will all be worse off if we cripple renewable energy through a rash decision to appease the most vocal opponents who only want to discourage wind energy in general and have not interest in solutions or good science.

Yes Ontario uses much less coal than Pennsylvania but I do not understand how you could consider this negative. There are no intelligent arguments for using coal if you have other options and Ontario is doing what it can to reduce its use. Ontario has successfully shut down coal plants and we will shut down the rest of them over the next few years.

The fact is that storage on a massive scale has always been a good and cost effective idea and plays a considerable role in both Ontario and Pennsylvania in the form of pumped storage. The challenge is that the market is not set up to value its contribution. Storage is built to take advantage of the volatility in the market (very high prices during peak hours and incredibly low (or even negative) at night) but as soon as it is built it smoothes out that volatility. This is a huge benefit to the utility and rate-payers but the market has no way to value it. Storage is an area where the market is the greatest hurdle not the technology but it is one that I believe we can overcome.

Finally “1/10th of 1%” of the needs of Ontario simply means they are at 10% capacity as there is only 1% wind generation so far. As has already been discussed the capacity factor is 25-35% so 10% simply means it is a low wind day and does not change the well established understanding of wind production. As wind capacity increases to 10-20% as is already in place throughout Europe this will be much more significant.

And just so you know this "green" does work in the energy industry and having built several run of river hydro electric facilities and having worked with innovative anaerobic digestion projects the power needed to run many more computers, lights etc. than my own is well understood. While coal, oil and gas have certainly played a major role that does not mean we should ignore their negative attributes and try to find better solutions like wind.

My neighbours daughters and myself joined the Scarborough Bluff's wind complex protesters, lead by Wind Concerns Ontario Pres. John LaForet, at the U of T S Campus Tuesday. A Liberal constituency "event" was being held at the Miller Lash House. Not only did Dalton’ s OPP security attempt to deny the constitutional right to protest on campus, Dalton drove in the BACK laneway to the dinner and Dalton DID NOT come forward to speak to the 35-40 protesters and media.
End of comment 5

ER-14 Dr. office- 19Specialist (ear,foot,heart) -7

Blood work -6Audiologist-5CT scans-2heart machines- 5

Doppler testing -1x ray- 1urine testing -1

Do the math. This is just 5 families so far. Who is going to pay for the health care costs due to health effects of wind projects?
_________________________________________________________
Sean Whitticker, who is nothing but a industry spokes person, can say whatever, but , without the results of the 3rd party epidemiological study requested by Dr. Robert McMurtry on April 22, 2009 at Queen’s Park to the same committee ,Sean is blowing smoke to protect his industry’s wallet while Ontario citizen continue to be put in harms way.
End of comment 4

•Who is accountable for the unseen health changes occurring within our bodies from basically living in a vibrating microwave? What protection is there for a developing two year old who cries endlessly and pulls at her ears when at home , but, not when away from the project. Who is accountable to the young family who are expecting their second child? What if there is deformity or a miscarriage results from the infrasound, low frequency sound and the electrical pollution.
End of comment3

End of comment 2.

WE are like the first population of smokers who went to their Doctors with health problems

This is the third official warning to the Liberal government of Ontario that there will be harm to citizens of all ages and gender due to wind projects.

Let’s be very clear on one serious point that each of the families have had the same two environmental changes in their lives since November 2007:

1) our hydro configuration has changed to now include the connection to unfiltered power from the turbines and its substation and

2) the blades of the industrial turbines began to rotated over, near and above the height of our homes.
End of comment 1

An no, I don't work in the energy industry, but I have often thought I would be quite proud to work in the energy business. I can't think of any field that has done more for our civilization, to raise our standard of living, than the coal, gas and oil industries. I am thankful for them everyday when I turn on my lights (and computer) and drive my car and heat my house. They create real energy. What, you greens don't drive, you chop wood to heat your house, you use the computer at the laptop to read moveon & grit?

Storage. Wind turbines are already an extremely inefficient and expensive way to create electricity. Any storage method viable for commercial use is likely to loose yet another 20-40% efficiency and just further skyrocket our electricity costs. Of course, that is the point of the green movement isn't it! To cripple our society. The Future is Bright refers to "our neglected grid". Yesterday Ontario used an eyeball average of 18,000 MW of power throughout the day, yet the contribution from wind was essentially ZERO. http://www.sygration.com/gendata/Generator%20Repo… just a little over 1/10th of 1%. Half the days this month your 400 wind turbines provided no useful energy.