“Groups fighting any industrialization of the Lakes … are requesting that federal funding for this expensive boondoggle, estimated to eventually run up to $125 million, or about $25 million for each turbine, be immediately truncated, and that a complete audit of existing monies granted be undertaken with fulsome reporting to taxpayers.”
“There is absolutely NOTHING ecologically friendly about an industrial wind turbine. It is designed for one thing: profits.”
The Icebreaker Windpower project, proposed by the Norway-based Fred. Olsen Renewables, would be the first proposed freshwater wind turbine project in the United States. The proposal, however, is running into serious opposition from ratepayer, taxpayer, and environmental groups.
As an offshore project (six turbines about seven miles off the shore of Cleveland Ohio), it should be compared to the $0.24/kWh cost debacle of Rhode Island’s Deepwater Wind project that is about to begin production.…
“We are hopeful that your deliberations will result in tough new European guidelines which in turn will prompt a serious worldwide examination of all aspects of this problem, including the widely-reported effects on animals.”
– Dr. Mauri Johansson, Dr. Sarah Laurie, et al. (below)
The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently modernizing its noise guidelines for industrial wind turbines, last revised in 1999. And new evidence is accumulating that the huge wind turbines, tasked with turning dilute energy into usable electricity, cause a variety of ills.
Mrs. Christine Metcalfe, UK spokesperson, and chief author of the communication/media release (below) to Marie-Eve Héroux of WHO, brings attention to the following negative health effects of industrial wind turbines: sleep disturbance, cognitive impairment, mental health and wellbeing, as well as cardiovascular disease, hearing impairment, tinnitus, and adverse birth outcomes.…
“This decision not only protects the Blanding’s turtle but also the staging area for millions of migrating birds and bats and the Monarch butterflies.” – Cheryl Anderson, PECFN
In an unprecedented decision, Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) ruled against the nine-turbine Ostrander Point project sited for a prime sensitive and environmentally rich area. Cheryl Anderson, the lead appellant on behalf of Prince Edward County’s Field Naturalists (PECFN), stated:
…The Tribunal in the Ostrander Point ERT hearing has found that “the remedies proposed by Ostrander [Gilead] and the Director are not appropriate in the unique circumstances of this case. The Tribunal finds that the appropriate remedy under s.145.2.1 (4) is to revoke (emphasis, Ms. Anderson) the Director’s decision to issue the REA [Renewable energy Approval]”.
The Tribunal decision says that no matter how important renewable energy is to our future it does not automatically override the public interest in protecting against other environmental harm such as the habitat of species at risk.