Ontario’s Salvation: Locals Ecstatic Over Decision to Cancel 750 Wind Power Contracts

The decision to cancel 750 government contracts with wind power developers in Ontario has left rent seekers furious, and wondering where their next meal might come from?

Doug Ford’s eminently sensible decision will avoid thousands more of these things being speared across Ontario’s rural heartland, much to the delight of Ontario’s farmers. Not to mention saving power consumers hundreds of millions of dollars, over the long haul.

Squaring up with the developers may cost Ontarians dearly, but as Randall Denley details below, it’s a price well worth paying.

Randall Denley: Why it makes sense to cancel wind and solar contracts in over-powered Ontario
National Post
Randall Denley
5 December 2019

The cost and source of Ontario’s electrical power has been a hot topic for years, but happily for the PC government, it had dropped from the headlines. That is, until Energy Minister Greg Rickford was forced to defend the cost of cancelling 750 wind and solar contracts.

It ought to have been easy, because not going ahead with the extra generating capacity is the most rational thing the PCs have done on the electricity file. Ontario already generates more power than it needs and it sells the surplus at a loss. A 2017 study by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers estimated that exporting power at big discounts cost Ontario up to $1.25 billion over two years. Adding more wind and solar would make that problem worse while doing nothing to make Ontario’s already-green power generation system greener still.

In Ontario, 86 per cent of power comes from emissions-free hydro and nuclear power. Wind provides seven per cent of the province’s electricity, with solar and biofuel contributing less than one per cent. Gas plants produce six per cent of power and act primarily as a backup for wind and solar, when it’s not sunny or windy.

That’s the power production, but a look at the capacity of the system should lower enthusiasm for more wind and solar. Wind makes up 12 per cent of the province’s generating capacity, nearly double its contribution to power produced. The most interesting number is natural gas, which could supply 27 per cent of the province’s power. This sector was massively overbuilt by the former Liberal government and at great cost. Less than 25 per cent of the province’s gas generation capacity is used.

If the goal is to cancel contracts as cheaply as possible, it’s probably not wise to announce that you have a bag of money to dispense

Ontario could introduce more wind and solar, but it would do nothing for emissions because that power would be replacing either hydro or nuclear. Besides, more wind in the province’s baseline power supply would mean more natural gas needed for back up, too. In environmental terms, the PC government was inarguably right when it decided to cancel unneeded wind and solar projects.

Thanks to some digging by the NDP, we now know the estimated cost of killing the power deals is $231 million. That figure created a furor on the opposition side of the legislature, but the math is pretty simple. The unneeded power would have cost ratepayers $790 million. Not buying it produces a net saving of $559 million. It would have been foolish to pass up that opportunity.

It’s fair to say the government played down the cost of the cancellations and did its best to keep the figure secret. If the goal is to cancel contracts as cheaply as possible, it’s probably not wise to announce that you have a bag of money to dispense.

It’s a pity the $231 million will have to be spent, but it would not have been necessary had the previous government not signed a raft of wind and solar deals simply for green optics.

Lacking support from either logic or arithmetic, the opposition parties saw their opportunity to grab headlines when Rickford made reference in the legislature to Germany, another jurisdiction with enormous enthusiasm for wind power. As Rickford noted, wind power in Germany has been heavily subsidized, but is now facing increased public resistance. The blowback has stalled Germany’s emissions reduction plan.
National Post

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. Curt Widlund says:

    The wind turbine generate 120-130 dB SPL (Sound Pressure Level) effecting pregnant females and their growing child.

  2. Richard Mann says:

    It is well past time to turn off Turbines due to known and documented health harm. Please ask anyone who denies health harm of Industrial Wind Turbines to watch this presentation. University of Waterloo, Waterloo Ontario Canada.

    Title: “Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise: Physics & Cells, History & Health”
    Speaker: Dr Mariana Alves-Pereira
    Location: University of Waterloo
    Date: September 12, 2019

    Video archive of presentation:

    Dr. Alves-Pereira’s research profile is at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mariana_Alves-pereira

    Note; there is approx 2 mins of dead air at the beginning. The talk is ~50 minutes, followed by a long Q&A

  3. Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

  4. The cancelling of any further contracts leaves the residents being harmed by projects in Ontario, that are currently operating, anticipating the next logical step to undo the mess made by the previous government.

    Considering that there were no studies done to prove that residents whose homes would be surrounded by arrays of turbines would be safe on their properties and in their homes from acoustic trespassing of emissions of audible and inaudible noise, this incursion must be considered an experiment. The logical and legal conclusion is that residents who have been and are being harmed have had their rights violated. The Nuremberg Code was established to protect them.

    The first statement of the Nuremberg Code addresses the key issue that must be considered in order to end the ethical crisis we’re facing in Ontario regarding harm to health from industrial wind turbines as a result of this experiment.

    #1The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

    Residents did not consent to being harmed.

    Residents were not told about the risks of being exposed to audible and inaudible(LFN modulations and infrasound radiation) noise which would be emitted by industrial wind turbines in such close proximity.

    When residents reported harm, the MoECC’s responses were inadequate to protect them and prevent further harm.
    Residents consistently reported that the wind industry’s compliance standards for audible noise were obviously wrong because they were repeatedly experiencing the annoyance response.

    Finally, after four years of enduring the harm and reporting the harm, more than half of Ontario’s largest wind turbine project was derated because the tonal noise was finally properly tested and the results showed non-compliance.
    Despite the derating, the tonal noise continues along with the swooshing and whomping noise which is still ruining the environment of residents.

    After repeatedly asking the Federal Minister of Health to enforce the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, absolutely nothing has ever been done to protect and prevent harm from LFN modulations and infrasound radiation.
    Residents have gone to their medical doctors, reporting the symptoms of this harm and instead of doctors interceding on their behalf and going to the government to ask that the turbines be turned off, in fear of the ramifications for doing that, they have prescribed pharmaceutical medications to prevent the symptoms from recurring!

    The relationship of trust between doctors and patients has been lost.

    Also within the Nuremberg Code, in statement #7 it says that this code was established to protect the experimental subject against even the remote possibility of injury, disability or death.

    This does not say that there has to be medical or scientific certainty in order to inform that there is a risk. So why is it that this government insists on having medical or scientific evidence of harm, after the harm has been done in this experiment?

    Residents were not told about the risk of harm of having clusters of turbines surrounding their homes. This is the violation. These residents were told there would be no harmful acoustic emissions and yet as soon as the turbines were turned on, there were noticeable changes in health and residents started reporting them because they truly believed they would be protected. No residents consented to being harmed.
    Who in their right mind would ever consent to being harmed?

    The profundity of this violation must be seen in light of this statement from the New England Journal of Medicine, written by Evelyn Shuster, PhD, Nov. 1997-

    Informed consent, the core of the Nuremberg Code, has rightly been viewed as the protection of subjects’ rights. The key contribution of Nurembergers was to merge Hippocratic ethics and the protection of human rights into a single code.

  5. Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: