From Our Readers
Editor's Note: Due to the huge response to our most recent articles relating to industrial wind turbines, all future letters regarding the turbine issue will now be posted in this location. We appreciate your feedback and we want to keep the discussion going.
This is perhaps a long letter. But because you asked for response to your own three lengthy articles, and you misrepresent the facts, I would hope you would give an equal opportunity for rebuttal. Typical of protesters, lots of complaints and objections, but no solutions or alternatives. You misrepresent the facts, and use emotive negative words, for instance "massive 50 storey turbines" and "500-foot industrial monsters." In reality the turbine towers are about 65 metres, and one slender vertical propeller blade projects another 40 metres maximum for a total of 105 meters (340 feet). Massive? A 50-storey building is about 140 meters high.
[Editor's Note: The German company proposing to build the Clearview turbines, WPD, states in its own materials that the hub height of the turbines is 100 metres (328 feet). Blade length will be 45.2 metres (148 feet), for a total height of 145.2 metres (476 feet). To confirm these numbers, please open this PDF. On The Bay stands by the descriptive words used and the 50-storey building height comparison.]
How would you propose we maintain a supply of clean energy, to our "beloved Southern Georgian Bay"? I assume you are not against clean energy, but against wind, as your title states, "Not Here, Not Now, Not Ever!" First of all, the least cost of all the solutions is conservation. Conservation has zero cost. Judging from reading your magazine, conservation is not high on your agenda. You print a large format glossy magazine on non-recycled paper, targeting the carriage trade in our area. Witness the "minimalist" home featured in the same issue of On The Bay plus many other homes featured and advertised in this and previous issues. Oh, the power they must consume! I assume this is acceptable to you as long as the power is generated at, say, Bruce Nuclear. But some of the transmission lines would have to go through our backyard. I could suggest that featured homes install small wind turbines, but that would spoil the view.
Let me hypothesize on some other alternatives you could propose. You could stop the phase-out of coal generation. I can't see you being that cruel to our environment. Coal-burning plants have had a disastrous record of health and safety, and a green coal plant is an oxymoron. In any event, Alberta has just brought on stream its newest coal plant, Keephills 3, which has a cost of $0.11/kWh. The estimate for an Ontario facility, which doesn't have its own ready source of coal, is $0.13/kWh.
How about new hydro development? Ontario has pretty well developed all its viable large hydro resources, including the new capability being brought on stream at Niagara. Major new development would require drastic redirection of some of our northern rivers. That would be out of your back yard, but into that of our First Nations. They aren't too happy with the environmental impact. Hydro so far away would mean high-voltage transmission lines, some of which might go through your back yard. The Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) rate for new hydro projects is $0.12-$0.13/kWh.
No coal, or hydro? What about nuclear? Eventually we will need to replace our aging nuclear plants to supply base load. But you think wind is expensive! Ontario has backed away from nuclear for the time being until technical and supplier issues can be settled. And we as yet haven't figured out what to do with that pesky spent fuel. It is difficult to find reliable estimates of the costs of new nuclear plants, but they are certain to be more than any other alternative. In the meantime we should delay the inevitable, and build renewables quickly.
That leaves gas fired plants, better than coal, but since Oakville and Mississauga didn't want one, I'm sure you would not want one here either. A new gas plant generates electricity at about $0,11/kWh, and still spews out CO2.
Ontario's antiquated/neglected electricity system is badly in need of significant renewal, with or without wind. The creaky system currently in place is the result of woeful neglect by Tory Governments. Electricity prices will go up no matter what we do, but renewable energy, wind included, provides long term fixed price power. The fuel is free! We must reduce the environmental impact of the electrical system. My point is, we have the option of gas, nuclear, or green energy in the form of wind, solar, biomass, and deep industrial geothermal. We will need all of these and they are all complimentary and part of the solution. I will discuss wind only because that is the focus of your article. All are viable and all will be used in Ontario, some sooner than later. They all will cost more than our current supply, and we must face facts, that electricity costs will increase. They all have their advantages and disadvantages in costs, efficiencies, availability and aesthetics. And because of this, some are better suited to local installation.
Wind is one of those solutions that is suited to local installation where wind is available. At $0.135/kWh, Ontario's FIT rate, it is less expensive or on a par with any of the alternatives. Wind is a proven technology and becoming more efficient. It is the fastest growing major source of new electricity in the world. It does not interfere with agricultural activity, nor consume any appreciable farmland. All scientific evidence indicates there are no proven health issues with wind technology. Some people living near wind turbines have health issues, but there is no proven causal link. Are they a blight on the countryside? In some cases yes, but in most areas no. Certainly the distributed turbines in Melanchton, I feel, are quite majestic, not massive as situated, and far more attractive than say a gas fired plant, or an oil refinery. Over the years, we have come to accept new technologies, telephone poles, radio towers and cell phone towers as part of the landscape. In the case of the latter, local authorities have essentially no say in where they are located. Because we live "on the bay", it is not legitimate to insist all industrial/commercial activities be confined to cities removed from our back yard.
The Green Energy Act is boon to Ontario manufacturing where jobs have taken a real hit with the recession. Ontario domestic content is required for all the green energy technologies, and billions of dollars have already been invested, resulting in thousands of Ontario jobs. There is no validity to the argument that all the profits from these investments will leave the province. If so, one could make the same argument for much of our industry including automotive, steel, nickel, and "big Pharma". Without any of these where would we be? It is a gross error to say that green energy jobs are unskilled. Planning, project management, manufacturing, construction, operation, and maintenance all required highly skilled personnel. Further, I have heard people demand end of life removal plans. This is completely naive and unrealistic. What office tower, bridge, or manufacturing plant has such a plan.
There are some shortcomings to the Green Energy Act which should be changed. Although municipalities are an important part of renewable energy approval process (REA), they could be more involved. Indeed, across Canada the most successful projects have included close community involvement, and indeed event partial or full community ownership. I also think the Samsung deal should be re-negotiated, not because it is a foreign company, but because it is unfair to other stakeholders in the industry.
Tyler Hamilton wrote an article recently in the Toronto Star making the point that we should give Green Energy Act a chance to evolve. Critics claim, "it hasn't delivered the jobs that were promises … The same critics complain that the program has jacked up electricity rates." How can that be? If the jobs aren't there, there can't be much green electricity, so how can the rates be up? Renewables are such a small part of supply, they could not possibly be the cause of rate hikes. It took Germany 20 years but they have 320,000 people working in the renewable energy sector.
One last point. In your article you raise the issue of subsidies. Many might say the Feed-in Tariffs are a subsidy because the rates are higher than current rates we pay. The electricity system is antiquated, and needs renewal. In most cases the rates for alternative energy sources are less expensive, or on a par with, any of the alternatives when building replacement facilities. The FIT rate for ground mount solar is $0.44/kWh, and On-Farm biogas at $0.19/kWh both considerably higher than most replacement costs. No question, these are subsidized rates to encourage alternative energy development, but rather than direct subsidies to any one company, they encourage widespread entrepreneurial activity in the sector. Note that all conventional energy technologies have been and still are heavily subsidized, oil and gas, nuclear, and even hydro going back to the beginnings of the Adam Beck Station at Niagara.
Bob Miller, P. Eng, MBA
I am pleased you are covering differing aspects of the wind turbine issue, or rather, INVASION. I am interested to read all the comments it has attracted. Unfortunately it seems that the people who get most angry about the comments, and who insult you (On The Bay Magazine) as taking sides (against the turbines) are the ones who are FOR the turbines, and obviously not affected by the serious and life-changing health issues. They totally disregard the complaints, just like politicians and the Ministry of the Environment have.
We live in rural Melancthon. Not only do we have the threat of the mega limestone quarry (it must be noted that is IS Mirabel Limestone and not just 'gravel') but also now, yet another proposed wind turbine project. If this goes ahead, which seems very likely, we will be dwarfed by 12 – yes 'twelve' – 136.5-metre (447.8-foot) high turbines around our one acre of land. These monsters have already affected our health physically and emotionally – and they haven't even arrived yet. Disrupted sleep, stress of what will be, as well as the 'quiet resentment' aimed at us by the local farmers, our neighbours, who originally signed up for the turbines – supposedly because they did not want to sell out to the Highland Groups of Companies who are behind the quarry. Dare I say we are "between a rock and a hard place?"
It has been said many times before, and I will say it again: It is NOT about NIMBY'ism. It is about quality of life. Our lives! If these people took the time to research the effects of turbines on people's health – one person's health being affected is one too many – then maybe they would be able to make much more educated statements, instead of telling us to 'get over it, the world needs turbines.'
Just as a matter of fact, and to give an idea of how invasive and lawless these monsters are: If we wanted to erect a building on our property we would have to apply for permits and adhere to strict guidelines regarding size, placement etc. Not so the turbines, or our neighbours who have agreed to them – they will be placed all around us, north, south, east and west. We will suffer, like your other reader from Dundalk, from flickers, noise, strobes – the list goes on!
We had NO SAY whatsoever in the matter, partly because we simply DID NOT KNOW of them. It was all signed, sealed and almost delivered by the time we heard of it.
So, I say to all who call us NIMBYs: Think about what you are saying. Have some respect for those of us who do, or may, have to live with the turbines. It is not that we like to sit out in our rural back yards gazing at the scenery – we also have to live and make a living as best we can, hopefully with the pleasure of 'quiet enjoyment.' But it seems like that will be taken away from us!
Wake up everybody! It is GreeD Power not GreeN Power!
Lynne Seston, Melancthon
The erection of turbines near homes is undeniably obnoxious. They also have a relatively short shelf life.
But as the enclosed article from Discover Magazine makes clear, life supported by oil/gas is finite. Nor can the planet survive on its present path.
We are at the beginning of a new world and we need to embrace new development.
I see more and more solar panels. My brother installed a geothermal system at great cost, but it is remarkable.
Wind power is probably a bandage solution but the Liberal method of nonconsultation is wrong.
Whatever comes, lets hope jobs/manufacturing will stay in Canada.
Gloria Thompson, Wasaga Beach
'Advocacy journalism' is an oxymoron, as is well-illustrated by On the
Bay's recent coverage of the wind turbine controversy. Eight pages,
which included photographs, some of which reflected anti-Liberal
sentiments, were devoted to the anti-turbine cause. A ninth carried
publisher Jeff Shearer's comments favouring the antis. In the summary of
party positions, the Liberals and NDP got a sentence each and the Greens
two paragraphs, with the Conservatives getting one paragraph. In the
main story, Tory leader Tom Hudak got five paragraphs as well as
appearing in two photos.
Editor Janet Lees says she has been a journalist for 23 years; one
wonders, despite her grudging admission that publishing the photo of
herself with publisher Jeff Shearer and Hudak was 'ill-advised' – never
mind the one of her with Hudak alone – how she ever came to so
generously favour editorially only one of the candidates running in the
upcoming Ontario election. Was no effort made to interview the others?
If such unfair, unbalanced, one-sided coverage demonstrates what
'advocacy journalism' is all about, perhaps a better term would be
propaganda. It certainly recalls the aphorism that the sins of the press
are those of omission rather than commission.
Lee Lester
Thank you, On The Bay, for pointing a finger at industrial wind turbines. It was encouraging to see articles aiming for the heart and truth of the issue without clouding things with more wind industry promotion. It made good sense to feature Mr. Hudak in this issue since he was the only leader to promise a moratorium on more turbines until there is a proper and independent study to make sure rural families are protected. The election results tell you that most people in rural Ontario are concerned about health problems, viability and cost of wind energy and the destruction it brings to communities before, during and after its installation.
I hope some of you who wrote to talk about "two sides" of the wind issue took time to read Brent Green's letter published in the same issue as yours was. This is the reality of wind turbines for many families living next to them. For them, there is no such thing as 'two sides.' For them it is only that they are getting sick and can't sleep. They don't want this to happen to anyone else. These people aren't saying don't put turbines up. They are saying, go ahead, but use setbacks that ensure rural familes are safe. They are often criticized and revictimized for their honesty.
Mr. MacDougall of Ravenna talks about global warming, oil, nuclear, etc. and suggests that turbines are better for us. There are no turbines in Ravenna for him to make comparisons. Mr. MacDougall, you say you are willing to pay a premium for alternative energy. Would that premium include your health and your home?
Mr. Lester, David Suzuki does not live next to turbines. It's not likely you do either. Ms. Mann, who probably doesn't live next to a wind turbine, throws all the old, tired clichés around such as NIMBY, if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem, etc. and even suggests that the idea of a health study is a diversion to avoid making a decision to put turbines up. Dr. Robert McMurtry, recent recipient of the Order of Canada, asked the McGuinty government to look into the severe health problems being reported after the startup of turbines and to do a proper study in April of 2009. That study could have been done long ago and we could have established safe setbacks using proper science instead of using engineers doing computer modeling and literature reviews.
Mr. Griffith doesn't live next to a turbine either and says I should give him alternative energy options. I would like to suggest that an energy option that actually works would be a good start. I do not rant, Mr. Griffith. I simply listen to what people who are living next to wind factories are saying and I tell others what is happening to them.
Listen to what the people forced to live next to these things are trying to tell you before it's your turn to find out what it's like, up close and personal. What expertise do you boast to dismiss them, the human beings who are actually experiencing what it is like to live next to a turbine?
Lorrie Gillis, Flesherton
Summer 2011
Not Here, Not Now, Not Ever
That’s the message local citizens are sending to wind developers and the Ontario Liberals, as grassroots groups gear up to make wind turbines the hot-button election issue for rural voters.
As McGuinty ignores community protests, Hudak promises a moratorium on new wind projects, and long-time Liberals are vowing to vote Conservative to save their communities, their health and their property values.
by Janet Lees
Read the transcripts from the interview with Tim Hudak
Read the transcripts from the interview with John Laforet
Read the Wind Story in the Summer 2011 Issue
Read the Wind Story in the Summer 2010 Issue
Read the Wind Story in the Summer 2009 Issue
|
 |
|
