All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Thursday, February 9th, 2023

Energy’s not green but the money is

The Green Energy Act –Wind Turbines and Solar Cells

Is it green energy? Not really. Is it expensive energy? You bet.

The green energy act, no matter how well-meaning, is, at this point in time, technologically foolish and fiscally irresponsible. Wind turbines and solar cells are far too expensive for consumers due to the cost of the equipment combined with the intermittent nature of its power generation; and, in the case of solar cells, the inefficiencies of converting the output to usable electricity.

Both wind turbines and solar cells are machines – manufactured machines. They are made of silica, exotic metals, glass, aluminum, copper wire, plastics, steel, computer controls and generally set in concrete. All of these basic materials need to be mined, smelted, refined, transformed into usable materials, transported to the manufacturer, and finally transported again to the erection site. Like all machines, turbines and solar cells need to be maintained, repaired and, at some point in time, replaced. Solar cells last somewhere between 15 and 20 years, while wind turbines can last a little longer if they receive regular maintenance.

Recently, I’ve read much in the news about the erection of wind turbines in the County. Some people want them, and others don’t. I certainly wouldn’t want one next door to me for many reasons. What if there is a catastrophic failure of a huge wind turbine? (And they do happen in a very spectacular fashion.) What will it do to my property values? What will it do to your property values? If you’ve leased your property to a generation company, who is responsible for failures, clean ups, and removal of debris? What happens if the solar cell field has a catastrophic failure? (And they do happen.) What if the government quits using your money to subsidize these so called green energy projects? Who is responsible for the clean-up when it is defunct? Are there policies in place for end-of-life disposal to protect the environment from leaching of lead and cadmium?

People, companies, and manufacturers are making a tremendous amount of money off of this – right out of your pocket every month when you pay you power bill. We need to repeal this costly act and continue our research into all types of new energy sources. We need to develop energy sources that are truly the least harmful to the environment and economic.

The idea that these types of energy machines are green and economical is ludicrous. Wind turbines are not green, they are not cheap, they can be dangerous if improperly maintained or manufactured, and we shouldn’t need to subsidize them. Read your power bill.

André J. Douchane
Resident, Prince Edward County

Filed Under: Letters and Opinion

About the Author:

RSSComments (64)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Chris Keen says:

    Jim – you must start enjoying life too.It must have taken you hours to read all these posts!

  2. Jim says:

    To most of the people who are on this site: You will never notice the wind turbines as you never get off of the computer to look out your back window anyway. Start enjoying life

  3. Marnie says:

    Aha Mark! You read old Will too.

  4. Mark says:

    Let me ponder, MacDuff,the Thane of Fife a character in William Shakespeare’s play Macbeth.

  5. David Norman says:

    @ Loretta… thank you for your comment, although,I have had another fairly severe bout of chronic “logorrhea” of late, with some uncomfortable “contractions”. However, thanks to Marnie’s “conjugation” of my condition I am again feeling some relief. Like the symptoms of Wind Turbine Syndrome, this happens every time I sense bad vibes from those responsible for keeping these Industrial Wind Turbine blades spinning uselessly… round and round and round and round. And your statement “How typical of the ‘pro-windies’, if they can’t dispute your facts, so they attack you instead” is not that far off the mark in this respect.

  6. Marnie says:

    “We” means those of us who like our posts in plain English. If “thee” prefers to wade through a lot of pretentious prose in order to ferret out the pertinent points then wade on Mark McDuff. Surely the broad topic of this site is communication. Difficult to share in an exchange of ideas when one is forced to root about for said ideas like a pig in search of truffles.

  7. David Norman says:

    In the context of the last few comments, I recommend you read the comment by Paul A. @ http://www.countylive.ca/?p=29693… this is a comment worthy of your attention.

  8. David Norman says:

    @Marnie… “I am taking David’s ‘sound’ advice” !!!brilliant!!!

  9. Marnie says:

    Doris, we are sticking to topic. Many of David’s comments are valid. We are not insulting him. we are simply saying that he would make his points far more effectively if he used plain English. His over-the-top wordsmith duels with others who post serve only to obscure what he is trying to say. They also seem a little condescending and I don’t believe this is his intention. This site should not be about one-upmanship in use of the English language. Most of us know some big words but why try to cram all of them into a short post just becaue we can? I am taking David’s sound advice and will not be reading any of his future posts – not because I don’t agree with some of what has to say but rather because if I want to play word games I will go to the crossword in the daily paper or read the dictionary.

  10. Doris Lane says:

    OK guys stop the insults to each other. The article you are commenting under was well written by someone who concerns himself about what all this green energy is doing to the individual households. Can we afford all these expenses? Industry is moving out of Ontario because of the high costs they have to pay. Let us stick to the topic.
    Each individual has his own opinions on this matter and it is not for us to judge our neighbour.
    Judge not lest we be judged

  11. David Norman says:

    @ Loretta… by virtue, I am a Marxist (Groucho Marxist that is) and as such would not be a part of any group, pro or con, that would have me as a member… and Marnie, not to be totalitarian in the manner of The Green Energy Act, might I humbly suggest that you avoid reading my comments if they cause you such distress. I don’t think a “rhetorical noise and health study” is necessary to convince you of this prudent action in this respect.

  12. Marnie says:

    Who are you calling a “pro-windie” Loretta? I am in favour of green energy but very much against wind turbines. My comments on David’s rhetoric have nothing to do with being pro-wind. David is the “windy” one. He makes many valid points but why should it be necessary to keep a dictionary at hand to translate them? In point of fact, I know the definitions of the words he is using but I am weary of his convoluted sentence structures and five-dollar words. If he has something to say, I think he should just spit it out in plain English. It would lend greater credence to his comments.

  13. Loretta Salet says:

    @David Norman: I enjoy reading your posts, and yes sometimes I have difficulty following what you write, but that is why I own a few dictionaries.

    How typical of the “pro-windies”, if they can’t dispute your facts, so they attack you instead.

  14. David Norman says:

    @ Marnie… geese, if someone would pay me $5 a word for my rhetorical expression, it would make the “dizzying” effect you experience from my comments so overwhelming that Wind Turbine Syndrome would pale by comparison. Better still, in relation to Chris’ recent comments, perhaps someone might offer me some cash, say $190 million, to shut down the energy I expend on these comments. And unlike McGuinty and his political future in regards to this “green energy” folly, I wouldn’t let the door hit me on the a$$ on the way out!

  15. Chris Keen says:

    And … from the National Post:

    “There was never a legitimate reason for these power plants to be killed — the cancellations were entirely about protecting the Liberal party. The refusal of the Liberals to be upfront with the people of Ontario about the total costs of these decisions is likewise entirely political. Premier McGuinty’s desire to avoid the embarrassment of yet another massive price tag for a partisan decision is entirely understandable, but it is not acceptable. The money that was spent to cancel the Oakville power plant belongs to the people of Ontario. They at least have the right to know how much it cost.

    The entire affair is a sad example of the Liberals totally failed energy plans, which was always political grandstanding masquerading as reasonable public policy. And at least the province’s huge investments in inefficient green energy actually produce some power. The cancelled power plants cost hundreds of millions to produce nothing but more Liberal votes.”

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/13/matt-gurney-ontario-liberals-lucky-to-dodge-contempt-vote-for-now/

  16. Chris Keen says:

    “Mr. McGuinty has acknowledged that he made the decision to scrap the controversial Mississauga power plant, which helped save four Liberal seats in the provincial election. The government says taxpayers are on the hook $190-million for the cancellation, but opposition members believe there are other costs. The government has not disclosed the tab for abandoning a power plant in the affluent enclave of Oakville.”

    Perhaps we’ll find out how much this aspect of the “green energy” plan really cost??

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-liberals-face-being-found-in-contempt-of-parliament-over-cancelled-power-plants/article4541963/

  17. Marnie says:

    He spun the web alright. David is attempting to confuse his readers with rhetoric. Too bad he doesn’t remember the abcs of writing – accuracy, brevity and clarity. With all of those five-dollar words he pens millionaire’s prose. Too bad that no one can make head nor tail of it. If it is an attempt to be clever it falls flat.

  18. Mark says:

    This has been most intriguing to read and anticipate the responses. David so clearly and recognizably spun the web. The fly took the bait and can find no way out! Lol

  19. David Norman says:

    @ SAB … my bad! And @ Beth… the absurdity of this, for which I’m sure you have a cognitive barrier, is that your comment “My use of the term in reference to the vast majority of your posts is most accurate. Quit burying your points in needless rhetoric. Attempt to be clear and concise (should I look those words up too)? The only times I ever used the English language the way you do is in Reports I handed in College, and that was only to fill it out to the mandatory word count”, is replete with the rhetorical misgivings of which you have inappropriately attempted to admonished me!
    And speaking absurdly (it’s like speaking hypothetically with a twist, or like what McGuinty does excepting that unlike myself he gets us all to pay for this spoken privilege) it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Habitat for Humanity folk are eying these soon to be abandoned Industrial Wind Turbine installations as sources of housing for the millions of refugee Chinese who are sure to be invading Canada when the food and peak oil crises’ really causes the $h!t to hit the rare earth permanent magnet fan. Just imagine one of those giant container ships filled to the brim with little families of refugees all in their own little containers. Dozens of these containers could find a secure foundation on the expansive concrete foundations of the abandoned IWTs… and be piled up and secured to the tower. They might even be able to squeeze enough Kwh out of the turbines for them to charge up a few dozen marine batteries, and keep some lights on. It’s unlikely that you’ll hear any complaints from them regarding Wind Turbine Syndrome, at least for some time, as they’ll still be recovering from carbon, GHGs, sulfides, heavy metals and thorium radiation, that are the polluted hell that is China… made possible, sanctified, by the Kyoto and Marrakech protocols.

  20. SAB says:

    @Beth: Loved your response to David. I can’t tell you how many times I have tried to read his comments, and my eyes glaze over (mega). I can’t imagine listening to him explain a situation, his comments certainly appear to be knowledgeable, but again MEGA.

  21. David Norman says:

    @ Beth… further to our debate regarding deficits in your information literacy, did you know that the Feedjit live feed on CountyLive can provide some revealing information regarding interest in articles and comments on Industrial Wind Turbine issues. For example, here’s a curious factoid; each and every day an employee of the Independent Electrical Systems Operator (IESO), visits the Wind Watch section to examine specific, usually recently posted, articles. They often visit these articles two or three times daily and spend an average of 12 minutes logged on. Depending on the comment activity level, pseudonymous pro-wind comments then frequently occur within an hour or so afterwards. One could certainly surmise a correlation in these occurrences. But then again, perhaps I’m just suffering from Power Authority Syndrome… just sayin!

  22. Beth says:

    David since you asked:
    Verbose: adjective
    characterized by the use of many or too many words; wordy: a verbose report.

    Verbosity: (also called wordiness, prolixity and garrulousness) in language refers to speech or writing which is deemed to use an excess of words. Adjectival forms are verbose, wordy, prolix and garrulous.
    The opposite of verbosity is plain language (or plain English).

    My use of the term in reference to the vast majority of your posts is most accurate. Quit burying your points in needless rhetoric. Attempt to be clear and concise (should I look those words up too)? The only times I ever used the English language the way you do is in Reports I handed in in College, and that was only to fill it out to the mandatory word count.

    That’s all for now

    Thanks

    rhetoric; noun
    1.(in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
    2.the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
    3.the study of the effective use of language.
    4.the ability to use language effectively.
    5.the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.

  23. L. Griffin says:

    @ DavidNorman — You can save your breath discussing this issue with FridgeConcerns. He’s a shill for wind. Someone who makes money off the industry and goes on comment sections all over the place, using different screen names. Those of us who are used to his rhetoric have called him out many times and he usually goes scurrying for cover.

  24. David Norman says:

    @ Fridge Concerns… you state “What a ridiculous letter. You clearly have no clue about what you are talking about. Instead of making it up, why not look up actual numbers?
    According to the Ontario Energy Board – 45% of the increase in electricity prices is due to nuclear contracts, only 6% is due to renewable energy… Where is your anger for Nuclear power? It seems that your rants are misplaced.”
    What you conveniently fail to mention is that whilst nuclear is responsible for 45% of the Global Adjustment (GA), it provided 56.9% of electrical(base load) power generation in 2011. And, whilst wind was responsible for 6% of the GA, it generated only 2.6% (intermittent) . You are either being fraudulent in your assertion or are information illiterate.
    The following quote from this report sums this up;

    “In 2005, the GA was a net credit to Ontario customers of $1.2 billion. However, since 2006 it has been a charge to customers, rising to $5.3 billion in 2011. The GA is expected to increase in 2012 and beyond as a large number of wind and solar resources that have been awarded FIT contracts come online. These contracts pay a fixed price per MWh that has significantly exceeded the average HOEP in recent years.”

  25. David Norman says:

    @David L Normand… Rob, I got to thinking about your reference, “A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science” and realized that you may have inadvertently neglected to point out the significance of the carbon sequestration factors highlighted in these documents. While there is no dispute regarding the release of carbon from fossil fuels, these documents point out that, other confounding variables such as deforestation due to industrial development and agriculture have greatly exacerbated this problem. And, I neglected in my previous comment to point out my enjoyment of your phrasing “In 1960, painstaking measurements confirm the level of the CO2 is in fact rising in the atmosphere, year by year”. 1960, being at the height of the Cold War was indeed a time of painstaking measurements of the probability of our survival due to many factors.
    @ Beth, did you know that if we all adopted a vegan diet we could meet all of the targets as proposed by the Kyoto Protocols to 2050 for GHG emissions in one fell swoop. And yes I do know the meaning of the word verbosity… I suggest you google the meaning so that you do not misuse it again. Literacy is a function of comprehension. I purposely used a “contradiction in terms” in the succinct comment you refer to… see if you can find it!
    @ fed up… the pseudonymous use of David L Normand is an example of “pathological cleverness”.

  26. David Norman says:

    @David L. Normand… not disputing the assertions put forward in your post, but, you do not reveal how you perceive this information relates to the article. What assertion regarding Industrial Wind Turbine and solar energy are you implying from the information you presented?

  27. fed up says:

    “pathological cleverness” wtf is that?

  28. Beth says:

    David:

    Are you familiar with the term “Verbose”?

  29. Pete Johnson says:

    Phil says, “When storage capacity technology improves which isn’t that far off, the inefficiency gap will close…”

    Translation: Wind Turbines are inefficient.

  30. Fridge Concerns says:

    What a ridiculous letter. You clearly have no clue about what you are talking about. Instead of making it up, why not look up actual numbers?

    According to the Ontario Energy Board – 45% of the increase in electricity prices is due to nuclear contracts, only 6% is due to renewable energy… Where is your anger for Nuclear power? It seems that your rants are misplaced.

    Page 59….
    http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/OEB/_Documents/MSP/MSP_Report_20120427.pdf

  31. David L. Normand says:

    Not in dispute

    CO2 absorbs infrared light. Air is mostly blue (it absorbs non-blue light), but it is also complement-of-infrared, in the sense that the CO2 in the air absorbs infrared. You can confirm this with a cool tabletop experiment involving a candle and an infrared camera, cue the BBC.

    The Earth surface radiates 390 W/m2 of infrared, while the top of the atmosphere radiates 240 W/m2. The difference is the infrared energy absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2).

    You can tell which gas is absorbing the energy by looking at the colors carefully. Water vapor absorbs the most. CO2 absorbs around 30 W/m2. (ref)

    The industrial age has brought up the concentration of CO2 concentration by 30%, from 280 parts per million to 390 parts per million. We burned roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon in 150 years. That’s enough carbon to raise the atmosphere’s concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm, but 110 ppm have been absorbed by the ocean in the biosphere. (ref) We know the carbon is ours because, aside from there being exactly the right amount, its isotope signature exactly matches that of fossil carbon. (ref)

    ——————————————————————————–

    Data points with uncomfortably large error bars/Being researched further

    This 30% increase in CO2 (along with increases in other greenhouse gases) have increased the amount of energy captured by the atmosphere by 2.5 W/m2. Other chemicals we have released have generated a cooling effect of 0.9 W/m2. So the net extra amount of energy at the moment is 1.6±1.0 W/m2.

    Generally, more energy translates directly into warmer temperatures. But the climate has many positive feedbacks and many negative feedbacks, so the relationship is not that direct. If you add up all the known feedback (positive and negative) you get 0.75°C warmer temperatures for each W/m2 of additional energy (with rather large error bars (ref)). This number is called the climate sensitivity. Since the extra energy at the moment is 1.6±1.0 W/m, if we stopped all emissions today, we should expect 1.2°C of warming. We measure 0.7°C, so another 0.5°C is “in the pipe” even if we stop all emissions now.

    We have burnt 500 billion metric tons of carbon so far. How much is there left? If we burn all of it, how high will the CO2 concentration get? Credible numbers range from 450 ppm to 1300 ppm. If we are really unlucky, and there is a whole lot of carbon, and the climate sensitivity is super high, how hot does it get? MIT calculated 7°C of warming. (ref)

    What are the consequences of 7°C of warming? Warmer air holds more moisture (ref). At 7°C, the air sucks all the moisture out of the ground and nothing can grow. Food production collapses, and humanity dies. (ref)

    ——————————————————————————–

    Not settled/Being researched

    The ocean and the biosphere have absorbed 110 ppm so far. Can they absorb much more?


    Are there big negative feedbacks we haven’t discovered yet? This would be great news, and people are looking as hard as they can, but nothing so far. But we are allowed to hope.


    Are there any big positive feedbacks? These would make global warming even more catastrophic than the current predictions. There are many candidates at the moment which are being studied.


    Are there ways to take the carbon out of the atmosphere? Soil carbon sequestration looks promising (ref).


    Are there ways to increase the 0.9 W/m2 cooling effect caused by our pollutants (most of which are toxic) without poisoning people?


    Which one will come first, peak oil (causing a crisis in transport), peak coal (causing a crisis in energy), population collapse due to climate change, or the deployment of forward-looking practices in commerce, in government, and in our lives, that will give us a chance to avoid all three catastrophes?

    Based on the post The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps, by Gavin Schmidt, climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York (PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London), and contributor at realclimate.org

    ——————————————————————————–

    A Short History of Global Warming Science

    In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth’s atmosphere, we would raise the planet’s average temperature.


    In the 1930s, the United States and North Atlantic region warmed significantly versus the previous half-century; the amateur G.S. Callendar scientist suggests greenhouse warming might be on the way.


    In 1960, painstaking measurements confirm the level of the CO2 is in fact rising in the atmosphere, year by year.


    Through the ’60s we see the appearance of the first quantitative global warming forecast, suggesting that average temperatures would rise a few degrees within the next century.


    Also during the ’60s smog pollution balances out greenhouse pollution and for a moment the Earth temperature stops rising. Smog is toxic, and smog causing power plants are made illegal by the Clean Air Act in 1970. The smog dissipates, and the world’s temperature resume their rise.


    During the ’80s, readings of the planet’s long history reveal that the climate is a chaotic system. Once provoked, it cannot be trusted to return, or stabilize. Policy makers across the world take notice.


    At the UN in 1992, the work on the Kyoto Protocol begins.


    And on 11 December 1997, the Kyoto Protocol is signed, confirming the world’s commitment to prevent catastrophic climate change, somehow.

    Based on the (fantastic) web book A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science, by the American Institute of Physics

  32. Marnie says:

    Pretty much the entire post David. All those adjectives are dizzying.

  33. Machold says:

    Wow, believers in Green Energy to save the planet are like believers in global warming(aka, climate change). Both have hope in false ideologies. That’s more or less normal. Wind and solar will never usurp the place of fossil/nuclear: they are not up to the task, no matter how much the technology improves. Every power generation source has negative effects on environment, animal and human life and economic costs. Humans are high energy users, especially in the West. That ain’t gonna change, not until pigs fly and the Stone Age returns (with the Ice Age).

  34. David Norman says:

    @ Martin, you state that “The higher nuclear percentage is a reflection of the fact that other generators (hydro, gas, wind) are able to generate less when there is less demand and have contracts that make them reduce output, and the scheduled maintenance.” Are there contracts which require wind turbine energy providers to “reduce output”?

  35. David Norman says:

    @Marnie… which comment? The “Dick and Jane” comment or the one previous to that where I rhetorically, in a clandestine verbal manner, expose Phil as a wanker?

  36. Martin says:

    Gary, I think you may be reading too much into that 71% you saw last week. I checked the water level charts of the major hydro dams and water levels weren’t low. This is shoulder season, when demand is much lower. A lot of generators schedule maintenance around now since they’re not allowed to shut down for maintenance during summer. Nuclear, with its weird contracts and inflexible technology that makes it difficult to reduce output, produces full blast whether anyone needs it or not. The higher nuclear percentage is a reflection of the fact that other generators (hydro, gas, wind) are able to generate less when there is less demand and have contracts that make them reduce output, and the scheduled maintenance.

    When we refurbish and shut down the older nuclear plants in just a few years, this sector will become smaller are more flexible.

    Importing from Quebec, oddly enough, is not a real option. All its generation is spoken for in exclusive export contracts. We have interties, but it’s Quebec buying from our generating companies, not the other around, most of the time.

  37. Sue3 says:

    @ Phil “Not everything should be measured in dollars.”

    I completely agree with that statement.

    In all honesty, how many landowners have signed a turbine contract simply because they believed it would help the environment?

  38. Dayton Johnson says:

    To Tom,,I understand these 10 kw. installations are City owned and the City is paid .802 cents PER KW. The average production per install appears to be around 70 KW PER DAY. As an example the Transit building of Belleville as of October has made over $10000 for City coffers.. This is just one of the seven builds and not all are paid the same price PER KW.
    Subsidized yes if you consider we all pay towards it in our monthly bill but not unlike fuel production to power our transportation and gas fueled turbines.Granted it’s not 24 hr. reliable but could it not supplement our day use requirements. As far as I can see it makes the City a bit more independent of nuclear and gas fired hydro production.

  39. Richard says:

    Andre

    Interesting comments about an interesting issue

  40. Marnie says:

    English please David. A excess of adjectives and five-syllable words has strangled your last post.

  41. Tom Clark says:

    Dayrton Johnson – pursue the Solar Production Revenue ? where do you think this revenue originates. Sorry but I don’t want to be subsidizing the pipe dreams of the uninformed Mayor Ellis. These seven units will probably have a total average output of about seven kilowatts – If this output could be maintained ( which it can’t) then they may be able to supply two homes totally 24/7. That’s very expensive power and the general public is paying through the nose for it.

  42. Tom Clark says:

    Phil, Smog alerts ??? how many did we have this year ? I can remember one only a couple of weeks ago. But in any case
    80- 90% of any smog we get originates in the Ohio Valley.
    The air in Ontario’s cities is very clean and getting cleaner year by year – by far, most smog produced in these cities is from transportation not fossil fired power stations – get your facts right.

  43. David Norman says:

    For those of you who grew up in the “ancient” times of “Dick and Jane”, I provide the following link to a wonderfully creative video: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7933207/dick-jane-talk-wind-energy

  44. Dayrton Johnson says:

    I wondered if the County or Picton has ever planned to pursue the solar production revenue much like the City of Belleville. Mayor Ellis there announced this morning the city will be adding three more installations on city properties for a total of seven I believe.

  45. David Norman says:

    Phil’s puerile arrogant diatribe is symbolic of the failure of our educational system to foster critical thinking and information literacy. The incorrect use of terms like “oxymoron” illustrates his/her dysfunctional intellectual abilities in this respect. He/she either, repeats/apes these words without understanding the “contradictions in terms” and meanings or, is pathetically demonstrating an ill conceived and pathological egocentric cleverness. And when this “green renewable energy” misnomer inevitably implodes from the pressure of its contradiction of terms and reality, the toxic fallout will remain to haunt us for many years to come.

  46. Gary Mooney says:

    One day last week, our nuclear power stations were generating 71% of Ontario’s total electricity output. Normally, it’s about 55%, but hydro power was down to 15% because of low water levels and the wind wasn’t blowing, as is commom in summer.

    Like it or not, nuclear power is here to stay, and it will account for at least 50% of our power for the next 50 years. And for those who don’t like it, name calling won’t change anything.

    After nuclear and hydro, the government’s next choice is natural gas, which is better than coal but still generates CO2 and air pollution. Building and operating a gas plant is appealing to the govenment because it’s the quickest and least expensive solution (measured over the generator’s lifetime) for new power generation.

    There are much better solutions than gas plants. In the short- to medium-term, importing power from Quebec (over 95% generated by hydro) is a highly attractive and reasonably-priced option. Longer term, smaller scale nuclear shows a lot of promise — less expensive than large-scale and using technology that is inherently safer.

  47. pkuster says:

    @ Phil
    What’s the folly with nuclear? Did you know that nuclear is providing our baseline power (50%)? What would you replace it with a price/kw generated as low as nuclear? The debt retirement charge has been on our bills for years and was pegged at $8 billion. Do you know how much is left to go?
    When renewables are first in line for payment, where’s the incentive to develop storage technology? It’s much further away than you purport. If it was even remotely close to being viable, we’d have heard about it.
    Again, is it your position that we should totally wean ourselves off fossil fuels for all our energy needs? Germany seems to think that building 23 clean coal plants are a swell idea. We like to look to Europe to justify our renewable program here, I guess we’d better start building coal plants using their “clean” technology.
    Renewables actually benefit the few while lowering the standard of living for the majority. Perhaps you can help me out with the questions I pose to you.
    I’ll wait

  48. L. Griffin says:

    @ Phil — That explanation about a debt retirement charge is completely debunked in this article by Parker Gallant….http://quixoteslaststand.com/2012/09/07/parker-gallant-tears-apart-the-global-adjustment-figures-used-by-wind-proponents-2/

    That nonsense about it all being nuclear’s fault is based on a report put out by wind proponents and is skewed deliberately in their favour. (What else is new??)

    According to a report put out by Forbes, wind energy uses TEN times the material to produce one MW of power than any other energy source. That is hardly clean or green!
    Nor does it have a small footprint.

    Wind turbine installations gobble up valuable farmland, destroy ecosystems and harm the health of people who are forced to live next to them.

    “So be it”, if it drives up our energy bills? Obviously you are someone who does not come from a low or middle income household. Energy poverty is rampant in the countries that have dove into this debacle without appropriate forethought and research. Germany and the UK are just 2 European countries where hundreds of thousands of individuals can no longer afford power and have been cut off. Google the articles, they’re not hard to find. Energy poverty was unheard of a decade ago, but thanks to green scams like wind, it’s now a common phrase. One that is soon to hit residents of Ontario right between the eyes.

    You are right, everything humans do has a huge impact on our planet and massive industrial wind turbines are destroying our earth in more ways than you can count. But because it’s not politically correct to slam anything labelled “green”, mainstream media refuses to report on issues concerning wind energy from all over the world.
    Kudos to CountyLive for not being afraid to force people to become aware of these concerns.

  49. Phil says:

    Read your power bill and you find a debt retirement charge. We are still paying and will continue to pay for Ontarios nuclear folly.
    The most expensive way to generate electricity.
    The concept behind solar and wind generation is to augment our current supply. When storage capacity technology improves which isn’t that far off, the inefficiency gap will close and the antis will have less to gripe about. It seems a lot of people like to put the word green up on a pedestal and then others try to find any way to demean anything that is purported to be “green”.
    Green is just a label no different than organic.
    Everything humans do have a huge impact on our planet. We just need to be aware of this and have a conscience about what we do. Limit our footprint, not a new concept.
    The real truth is dinosaurs like you and a good chunk of the population need to put your archaic, short sighted energy ideas behind you.
    We need to get off the fossil fuel fuel nipple and we need to allow the grossly over expensive nuclear experiment to to end.
    Yes renewable energy is currently more expensive to produce.
    Yes energy prices will keep going up.
    Get over it grandpa !
    If a cleaner environment, one that is free of smog alerts drives up our electricity bills a bit so be it.
    There is more at stake than just a couple hundred dollars a year increase in our hydro bills.
    You probably believe the oxymoron “clean coal” too.
    We in North America have been spoiled for a long time by cheap energy prices. Do you not realize that our taxes have subsidized our electricity prices and our fossil fuel prices for years ?
    It’s just now coming back to bite us in the ass.
    It’s time to move boldly forward for the betterment of the majority of society instead of just the benefit of the few.

    Not everything should be measured in dollars.

OPP reports
lottery winners
FIRE
SCHOOL
Elizabeth Crombie Christine Henden
Tony Scott Sharon Armitage

HOME     LOCAL     MARKETPLACE     COMMUNITY     CONTACT US
© Copyright Prince Edward County News countylive.ca 2023 • All rights reserved.