Is destruction worth it for turbines that could be built elsewhere?
Administrator | Jul 28, 2011 | Comments 77
Gilead Power Corporation is inviting PE County residents to send letters of support for their wind project at Ostrander Point to MPP Leona Dombrowsky. Their letter and “10 reasons to support the project” say that Ostrander Point is a favourable site for their development because it “is in a relatively isolated part” of the County.
This isolation from human use has created its value as wildlife habitat. Birds that have evolved to migrate between Canada’s north and South America have depended on our South Shore for millennia. If it is industrialized, as so much of North America has been, many will fail in their passage around Lake Ontario. As Environment Canada has said “This is one of the most important landfall sites in Ontario.”
Gilead claims that the project has been “designed to be sensitive to the wildlife of the area”.
But they have applied for permits to kill, harm and destroy the habitat of 2 endangered species: Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will. Gilead’s “most aggressive mitigation measures in North America to protect local and migrating species” consist of:
- Blanding’s Turtle – buying part of its significant wetland while destroying part;
- Whip-poor-will – hiring a graduate student to study its declining use of the habitat;
- Counting mortality numbers of migrating birds and bats for 3 years.
If the Province gives permission to build this industrial project, the following spring the turtles and other amphibians will emerge from hibernation to find most of their habitat destroyed and the migrating species will find their expected feeding grounds gone.
Gilead also promises economic benefits. They promise to pay municipal taxes of $40,000 annually over 25 years or $20,000 annually over 50 years, depending on how the “life of the power purchase agreement” is interpreted. Will these funds cover the increased road maintenance required? Even during the few months of construction they offer only “up to 50%”of the work and business to “local or neighbouring communities”.
Trucking of the components will be done by the manufacturer, GE. The operation of the project will be done remotely by a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) system. County people may receive few benefits but higher costs from this project.
Is this destruction worth it for 9 turbines that could easily be built elsewhere?
Myrna Wood, Picton
Filed Under: Letters and Opinion
Hi Donn
Many thanks for noticing my images, I’m glad they left an impression.
I created – well over a year ago – a couple of photos that include wind turbines, some of which have been used to illustrate wind turbines in County locations as an artist impression. All but one that I have created were from a ground perspective.
I’ve also created images of renewable energy projects for renewable energy business’s and when I spoke about wind turbines I used to include images where I made them look as good as possible too – without making the grass and sky look fake or adding children etc.
Using an aerial perspective actually reduces the impact of the Turbines – i.e. makes them look better by avoiding that tilting back and domineering element ground based images have. If you think they still look bad in a photo taken from 70′ then its several times better than from 6′
How we experience a visual field and how we see a photo of the same visual field are very different. It would take pages of text to explain fully here, but to illustrate viewing a wide angle picture of a big crowd celebrating at a sports event does not impart the same feeling of excitement experienced in the crowd to a the viewer of the picture who was not there.
Wind companies create images of turbines from a number of km away where the visual arc angle of a turbine is small, reduced further because the image is flat (not 3D) and not a 1:1 reproduction of the visual field. They also employ a lot of tricks such as including large power poles, barns or trees in the foreground to distract the view and trick the brains perception of scale and distance. Static elements in a photo also behave very differently to dynamic elements in real life.
When wind turbine companies use images in their marketing, online or in print they often use a trick called visual priming where by they show a sequence of images commencing with positive things like children playing, beach type windmills, families smiling, sunny skies, happy cows grazing super green grass before a very stylized image of a turbine.
In all my photos of most things, I use a combination of several factors to impart more experience into the final image, but without degrading the integrity of the original image !!!
Thanks, Steven Draper
Personally, I pay most attention to the opinions of people who post their full name, and least attention to people who use first name only and change it from time to time.
Donna – Since you are obviously a big fan of these windmills, hopefully some of them will be located in your back yard, so you can enjoy them at close range. There is nothing “elegant” about them. They are a blot on the landscape.
The real answer to the question, Maria, is that turbines can be seen for many kilometers away.
We traveled through Kincardine and Port Elgin this summer. That area is filled with turbines. The turbines are visible so far away that we wondered if we were ever going to get to the bases of them. They were as industrial looking as the metal hydro towers. After being on Wolfe Island and hearing the jet engine sound of those turbines, I didn’t want to stop the car to hear the sound of so many turbines in a row up on Huron.
There wasn’t a bird in sight!!!!!!! The sky was empty. It was an eerie feeling.
There were so many for sale signs on houses and vacant lots around the turbines that I lost count.Not one sold sign. That speaks volumes, doesn’t it?
IWT are not going to save this world of consumerism we have created. They will only give the impression of keeping business as usual going for a while longer. I think that is the agenda of those who are pro IWT. Life as we know it is pretty good for a lot of people. Who wants to go back to a life of being responsible for the water you use, the food you eat, the shelter you need to survive? Much easier to stick a turbine up and feel better about our consumer lifestyle. Yes, that was said with sarcasm.
The answer, IMO, is to have each house/building produce its own energy with solar and SMALL windmills. When your energy is used up, you wait until nature makes more.
To all those who are so in favour of IWT, why don’t you move to the Kincardine and Port Elgin areas? I’m sure those who have their houses for sale will be extremely greatful to be able to move away from the turbines.
Gary, you’ve been reading too many old articles! That regular, low frequency vibration is caused by down-wind turbines. In Canada only up-wind turbines are built. Down-wind turbines had the blades on the opposite side of the pole from the wind thus every time the blade passed the pole it was in a wind shadow and would vibrate. They corrected this problem! Up-wind turbines are never in a wind shadow and so never face that periodic vibration. Wrong information again disseminated by the anti-winds!
It’s just not true that the windmills would never be out of sight except when you’re indoors! You obviously haven’t visited many wind farms, Gary! It’s a simple matter of geometry and arithmetic. Hills, trees, bushes, buildings, and whatever else is in our immediate living space, effectively block our view of faraway objects. In the summertime I can’t even see the red-lit Rogers cell phone tower that was built a few years ago behind my house…as high as a turbine and erected with no warning, and with guide-wires that kill birds, I might add!
Any time I’ve driven past wind turbine installations, they can only be seen from certain spots and then only for short periods because of all the structures in close range. It’s also true that they ‘disappear’ as they become part of our daily scene; think of all the ugly telephone poles and wires everywhere, cell phone towers, transmission towers, billboards, signs, buildings…our world is littered and cluttered with ugly stuff. At least turbines are elegantly designed and clean-looking.
People should be aware that many of the photos that are used by local anti-wind organizations were taken from a computer-controlled camera atop a 70 foot pole. It’s amazing how much more you can see when you’re 70 feet up in the air!! Another little ‘slick trick’ from the anti-winds.
So Maria, there’s the real answer to your question.
Maria, on perfectly flat ground or across water, a 120-metre turbine is visible up to 39 km. If the County was flat, a turbine installed near Bloomfield would be visible everywhere in the County (but very tiny at the farthest distances).
If Gilead (9 turbines) and WPD (30 turbines) projects are built, someone living on Royal Road will be able to see and hear more than 20 turbines, many of them within a couple of kilometres.
There will be 4 WPD turbines just west of Milford’s main street and 2 turbines just east.
In fact, WPD’s turbines will be spread over 75% of the total area of South Marysburgh. They’ll never be out of sight except when you’re inside.
But the #1 problem is not seeing turbines, it is hearing them. It’s impossible for some people to get used to a noise that varies all the time, as will be the case with multiple turbines in the vicinity.
And to make matters worse, the low frequency components of turbine noise travel long distances and through walls, so there is no relief from being indoors with the windows closed.
This noise is analogous to the “boom ba da boom ba da..” low frequencey noise from your neighbour’s stereo when they’re having a big party, or from the souped-up vehicle passing by on the street.
While most people would get used in time to the sight of multiple turbines surrrounding their homes, plus the flashing lights and the shadow flicker, many won’t be able to adjust to the noise.
Donna, in response to your theory about the Gilead project being good for those species, why is it then that Gilead had to apply for a permit to kill, harm and destroy the habitat of 2 Species at Risk?
Those who think that industrial turbines are essential for our actions on climate change should work on defining the best places to site them without destroying scarce wildlife habitat.
My comment earlier went unanswered…Does anyone actually know from where the windmills at Ostrander will be seen? From Milford? Cherry Valley? Picton?
Back to Myrna’s letter: in reality, wind turbines at Ostrander Point may benefit both these species. Blanding’s Turtles like to use gravel for laying their eggs thus the access roads would be a positive addition for them. Whippoorwills need large clearings so turbine construction would deal with the current succession scrub that is destroying their habitat.
Neither species are endangered here. Unchecked climate change though because of pervasive NIMBYism will destroy many more species than a few wind turbines ever could.
Anti-wind people need to wake up and smell the CO2.
Look, we all want a better future for the next generation.
It’s not the idea of alterante energy that i am opposed to.
And I hope you all follow wind generation until the election.
Why is the only focus is on selling us power using our money?
Here is the information on historical air quality in the province.
http://www.airqualityontario.com/reports/aqisearch.php
No matter what you hear from this government , this is what this is all about when you get past all the spin.
And I think it is simply wrong when there are ways to aid us all in taking part in using less power.
This is a statement made by Dwight Duncan,
“It would be irresponsible for the province and tax-payers to continue to subsidize electricity consumption, because it jeopardizes our ability to invest in health care and education. This is simply not sustainable, nor is it acceptable. The people of this province deserve better.”
Dwight Duncan (Ontario Hansard Volume B, November 26, 2003)
You are intelligent people.
Lets make our tax dollars work for our benefit , with far better environmental results.
My choice would be B
It’s obvious wind generation Ontario has Not been pulling it’s load (sort of speak) over the last few days. I’m interested to see what the monthly stats will be. Perhaps these numbers will open some minds.
To John i wasn’t proposing 100 acre solar farms but instead encourage private landowners to invest in their own scrub land space with smaller solar builds.Make it financially attractive with grants or incentives and use local companies/installers and Ontario built components.Right now at 64 cents a KW I would sooner put my investment in gold stocks.
Perhaps a poll could be asked
With 28 Billion dollars at stake which is being used to provide a means for Industry to sell you power
How would you want your tax dollars spent?
A. To subdize Alternate Energy developers to sell you power
B. To provide grants , subsidies , zero interest loans to aid us in adopting either solar or energy savings geothermal for heating and cooling?
The Ontario Power Authority OPA , has a plan , Integrated Power System Plan 2011 a blueprint for our province’s electricity system that. This report states that we have 36,000 Mega-Watts (MW) of installed capacity now and we have 4,000MW of Inter State and Provincial transfers for a tidy 40,000.
They expect we could save about 7,000MW due to conservation and we may already be slightly ahead of their prediction.
How many IWTs would have to be installed to constantly produce 7,000 MW?
And why are we not talking about having this money spent on taxpayers?
Total demand: 13953 MW (7:00 a.m. EDT – Aug. 12, 2011) Total generation: 15382 MW (Aug. 12 – 5:00-6:00)
Excess generation: 1429 MW
WIND: 121 MW
Sorry for the double posting
Dayton, I see a lot of activity now by solar developers looking for non treed, marginal land sites but many of the wind options are aging and/or abandoned, largely because of the DND issues which surfaced when the Bryon Wind Farm was on the table.
As for solar, it takes a property of about 100 acres for a 10 MW nameplate project of solar which would produce about equal to 5 or 6MW nameplate of wind. The grid needs favour some of each as the production pattern is different and has a complementary effect. Large scale solar uses all of the land except the setbacks while wind towers plus access roads have a footprint of about 2% of the land.
The Gilead site would not be suitable for solar because of the impact it would have on vegetation and habitat. I see the suitability for wind needing an scientific decision and like it or not, we will all live with that.
John Thompson seems to have some inside information on the placement of IWTs based on DND decisions or is it just false hope to calm the situation? Sort of lull people into thinking “don’t worry,,be happy” John I requested you before to divulge your sources and you dodged it by saying DND does not publicize this information…so why should the readers believe your statements? If these facts are so “well known” then why are there so many Wind turbine companies showing interest and signing leases here? You mention wind and solar(of course!) quite often together so perhaps Solar would be the better option for these controversial sites.You could do the math and report here how much production could be delivered to the grid daily from a site like Gilead using Solar instead of wind.Instead of argueing and disputing peoples opinions lets start looking at other alternatives that perhaps better fit.
The issue isn’t going towards alternate energy.
Billions of our tax dollars are going towards entrenching business to sell us power. It doesn’t matter how it is produced.
Yet little discussion of why these Billions aren’t going towards helping us all adopt alternate energy that reduces our need to buy power.
The dollars are being spent….
It’s how we get there that should be the key discussion.
In my opinion.
The authorities always plan to run enough fuel burners to produces some excess power as a safety valve for the grid and we should be thankfull that less is required because of the wind.
It should be well known that most of the County is not eligible for wind development because of DND issues but we can make a small contribution to a sustainable energy supply with wind and solar projects. Non renewables do not have a long term future.
Maria .
This area is only the beginning. They start off small , the begin expanding.
In our area alone there is over 4000 acres optioned.
These are planned all over Ontario , Maniloulin , the near north , evrywhere.
We now only 1200…In order to meet the 13% target we would need at the very least , 10,000 IWTs or even more…Plus gas or coal generating plants.
Total demand: 12625 MW (5:00 a.m. EDT – Aug. 11, 2011) Total generation: 14772 MW (Aug. 11 – 4:00-5:00)
Excess generation: 2147 MW
WIND: 453 MW: 3.6% of demand, 3.1% of generation
Does anyone know if there is any information available online as to how far we will be able to view these monstrocities if they are erected on the south shore? Will they be visible from Black Creek? From Milford? From Picton? From Cherry Valley? From the bridge at Deseronto?
just wondering. thanks
Total demand: 18404 MW (11:00 a.m. EDT – Aug. 10, 2011) Total generation: 17944 MW (Aug. 10 – 9:00-10:00) Generation shortfall: 460 MW
WIND: 626 MW: 3.4% of demand, 3.5% of generation,
It is a very good day for wind , ….Total demand a Total Generation tell the whole story..
If people knew the hundreds of millions that have changed hands with energy companies buying leases without a shovel in the ground , some flipped 3-5 times …you would be very unhappy.
Some companies that started out with a investment of under $200,000 have been sold for 135 million
IESO
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteshared/windtracker.asp
Ernest,,,those daily wind turbine production numbers are interesting…any chance you could post those daily? Should be a daily report on this website.
If the Prov.offered the same KW price to a privately owned wind turbine producer as they pay the Solar producer would we see more (smaller) turbines spring up on private land?
I put a question to a Rep.from White Pines recently as to why all landowners are not offered the same price for planting a turbine on their property? Is this fair? Answer was the price is”negotiated” between Company and landowner so politely telling me it’s none of my business.
Beth… good question.
Smog in Ontario is usually the result of the migration of pollutants from the United States combining with unfavourable weather patterns. There are, however, local sources of pollution that can contribute to the severity of smog events. Ontarians can take personal actions — such as driving better-tuned cars or driving less, car-pooling, avoiding the use of gas-powered lawn mowers, or lowering the use of air conditioning during the summertime — to lessen the impact of smog during a smog alert.
I got this info here:
http://www.airqualityontario.com/reports/summary.php
http://www.airqualityontario.com/science/transboundary.php
You want other ideas for power production?
In 2009 There was a plan that was put to the Ontario Liberals which proposed loans or subsidies to aid Ontarians in adopting alternate energy like solar and geothermal.
It was an interesting plan in which communities , farmers and business could adopt rooftop solar and geothermal for heating and cooling with the aid of zero interest loans , grants and affordable subsidies. Can you imagine how many jobs would have been created with this concept? A long term industry would have been born , where solar panels could be manufactured locally , sold , installed and serviced. Hundreds of thousands of rooftops..and that’s just homes. There would be some hydro bill until we got everyone that was interested hooked up..and if there was any unused electricity , it could be sold . The money generated from this could be used to upgrade or service the grid.
Add to this , geothermal and we could have been well on our way to a self sustaining energy system. …it wouldn’t take us off grid , but it could be a good beginning.
After realizing the Ontario Liberals would actually be putting us all on the hook for 28 BILLION …the loans and subsidies could very easily be more attractive.
The Liberals weren’t interested.
There are also small windturbines that could be installed on our hydro poles…
Beth IWT companies have flipped 3-4 times with 300 Million dollar deals just on lease contracts alone.
It will be a long time before technology takes us to the point we can produce constant on demand power with either wind or solar.
To spend 28 Billion , plus 2 Billion on TOU meters , then require tens of Billions to rebuild our grid , plus the gas plants they are planning …plus what you are forced to overpay….it is a lot of money going to feed an industry to sell you a product to make money.
So do we shoot oureselves in the foot like we did with the deregualtion of Ontario Hydro?
That was supposed to be better for us , cheaper with more competition….
We have finally come to a point where we can all take advantage of solar and geothermal…if it is about reducing GHG’s , and lower power demand ….then why is it a bad thing to have OUR money work for us for ONCE.
By IWT own methods , in order to find wind somwehere in the province you have to have these everywhere there might be wind. And even then you still require backup power. So if it gas ..then google “fracking”…from one issue to another..do we pollute water our life source so we can make power with IWTS ?
A handful of people are making a fist full of dollars Beth.
I think we have bailed out enough industry in these times , and I think it’s our turn to be first in line.
We are all being snowed Beth.
They know full well it doesn’t work.and can’t provide our power requirements.
If Ontario’s air is so clean, why are there so many smog advisories?
It’s not just the large metropolitan areas that have these. My mother-in-law until last year had a cottage in the Plevna area and we had smog advisories even there and yes, even our beautiful area here, there are smog advisories.
I keep seeing many reason why not to put up IWT, but can those people objecting to IWT and Solar Farms suggest another viable solution. If these are not the solution, please tell me: What is?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/wolfe-island-flight-path/article2117624/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/transalta-urged-to-shut-down-wind-farm-during-migration-season/article2117615/
It’s pretty clear from this article that situating turbines in a major migratory bird route is a recipe for disaster.
Since McGuinty sings his own praises about his government’s deep concern for all things environmental, it’s hard to understand how he can ignore the situation on Wolfe Island and not force Trans Alta to make some changes.
It is always interesting and refreshing to have a good discussion.
First of all , everything both Ron and John have said sounds great and very reasonable….but not really the entire picture.
Ontario has capacity for 34,000 MW plus what can be saved through conservation.
So lets look at today>
Total demand: 13919 MW (6:00 a.m. EDT – Aug. 7, 2011) Total generation: 14604 MW (Aug. 7 – 5:00-6:00)
Excess generation: 685 MW
WIND: 98 MW: 0.7% of demand, 0.7% of generation
For those part of the FIT program and those in the wind industry…it is a goldmine.
Ontario Hydro once a public utility where business did not have the opportunity to profit selling us power now has a foot hold on a captured market at rates from 3 to 12 times what we can all buy power for. Plus the cost of backup power by the way.And now rebuilding the entire grid system.
I understand why those who stand to gain are fighting tooth and nail to protect their interests.
You are making a killing….on our backs.
And even worse than that..far worse is this:
Nothing is worth destroying the scenic beauty of rural Ontario
Canada conributes 2% of the globes GHG emissions.
In all due respect , the discussion should end here.
Ontario has always had clean air.
Always had enough power.
But it didn’t have the opportunity for business to make profits.
For this we can now thank the Ontario Liberals who have been kind enough to sign deals paying 3 times more for wind and at least 12 times more for solar than what we can buy power for through conventional means.
All so that Ontario , which already had clean air can have clean air. Or so the claim..which is also suspect.
As far as wind and solar large scale developments being more cost effective well , lets just see .
3 x times for wind than conventional power for 20 years
12 x times more for solar than conventional power for 20 years
2 Billion for TOU meters,,which are required to control unreliable power production
Then of course we have an undetermined amount in the 10’s of Billions for a grid rebuild…because wind and solar only produce when the wind blows or when the sun shines.
Cost keeping rising , don’t they?
And we of course have the gas back up required..so much for less GHG emissions.
I will leave the alarmist babble for another day.
It’s just redirect for the goldmine you are protecting and we are paying for .
It is rather overblown to talk about the ‘destruction’ of the area where Gilead proposes to build a wind farm. The relatively small footprint of the nine turbines will not, in itself, “kill, harm and destroy” Blanding’s Turtle and Whip-poor-will. Global warming, left unabated, surely will.
We have to stop relying on carbon-based energy. Climate scientists tell us that we have to act quickly if we are going to avoid human catastrophe. We are quickly approaching tipping points where our ability to mitigate climate change will be beyond human intervention.
If you doubt that climate change is happening, turn on your television news tonight and see the newest examples of ‘extreme weather’.
Our society runs on energy. Apart from hydro power, wind power production is by far the most economic renewable energy available to us.
Of course, it would be nice if we didn’t have to change. It would be nice if wind turbines were built somewhere else. But, it would also be nice if our grandchildren inherited a liveable world.
– Ernest, whether of not one sees cows grazing around wind towers depends on the whether or not the farm has cows and if they are on a grazing program as the wind project is not an impediment. Otherwise it is field crops on the prime farmable land.
– As for the example presented, the authorities aim to maintain a small surplus of generation at all times to cover variations in demand or production from any source. This is why peak shaving was being implemented on July 21 even with a small surplus. A small surplus can’t be attributed to any one source of generation and is actually required.
– You can normally find the lowest wind output in the early mornings as in the example below which is fortunate as demand also rises during day along with wind production. Up to a certain percentage point, no additional backup is required for wind/solar as some backup is always required for all sources of generation and we have gas and hydro as variable balancing sources on the grid.
– The cost of wind is fairly competitive now with other NEW sources of generation which also is being built on contract by the private sector as the old units come to the end of their life. Wind cost holds into the future because of free wind while fuel costs increase for the fossil fueled plants.
– The grid capacity is better utilized when production is distributed geographically rather than from single and distant large power plants which are also in someone’s back yard but consuming non renewable resources.
John , in the Shelburne corridor I have not seen livestock in the fields in 2 years.
There are certainly a small group that benefits greatly monetarily from this direction.
But there is a negative side that should not be ignored:
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/05/09/the-wind-experience/
This is the way energy demand looks today and keep in mind wind capacity is approx. 1200MW
Total demand: 14693 MW (7:00 a.m. EDT – Aug. 5, 2011) Total generation: 15107 MW (Aug. 5 – 6:00-7:00)
Excess generation: 414 MW
WIND: 99 MW: 0.7% of demand, 0.7% of generation, 23.9% of excess generation
Please explain how this direction will ‘save” the planet.
The more IWTs installed the more backup power is required be it coal like Germany or Gas here in North America.
But there is certainly those that stand to make a lot of dough in ths area….yet the public is a hostage to prices , there is no competition , from Ontario Hydro a publically funded utility to this a captive market being sold power at rates 3 to 12 times the rate we pat for conventional power. Plus backup , plus grid issues , plus overpaying….plus HST.
Don’t see the benefits for the majority of Ontarians
Beth..what needs to be done?
And why?…
There are other causes for global pollution than producing power Beth. Yet this is all we focus on.
I wonder why?
I am a naturalist Beth. I want to leave my next generation the same vista my eyes wonder on everyday.
Ontario is a beautiful place. Do we destroy Ontario with thousands of IWTs that require gas as backup ?
Then what about fracking?
This energy direction will do nothing to lower GHGs.
This is what it is all about.
This is a statement made by Dwight Duncan,
“It would be irresponsible for the province and tax-payers to continue to subsidize electricity consumption, because it jeopardizes our ability to invest in health care and education. This is simply not sustainable, nor is it acceptable. The people of this province deserve better.”
Dwight Duncan (Ontario Hansard Volume B, November 26, 2003)
This is the entire basis of this energy direction. It’s not about the environment , it is about handing Ontario’s power production over to business to sell us power. It completes the destruction of Ontario Hydro.
It is not about Green.
Ernest, it is quite obvious you are extremely anti-IWT, and I respect that you have made your decision and have your opinion. However mine is quite the opposite. Yes there will be some damage. Overpopulation , deforestation and consumerism, welcome to capitalism.
I have said before to others and I will say it here, it may not be the best step, but at least it’s something. Green Energy Production is still being developed and the purpose of many of these technologies is to ease the demand on the current systems with their faults. As it is developed, it will become more effective.
These developments may not do much, ok, but they are something. Disagree with me, I’m ok with this. But something needs to be done. If you want to see a change, start with yourself. If you don’t like to solutions being offered,come up with new ones, make suggestions.
The massive amount of energy required by industry is due to the demands of the population. Maybe the people should step up and make a difference. I know I’m trying, are you?
Ernest, I have seen cattle grazing/resting under wind turbines for each of the past three summers. Also stood under them myself, even touched the towers in an effort to detect vibration or stray voltage. None was detectable by myself, the cows or the farmers who I have spoken with. Also observed the crop farming of corn, soybeans, wheat, hay etc where no adverse effects were observable and the access lanes were being used for bringing in the harvests.
Europe still has older and smaller units but the newly installed sizes are the same the world over as the industry has increased the sizes for efficiency gains.
John…when was the last time you saw cattle grazing with these IWTs..in Europe they are half the size and produce far less power..here the stray voltage can zap cattle hoofs right off.
It is NOT farming it is turning farmland into industrial wasteland….little will grow …
Sorry we have a population of 34 million..typo error
Beth….what part of this don’t you understand?
Wind power requires conventional power backup.
So we shift to fracking for gas ?…
Lets keep clouding the silly notion that we a country of 24 million people contibuting a mere 2% of the globes GHG’s will have any impact globally large or small.
India pop. is 1.5 Billion , Africas is over 1 Billion.
We have been using fossil fuels since the dawn of time.
You want to see an impact?
Overpopulation , deforestation and consumerism. deal with that.
To even think using IWTs will in anyway make any positive impact is absolutely absurd. Just as hanging your clothes out to dry.
Let me get this straight…we are supposed to conserve power by Buying fridges , freezers , furnaces , cars .
Power demand works this way 30% by homeowners , 70% by business…..
There has been a steady increase in underwater volcanic activity in the arctic since 2007-2008
Any idea how you can stop this ..please let us know
sigh
Most wind development in the Province is being hosted by farmers as it it totally compatible with agriculture. The Univ of PEI study found it to be compatible with tourism as well. Anecdotal evidence from our own (personal) tourist visitors supports that also. As I have said before, full build out in the County would encompass only a minority portion of our land space, given DND and other constraints. The younger generation and the unborn are counting on it.
Chris’s link to the European view on the big wind scam is pretty powerful.
Nuclear makes more sense than wind. At least it would not turn the County into one big industrial district. Which is what plans on record would indicate.
We need to decide what we are. If we are a tourist and agricultural area, attracting wine and retirement dollars, then turbines are out.
We cannot continue to rely upon conventional means of energy generation. Coal, Oil produce massive quantities of carbon and other dangerous green house gases. Creating more Hydro electric damns will create flooding and damage to much needed marshlands. Another option is Nuclear, anybody up for that?
Everyone talks about placing wind turbines elsewhere, I have even hear it suggested that turbines be placed in Northern Ontario, far away from the majority of the population. Problem here is it will also have impact on that environment.
Ernest, you are right, these projects won’t save our environment, but it will help, even if not much. My generation and the generations before me have been slowly destroying the earth. If you don’t think this will work, come up with a solution that will.
Meanwhile, I see these as a small set to a long term goal, one I hope my children will see the benefits of.
As far as the fact that same animals will die, you are right, but how many frogs do you drive over on a rainy night and how much terrain is destroyed in order to support our growing need for a depleting source of fossil fuels.
Take your pick.
Here’s what we have to look forward to – a roundup of the latest news from Europe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html#ixzz1Ty5YXrAW
Virginia , I once thought as you.
Please read this.
http://morecoldair.blogspot.com/2011/08/coal-is-not-being-replaced-by-wind.html
It is actually very accurate…
In order for wind to replace coal you would need the entire Province overrun with them…plus gas power.
Myrna , as I read these posts they are supporting your fight.
First of all the Liberals don’t care about your issue.
The wildlife is Collatoral Damage.
Cost of supporting a move to sell us power at a profit by business.
Their reply would be …what does a few birds mean when it comes to saving the environment for future generations.
Second would be the NIMBY assertion.
Of course it shouldn’t go there.
In fact the 28 Billion we will paying so we can be sold power at a profit shouldn’t go where it’s going either.
We are fighting a Liberal Party that is set on subsidizing a new business venture in Ontario.
They know the issues…..
You have paid millions for studies to tell them what they will be and how to deal with you and others.
The Liberals simply don’t care.
I never received a copy of the letter from Gilead – can somebody post it or send it on. Thanks
I am bewildered as to why none of the commenters on my letter seem to have read it. The South Shore is a special place set apart for other creatures to use for their survival. These comments are totally irrelevant to that fact.
Try this – forget the word turbine. Think industrial development (quarries or mines) versus declining natural habitats. It is not an abstract debate. It is about the destruction of the environment and the survival of other species, By us humans who have more than enough power available if it was used effeciently.
Rry thinking about the others – the creatures whose homes we destroy. What kind of world will we leave?
what exactly do you mean by “located elsewhere”? Putting everything else aside, where would be satisfactory? Is it okay if the location of something you don’t like is in someone else’s backyard? There are always negatives and positives for every situation. This is no exception. Wind power, in my opinion,is a good thing. I don’t believe Prince Edward County would suffer from the presence of the wind turbines. However, I hold no brief for any particular company. Let’s make sure our motives are pure, when it comes to technologies that could prove to be highly beneficial to the County and its residents, in the future.
By getting as much wind/solar here as possible, I would hope that it would reduce the chances of a nuclear plant being located on the south shore. However as I have said below, wind development in the County is being severely restricted by the DND claims to airspace. The capacity of our TS and high voltage line could also be a limiting factor.
Given the fact that by it’s own admission, the Province is looking at a potential generation shortfall of nearly 44,000mW by 2025, we can be sure that there are some enormous changes coming in the way electricity is produced and consumed in this province. I’m not going comment on wind generation on the south shore because it will, in the fullness of time, come to be…or not. All the cogent arguments (both pro and con) were made ten years ago. I only hope that in 15 years we will not be treated to the sight of a Darlington style CANDU generation station down there (a very real possibility). Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
Should have said “example below”, 1st paragraph
While it is an accepted fact that wind energy is one of the least carbon producing energy sources as stand alone, I do not agree that this benefit is lost when grid connected up to a certain percentage of the grid and we are far from that presently. Additional backup is not presently required as this is required anyway to cover for shutdowns at conventional power plants because of breakdown and scheduled maintentance. Some excess production is always planned to cover breakdown and demand variations so without the wind addtition in the example above, more fuel burning would have been scheduled. There was some power excess during peak demand on our hottest day (July 21), wind was producing well, solar was near the maximum but peak shaving measures were being implemented in order to keep some needed excess. There would have been trouble if a reactor had to be shut down at that time as the exess was far short of one reactor.
Ontario gets much of the power from older generators which are nearing their end of life, and new wind develpment is very cost competitive with other new types of generation. TOU pricing was not implemented for intermittancy issues, but because power is always more expensive during peak demand times. Power users are now incented to do some adjusting to reduce the amount of peak supplying generation which needs to be built.
The bottom line is that wind generation is clean, cost competitive, carbon reducing and produces about 15 times as much energy as is needed for it’s manufacture and maintenace, thereby reducing the fossil fuel produced mess that future geneations will have to deal with. It seems clear that is also among the most healhty ways of generating power and the fuel needed is endlessly renewable.
The problem today is the misconception of the public regarding IWTs. For years there has been a steady flow of hype regarding this “renewable” energy. From Nature programs to discussions to of course our government web sites.
As a stand alone power source , yes one can say without “misrepresenting” the facts that they are one of the least carbon producing energy sources.
But that is not where the statement should end.
Because if one wants a constant energy source , then you have to include the carbon footprint of the backup power required for the times wind doesn’t blow. In Germany it is Coal. In Ontario , it is leaning towards Gas.
At present because of fracking gas is cheap but comes with a host of environmental issues such as contaminating underground water sources….so what does one then do to when their wells are poisoned or how does one provide water for their livestock?
As with every “Enviro” breakthrough comes another set of Environmental and human issues and of course more money needed to create jobs ” studying” the issue.
When all is added to the equation IWTs plus backup power ..the savings in carbon foot is negligable for power costing 3 times the rate we pay for convention power.
And, in order to not lose power through transmission lines these should be in your backyard, not 100 kms away.
For the purpose Ontario is putting these in, they simply do NOT work.
It does however work for the Industry. When you consider the massive subsidies to for profit businesses , overpayments for power , the TOU meters to control use because of intermitant power , and now requiring to rebuild an entire grid system to accomodate intermitant power it becomes a very expensive , unreliable power source that does little if anything to lower carbon emissions.
It does however make a group of people money.
For the average family that has 2 people working it will make you very happy that you are providing jobs for this entire industry while struggling to get by raising a family . For those of you on fixed incomes , I would like to suggest you try the food banks or the United Way which aids in helping you pay your power bill.
In fact the Ontario gov’t recently provided some of your tax dollars to aid them with overwhelming demand.
I was once a supporter of what the industry calls clean energy.
Until I realized that it doesn’t work.
Here is a perfect example:
■Ontario Wind Energy Production (IESO)
Total demand: 14570 MW (6:00 a.m. EDT – Jul. 29, 2011)
** Total generation: 14797 MW (Jul. 29 – 5:00-6:00) ** Excess generation: 227 MW ** WIND: 273 MW
If a project claims to have a capacity to power 10,000 homes. It only powers 2700 homes .
These will not save our planet.
These will not stop the Arctic Ice melting because these cannot control underwater volcano eruptions which do cause the ice to melt and water to warm.
Theses should never go here and who knows ?? they may not because it is such an idiotic place to situate IWTs that one wonders if this isn’t a government ploy to look like the good guys when they call this off.
Just like offshore IWTs. These were never going to happen in the first place. I say this because the cost of putting IWTs offshore is so expensive that it is simply not cost effective even with an open cheque book using your tax dollars.
If it’s too good to be true…it usually is.