Local riding on Green leader's radar: Elizabeth May might run in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
adma

Debater wrote:

If she runs in a riding she doesn't have any connection to, I wonder if she will be perceived as a parachute candidate the way John Tory was in the by-election in Haliburton-Kawartha-Lakes-Brock?

Didn't hurt in London NC, even if she didn't win.  And unlike John Tory, a popular existing local representative wouldn't be resigning on behalf of her hubris...

Bookish Agrarian

Policywonk wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Tommy I was a very strong proponent of wind power, alternative energy in general, for decades- until I actually saw it in action on a large scale.  The first few that went up I thought - jeez aren't they cute.  Now they are everywhere and taking up a lot of good farm land.  Each turbine takes up about 3-5 acres of land.

3-5 acres? These cows would disagree. I've seen it on a large scale in Alberta too and they certainly don't take up 3-5 acres of land each. Urban sprawl is a far greater threat to farmland.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Wb_deichh_drei_kuhs.jpg

Each individual turbine has a well built up road into them.  They are never right at the road, except for about 4 I have seen.  The road is the thing that takes up the most land.  Don't forget in Ontario most farm land is still in 100 acre parcels.  Few turbines are situated so that several are on one parcel.  That means an individual road and these are not the tradtional farm lane, to each and every turbine.  Add that to the footprint of the actual turbine and you get 3-5 acres.

As for your picture

1. that's a very small turbine

2. the cows are fenced away from the turbine - it is impossible to tell because of the perspective how much is fenced off

3.  pasture land is much different than crop land

4.  that one is placed very close to the road, which as I mentioned above is generally not the case in this area.

5.  Those look like European ear tags so it does not suggest the realities are the same as southwestern Ontario

6.  I never presume to preach to people from other areas based on my experiences here, maybe you should try a simular approach.

 

remind remind's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Each individual turbine has a well built up road into them.  They are never right at the road, except for about 4 I have seen. The road is the thing that takes up the most land.

This reality is part of the issues with the 1000's and perhaps 10's of thousands, of IPP's proposed across the province of BC.

They will all require roads built into them, as well as land cleared for transmission lines, both to the communities they are alleged to be going to service, and then more to the main transmission lines already going to the USA.

The resulting impacts upon the environment and wild life will be significant, say nothing of the project itself.

They are hardly environmentally friendly and will perhaps have a larger emission footprints than what is in place currently. Moreover, we have more than enough hydro in BC for our domestic use, this is all about providing hydro, and water, to the USA.

Quote:
6.I never presume to preach to people from other areas based on my experiences here, maybe you should try a simular approach.

Here here, I am so sick of people from back east pontificating on BC, that I am disgusted.

KenS

When we are talking about BC as a whole, its a province with contention over a variety of policiies proposed, and the political economy around them. That has general interest and general comparability across the country.

People in BC will know more, but talking policies and politics among people who know something about it does not require local knowledge.

When it comes to IPP and run-of-river projects in BC, thats something people outside the province are going to know less about, and you'll find that the vast majority of comments on that in the many threads have been by people from BC. I know I've never said anything about it.

 

janfromthebruce

adma wrote:

Debater wrote:

If she runs in a riding she doesn't have any connection to, I wonder if she will be perceived as a parachute candidate the way John Tory was in the by-election in Haliburton-Kawartha-Lakes-Brock?

Didn't hurt in London NC, even if she didn't win.  And unlike John Tory, a popular existing local representative wouldn't be resigning on behalf of her hubris...

Except London was urban and not rural riding and it was a by-election and not a general election. Rural folk don't like parachute candidates and that is what May is - hip-hopping across the country to find a place to blunk herself down. In reality, she wasn't even from Central Nova or really from Nova Scotia - history revision. The place she lived the most and most recently is Ottawa. If she really wanted bang for her buck she should run against Baird. It's the riding she was living in, I believe.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

remind remind's picture

KenS wrote:

When we are talking about BC as a whole, its a province with contention over a variety of policiies proposed, and the political economy around them. That has general interest and general comparability across the country.

I will grant general interest, and some general comparability, but overall, there is very little comparability IMV. Hell, there isn't even large amounts of comparability between VIsland and most of BC.

Quote:

People in BC will know more, but talking policies and politics among people who know something about it does not require local knowledge.

Of course it does, I could imagine the reaction if BC people started telling Nova Scotians, or Quebecers, what policies and politics they need, because if they don't listen and act it will impact all of Canada. IMV, if some people worked on their own province's policies and politics, as opposed to telling BCers what needs to be done so they can more, or supposedly anyway, easily do it in their own province, then more might actually get done at their own local level. It is shirking responsibility and indeed blame off, for their own lacks in their own provincial efforts, onto Bcers.

Though I also recognize that some other people also have an agenda when they get into BC's political affairs, from an either negative or positive stance.

Quote:

When it comes to IPP and run-of-river projects in BC, thats something people outside the province are going to know less about, and you'll find that the vast majority of comments on that in the many threads have been by people from BC. I know I've never said anything about it.

 

And why not, if you, or others, are going to be all involved with other discussions regarding BC? Afterall, apparently what BC does, or does not do, impacts ALL of Canada.

janfromthebruce

The problem with wind - and said many times - is that it is not dependable - when the wind doesn't blow there is no energy. Also it's slow powering up and down and thus as a baseload for consistent energy supply it is poor. At this point in Ontario, as they slap up these windmills, the province is giving them a "sweetheart deal" at about $3000. bucks more than nuclear. In other words, nuclear is still the cheaper and dependable energy producer.

Of course, I remember the libs promising to get rid of those dirty coal fired plants, and they are still there. Since the province has reached its reduced emissions targets - without having to close down those polluting plants - due to the recession and closing of factories (steel, mills, auto sectors) - the libs are looking the other way.

Now there is a good place to creat green factory jobs (hopefully at the same rate of pay) as those good paying jobs can't be replaced with cheap labour.

Anyway, in most ways I agree with BA, if we were able to create our own little windmills, solar stuff, retrofit our homes to make them passive, and just overall reduce demand, it would be the best way to go. Alas, our capitalist based society does not support the idealism of consume less, share better philosophy.

Webgear

Policywonk wrote:

3-5 acres? These cows would disagree. I've seen it on a large scale in Alberta too and they certainly don't take up 3-5 acres of land each. Urban sprawl is a far greater threat to farmland.

 
Around Dundulk, the windmills are an average of 200 meters from the county road; each service road leading to the windmill is about five meters wide and than the windmill sits on an acre of land.
 
So I believe BA numbers and assessment is correct.
 
 Wind Farm by John Brownlow.
 

 
 
Wind Farm by John Brownlow.

janfromthebruce

ah, home sweet home.

Webgear

I was there only a few weeks ago. I stopped and visited my uncle for few hours to talk about starting a farm.

Policywonk

janfromthebruce wrote:

The problem with wind - and said many times - is that it is not dependable - when the wind doesn't blow there is no energy. Also it's slow powering up and down and thus as a baseload for consistent energy supply it is poor.

And said falsely. This is true of one wind farm, without any kind of energy storage.

http://www.canrea.ca/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/canrea-six-ways-of-providing-base-load-power-from-wind-feb09.pdf

Bookish Agrarian

Thanks Webgear.
I was at a sale at this farm in Sullivan a few weeks back.  Seemed like a nice set up.  Fairly mid-range price for a farm these days and there would eventually be some cementing issues. But then again I have those too!
Might be wrong locale though.
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=7841474

Bookish Agrarian

Policywonk wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

The problem with wind - and said many times - is that it is not dependable - when the wind doesn't blow there is no energy. Also it's slow powering up and down and thus as a baseload for consistent energy supply it is poor.

And said falsely. This is true of one wind farm, without any kind of energy storage.

http://www.canrea.ca/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/canrea-six-ways-of-providing-base-load-power-from-wind-feb09.pdf

3,4 and 5 would cost billions to make feasable and make an over-run at Darlington look good (which is hard to do).  And some of it has huge negative environmental impacts.

6 is basically the same as being in favour of summer.

And take a wild guess where solar farm proposals are ending up in rural Southwestern Ontario.  You guessed it, on the flattest land available - which surprise, surprise is some of the best food producing land in the world.  Land they are not making any more of.

I am all in favour of alternative energy (and have sunk my own money into it) - but mega-projects always suck- no matter how 'friendly' you try to sell the technology as.  Alternative energy mega-projects are becoming the latest urban-oriented sprawl into rural Ontario. 

Webgear

BA

It is close to home. The price is pretty good.  I am also looking around Pinkerton.

I knew a girl from Tara and had plenty of drinks at the Desboro Inn.

Webgear

Another thing that I have noticed that there is no livestock around the windmills.

I have been looking for a while however the size of each windmill is very hard to find.

I know there was a large wind farm going to be placed near Blue Mountain however I believe urban folks (mostly from the GTA) with large cottages on the mountain have the farm cancelled.

 

 

 

 

 

Policywonk

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Tommy I was a very strong proponent of wind power, alternative energy in general, for decades- until I actually saw it in action on a large scale.  The first few that went up I thought - jeez aren't they cute.  Now they are everywhere and taking up a lot of good farm land.  Each turbine takes up about 3-5 acres of land.

3-5 acres? These cows would disagree. I've seen it on a large scale in Alberta too and they certainly don't take up 3-5 acres of land each. Urban sprawl is a far greater threat to farmland.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Wb_deichh_drei_kuhs.jpg

Each individual turbine has a well built up road into them.  They are never right at the road, except for about 4 I have seen.  The road is the thing that takes up the most land.  Don't forget in Ontario most farm land is still in 100 acre parcels.  Few turbines are situated so that several are on one parcel.  That means an individual road and these are not the tradtional farm lane, to each and every turbine.  Add that to the footprint of the actual turbine and you get 3-5 acres.

As for your picture

1. that's a very small turbine

2. the cows are fenced away from the turbine - it is impossible to tell because of the perspective how much is fenced off

3.  pasture land is much different than crop land

4.  that one is placed very close to the road, which as I mentioned above is generally not the case in this area.

5.  Those look like European ear tags so it does not suggest the realities are the same as southwestern Ontario

6.  I never presume to preach to people from other areas based on my experiences here, maybe you should try a simular approach.

Not that small, probably a few hundred kilowatts, which is on the high end of small or the low end of medium. But I think you're talking several megawatts. A 100 acre parcel is about 40 hectares or 400,000 square metres, which is about 630 metres a side assuming a square parcel. Given that to limit turbulence the turbines should be say 250 metres apart and rows of turbines 500 metres apart that's at most 6 turbines per parcel not considering setback requirements, and if a parcel had that many turbines an adjacent parcel would have less. If the parcel were bounded by county roads the towers would be less than 200 metres from a county road, but we'll say each road is 200 metres long and 5 metres wide. The roads would total 6x5X200 or 6000 square metres, which is 0.6 hectares for all six turbines or 0.1 hectares (about 0.25 acres) per turbine (you did say the 3-5 acres was mostly access roads). The tower bases might 8 metres in diameter with a footprint of about 50 square metres, but I'll grant Webgear's 1 acre per turbine total footprint of the turbine rather than just the tower, or 0.4 hectares per turbine even though it's likely less. The area required for a substation would be negligible in comparision. So 2.4 hectares plus 0.6 hectares or 3 hectares all told, or 0.5 hectares per turbine. This is less than 1.25 acres, not 3-5 acres, although perhaps another hectare would be used temporarily in construction of all 6 turbines.

Having said all that, there is still plenty of available land in Ontario not suitable for farmland that can be used for large scale wind energy. The east side of Lake Superior north of Sault St. Marie for example.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Prince_wind_farm.jpg.

Smaller wind turbines might be more suitable for productive farmland. I grew up in Ontario but I'll admit I don't know much about the farming aspects of rural Ontario. I just can't stand exageration though, whether it's to do with the direct footprint of wind power or the carbon emissions of the tar sands.

 

Policywonk

janfromthebruce wrote:

The problem with wind - and said many times - is that it is not dependable - when the wind doesn't blow there is no energy. Also it's slow powering up and down and thus as a baseload for consistent energy supply it is poor.

And said falsely. This is true of one wind farm, without any kind of energy storage.

http://www.canrea.ca/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/canrea-six-ways-of-providing-base-load-power-from-wind-feb09.pdf

3,4 and 5 would cost billions to make feasable and make an over-run at Darlington look good (which is hard to do).  And some of it has huge negative environmental impacts.

6 is basically the same as being in favour of summer.

And take a wild guess where solar farm proposals are ending up in rural Southwestern Ontario.  You guessed it, on the flattest land available - which surprise, surprise is some of the best food producing land in the world.  Land they are not making any more of.

I am all in favour of alternative energy (and have sunk my own money into it) - but mega-projects always suck- no matter how 'friendly' you try to sell the technology as.  Alternative energy mega-projects are becoming the latest urban-oriented sprawl into rural Ontario. 

1 and 2 are enough to refute your point, but pumped hydro storage (4) is in use around the world. Actually, I tend to agree with you about mega projects. Batteries of various kinds tend to work better on a smaller scale. Of course some of the flattest places for solar power are rooftops and walls or windows, most of which are in urban areas. Solar rooftops and/or transparent PV windows could turn office towers into zero-net energy buildings in the not too distant future.