Wind Turbines - Green or Greenwashing? What should NDP position be?

Get a grip. Coal kills. And why don't you look behind the anti-wind movement. You might find nuclear. It is also BS that the tar sands industry is behind wind. As corporations invest they may have some investments in wind, but for the most part that is patent nonsense.

MikefromCanmore wrote:

A Guelph study found the bodies of dead bats in fields surrounding wind turbines. Based on autopsies, they believe the low frequency emitted by the turbines caused the blood vessels in the bat's lungs to burst forcing them to drown on their own blood.

Srsly??

You got a link for that???

Actually FM- You might want to educate yourself a little more.  Nuclear is NOT behind the anti-wind movement, at least not the grassroots groups I have had contact with.  And it is very much true that many of the companies now owning industrial wind developments are based in some pretty un-environmental sectors. These developments have a history of flipping many times and becoming owned by larger and larger, often mulit-national corps. One of the developments near me that I know the most has flipped 4 times since coming online.

The simple reality is that the companies involved in these industrial wind developments are giving alternative energy a bad name. I used to take our kids by the first turbines up because I was really enthusiastics about them and wanted them to see the future. I was dismissive, like you, of their concerns until I took the time to find out more. Now I curse them. As a strong and long time supporter of alternative energy I have grave concerns about what these companies are doing and the tactics they use. A number of long time alternative energy activists I know from rural communites- are starting to majorly question what is happening too.

I tried to find the NFU Ontario resolution Life refers too, but can't find it online. I will try to get a copy and post the resolution from these nuclear industry patsies. Basically, going from memory the resolution calls for more local control, a more transparent process and questions who is really benefiting from these developments.

My comment was about wind turbines themselves, not the industry built around them.

Samsung is doing quite well thanks to Ontario taxpayers.

It's a neat trick for the province to create a premiumum market for green energy that was supposed to promote a made-in-Ontario industry.... then sign a partnership with a foreign multi-nat and give the company a big chunk of the green grid.

Oh, and don't put the windmills where the energy is needed.  Kinda like Nanticoke...  Seems that if there's enough people concentrated in a certain area, NIMBYism does still work, despite McGuinty's claims to the opposite.

Yet Ken they are being placed in areas that can resist the least.  In southern Ontario the most logical place to put turbines in terms of efficiency, transmission losses, and environmental reasons is the Lake Ontario shoreline.  But it will NEVER happen.  Yes we need to move towards greater use of alternatives, but how we do it, says a lot about the kind of society we have and the equity and justice within it.  Right now we are failing on that score in Ontario- failing miserably.

I understand what you are saying BA. I'm arguing strenuously against the very premise of the opening post, and the title of the thread itself.

Never thought about the comparison with Ontario- but in Nova Scotia we have an easy avoidance of that placement conundrum: hilly landscape with the bulk of that having no farms or houses.

Ken I forgot to mention the comments of a friend and prominent Green Party activist at a meeting we were both a panelist at.  He described the situaiton as 'wild west capitalism' and that government has given all the guns to industry.  It was very apt description of what I see around here.

Just got an email back from the NFU.  Here is that resolution Life referenced above. 

  Green Energy Act (GEA) and Rural Communities

Whereas the NFU advocates for the right of farmers and rural communities to have control over and to benefit from food production in their communities and;

Whereas the NFU supports efforts to move toward renewable, clean sources of energy such as wind and solar to help revitalize rural communities and;

Whereas in the past rural municipalities, like Wolfe Island and Melancthon, were able to negotiate amenities agreements with industrial wind developers, which acknowledged the impact on rural communities of industrial wind developments and provided some compensation to the full community and;

Whereas such amenity agreements are no longer possible under the GEA, because the GEA takes away all control over siting, land use planning and zoning related to industrial wind developments from municipalities and gives the control to the province alone and;

Whereas the community and municipal consultation required under the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process for wind developments is intended to 'help build local support' for the project, and virtually eliminates any public or municipal say or input into industrial wind developments in rural communities and;

Whereas this type of pseudo consultation is demeaning and insulting to farmers and rural communities that will be impacted by industrial wind developments in their backyards and;

Whereas industrial wind developments have the potential to take the control and benefit of a rural resource, wind, away from farmers and rural communities;

Therefore be it resolved that

(1)       the NFU strongly voice its concern about the lack of real community consultation under the GEA ;

(2)       advocate for the rights of landowners and rural communities/municipalities to have control over industrial wind developments in their communities by negotiating amenity agreements or putting in place bylaws or permits with regard to siting, size, zoning and so on, which acknowledge the impact of industrial wind developments on the full community;

• (3) (a) connect with other organizations and municipalities with similar concerns about industrial wind developments and

(b) bring forward the shortcomings of the GEA to organizations like the urban-based environmental organizations that are allies of the NFU on other issues and to the government;

• (4) commit NFU research and communication resources to look at who controls and benefits from industrial wind developments - landowners and rural communities or outside, corporate and private interests. CARRIED

Diversity is the key to all planetary systems.  When the scale of the technology gets too big it becomes harmful to the environment.  We need a lot of solar panels and small wind turbines and some very aggressive conservation programs.  In Ontario your big problems come in the hot summer when you need air conditioning.  Well duh isn't that when the solar panels would provide the most electricity. Large scale projects appeal to politicians who are in the pockets of big developers.  We need small scale electricity generation at the consumer level.  We can also employ a lot of people if we go to small scale.  People to build the panels and turbines, people to install and maintain them and RR to improve them.  Far better than a model where we build big projects with foreign based companies who get permits to import workers.

We need both the small scale and the different 'unholistic' large scale alternatives like wind farms. Like I said, as it is, even using both we're going to have to push harder to have any chance of bringing down GHGs before its definitely too late [as opposed to maybe already too late].

Whats required is political agitation for the small scale- and especially governments role in that. But dissing large wind farms of any kind is not the path to that.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Actually FM- You might want to educate yourself a little more.  Nuclear is NOT behind the anti-wind movement, at least not the grassroots groups I have had contact with.  And it is very much true that many of the companies now owning industrial wind developments are based in some pretty un-environmental sectors. These developments have a history of flipping many times and becoming owned by larger and larger, often mulit-national corps. One of the developments near me that I know the most has flipped 4 times since coming online.

 

The simple reality is that the companies involved in these industrial wind developments are giving alternative energy a bad name. I used to take our kids by the first turbines up because I was really enthusiastics about them and wanted them to see the future. I was dismissive, like you, of their concerns until I took the time to find out more. Now I curse them. As a strong and long time supporter of alternative energy I have grave concerns about what these companies are doing and the tactics they use. A number of long time alternative energy activists I know from rural communites- are starting to majorly question what is happening too.

 

I tried to find the NFU Ontario resolution Life refers too, but can't find it online. I will try to get a copy and post the resolution from these nuclear industry patsies. Basically, going from memory the resolution calls for more local control, a more transparent process and questions who is really benefiting from these developments.

 

BA, the business your in, agriculture, is dominated by some very evil global corporations with cross ownership and management with big oil and coal and the tar sands. Welcome to capitalism. And you know, I live in and near wind turbines. And, I did a little research on a man who organized an anti-wind workshop in Woodstock. Google being my friend, uncovered a former employee (and likely still a consultant) at Bruce Power. Gadzooks!

Ontarians want all the electricity they can get and they want it cheap and they want the harmful and toxic effects out of sight and out of mind. People dying quiety of heart and lung disease or cancer is perfectly okay. Near abouts where I live, they are opposing, now, solar farms. Solar farms. Silent. Passive. No shadows. No profile. And do you know what they say? They say prime agricultural land ought not to be lost to solar farms. They say that from among the subdivisions popping up like wild mushrooms. They say that as they commute from subdivisions near Simcoe to jobs in Hamilton on roads cutting wide, sterile ribbons across prime farmland.

I believe the Ontario government ought to conform to all environmental reviews, and I think the Ontario government could assist with those people, and I believe there are some. who do suffer negative effects from turbines to relocate and sell their homes.

But demonizing alternative energy is part of an agenda that opposes any migration away from fossil fuel energies, mega-dam projects, and uranium.

If I was dictator of Ontario I would hold current OPG generation static and as a baseline. And I would tell municiplaities that if they want any more power than what the baseline provides, they must provide it themselves and it must be 90% renewable and zero emissions.

A wind spill

Mike from Canmore wrote:

There is a solution that works for everyone - a compromise.  Rather than large scale wind farms, and large scale solar fields for that matter, the NDP could promote small scale wind and solar. Every Ontario household should be environmentally refitted. 

Ah yes. Each home could have its own hydro dam as well. Small is beautiful.

remind wrote:

Unionist, in actual fact mike from canmore has  very  valid points about  every home being fitted with solar panels and a small efficient wind mills, is there absolutely no reason why it cannot be done, and every reason why it should.

Yes. Obviously we have huge areas of urban space that are not properly utilized in this manner. If Unionists objection is that it should not be the responsibility of the individual to take care of these problems, but instead something that needs to be organized and funded at a society wide level, I am all for that, but there is nothing about small scale power generation that is antithetical to that idea. Small scale power generation can be created on a large scale, as part of the solution.

I agree with the last three posters. I do [b]not[/b] agree with any suggestion that individuals should provide for their own power generation. Or health care. Or education. And I am suspicious of any criticism of renewable energy that does not take, as a first principle, that reliance on non-renewable energy must stop immediately.

Nice to see babblers from areas far outside the affected areas telling us how it is.

My Grandparents lived on a farm, etc.

Take goethermal for instance. Great technology, producing heat from the ground. However, since the demands is still relatively low, the capital cost of the equipment and installation usually has a payback of 30-35 years. The equipment has a lifespan of 20-25 years and so anyone who uses it today is essentially paying for the privilege.

Same goes for small scale wind or PV solar. The capital costs drive it beyond affordability. What we really need are very basic technology that is maximized to efficiency. Sure the PV cells are becoming more efficient, but the cost of manufacture is going up equally. Then of course the "green" movement is a corportist's delight - a new way to squeeze more money out of naive consumers. If they make us think we are doing something good for the environment are we really doing something good for the environment? In most cases the answer is "no" primarily because of all the non-green manufacturing, oil-based products and delivery of goods made in China or Taiwan.........

Low-velocity hydro-electric still shows promise but because they can made in the garage of the average home out parts in boxes and tools owned by the average homeowner, very few companies want that kind of technology. There is too much risk that a back-yard mechanic could steal the design and reproduce it a lot cheaper.

Wind is not great and for the most part is unreliable and prone to mechanical problems. And until we find a way to make it more reliable and produce the equipment for much cheaper it will be out of reach for the average homeowner, who is less concerned with the environement and more concerned about whether or not the mortgage gets paid at the end of the month, and whether there will be enough left over to add some fresh food to the table fare. It isn't a matter of conciousness, but one of necessity and economics.

I'd like to see more folks growing their own veggies and other stuff. I have a small property out here in the boondocks, but I have a veggie garden that gives me more than 75 heads of lettuce, 100 carrots, and God knows how many beets and radishes. And I got flowers growing all over in the summer and fall.

Sven wrote:

Mike from Canmore wrote:

Every Ontario household should be environmentally refitted. 

At what cost per household?

If your life support system is failing, do you ask how much it costs to avoid that failure?

Mike from Canmore wrote:

@ sven how about a $7 billion dollar budget be created to refit every Ontario household... the same budget that McGuinty awarded Samsung to build wind turbines.

Do you have a link for what it would cost to retrofit every household in Ontario for solar?  What would $7 billion deliver for each household?  In other words, would $7 billion in solar panels for the 3.9 million households in Ontario provide enough energy to run a household?  Just a water heater?  Or, what?

Bubbles wrote:

If your life support system is failing, do you ask how much it costs to avoid that failure?

You're not arguing that understanding the cost of such a retrofitting is irrelevant, are you?

We could make every car on the road as crash-safe as a NASCAR race car and that would save a lot of lives, too.  But, would people be willing to spend, say, an extra $20,000 or $30,000 for their vehicle to do that (not to mention wearing a helmet while driving a car and sitting in a full-body restraint system)?

Probably not.

If it's going to be warm and dry, I get the watering hose out early in the morning.

So, in your locale, that amounts to what, twice a year?   

Mike from Canmore wrote:

Do your own research Sven...

Well, you are the one who advocated spending $7 billion on retrofitting the 3.9 million households in Ontario with solar.

Based on that, I think it would be fair for a reader to assume that you would have some idea as to what kind of energy production would be gained for that kind of expenditure.

Sven wrote:

Bubbles wrote:

If your life support system is failing, do you ask how much it costs to avoid that failure?

You're not arguing that understanding the cost of such a retrofitting is irrelevant, are you?

We could make every car on the road as crash-safe as a NASCAR race car and that would save a lot of lives, too.  But, would people be willing to spend, say, an extra $20,000 or $30,000 for their vehicle to do that (not to mention wearing a helmet while driving a car and sitting in a full-body restraint system)?

Probably not.

You got it. Some things are to big to fail.

Look at Obama pulling out all the stops with the oil leak of your coast. Can you put a figure on the cost of failure?