It's been many year since I was in the Pincher Creek area, but aren't there turbines right outside of Pincher Creek the town? Those were the first big ones I'd ever seen.
Ah, memories of Castle Mountain mid-week freshies....
Wind Turbines II
Tue, 2010-05-04 16:52
#52
Tue, 2010-05-04 17:05
#53
Remind, it sounds like you are referring to the NaiKun wind energy proposal which I mentioned in my post yesterday. It has strong support from first Nations communities. http://www.naikun.ca/
I am wondering how much of the rural/urban conflict being referred to in this thread is the really the result of the arrogance of city dwellers, and how much is the result of what I consider the high density of population in the agriculturally useful areas of southern Ontario...
Come on now. You are attributing the rural-urban conflict to either:
1) Arrogance of urban dwellers or
2) High population density on good agricultural land
You can't even contemplate the possibility that rural people (even Bookish Agrarian in particular) have contributed to this whatsoever. I don't even know where to begin to try to have a rational argunment on this.
Perhaps we should consider the arrogance of some rural people once in a while too instead of all of the urban-bashing. Let's remember where progressive parties are mainly getting their votes in Canada (as well as the US and Europe for that matter), from urban centres. With only a few exceptions like northern Ontario supporting the NDP in 2008, the trend is a rural-urban divide with rural areas moving to the Conservatives/Republicans with their anti-science, climate-change-denying, anti-multi-lateral positions.
I don't mean to get combative here but I think the misunderstanding and resentment that rural people feel toward urbanites is misplaced and should perhaps probably be directed at subrurbanites. They are living on the good agricultural land creating the urban sprawl not someone in dense downtown Toronto.
I don't have hard numbers, but probably the densest riding in all of Canada is Trinity-Spadina, held by Olivia Chow. It was also the provincial riding that had the highest support for Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP) in the Ontario referendum. It may sound like I am ranting, but my point is that if you are a progressive rural person then let's be allies here and end the divisions because we probably have more in common than you think!
Tue, 2010-05-04 17:44
#54
I read Babble all the time but I have never bothered to actually comment before.
I think that the resistence to wind energy generation that I see here is disturbing. It is the type of position that I would expect from the Tea Party and not one that I want the NDP to have anything to do with.
.....
Perhaps we should consider the arrogance of some rural people once in a while too instead of all of the urban-bashing
Oh.
Please.
Let us know when you get down off your high horse so we can grovel at your wisdom. Maybe, just maybe the dismissive, condescending attitude you displayed from the very begining had something to do with it? Nay it has to be those uppity rural people that don't know enough to recognize their betters.
Tue, 2010-05-04 17:48
#55
I would love to see more turbines in Toronto. I don't really understand why they're not being built here.
Also: if people are worried about the look of them, or health effects, is it not possible to build them offshore right IN the lake? You'd think there would be more wind there, and that the health effects would be minimized. Not sure whether that would have an effect on currents and such, though.
These are questions from someone who knows next to nothing about this subject, so sorry if you've covered it - I just stumbled on this thread after a pm chat with BA last night.
I think BA inadvertantly answered your question above.
By the way it is not the Lake Huron shoreline that gets used, despite the merits of such an idea or examples of this being the perfered method in many parts of the world. That, after all, would upset the more politically powerful cottager demographic.
You can probably transfer the word cottager for certian segments of the urban community that have far more political clout than rural areas, or even rural municpalites many of whom while intially supportive are now joining the calls for a moritorium for some of the reasons outlined in this thread and the previous one.
Tue, 2010-05-04 17:55
#56
bagkitty
Ken, I wasn't trying to take sides... I was trying to get away from it. I was also, however, trying to point out that the southern Ontario situation was quite different from that elsewhere. To my view, lots of the rural in southern Ontario is pretty "cheek by jowl" -- to western eyes at least. I also think the points that have been raised about creating generation capacity along the shores of Lake Ontario are good ones - and would reduce the demands being placed on prime agricultural land (of course, what do I know about prime agricultural land... in my area, we have ranchland, and little bits suitable for canola and alfalfa (at best)). Given the history of Toronto's way of dealing with its waste problems, I would be quite willing to suggest rural suspicion of things been done "for the greater good" are not baseless.
Farmpunk: been years since I have been in Pincher Creek too... it is a detour off Highway 3 I have little reason to make. One of my coworkers is from there, though, and visits her family frequently. While she frequently raises concerns about sour gas leaks from the Shell fields, there has been no mention of anyone having problems with the wind turbines (actually more of a case of civic pride about them). I did find a map put out by the MD of Pincher showing the placement of installed and proposed windfarms in the area, there is no scale supplied on the map, but the distance between Pincher and Cowley is just over 15km. It looks like some of the proposed turbines will be right on the edge of town.
Tue, 2010-05-04 18:05
#57
I am another one of these rural progressive that were delighted to see the intial industrial sized turbines coming into the area- now not so much. And before I get jumped on we have had, done at out own expense, a 75 ft wind tower and a photovoltaic panels for a number of years- must be almost 7 years now. I know technology is evolving, but I feel compelled to point out that the photovoltaic system only works sporadically as something seems to be always blowing on it, especially at the inverter.
Anyway, I am now very troubled with what has happened in my community. Posters like BA are actually being quite constrained in trying to explain the problems to those who have a closed mind beleiving that if it wind or solar there just can't be any problems. But what is really happening is that people are getting hosed right, left and centre and some people are experiencing low-level sonic noise in the 60-100 db ranges in some places on some days, even though the turbines confirm to the minimum offsets.
If I can provide any advice to those urbanites, and rural people who don't live with these industrial development it would be to remember that a single visit to them tells you almost nothing. Even our very small tower can be headache inducing on days were the wind is hitting it from the right (wrong) direction. So for people living right in amongst these behemoths- like in the red light district between Port Elgin and Kincardine- the problems came come and go and I am sure there is some wearing down their resistance to some of the problems as they experience them time and again.
Finally, doesn't it give some of you pause when you see a number of very active rural progressives starting to question what is happening? Doesn't that suggest that maybe there is more to this issue than you realize and that something has gone wrong in McGuinty's Ontario? When I hear urban people talking about the importance of the loss of things like Transit City thanks to this government, I take them at their word. It would be nice for once, as a rural person, not to be talked down to when we raise legitimate issues effecting and affecting our communities.
Tue, 2010-05-04 18:29
#58
Frustrated Mess
Look here are your choices: Wind, solar, bio-gas, coal, gas, nuclear.
Those may be the choices but they come in a wide verity of different models. Just because I don't like the wind turbines going up in our communities doesn't mean I'm against wind. It means I don't like that particular design. Go back to the drawing board and design something that doesn't harm humans. If we're going to spend $7 billion I'm pretty sure the project can afford to do it right.
Our entire capitalist system of exploitation and industrial extraction harms humans. My point above, if you missed it, is that it is the choice humans have made.
FM, is Port Burwell being powered directly by the 50 or so turbines surrounding it?
I dunno, is Bruce directly powered by the nukes there? Is Nanticoke directly powered by the coal plant there? Capitalism is founded on the standardization and commodification of everything including energy. You farm corn, right? Why? Because it's cheap and it is one of the two primary inputs to almost all processed food. So why mass produce corn and feed it into a huge system? Economies of scale is the answer. McDonalds could not produce burgers as cheap as they are without economies of scale and low priced commodities. And the same economies of scale applies to energy. Do you think energy should be different from food?
I suspect many turbines are being built on land owned by more or less absentee landowners. A small landowning farmer would have to think hard about giving up that much land.
Don't suspect. Go and investigate. It's not that far away. And what you will find is just as many farmers live on the land with the turbines as do landowners who lease. As well, the turbines don't use that much space and you know the solution to a little bit of lost space ... grow closer to the road, remove the buffer to the water, cut down the tree line, plow fence-row-to-fence-row.
Were you talking about the Belmont solar farm in the previous thread? I missed the mention. The protest over that particular green energy project has nothing to do with people's health being directly affected by the installation. Local farmers were concerned that prime farm land was being used, against the rules of the Green Energy Act. The company doing the work apparently had a contract, or contracts, in place before the Act was issued and that allows them to build regardless of the Act.
The people most upset by the Belmont proposal are the locals who wanted to do smaller solar installations, as a business. They suspect the Belmont operation will be given the "green" space on the grid. At least that's what I was told. I didn't have time to confirm the facts.
That is why I am arguing that while I think some people's health are affected by turbine, I don't think the bulk of the opposition is really about health. Those same farmers have subdivision developments popping up all around them which doesn't engender the same level of opposition and the Green Energy Act encourages farmers, as per all the seminars, to develop their own energy sources and sell the surplus back to the grid. There is a company right now assessing almost 1,000 farm sites for solar and these are on farm projects. See for yourself: http://essexfreepress.ca/node/1486
Odd that a private US owned company has more rights than the municipality.
You find that odd? Have you heard of Wal-Mart? We live in a culture that does not, that will not, protect local business, local food producers, local consumers, and local environments. The invisible "investor class" and their profit takes precedence over every other concern. I have been following local politics for years, but don't take my word for it. You can see this phenomenon in action almost any day of the week in almost any community.
<truce>
Look, people, if we can be frank for one moment. The sudden investment in renewable energies isn't really a choice at all. We are at a point in history of increasing energy scarcity. Energy will become more expensive and there will be more wars fought over it. Energy scarcity will bring with it higher input costs and higher food costs. The Ontario government is acting, like it or not, with forethought. Electricity is the most important energy we generate. Our modern civilization is built on it and they will burn the last tree before they will let the grid fail. Do I support that? No. I just recognize it. The reality is we want what global industrial capitalism has delivered and we are fully prepared to pay the price of a diminished world that may or may not support the generations that follow.
</truce>
Tue, 2010-05-04 19:22
#59
Boom Boom
Look here are your choices: Wind, solar, bio-gas, coal, gas, nuclear.
And in some provinces: hydro from dams. Such as here in Quebec, where more hydro projects are being proposed, and one near me is I believe being built although I haven't seen anything recent on this in the news. Link: Dam Threatens Heart of Canada's Wilderness
Tue, 2010-05-04 19:30
#60
Boom Boom
Did anyone read this link I posted earlier? Dam Threatens Heart of Canada's Wilderness Hydro seems to be the main solution for power generation for the Liberals and this article says why.
excerpt:
Such alternatives to the massive Romaine project do exist with small-scale hydro and wind turbine projects. The Cartier Wind Energy company, for eg, has contracts with Hydro-Québec to produce 740 of wind power in rural southeastern Québec. Yet this is only a fraction of the 4,000 MW the government has committed to develop by 2015, a ludicrously amount of Québec’s estimated 100,000 megawatts of wind generation potential.
Québec’s blasé attitude towards developing alternative energy sources is underscored in another government publication, Québec Energy Strategy 2006-2015, clearly the provincial goal of resuming and accelerating the pace of hydroelectric development.
excerpt:
It’s the same old, same old - reinforce Québecers’ wasteful consumer energy habits, generate more wealth for Hydro-Québec, and hold onto political power in the next provincial election - recycled in today’s politically correct parlance of “green energy.”
Tue, 2010-05-04 19:39
#61
No need for a truce. I didn't think there was a war going on.
I grow sweet corn. My Dad\boss plants "field" corn.
Our farm is not large. Unless I did some serious research I would not accept a full size Port Burwell-esque turbine on this land (has to take up a half-acre, with guywires). The same space would be better used, for the environment, by using it as pasture... or by installing solar.
We can't get beyond capitalism, as you suggest and with which I agree, when the environment meets up with the invisible hand.
But this is "new" policy, new power generation for a new age, Green projects, and they're funded by the province via the feed in tariff, which I have read about quite a lot, and talked to a lot of people in the know, including some journalists and businesspeople and politicians who know a helluva lot more than I do about the true intricacies of the program. A sixteen thousand dollar roof-top, or barn-top, solar installation is the least intrusive. If the feed in tariff exists in ten years, I may start making money, my payback being at least that long. My home will still not be directly powered by the sun.... the juice goes into the system, the grid tie-in. Thanks, I'll keeping planting Dad's field corn in the meantime and use that sixteen grand in other ways.
Feed in tariff encourages business, not energy self-sufficiency.
And that's if the grid doesn't already have enough green power flowing into it. I believe there is a cap per area, or region. And living near the turbines, I wonder how much green grid space is left for my barn-top solar panels.
The only people I've spoke with who're big fans of the feed-in program are trying to sell me something. And even then I spoke with a renewable power business owner who told me blankly that the program was not what it was made out to be.
I've tried to steer clear of the turbines and health issue, simply because I don't know enough about that side of the green game. I have spent a fair deal of time investigating the feed-in, Green Energy act, and the political-business side of things on the local level. That's where I find trouble.
I am for green power, used intelligently. I am against having the public subsidize foreign companies, and not being progressive with energy policy. That's why I got involved in this meandering thread to start with... because the Green Energy Act is greenwashing. It didn't have to be so.
A lot of what you say about farmers, agriculture, and land policy has merits. Neither BA, Life, or I blanket defend the current state of agriculture in SWOnt.
Having said that, your points about farm land subdividing is especially aggravating, because in my experience it's the real estate and investment fuckers who buy land, rent the land to massive agribusinesses which grow corn followed by soybeans, in the hopes that small town municipalities will allow subdivisions. My control over that process is about the same as my power to control the weather. I suggest this phenom will only get worse as ag land prices increase, and the relatively well-off supply managed sectors buy up at a serious premium whatever land they can, using grossly inflated quota prices as a backstop\guarentee to keep the banking sector happy.
Tue, 2010-05-04 19:53
#62
bagkitty
You have it quite right Boom Boom... while not contributing largely to GHGs, hydroelectric on that scale is hardly "green". I wish that the information about, for example, large scale release of methy mercury into the environment as a result of hydroelectric development were readily available in electronic form and as widely understood as, again for example, the effects of Tar Sands development. Developments of this kind and on this scale do nothing to encourage conservation and maintain the do nothing to wean us from so-called cheap energy. While most of us would consider hydroelectric a lesser evil, there are still massive environmental costs.
Tue, 2010-05-04 19:56
#63
...and as the farm population ages and retires and there is no next generation, with the notable exception of a few amazing young farmers like you seem to be farmpunk, to take over or able to afford to buy the land the problems will get worse not better.
We have a number of major issues facing us, especially in Ontario, (but elsewhere too) and they are all going to haunt the coming generation of rural and urban citizens becuase of the utter failure of this generation of political and most farm leaders.
Just a quibble with your comments FM. Many farmers do speak out about subdivisions and the rural residental strips (that are not much different) that buffer the roads in many areas leading out of urban areas. But many of the farms that those things are built on are not owned by people, they are owned by investors and agri-business corportations. The almighty dollar is what they care about. And most of the family farmers were driven out of those areas long ago because they couldn't afford to be there. So in some ways there are very few people left to fight back.
Tue, 2010-05-04 20:00
#64
Apologies, Boomster. There've been so many links in this and the other thread, plus a lot of substansive posts, that eyes are getting bleary.
If you want to check out a great movie related to Hydro-Quebec, watch Hunters of the Mistassini. Ah, crap, just remembered you're on dial-up. Anyhow, great movie.
Tue, 2010-05-04 20:06
#65
Farming is too expensive to get into in my view. I believe the average farm in Grey/Bruce likely cost around 400,000 for a few hundred acres. How is a younger person suppose to get into the business with prices like that.
I would like to farm yet at this time it nearly impossible.
BA please correct me if I am wrong.
Tue, 2010-05-04 20:15
#66
Try buying farm land in Oxford county. Land prices in areas there exceed $14Gs\acre.
Tue, 2010-05-04 21:20
#67
It may sound like I am ranting, but my point is that if you are a progressive rural person then let's be allies here and end the divisions because we probably have more in common than you think!
And we'd all agree. And, the facts indicate that rural Ontario has shouldered all the negatives, real or imagined, of wind turbines. No one here, I don't think, has argued against wind turbines, Ken. Only drawn question to their placement, and, as progressives might, question why we see the burden placed-- as usual-- on the backs of those who don't have priveleged influence.
For the record, in Toronto terms I live in the "rural" municipality of London. However, my rural friends actually see London as a "urban" area. So, as an urbanite-- not a "progressive" one, but a lefty-- I've long held that we need to ally with each other: Farmers and Factory workers, rural and urban. We have a lot in common. So, I listen to them. And gall durn it, they can be right about some stuff. Believe it or don't.
If prognostications on evironmental degradation are even half accurate, the old politics aren't going to allow us to adapt fast enough.
If we keep on this slow track of brow beating our nieghbours into recycling their Tim Horton's cups, or waiting until the Stuperstore notices that you and your buddy and his wife and grandmother have stopped buying baked goods because they come in clamshell plastic, well, we're doomed. We're going to watch the tundra fart out 100,000 years worth of methane, and we'll be up to our giblets in Halifaxian, Bostonian and Fredrictonian refugees.
An environmental movement that does not include vigorous power sharing, and regulation of business is just Green Washing.
Might as well throw another tire on the barby and have done with it.
Tue, 2010-05-04 21:23
#68
The problem with progressive environmentalists is that Rahim Jaffer is one.
Tue, 2010-05-04 22:22
#69
Frustrated Mess
Rahim Jaffer is not an environmentalist. I think the argument could be made he is no progressive, either.
I was mentioning this discussion to my better half and I mentioned some think renewable energy is using rural communities to solve an urban problem. She answered farming is using rural communities to solve an urban problem. And then I and said, "yeah, farmers feed cities," citing the bumper sticker to which she said, "soon farmers will be feeding farmers." I think that goes to the inevitable failure of industrial agriculture.
The reason we focus on issues of energy is because we don't really, not yet, oppose the economic model, complete with power imbalances and lack of regulation inherent to it. Once we oppose the model, then how we provide energy for a new model becomes a question to be asked after the model has been defined.
Farmpunk:
Having said that, your points about farm land subdividing is especially aggravating, because in my experience it's the real estate and investment fuckers who buy land, rent the land to massive agribusinesses which grow corn followed by soybeans, in the hopes that small town municipalities will allow subdivisions. My control over that process is about the same as my power to control the weather. I suggest this phenom will only get worse as ag land prices increase, and the relatively well-off supply managed sectors buy up at a serious premium whatever land they can, using grossly inflated quota prices as a backstop\guarentee to keep the banking sector happy.
That's true. But the first part of that goes to local governments failing to protect local interests and it goes to regulations that favor massive producers over smaller producers and pretty much outlaw over the kitchen table sales. It's fascinating, to me, that regulation in our free market economy, over the past generation, has been to protect the markets of the major players, to raise the cost of market entry to make it prohibitive, and to regulate out of existence, to the greatest extent possible, cottage industries. This is the legacy of successive Conservative and Liberal governments but people still buy into the myths and outright lies of "free market" capitalism. I think that argument is partly supported by the prohibitive cost of entering farming. It once was possible to operate a profitable farm on 50 acres. It will be again. I promise. :)
Just a correction, FP, industrial turbines do not use guy wires and they have a very small footprint. A farmer can plow right up to a few feet of them. The biggest loss is the access road which is determined by the placement and setback.
Right now solar is all the rage. There will be fewer, but likely much larger, wind farms.
Tue, 2010-05-04 23:21
#70
my point is that if you are a progressive rural person then let's be allies here and end the divisions because we probably have more in common than you think!
Question: Does becoming allies mean progressive rural folk have to swallow the urbanite's narrative of wind turbines? Sounds like the voice of my oppressor rather than my ally.
According to Anne Bishop, author of Becoming an Ally, "Allies are people who recognize the unearned privilege they receive from society's patters of injustice and take responsibility for changing these patterns."
Be a good ally. Recognize how much power urbanites have over rural folk. Reach out to us. Listen to our narratives. Look for a solution that works for both sides.
Tue, 2010-05-04 23:45
#71
Just had a look on google earth to the windmills put up in Kincardine. They do take up a fair chunk of land and cut up fields pretty bad.
If they ever put up these industrial units around here, I would be inclined to rip out the fence rows, make a few big fields, rent out the house on an acre lot to some golf fanatic, who can while away his/her time on the golfcourse next door, and look for a quiet place in the Pontiac, Quebec. And rent out the land to the industrial farmer down the road. What is the point of having a harmonious place with these four to seven hundred foot monsters looking down on you.
Tue, 2010-05-04 23:57
#72
Boom Boom
I think putting these huge windmills (and windmill farms) within view of residential units is asking for trouble.
Wed, 2010-05-05 01:07
#73
Sven
It would be nice for once, as a rural person, not to be talked down to when we raise legitimate issues effecting and affecting our communities.
Why is it being "talked down to" when urbanites express disagreements with ruralites but it's not being "talked down to" when ruralites express disagreements with urbanites?
I've spent roughly half of my life living in (very) rural Minnesota and the other half in a large metropolitan area and my guess is that many ruralites have, for some reason, a significant sense of insecurity relative to urbanites. It's really the best explanation I can think of for why many ruralites think they are being "talked down to" by urbanites when the same conversation, but in the opposite direction, is not viewed as being "talked down to" by urbanites.
My advice? Stop playing the "being talked down to" card.
Wed, 2010-05-05 01:21
#74
Sven
Question: Does becoming allies mean progressive rural folk have to swallow the urbanite's narrative of wind turbines? Sounds like the voice of my oppressor rather than my ally.
According to Anne Bishop, author of Becoming an Ally, "Allies are people who recognize the unearned privilege they receive from society's patters of injustice and take responsibility for changing these patterns."
What are the unearned "privileges" possessed by urbanites relative to ruralites??
That's just silly make-believe nonsense.
Wed, 2010-05-05 01:29
#75
Sven
Try buying farm land in Oxford county. Land prices in areas there exceed $14Gs\acre.
If the value of a particular acre of land is $14,000, would it make more sense for the owner to use the land for agricultural purposes or to sell it to someone who is willing to pay $14,000 for it?
If a person owned a section of land that is worth $14,000 per acre (or about $9 million for the section) and choose to spend years farming the land to make a living, then that's the person's choice. A stupid choice, in my opinion, but it's their choice. On the other hand, if the person decided to sell that land to someone actually willing to pay $9 million for it, I say: "Good for you."
Wed, 2010-05-05 07:15
#76
The land is zoned agricultural. Ordinary people without some kind of political pull can't get it re-zoned.
Now, what's considered "agriculture" likely includes an almost completely automated massive barn to milk cows or similar to house chickens.
The point being that "normal" agricultural use of 14G\acre land would never come close to paying back the loan needed to purchase the land. There are factors outside the market that determine the price of land in this area.
A potential comprimise, which would never happen, would be to force any new industrial agricultural installations to generate %50 of their power useage from renewable sources. Some are doing this anyway (biodigesters, etc) but it'd still be nice to see some regs put in place.
FM, re guy wires... My memory must be balky. The last one I stood under had some sort of mid tower support cabling.... Or not. Good time to go and check.
Wed, 2010-05-05 09:12
#77
Boom Boom
NS: "Imagine Toronto running electric cars powered by the lake winds. Oh, what a wonderfull world that would be!!"
But could we place so much greater reliance on the weather forecasts regarding wind velocity...so that we are not stranded somewhere by a sudden doldrum? No, let's see what can be done with public transport first (and the means for providing an electrical base load independent of wind and sun...and fossil fuels. Half the population will not be able to afford automobiles, no matter what their motive power, in another couple of decades, anyway.)
I haven't seen any discussion of using transformers and storage batteries to best utilize power downloaded from windmills - surely these will become part of the equation?
Wed, 2010-05-05 09:56
#78
Sven
The land is zoned agricultural. Ordinary people without some kind of political pull can't get it re-zoned.
Now, what's considered "agriculture" likely includes an almost completely automated massive barn to milk cows or similar to house chickens.
The point being that "normal" agricultural use of 14G\acre land would never come close to paying back the loan needed to purchase the land. There are factors outside the market that determine the price of land in this area.
Under what circumstances would it make economic sense for an agricultural organization to purchase land at a cost of $14,000 per acre to conduct a massive farming operation when there are millions of acres available for a tiny fraction of that cost?
Wed, 2010-05-05 10:49
#79
Just had a look on google earth to the windmills put up in Kincardine. They do take up a fair chunk of land and cut up fields pretty bad.
Wed, 2010-05-05 10:55
#80
Question: Does becoming allies mean progressive rural folk have to swallow the urbanite's narrative of wind turbines? Sounds like the voice of my oppressor rather than my ally.
According to Anne Bishop, author of Becoming an Ally, "Allies are people who recognize the unearned privilege they receive from society's patters of injustice and take responsibility for changing these patterns."
What are the unearned "privileges" possessed by urbanites relative to ruralites??
That's just silly make-believe nonsense.
Voting power for one. Many agree that Toronto would never allow turbines to be erected along their shore line yet they have no problem imposing construction zones on rural Ontario. If there was a balance of power b/w urban and rural perhaps there would be no turbines at all because no one would take them.
Wed, 2010-05-05 11:07
#81
The biggest argument I keep hearing on this thread in support of industrial wind turbines is that our questions and concerns are just delaying the progress of a wonderful cause. Today Conservative Minister John Baird accused opposition parties of creating a "culture war", instead of getting behind the "admirable goal" of the government's maternal health plan. He claimed it was "something Canadians can unite behind" (CBC). Both causes are admirable. Both have deficiencies when it comes to public health. Raising questions and concerns is not a form of delaying progress - rather questions and concerns are required to ensure the best plan possible is executed.
Wed, 2010-05-05 11:36
#82
Farming is too expensive to get into in my view. I believe the average farm in Grey/Bruce likely cost around 400,000 for a few hundred acres. How is a younger person suppose to get into the business with prices like that.
I would like to farm yet at this time it nearly impossible.
BA please correct me if I am wrong.
I know this is off-topic, but then I am sure there is nothing off topic in this thread given the way it is going.
Anyway, I wouldn't say a few hundred acres.
About $400K would get you a decent hundred, with a decent house, a few decent out buildings and maybe some fencing. Much more than decent and you are looking at half a million easy.
The thing is for a starting farmer that is just - well the start. (and I know you know all this webgear, but I thought I would lay it out for others)
Basic equipment would include (and I will assume decent used equipment in my cost- nothing fancy, but servicable.)
75-100 hp tractor $20 k for sure
loader tractor (definite need if there is livestock) 15 K
Plough 3k
cultivator 1500
disc 1000
harrows 500
seed drill 3000
and then you could get your grain/beans/corn custom combined (which of course isn't free)
If you have livestock you will also need
mo/co 5000
some kind of rake 1000
baler square 4000
round 8000
If you choose the square option thrower 2 wagons 4000
if you choose the round option flat rack 2000, but a lot more fuel to move the bales
Often if you are cow/calf you really need both kinds of balers. And square straws work better in most older bank barns.
If you really want to be fancy a big square baler used will set you back about 40 k
manure spreader 5000
Annual fencing repairs 500-1000
some kind of feed grinder 4000 to start
Now notice you have yet to buy seed or livestock.
Here is what we basically tell young people in our society who want to farm. We suspect you aren't really smart enough to do another job, but if you want to farm cool. By the way you are probably looking at a bare minimum of half a million dollars in debt to start (more like a million if you want to milk or raise poulty/eggs) Which means massive and unstable loans, plus likely an off farm job to boot. You will be basically working around the clock and forget about nice trips or vacations or a cottage or anything like that. So come on down to the farm it will be great.
Wed, 2010-05-05 11:44
#83
Frustrated Mess
Just had a look on google earth to the windmills put up in Kincardine. They do take up a fair chunk of land and cut up fields pretty bad.
You see, that is a cheap propaganda ploy aimed at demonizing windfarms and has nothing to do with legitimate concerns or questions. That is an incomplete construction site. A finished site looks nothing like that. Please don't bullshit me with cheap pandering about legitimate concerns when you post nonsense like that. The centre of the site, made of concrete, that is the footprint of the turbine.
Anyone can visit a site to see for themselves. This is just fear mongering. And that's what conservatives are good at.
Wed, 2010-05-05 11:49
#84
And are tar sands incomplete construction sites too...
Wed, 2010-05-05 11:52
#85
A farmer can plow right up to a few feet of them. The biggest loss is the access road which is determined by the placement and setback.
FM, just a small correction you might be able to get that close to turbines in your area (and I assume you know what you are saying so I don't question it) but not here.
As the weirdness in life is constant I was away all day yesterday helping out a sick relative. He rents land with a turbine on it. I think we call that serindipity. There were times I could hear it over the noise of the tractor (and my ear protectors) as a kind of low hum. Took me quite awhile to figure out what it was. I kept getting off the tractor assuming I had blown a bearing or something. It wasn't there all the time and only seemed to be there when I was facing a certian way in the field. Anyway, if I could hear it over a tractor- it must have been loud, or was able to cut through due to the wave it was at.
Anyway, that is sort of off topic to what I wanted to say. This turbine - and all the ones around it have pit run gravel spread around the base out to about to about 75-100 feet in diameter. If you know what pit run is it has a higher concentration of sand and the rocks vary widely in size. You definitely are not going to crop it. It isn't the same as your run of the mill crushed gravel. With the access road the turbine's presence took up a good 3 to 4 acres. That won't be uniform for all turbines though as you are right it depends on how far back they are set from the road and so on.
Wed, 2010-05-05 12:02
#86
Grey explores charter challenge to wind farms
Grey County council has taken a first step to take back control of wind farm development in light of health concerns and newfound legal hope.
Councillors passed a motion Tuesday that was proposed by Chatsworth Mayor Howard Greig and seconded by The Blue Mountains Mayor Ellen Anderson.
County council voted to direct staff to investigate preparing a wind turbine control bylaw for the protection of people's health.
Wed, 2010-05-05 12:05
#87
BA, thanks for the farming post.
Do you know of anyone selling 100 acres or so?
Wed, 2010-05-05 12:47
#88
Frustrated Mess
And are tar sands incomplete construction sites too...
There you have it. It's really about the tar sands.
No. The tar sands are a scar on the face of humanity and the earth. They poison water, land, and air, and everything they touch. They are responsible for cancers down stream and probably in situ. They have cost billons of dollars, and they contribute to the degradation and eventual destruction of our life systems. But they represent the same choice as windfarms. They represent the choice of perpetuating a lifestyle of wanton consumption for the sake of consumption in a consumer capitalist society with no sense of "future" other than what's on Thursday night. You asked.
Wed, 2010-05-05 13:09
#89
More off topic.
Sven, there aren't millions of viable acres availible in SWOnt, or Canada for that matter. The cropland in Oxford county, Ontario, is extremely valuable for specific segments of the ag community.
Remember that Ontario has a strong supply managed sector in dairy and "feather" industries and often these operations need to buy land in order to conform to nutrient management regs put down by the gov.
In other words, a big dairy operation needs land to spread manure on, which in turn grows corn that is mixed and fed to the cattle. Ditto for chickens. These operations own a share of a rock solid market, and those shares are worth a LOT of money, so these operations can leverage the quota\stock to purchase land, because the banks know they will have something to take back\sell in case the farm fails.
This creates a big run on premium ag land in specific areas. Ya know... the market sets the price and all that. Especially when dairy and chicken operations expand by buying more quota, using land as collateral.
The distance between where FM and I live, and where BA, Life, and Webgear live isn't very far. But in ag zone terms, there's a large gap. Think Minnesota and Mississippi.
Your confusion about ag in Ontario is understandable. Explaining supply management to Americans is difficult, since I don't think there's anything like it in the US.
And remember that Southern Ontario is really the breadbasket of Canada. It's the most Southerly zone, most temperate, and has the strongest soil, with easy access to three Great Lakes and those watersheds.
Do you still wonder why the land is worth that much?
Wed, 2010-05-05 17:36
#90
I noticed FM keeps trying to denounce my credibility rather than addressing the points I have raised and that other's have raised. Still, FM has yet to offer anything constructive like a solution that works for everyone. That was the point of my original post. Brainstorm a solution that works for everyone. Someone mentioned a while back that Europe uses different models that do not emit frequencies that bother humans. Does anyone have anymore information on this area/
Wed, 2010-05-05 18:22
#91
Frustrated Mess
I'm not attacking your credibility. You're an anonymous poster, as I am, hence you have no credibility. I am attacking your tactics. And, in fact, you haven't answered any of my arguments. And you say that I haven't offered anything constructive but what I have offered is implicit in my arguments. We must change our lifestyle. Consume half as much energy and goods as we do now. Stop consuming fast foods and processed foods altogether. Live simpler lives. Walk more, drive less, and live close to where we work. Instill all of this into public policy and suddenly the demand for energy is reduced and the demand for turbines, coal, and other industrial energy sources, including the tar sands, is greatly reduced. Finally, restrict energy and resource trade only to nations with similar land use and energy policies. There you go. Now what?
Wed, 2010-05-05 19:00
#92
Sven
We must change our lifestyle. Consume half as much energy and goods as we do now. Stop consuming fast foods and processed foods altogether. Live simpler lives. Walk more, drive less, and live close to where we work.
Living "simpler lives" not only means buying "less stuff". It also means consuming more time on life's tasks.
Stopping the consumption of fast foods and other "processed foods altogether" would mean much more time spent in the kitchen (and perhaps in gardens growing a portion of one's own food). Nothing wrong with that (people would probably be healthier) but more time would be consumed in the task of acquiring and preparing food.
You drive five or ten minutes to the grocery store now? Well, walking will take an hour of your time. Again, nothing wrong with that -- but people will consume much more time at the task.
In other words, a drastic reduction in energy consumption will mean certainly mean "less stuff". But it will also result in a vast increase in the amount of time needed to engage in many of life's ordinary tasks. And that latter result of decreased energy consumption is probably a more difficult thing to sell to people than simply getting people to buy "less stuff".
Wed, 2010-05-05 19:13
#93
Frustrated Mess
Why? Peole Afraid they'll miss some celebrity gossip or latest reality TV pablum? Yes, less energy means more time doing things. But in today's modern world where couples share household tasks that ought to be quality time together. And it certainly is not punishement. TV marketing, now that's punishment.
Wed, 2010-05-05 19:34
#94
Sven
Yes, less energy means more time doing things. But in today's modern world where couples share household tasks that ought to be quality time together.
Perhaps it "ought" to be quality time, relaxing, etc. -- but that doesn't mean people will generally, in fact, look at it that way.
And, it's not just time away from things like "celebrity gossip" or the latest sit-com on TV. More time consumed with the daily tasks of life would mean less time watching your kid's play baseball, or less free time to travel, or less time to read, or less time to do a variety of things that are not essential to life. That's the real trade-off...and that, IMO, will be the real challenge when trying to convince people to drastically reduce energy consumption.
I think convincing people to buy "less stuff" is the easier task -- although even that won't be "easy".
Wed, 2010-05-05 21:30
#95
[url=http://ontariondp.com/en/new-report-backs-ndp-call-for-early-coal-phase-... report backs NDP call for early coal phase-out[/url]
QUEEN’S PARK – NDP Energy Critic Peter Tabuns is welcoming a new report from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance which shows the McGuinty government could shut down the province’s coal plants today without compromising electricity supply thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preventing hundreds of pollution-related deaths a year.“This report confirms the NDP’s position – that the McGuinty government’s delay of a coal phase-out until 2014 is unnecessary and unhealthy,” said Tabuns.
“The report shows yet again that even without coal, electricity supply in the province is sufficient to meet peak demand.”
The report urges the McGuinty government to immediately put the coal plants on standby reserve, and to only operate them in case of a power emergency or grid stabilization.
“Even on economic grounds, burning coal makes no sense. Instead of closing down coal plants, the McGuinty government provided almost $300-million dollars in subsidy to the Nanticoke and Lambton plants in the first nine months of 2009 alone,” said Tabuns.
[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/803712--watchdog-zaps-ontari... zaps Ontario’s conservation efforts[/url] TorStar May 3rd
[url=http://www.ontariosgreenfuture.ca/petition.php]Sign the petition for a Nuclear Cost Responsibility Act[/url] Ontarians to pick up tab for bottomless nuclear power money pit cost overruns
Wed, 2010-05-05 21:38
#96
Frustrated Mess
Actually, Sven, it would likely mean more of those things. Every single study will confirm that as we've embraced the consumer capitalist, transportation focused model, we in fact spend far less time with friends and family and tossing the ball with junior. This social phenonenom was best illustrated by Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone ( http://www.bowlingalone.com/ ). Subsequent studies have only supported Putnam's main thesis. Additional studies have shown that despite all the crap in our lives designed to eliminate interaction with our friends, neighbours, families, and children, we are less happy. And so we should be. The lie of globalism and consumer culture has robbed us of community, family, culture, family history, narratives, shared experience, neighbourhood, and so much more. We are inherently social creatures who help each other when in need, but in Western culture we've been inculcated from birth to only understand "me, me, me" and to sacrifice the very genetic traits that made humans a successful species. But separating us from our biological selves was critical, as illustrated by Linda McQuaig, for the success of modern capitalism.
So we actually believe that we have more time to spend with our families when every single credible study shows we in fact spend less time with our families. We actually believe we would not be happy without the chains of consumer slavery even every single study shows we are less happy. We actually believe we have more leisure time when in fact what we don't spend working we spend commuting and what we don't spend commuting we spend rushing from here to there and what we don't spend rushing around we spend vegetating in front of the television as passive receptors for marketing and political propaganda.
What TV does to your children.
That is a testament to both the power of marketing and our own stupidity. Without so much as peep we made the migration from people, citizens, parents, workers, familes, and the complex, multidimensional creatures we are, to two dimensional, passive consumers. Meanwhile, knowing we're destroying our own life systems we say we can't stop because it would harm the economy that doesn't serve us and we would have to surrender the consumer trappings that leave us spiritually empty and socially impoverished.
All of those reasons, in a nutshell, is why we have industrial wind and why we can't live without it.
Wed, 2010-05-05 23:02
#97
Basic equipment would include (and I will assume decent used equipment in my cost- nothing fancy, but servicable.)
75-100 hp tractor $20 k for sure
loader tractor (definite need if there is livestock) 15 K
Plough 3k
cultivator 1500
disc 1000........
Or in the case of the Amish....
A good sturdy horse.....$3000
A pull behind plow.... $2000
A family that does not mind spending all day in the sun planting seeds, hand cultivating and watering...priceless....
Like any other occupation the big corporations (you know Massey Ferguson, International, CIL etc) have farmers believing they need all the big name equipment and high priced fertilizer to put in a crop and tend to livestock, when really the practice of farmer can still be as simple as what the Amish do - amazingly without power. Most Canadian farmers don't want to work that hard, again believing that they must make enough penny crops to pay the bills at the end of the year. Most have forgotten about self-sufficiency, and organic methods. Selling a bit on the side helps purchase what actually NEEDS to be bought.
Instead of trying to run a farm like a big corporation on a small budget, they should really be run like the family businesses of old. I know many successful family farms run this way and everyone helps out with planting, chores and clean-up. BUt if the family heart is no longer in it, then it is better to get out, rather than to soak oneself with debt, frustration and endless yearnings for "bigger and better".
Wed, 2010-05-05 23:22
#98
Boom Boom
I spent half a day digging weeds out of my veggie garden, still have lots to do. This is not a commercial venture - I do it to enjoy fresh air, get a bit of exercise, and I will have enjoyed my own fresh carrots, swiss chard, lettuce, beets, radishes, and tomatoes, and maybe rutabaga and watermelon as well. And my friends and neighbours will have a share in what I've grown as well, at no cost to them whatsoever. My only regret is that it's a smaller garden than I really want, so I'll be looking at expanding.
Wed, 2010-05-05 23:38
#99
Boom Boom
First Lady Michelle Obama re-started the White House Garden last year, and it's been a great success - school children have visited and worked in it as a learning experience.
Wed, 2010-05-05 23:40
#100
That is one of the points.
During the Second World War "Victory Gardens" (backyard gardens) produced 80% of the poduce for the table. Today, supermarket fare produces about 90-110% of the table fare - and most of that is imported from poorer countries than Canada farmers.
Self-sufficency has been overwhelmed by the corporate mantra - globalization is better for all of us. It is THE big lie and like all corporate ventures it is designed to exploit the resources at their source, and rake in the obscene profits on delivery.
Thu, 2010-05-06 00:43
#101
[url=http://ontariondp.com/en/new-report-backs-ndp-call-for-early-coal-phase-... report backs NDP call for early coal phase-out[/url]
It's easy to phase people out of work - not so easy to phase them back into the job market. While coal needs to be phased out asap - equally there needs to be an employment strategy to place these people in skilled, high-paying secure jobs. Just saying we'll create a green economy is not good enough. What is needed is a direct transfer program of employees from one workspace to another.
Policy can no longer be viewed in silos - the impact of change must be measured across all sectors especially jobs and damage done to the local communities. Too many ghost towns are being created as is. When people leave all that infrastructure goes to waste and new infrastructure has to be built elsewhere where the influx is being had.
By raising labour questions - will I again be accused of delaying environmental goals? Or will labour hold more weight compared to the health concerns of a few rural communities.