by SUSAN MANN with files from BETTER FARMING STAFF
After months of delay, construction of a controversial solar energy project in the St. Eugene area of eastern Ontario began earlier this week with most of the work slated to be completed by September, 2011.
Chris Young, managing director of Enfinity Canada, says workers are at the 300-acre site laying out where the access ways are to be located. “We’re doing landscaping and putting up fences before the snow flies.” But the bulk of the construction won’t be done until spring.
The farm is owned by Enfinity Canada, a subsidiary of Belgium-based Enfinity. The completed project will have about 140,000 solar panels and generate 30 megawatts of solar power. Enfinity bought the project’s developer, Solaris Energy Partners Inc., in September, 2009.
The plan is to do as much work as possible before the snow hits, then stop during the winter and continue in the spring. Young says there are 20 workers on the site now and about 200 trades’ people “will be going all through next year.”
Construction of the project was to begin in March and it would have been completed by now, Young says. But there were a “number of issues that were brought up by some opponents to the project that had to be settled in the courts.” Opposition to the project has cost the company about $100,000 in legal fees.
Young says the opponents attempted to have the project shut down.
The opponents had the option of posting security in the event they lost and damages were awarded or the court case would have been allowed to proceed. “They never posted the security (bond),” he says, noting the deadline for posting the security was Oct. 16. Young says he couldn’t recall the amount of the security. But it would have been a monetary amount to cover Enfinity’s legal costs in the event the opponent’s lost.
Opposition to the proposal to locate a solar farm on 300 acres in the Township of East Hawkesbury, southeast of Ottawa, came from provincial farm groups, which objected to using prime farm land for solar farms, and local residents. The site was vandalized in the fall of 2009. Vandals caused $25,000 worth of damage.
Hawkesbury Ontario Provincial Police Const. Pierre Dubois says there weren’t any charges laid in the investigation because of a lack of evidence. The matter was closed on March 18, 2010.
Police officers canvassed the area and conducted interviews but there wasn’t a positive identification of the suspect or suspects, he says.
Dubois says provincial police stepped up patrols after the vandalism occurred. Now the officers still patrol the area like every other place but there aren’t increased patrols in that area any more. There haven’t been any new cases or incidents since the original vandalism.
Young says he didn’t want to comment on the vandalism.
Young says he doesn’t think opposition to the project from local residents has anything to do with them being against solar energy. “This was not about solar because it has been proven that it is safe. It is about people wanting land for their own purposes.”
It’s also “about some people not respecting the rights of legitimate owners of land,” Young notes.
To prevent possible future vandalism, Young says there’s a large fence surrounding the farm, which is part of the site plan requirement. “On top of that we have electronic surveillance.”
Enfinity staff will also be vigilant as the project is constructed and “as we are on site.”
The Ontario Municipal Board struck down East Hawkesbury council’s suspension of the project in May, 2009. The board then approved the developer’s zoning request amendment, site plan application and land severance plan in June, 2009. BF
Comments
So,why do farm groups object to taking prime land out of production for solar, yet they say nothing about the thousands of acres taken out of production for wind turbines.
Each turbine plus access roads takes approx. 1.5 to 2 acres of land not withstanding the inefficiencies working around the roads and the turbines! A bit of a problem for aerial spray applications as well.
Some townships such as Ashfield in Huron are expecting an additional 150 turbines. Thousands more in total proposed in other municipalities. Furthermore, there are the health concerns, much promised government health studies, Low Frequency noise monitoring and enforcement that has yet to happen.
What are the farm groups doing to represent the concerns of non participating farmers and other community members?
What are the farm groups doing to represent the concerns of non participating farmers and other community members?
Farm groups are not going to do anything except make work and living for their CEO and staff
Quit complaining, crop prices are great, yields are good, equiptment is available to buy, some farmers are retireing making land available to rent, cheap interest, banks easy to deal with Life is good. Not satified then quit.
Lawrence Solomon, of Energy Probe, wrote in a recent edition of either the Financial Post, or the Globe and Mail, that almost every jurisdiction outside Canada is cancelling so-called "green energy" projects because they are too expensive, and that Otnario is soon going to follow suit.
If "bright days" do, indeed, lie ahead for solar power in Canada, it's only because solar power proponents have found a way to make water run uphill.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
German tariff rates for solar have a degression mechanism that reduces the tariff as equipment prices fall. Hardly, a cancellation of the program.
If Nuclear generated electricity was priced using the same methodology as wind or Solar, I think you would quickly become a proponent of Renewable Energy as it is paid for up front instead of buried subsidies that go on for thousands of years.
I understood every word of Laurence Solomon's column, but with the utmost of respect, I don't understand a single word of your posting at all.
For example, neither I, nor my Webster's American Dictionary, have any idea whatsoever what the word "degression" means. In addition, even though I have an MBA, I have no idea at all what you mean by reducing tariffs as equipment prices fall.
If you want to counter the overall opinion expressed by Solomon, do so - however, if you are trying to persuade people that getting next to no money in Germany is substantially different than getting no money at all in another country, you've got a credibility problem.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Wind mills and present form solar should remind Ontario people of the Edsul car and GM Corvair. Combining the adjenda of big business and government politics is dangerous, unforgiving, setting the stage for unwise unforgiven democracy, similar to thr pre world war 11 era.
China, Brazil, India will rule in the 21st century, with fewer industrial jobs for Canadians. Can you imagine Ontario with a 50% electricity increase for citizens and industry
Canadians worry about electricity and few stories are visable on Water, water exports, Canadian " waterwars"
Conflicts,Selfishness, complicity, signs of political near legalized corruption,all allowed and blessed in Canadian politics .AH
Laurence Solomon only makes one thing clear in his articles about renewable energy: that he doesn't like it. Beyond that, he doesn't seem too interested in facts or citing references for his sweeping generalizations.
I don't understand why people are so rabidly against generating energy in a more responsible matter, but I do know that few arguments for this position rest on a solid bed of facts or logic. The cornerstone of all of these arguments seem to have something to do with a "Liberal agenda" or similar concept, which has no definition and makes no sense.
People want and need to help the environment because it is in trouble, regardless of political stripes, and those who drag their heels simply make this inevitable change towards environmental responsibility slower and more difficult. And it is inevitable.
If I've got an anti-green bias because renewable energy, at least the way we seem to be doing it in Ontario, is both bad business and bad economics, so be it, and I'm not going to apologize for it in the least.
To far-too many people, the mantra of generating energy in a more "responsible" manner has, quite incorrectly, everything to do with environmentalism, and nothing to do with economics - which, if I understand Solomon's article correctly, was his point entirely.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
YES do the economics!! Wind + gas (actually, gas + wind) will increase both our costs and our emissions, nuclear + coal would be far cheaper and (surprise!) cleaner.
Link deleted by editors.
Wind power is gas power and cones with more pollution
Link deleted by editors.
Link deleted by editors
What chance does true democracy have to survive when the farm public is not allowed to see all sides of a story??
A very dangerous situation. Stone walling balanced all views fair treatment on farmer issues from all sides is the practise that has been used in the past public relations to guide farmers in an endless path of no progress
A simple look back in time at BF archives alone (17pages) stories shows the endless path of few big picture progress on farm issue results
but there are several posts that are in error - without pointing fingers. Farmers, community activists, and even a newly elected council have been working with a farmer-led organization in the Holland Marsh to fight a proposed, and now being installed, peaker plant built on prime agricultural soil (although the company's vice-president said it wasn't that good because fertilizer was needed to grow crops last year), within metres of the Holland Marsh, beside a school and a church, and dealing with a procurement process that has been rife with conflict. This farm organization has fought the government, the company, and even other agriculture organizations and have come away absolutely resolved to keep on the battle. Too often, we get caught up in the PR items in a story, like this obvious PR piece above, wrapped up in other's agendas, without seeing the big, big picture. When did energy become more important than the land and the food that is produced? You can't eat energy, a large majority of what is produced is sent to our neighbours in the south at very cheap rates, the farmer is left holding the bag on too many items - and yes, those agriculture organizations that don't see what is happening out there, or ignore it, have done a disservice to the farmers of this province. Every farmer should be aware of all of the issues, green, solar, biomass (at $78 per acre, really?), or otherwise before commenting.
Comment modified by editors.
Imagine an Ontario government co-produced commercial showing wind turbine blades coming lose
Comment modified by editors
I truly understand the frustration currently felt by those Farmers and residents! Another "green energy" project is being shoved down the throats of the Farmers (Holland Marsh), and residents of Ansnorveldt in King Township. A 393 MW simple cycle, natural gas-fired peaker power plant is under construction in a floodplain, in what is supposed to be the "protected" Greenbelt, Protected Countryside (just to name a few of the designations in place to preserve this prime agricultural land), 500 M from a school, and thriving community. The OPA chose the site. The proponent didn't even score the minimum amount of points required to qualify for this project, but rules were re-worked to allow them to continue. The site plan application with respect to whether or not it conformed to the Greenbelt was put before the OMB, but the government stepped in with Bill 151 implementing Regulation 305/10 pre-empting the Chair's decision (so we still don't have a firm answer as to whether or not this facility even conforms to the Greenbelt--based on the evidence heard at the 10-day OMB hearing--it probably doesn't conform). Basically, this regulation exempts this power plant project from the Planning Act, which also takes away any authority the Township had. The only environmental assessment done was an environmental screening (the MOE felt that was all that was necessary). Based on available evidence, if it wasn't for all of the "outside" interference, this project would not have progressed as far as it has on its own merits. We know the land and area, yet the government will not cancel this project. Oh, did I mention that 18 km of 16" high pressure gas line is required to feed this facility? The population growth isn't even expected in this area, but north and east of here. On the bright side, however, we only have to wait until next year to really make a change--a truly democratic change!
At some point, I hope our policy makers start to realize that with 2% of the population feeding the other 98%, preserving prime agricultural farmland should be the priority--you can't eat energy!
Holland Marsh Farmer
Comment modified by editors
Post new comment