by DAVE PINK
Seventy-eight per cent of Ontario residents believe wind energy is among the safest forms of electrical generation, according to a just-released poll conducted for the Canadian Wind Energy Association.
“There’s been a lot of public debate and discussion concerning wind energy, and one of the issues people have been speaking to is a concern about health,” says Robert Hornung, president of the Ottawa-based association. “We commissioned this poll to determine what Canadians are thinking, and to get people thinking of wind in the context of other forms of electrical generation.
“It’s important to remember that we can’t look at these things in isolation.”
The association, CanWEA, represents more than 420 members, including many in the wind energy business, and actively promotes sustainable wind energy projects throughout the province.
“The poll reaffirms numerous studies showing wind generation to be superior from both a health and an environmental perspective,” says Hornung.
The industry has encountered pockets of resistance to new wind developments in several areas of the province, raising such issues as the yet-undetermined health risk of living to close to the turbines, of environmental damage, of the cost and distribution of the profits, and even the safety of birds that might fly into the blades.
“There’s a broad range of issues that vary from community to community,” says Hornung. “It’s important that we do a good job of public engagement. We want to the public to know they were heard, understood and responded to.”
But, “the poll makes it clear that an overwhelming number of Ontario residents believe wind generation to be safe.”
Close to 2,000 megawatts of wind-generation capacity – enough to power more than 600,000 homes – has already been built in Ontario, most of it adjacent to lakes, where the wind conditions are most suitable. Hornung says there is also great potential for wind-energy developments in northern Ontario alongside James Bay.
CanWEA is also citing a report by Clear Sky Advisors which concludes that Ontario is likely to develop a further 5,600 megawatts of wind-generating capacity by 2018, creating 80,000 person-hours of employment – much of it in the erection of the towers, with additional, long-term jobs in manufacturing. That would see $1.1 billion go to the landowners and rural municipalities in the form of taxes and lease payments over the 20-year life of the projects. BF
Comments
Since so many Ontario residents like wind power then there should be no issues building them along or in lakes or rivers , near city factories or better yet on Conservation land or Provincial parks.
Why take so much good land and tie it up for ever ? Most of these long leases for wind are made by farmers 60+ that are happy too sell out the next generation for a few bucks.
Wind generation has its place but why on good ag land. When these type of projects are instigated a plan is needed to implement them in the best possible way for the paying public .
Everyone favors green energy , be it ethanol, solar ,hydro or wind but it has to be done at a reasonable cost too society and in a way it does the least harm to other industry partners. When you mandate ethanol or electric sources they can devastate partners like Beef or Pork that has seen crazy feed cost increases and electric rates many times inflation and do not have powers or abilities too increase selling prices like the supply managed commodities .
I agree that the wind and solar should be limited to cities and towns or rooftops. The country side doesn,t matter if its wind or solar is a sad thing to take up the land space which can be used for agriculture or even wildlife which deserves just as much freedom as people . There is lots of space in the water for wind and rooftops for solar.
Don't you have to put turbines where the wind is strongest? Perhaps the lakes would be a good place, but there's a big fight over that with the cottage owners. Farmers seem willing, and out here in the countryside I have a lot more wind than I feel when I go into town. As for solar, the stand-alone units take almost no land, can be put where they don't affect the crops much and are far more efficient than rooftops.
This poll would become rather-meaningless if 100% of the 78% lived in areas where wind turbines won't ever be located.
In addition, it isn't very likely that any of the 78% who think wind energy is "safe" were asked if they believe wind energy to be based on sound economics.
While proponents of wind energy claim that we - "can't look at these things in isolation" - they seem to be first, and foremost, to isolate economics from their own arguments.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Lack of knowledge is the only reason anyone is in favor of turbines with the current regulations. I speak to people regularly about this, and they really have no idea of the issues and problems being faced by rural Ontario and turbines (and financially by all of the province). One they start to read up on it a bit and learn the FACTS (not the spin that the industry and lobbyists throw out there), they quickly learn that the issues are well beyond simple NIMBYism.
The simple truth is the government has rushed into these developements without proper studies being done first, and we need to stop and re-evaluate the process before continuing.
I would suggest for BF to stick to topics to do with agriculture.
Topics to do with growing better crops and how to raise livestock, technology and such.
Wind turbine developments are not agriculture, they are industrial sites. A few landowners stand to make millions of dollars, subsidized by all of us, and we have to suck it up whether we like it or not.
A post here about wind turbines dated March 8 and one singing its praises in your last hard copy issue in just the last week. At least if you do cover the issue, have the decency to also get an opposing point of view, which you did do in the hard copy of last week, although I don't think the issues, concerns and probs. were covered adequately. I always find that you DO get both sides of the story, but in this case BF dropped the ball. That is too bad. You credibility will also be at stake, don't forget that.
One would think that a pro-ag. magazine would have some concerns about wind turbines. Let us not forget that the proposal of 7000 or so of these structures will take about 14,000 acres of land out of production. On average each turbine needs about 2 acres per structure. How can this be considered "Better Farming"?
It is a very divisive topic. I would suggest that BF remain silent about this topic. I think that would be the neutral, diplomatic route to take, because this issue is a no win topic.
We need BF to tell the farmers what,s going on in the country side ,when it has to do with the land which we live in. There is a serious problem going on in the country that a windmill is no different than a sky scrapper going up beside your house. The windmills should be regulated no diffferent than a power plant let them pay industry taxes and put them on the big lakes where there is lots of wind like in Ottawa or Toronto.
If Better Farming stuck only to topics like "growing better crops", I'd drop my subscription in no-time-flat. I have no desire to wade through pablum-like drivel about spraying foo-foo dust on whatever crop at such-and-such a stage of crop growth, because that's what I have my crop advisors for.
I want a farm publication to cover the contentious, the divisive, and the big-picture, policy issues, and the more divisive and contentious, the better, and Better Farming is the publication I turn to- if they miss a point, they'll hear about it, and so they should.
As far as I'm concerned, issues about wind turbines being net-negative on the basis on sound economic principles are far-more important than arguments about how much land is taken out of production by any given turbine.
Incidently,since I work land under several turbines in the Enbridge development north of Goderich, there's no way an Enbridge turbine development takes any more than a fraction of two acres per turbine. As far as I'm concerned, it's no different than working around a big tree.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
There is so much anti-turbine rhetoric out in the countryside that I don't think it's necessary to publish more of it. Just because it's divisive is not a reason to hide from the topic. What if journalists had been silent on the pork/manure/environment issues? Much of Ontario's economy would not be in existence because the activists would have won the day.
The fact is that if there are 7000 turbines going up, then there are a lot of farmers willing to lease their land out. That makes it an agricultural issue. Put away your overalls, farming is also industrial. If 14000 acres can provide power to 7000 x 30,000 homes, isn't that a more sensible use of land than another few truckfuls of cheap food to an ungrateful urbanite province? If we were really concerned about farmland, we would have insisted that the populations of Mississauga, Milton, Guelph and Barrie be put into high rises instead of oversized houses.
Thanks to Better Farming for willing to put out a positive spin on the turbines. It's about time someone did.
Our community is doing better with the extra income coming from wind, and there have been no problems ... Don't believe everything you hear, these thing blend right into the background once you get used to it, and it's been good for the community. The local restaurant says they get more traffic from people who come through to see the wind farm. -David King, Port Dover Ontario
Wind and solar power are both founded on flawed economic principles and will, therefore, always be net-negative, and, as well, they pit farmers against one another. If those aren't both big deals, nothing is. Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON (
So happy to hear, David King, that Port Dover is doing better due to the extra income from the wind turbines. I guess living IN Port Dover you wouldn't really be bothered by the turbines, as they are I would guess about 10-15 kms away in the Clear Creek area. The turbines in this hamlet are actually closer to homes than the now allowed 550 m set back. Blend into the back ground? Yes, tell that to the people who have been affected in that area. One lady can't even sleep in her own house. She sleeps on friends' sofas and has been house sitting in Haldimand County for most of the winter.
But hey, as long as the local restaurant makes more money and David King says things are A-OK in Port Dover it must be so. Why then did some 30 people from the area make their way to Queen's Park last week in support of Lisa Thompson's private members' bill? Must be because the extra income from the turbines for the local businesses makes everything hunky dory.
Unbelievable how some people think EVERYTHING is about money. Money is important to be sure, but when some people can't live in their house because of decisions made by other people - it leaves me speechless, and I can assure you that does not happen often.
Farmers in regions like Prince Edward County, where we have lived for 32 years, have long adjusted to the realities of change going back to when their Loyalist ancestors first settled this land in Lake Ontario. They have worked with nature and all the climate challenges farmers must face every single day, with intelligence, determination and resilience. The sun and the wind are resources that they value and know how to benefit from, so we need to get out of their way and help them survive. They are feeding the cities where the urbanites who now cause them so much grief, have come from to retire or vacation. I want to see a moratorium on selfishness and small-mindedness in Ontario. Vision needs to extend beyond your own backyard to the broader world issues that affect each and every one of us on this planet. The climate crisis is the defining moment for our generation and the urgency for action, of every sort, trumps any personal likes or dislikes.
I strongly suspect if the poll question stated " Would you support a subsidized high density wind turbine farm in the proximity of the green belt area around T.O. and various other Ontario cities which would include the construction of inefficient style gas turbine backup generator plants to stabilize electicity flow plus extra unnecssary transmision lines" then the results would be reversed.
Furthermore, if you do your homework you would find lots of new peer reveiwed evidence in the last year indicating serious problems with low frequency noise especially at night during high wind shear and in particular as blade length increases.
Finally there are other countries such as Denmark, Austrialia and even Oregon with far tougher noise standards than Ontario's.
In a nutshell, the juice isn't worth the squeeze!
The poll numbers given allow for about 3300 wts. of power per house when the wind is blowing. That is not even enough for a hot water tank or a forced air furnace or a cookstove or a clothes dryer or just the circulator in a small hottub. Not one person I know is willing to live without at least one of these items. Today, March 12 2012, during the noon hour, the entire output from Wolfe Island was less than 1 megawatt, (yes one). That could not supply one office tower in Kingston. Meanwhile the nukes were purring along at 9000 megawatts wind or no wind. I am all for new and innovative products and I would hope the people selling these products would use reasonable marketing numbers. Stan Thayer C.E.T.
I'm so tired of the drivel!
Try exsisting near 2 of the largest turbines in rural Ontario, and get back to me!
Our lives have been altered by the invasion of these monster machines! There is a constant "swoosh" that echoes off buildings causing distraction. The hum of the turbine is quite a nuisance depending on wind speed & direction. There has been shadow flicker right through our home, across the road through the brand new brick bungalow home "for sale" to the back of the neighbours field.
To suggest these machines "blend in" and 1 will "get used to it" is a flat out lie!!
Citizens affected are told the machines are "within compliance" by our governing agencies and are blatantly ignored as "cracker-jacks"!
We worked hard to get to the country for peace & tranquility. To raise our family and live a rural lifestyle. Now our days are filled with recording logs of information, calling & complaining to the wind turbine company & the MOE with no releif or reasonable conclusions in sight.
It is shameful a small handful of "host" landowners (the majority of whom DO NOT reside near these giant spinning structures) decide to line their greedy pockets with our tax-funded dollars for the sake of...?
I'm still trying to determine the benefits of wind and why it needs to be so close to living beings.
Regards,
Denise Broniek
Grand Valley, Ontario
Post new comment