Slashdot Mirror
Canadians Protest Wind Turbines
NIK282000 writes "Ontario farmers rallied in downtown Toronto to protest the subsidization of wind turbines. Several of the protesters stated that they fear for the the health of their families and that they refuse to live near wind turbines. Others fear that the value of their property will be reduced significantly by the presence of turbines. With the cost of gas and oil on its way up it's a wonder that any one would be against the use of renewable energy sources."
Look, there is no such thing as "free" energy. There is always some price to be paid, some tradeoff. If someone out there is selling you on the perfect energy source that is the answer to all out problems with no downsides, they're selling you on something that just doesn't exist.
It's a question of what tradeoffs you think are better than others. Poll any five people on /. and I'll bet you'll get 7 different opinions as to which source(s) are most practical/safe/efficient/cost-effective. That's not to say this means they're all created equal, just an acknowledgement that none of them are anywhere close to perfect.
My own opinion is that solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are almost certainly the three cleanest and safest sources we have at present--but current practical considerations also stick them into the "can supplement, but not replace" category when compared to the dirtier and less safe sources (at least for now). I'm not so concerned with birds, fish spawning, and farmers' property values as I am the more industrial-scale waste issues that you get with coal, oil, and nuclear fission. I'm sure someone can also make the case for natural gas, thorium reactors, and fusion too--but we'll see on that. But there's always someone who's going to bitch, no matter what path(s) you take.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
> it's a wonder that any one would be against the use of renewable energy sources.
Yea, it is totally outside yer understanding. That is the problem with greens, you really can't undertand how anyone could possibly disagree with a single one of your policies. After all, they are so self evidently perfect and all that.
On the other hand some of us understand NIMBY. While I too doubt the possibility for health problems for people miles/kilometers from one, or even directly under one for that matter, they will certainly lower property values. And if you are too close they can be noisy and a lot of the same hippies agitating for alternative energy find them an eyesore, again lowering property values.
Welcome to the real world. You end up having to stuff them in god awful places where almost nobody lives then lose too much current to wire losses and increased expenses to send people out to work on them. Then as soon as the government subsidies stop you lock the thing down because the unsubsidized operating costs often exceed the value of the electricity produced. But it looked so good on the glossy brocure to the stockholders and government regulating agencies handing out those sacks of cash.
Democrat delenda est
The Kennedy clan, in the lower 48, fought them because they damaged the view from their Cape Cod compound. NIMBYs are everywhere.
Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
"Not in my backyard!"
We have LOTS of oil here. The price going up simply makes major projects like the tar sands much more feasible.
Our tiny little 30-million-population is your biggest trading partner. Oil is a huge part of that. It really ought to be part or your common knowledge, not a surprise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States
What it boils down to is that it's easy for someone to say, "we should put a windfarm," (throwing dart at a map), "HERE."
It's less easy to say, "okay, what about the people that live there?"
NIMBY is a valid complaint. Why should I have to have this wind turbine in my back yard because someone that sits in a different city/country has decided that it's a good place, without my input?
As far as health problems, I don't buy it. I believe it all boils down to: I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT IT. It's a bullshit complain, but still valid - I, personally don't want to look at one of these things. . . . .
Several of the protesters stated that they fear for the the health of their families and that they refuse to live near wind turbines
This is the most retarded thing I've heard in the past hour.
(I've unfortunately heard a lot of stupid crap lately, so i can't claim all day or all week or whatever.)
Others fear that the value of their property will be reduced significantly by the presence of turbines.
This, however, is a legitimate concern for those who plan on selling their house.
The loss of value on the house might be compensated enough by the energy provided by the wind turbines though, though I'm unsure.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
If the price of oil has made wind power a cost-effective alternative, then why do they need to be subsidized?
(This is similar to a statement out of the administration a couple weeks back that forcing insurance companies to cover birth control should be a non-issue, since it would save insurance companies money. If insurance companies save money by offering birth control, then why do you need to force them to do it?)
Aha! Look! There! See? SEE? People from the US aren't the ONLY stupid people in the world! Ha!
FTA:
He says it's worth $, so if I offer him a hundred bucks, that's actually being really generous right?
Oh... what's that? He won't take it, because he thinks it's actually worth more?
Then it's not *REALLY* worth $0, is it?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
To the guy carrying the sign that says "my property value is now $0" I want to say: sell it to me for $1. Surely, if he truly believes the property is worthless, any money he can get from it is pure profit.
I really want to hear what are the supposed "health problems" attributed to wind turbines. Amazingly, the same people who protest wind turbines have no problem with coal plants spewing ash and sulfur dioxide on their land.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Imagine your house is in the shadow of one of these things, the sun becomes a strobe light. This is the most legit criticism I've heard.
Other than it just being more pork spending, and not a real road to energy independence, ever.
I don't really get this one myself. I see it a lot in the Niagara region of Ontario; farmers absolutely opposed to wind turbines as well as solar farms. They state a number of baseless reasons as mentioned above like - my favourite being health concerns. Do they think they're radioactive or something? Or that they put out electromagnetic interference akin to a neutron star? Or that the Solar farms take up valuable farm land (currently sitting unused).
Any technology has its downsides - green energy is not 100% green, nor is it any cheaper than the old-school methods of power generation - that at least is cold hard fact. What these folks don't seem to understand is that this the inevitable future. As fossil-fuel-based power generation diminishes, it has to be replaced with something and we have only so many of those "something's" that we can resort to at the current time. Wind Turbines, solar and hydro-electric plants will -have- to be built unless the protesters happens to invent a newer and better means of fulfilling 21st century power needs. It's a simple reality that they really need to endeavour to understand. In fact, if they had taken as much time to read up on it as they did to make a protest sign, they'd probably realize how silly their protest was.
I don't mean to come of as purely cynical, but usually farmers who own large swaths of otherwise undeveloped land benefit pretty significantly if they sign a lease for oil & gas drilling rights.
Maybe they are trying to protect their revenue stream. Low energy prices do have a downside. If they drop enough, energy companies may choose not to exercise their drilling leases, which means no revenue for the landowners who own them. Sure, they may receive money from the wind turbines, but oil revenue's would probably be greater.
No man is an island, But if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie them together, they make a pretty good raft.
From what I understand, many turbines are considerably louder than claimed, particularly at low frequencies. If nothing else, this could affect sleep md hence health.
> Quite possibly because wind turbines are horribly ecologically destructive, economically costly devices which are actually an energy net-loss for the size necessary for industrial generation, while costing taxpayer money to subsidize someone else's false industry? That, and they're annoying (at best) to live near.
haha, not. Not even close. Environment impact of wind turbines is far far less than that of coal power plants. And claiming that somehow they are "energy net-loss" just makes you look stupid.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Ok then.
Just scrap wind turbine subsidies and instead propose to build more CANDU reactors in the backyards of the complainers.
They must support that, given than Ontario is mostly powered by nuclear and hydro already.
With fracking/natural gas and more offshore drilling, there is enough fossil fuel to last our lifetime and longer. This stuff is cheap compared to anything "green." As soon as any green tech takes hold, fossil fuel cartels (both US and abroad) will drop the price of their product and starve out the alternatives.
The only way green works is with a $5 per gallon fossil fuel tax that goes to alternative energy subsidies. But will anybody support that? Can you say "political third rail?"
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
In general, the sounds are not all that pleasant to live with. The make a lot more noise that most people would think until you actually get close to one or, even more, close to a whole wind farm of them. Most (but not all) people who complain about the noise of nearby trains or airports are at the disatvantage that the tracks or airport was there first. In this case, if you already have a home and someone else wants to put this unpleasant noisemaker near by, it seems that you might have some right to complain.
How are the "horribly ecologically destructive"? Because a few birds run into them?
And it can't be an "energy net-loss" unless they take a massive amount of maintenance.
I don't respond to AC's.
Whoosh! Whosh! Whoooosh! Whosh!
Whaaash! Whaaash! Whaash! Whaaaash!
Wheeesh! Wheeesh! Wheesh! Wheeesh!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Quite possibly because wind turbines are horribly ecologically destructive, economically costly
Compared to what, hydro dams, coal, gas, nuclear, umm... ?
These farmers sound like they would be living directly under the spinning blades. How far has any portion of a windmill blade been known to fly during a tornado or whatever in modern times. If anything windmills just might slow some winds a bit. As for property values the value of a farm usually depends on whether it is a money maker or not. How would these farmers feel about a coal fired plant or a nuke that close to them? No matter what it seems protests will always be part of life these days. I wouldn't mind a wind tower in my yard one little bit. A tall one would be a conversation piece.
before the comments come back:
1) EVs would bridge the gap, but in the next few years they are less than 1% of vehicles = no impact.
2) unlike oil, natural gas can be used for electricity. but the summary is wrong. while oil prices have been going up, gas prices are constant / down.
... is really a part of the problem. Certain elements of the public have shown themselves so braindead (as these farmers are no doubt). Yet these kinds of people don't think about the unseen long-term consequences of what is currently generating their power that is more harmful for the environment but is not easily perceived by the human mind due to the long term effects and the inability of the public to get behind anything that doesn't emotionally grab them.
from the article:
"wind projects will make payments to landowners and municipalities totaling $1.1 billion over the next 20 years."
All his billions did not save Steve Jobs from getting ill and dying. One's health is more important than a few bucks thrown your way.
The story covers people who work regularly around diesel fumes, pesticides, and animal waste protesting the safety of wind turbines.
I have no experience myself, just hear-say. Last time I was in Vermont, I spoke with someone gathering petition signatures to restrict wind farms. This person lived near a set of turbines which went up after they moved to Vermont, and felt that it was like living back in Manhattan near a subway all over again - constant hum and vibration. It's not just about sight-lines and aesthetics; there are such things as noise pollution and other practical effects which *do* cross boundaries,
Not In My Back Yard.
That's all these protests are about. I live in a community where a series of wind towers were installed. Some of the residents got completely irrational about things. Some may not even be talking to each other now. Most of the arguments were like acts of desperation: the sound will be a problem, no sound? then the Very Low Frequency sound is bad for your health, the wildlife will all leave and die, wind turbines kill birds by the thousands, our property values will drop because of big windmill 3 miles away, they use oil to lubricate the generators so it's not sustainable, the energy will be sold out of our community/state, it's just "big business" trying to exploit rural communities, it's not economically viable, the government shouldn't be subsidizing it, etc... The rallying cry is to "save the ridge lines" which indicates that it's more about aesthetics than anything tangible. Same thing with the project proposed off of Cape Cod, MA.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
Sigh. I hate to give credence to urban myths and junk science, but if you want to know of the fear of the unknown, here is a trailer for a movie that will explain it all.
http://windfallthemovie.com/index_1.html
Ontario farmers also heavily protest light rail, and really any form of public transit whatsoever. Their reasoning is anything that allows you to not walk to work allows you to live farther away from work. That means city slickers living too close to farm land for their liking, far too close indeed.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
When we finally get settled into a place of our own, up here in the windy prairie of Saskatchewan, we're intending to get an acreage or more just outside the city and put wind and solar on it. A pair of 14KW turbines and a 10KW solar array would be easily attainable, and overkill, but would ensure that on even the most dreary and becalmed day we still have power (When it's not windy, it's sunny here, though we'll probably also invest in a diesel/WVO generator, just in case those long cold winter nights leave us with a little shortfall). This would also mean we don't need natural gas for heat/cooling (Geothermal and electric under-floor heating, electric "instant heat" water). Then our municipal requirements drop to phone/internet. And the "NIMBY" price reduction for having a turbine or two on our land will be more than paid for by the self-sufficient nature, without having to sacrifice any modern luxuries. We'd even have enough excess power to put power back onto the grid for a profit (Well, we would if SaskPower had that option), and/or to run an EV.
This whole thing is actually astroturf by a competing energy company in the region. They've been going around basically stirring up the farmers and whatnot with BS about the wind turbines, posting protest signs along the country roads, etc. All with their little energy company website url at the bottom.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Alas, no - this is left wing crazies, not right wing ones.
Wait, what? I might get a complaint about wind turbines affecting the weather or something, but health issues for being near what are effectively... windmills? Really?
Okay. Sigh.
I remember the first time I saw wind turbines. We were on vacation in Pennsylvania, and a small mountain ridge had row upon row of them. All I could say was, "WOW, those things are so fucking cool!" Am I the only one who thinks they look awesome? I'd love 'em out here in my area. There's a lot of unoccupied space on the mountain ridges we have, and any move toward getting away from the reliance on fossil fuels is fine by me. I know wind/solar power needs more development and consideration, but why not start with the basics to see how it goes? Just my two cents.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
Ooooooh.... they're "annoying" to live near.
This is compared to ... oh... being annoyed that we are basically destroying the entire planet because some people are too effing proud to get off of their high horse and actually realize that keeping an advanced civilization in the long term just might mean we have to make some compromises?
Of course you're right... your own personal comfort means sooooo much more than the environment.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Beavers will mistake them for trees and will damage their teeth.
It's pretty easy to understand why people would be opposed to wind power, and if you lived in Ontario you'd already know: the massive taxpayer subsidies required to make it even remotely feasable.
This is not cheap. Not even close to cheap. To make it viable the province agreed to pay a lot more per kW/h of "green" power. Unfortunately people prefer not to pay $0.80 kW/h for their power, so the province didn't pass those costs along in power bills. Instead of doing that, people pay the cheap fossil fuel price, and the government covers the rest. It's doing a pretty good job of helping to bankrupt the province of Ontario.
Take away the subsidies and the wind power industry in Ontario collapses in a hurry, along with the solar industry. Combine that with the facts that turbines are in fact noisy, consume a lot of highly valuable real estate, and don't actually provide much power in the summer when high pressure moves in and the wind dies off (requiring some other source of power to be online anyway) and it's not much of a solution.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
As city dwellers, we tend to think of wind mills as majestic, beautiful sculptures that provide green energy. I used to subscribe to that idea, until I saw what happened to the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario, where there are hundreds of wind mills all over a beautiful landscape.
They are a blight!!! As far as I'm concerned, I will never visit Sauble Beach again, because I can't stand driving through that area anymore. So I definitely sympathize with these farmers, their properties have already been devalued. Notice the Ontario government did not install ANY wind mills around Huntsville and other affluent regions. I wonder why?
The same thing happened in the US and Cape Cod (?) offshore wind mills. The Kennedys were the first to oppose them.
I am not going to debate the ecological merits of windmills vs gas vs coal vs nuclear. I am a supporter of nuclear energy, and as far as I'm concerned they can build one in MY back yard rather than a wind mill. Then again, I have family members that work in the plants, and I know that the likelihood or a nuclear accident that would result in any radiation leakage in Canada is zero. While less efficient, Candu reactors are pretty much bullet proof, whether earth quakes, tsunamis or well, bullets were to hit them.
I went to visit an area with them last time I was in Ontario, and if you get even remotely close there's significant noise. Far enough away and you can't hear it, but you don't want one in your backyard.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
I noticed the headline said "Canadians protest wind turbines," and I thought, "That sounds really silly; I'll send it to my wife to see if she gets a laugh out of it." Then I opened up the story and saw the truth: "Canadians protest subsidization of wind turbines." There's a huge difference there, and I think it's often lost in public discourse.
I would be opposed to taking tax dollars to buy Bibles to distribute in public schools. I sure would be upset if I were misrepresented as opposing Bibles, or favoring censorship of the Bible, or some other such slant. Opposing subsidization is really, really radically different from opposing the thing being subsidized.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
As a sign of protest they should make sure to use 10% of the electricity they currently use for the rest of their lives. Oh wait what undue hardship and all that? Well then put up and shut up, or turn off your juice.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Sometimes people get caught up in lies from talk radio and ignore the reality that wind turbines create jobs for the kids of farmers so they don't move off to the big city, and create a funding stream during bad crop years.
Myths frequently collide with science and reality.
Shut the NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) up with with some wind turbine power. Offer to subsidize their electricity with wind power energy.
I fully support wind, water and solar power. BUT as with any change, you need to manage that change. I grew up in rural Ontario, and now live in the city. There is a big perception that often the concerns of those that live in the rural Ontario (and probably all rural areas) are over looked or are somehow perceived as less important than those of their urban counterparts.
I think that the implementation of wind power in Ontario should have been better handled, more participatory both from a information and financial perspective. Done right you could have municipalities clamoring for and bidding against each other to have wind power in their area. I've seen that phenomena with garbage dumps for goodness sake.
Unfortunately now is too late for the areas that already have wind turbines. It's a bit of mass hysteria...all it takes is one person to say that the wind turbine gives them headaches and some people become worried about brain tumors! It's hard to dispel that even if all the facts are on your side. They could try doing it better in areas without turbines.
Please. This explains a lot.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Notice we are talking about subsidies here. Wind turbines still are not turning a profit on their own. Otherwise they would not have to be subsidized. I would be fine if solar, wave or wind was close to "almost" breaking even, after factoring in some way to "store" the power for when the sun is not out or there is no wind. Then a subsidy would be to "jump start" the market.
But when the facts are that these things cost x millions to build, cost y thousands to maintain and generate z dollars worth of power, and it turns out that x + y z. Way less than Z, then someone has to absorb the cost of building power generation systems that do not turn a profit.
The person or company who builds the never to turn a profit wind turbine should eat this expense. Not the tax payers. As it stands , the turbines built 5 years ago did not turn a profit, the ones being built now are not turning a profit, the ones we will build 5 years from now will not turn a profit. What is the point of subsiding them? If it is evident that "jump starting the market" means after 10 years and they are still no where near profitable, that is the wrong market for the government to encourage.
Do you know why gas and oil are so hard to kill? Because they are cheap. Even with the rising prices, they can still be produced at a profit.
vi +
That's why they're farmers.
"With the cost of gas and oil on its way up it's a wonder that any one would be against the use of renewable energy sources."
One of the problems I would have with it is that wind farms tend to fall into disrepair after they are built. Somehow the money to maintain them disappears. Imagine having this in your backyard.
Proverbs 21:19
there's no clean renewable energy source available today that could make a difference in our environment. The numbers are public and they aren't in favor for solar or wind.
Given this, and the drawbacks, I'm not surprised people protest.
While I don't care that much about particular farmers' estates, I'd object to paying for those generators from my taxes. I'd like my taxes to work on a technology that works.
true that, i remember seeing windmills for the first time on austrian green plains with bigass mountains on the horizon and shit. Long story short i was not amused. Once beautiful landscape was destroyed by hundreds of them placed in tidy rows.
On top of that they looked like a cost generator and a maintenance nightmare, approx 1-2 in every 10 was broken.
The protestors will not make any money off the turbines, so they object. Interestingly in Tx where the ranchers get paid for a turbine groups agitate to get them built on their land. Just like there was a privately built transmission line (no eminent domain involved), they just paid more and got the line built. It appears that the protests are against not getting any money from the deal. If you own the land the turbine sits on its now worth more because there is an additional income stream associated with the land. If not they they are just a loss to you.
For those of you who have the unscientific belief that infrasound isn't hazardous, check this out:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20561575
It is not at all a settled matter whether living near wind turbines is healthy or not.
Please. This explains a lot.
...except for who the competing energy company is. I couldn't read the url at the bottom of the signs shown in the picture, but I was able to find a group called the Ontario Wind Resistance. See http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/. However, where is the evidence of astroturfing?
Just man up and burn stuff, energy is better when on fire producing as much co2 as humanly possible. The internal combustion engine is one of the most efficient things going. the rest is BS.
The only reasonable way to compare energy subsidies is on a money per energy unit basis (money in for energy out).
According to this, renewable energy (solar/wind - not hydropower) gets about six times as much subsidy on a per kilowatt-hour basis as fossil fuel.
If you took away all subsidies, fossil fuels would go up about 10% in cost, renewable sources would double in cost.
This is direct subsidy - how much of the US military budget to assign to oil subsidy is another argument.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
The pdownside itch wind and solar is that it is random as to how much power you can get at any given time making balancing loads a pain in the ass. The dirty solutions scale(etc for hydro which also can scale). Balancing loads is crucial as electricity can't be stored(in quantity) therefore everything produced must be used. Wind in particular makes this difficult. Solar isn't so bad unless a storm rolls through.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
At first I thought, that's pretty cool.
Then you realize how much it has destroyed the beauty of the landscape,
not just in one place, but for many many miles.
And you hate it.
"It's a wonder" NIK282000 can spout off like this. It's very easy to be against having a wind tower in your back yard. Many people buy or live on rural properties for the aesthetic value. They're sick of the skyscrapers downtown. If you put up wind towers it looks like an alien moonscape to many (and in case you haven't actually been around, out in the country they go up in droves; there's never one, there's rows of them stretching to the horizon). So, drastically affect the aesthetic value then a) people want to move out and b) people don't want to move in. It doesn't take a genius to see what's going to happen to property values. (I know someone who's ~$1million farm lost 30% value). If what is essentially a lack of zoning took $300k from you then you'd probably be "wondering" a little less.
Again this is a zoning issue. We have laws so you can't open a gravel pit/industrial factory/etc. wherever you want so people can have peace of mind about property values. Wind towers are no different, except since it's "green energy" people seem to put on their stupid hats before thinking about it.
___________________ I want to be free()!
Seriously, that's what I think these people need to be told.
Show me even a single technologically feasible alternative that produces absolutely *NO* waste as a mere byproduct of its normal operation, and has even the slightest chance of being able to provide just as much energy and we'll talk. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and just be happy that we're trying to give your great grandchildren a planet they can actually breathe on.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I see hundreds and hundreds of windmills all over west Texas (there are more every time I go out), and I still think they're beautiful. They're an aesthetically pleasing symbol of our progress towards a cleaner, better society.
And then when I head to the Gulf coast I pass all the oil refineries. Fucking disgusting blight on the land.
I know which I'd rather see.
The enemies of Democracy are
Seriously- in Canada those guys are the BEST THING EVER if you want to put in a contentious technology. The make all of the other arguments get lumped in with the same crazies saying that 'THE EM WAVES MAKE YOU SICK' and the whole thing gets dismissed when our health organizations say 'no- that is physically impossible'.
Kinda like how Rockstar games makes more money when some 'parenting group' freaks out about there newest game.
The more reasonable NIMBYers are much more of a problem even if there arguments are no less superfluous; they at least have some connection with reality making them harder to simply hand wave away. Perhaps we can convince the crazy NIMBYers to attach themselves to all NIMBY movements...
Solar isn't so bad unless a storm rolls through.
Which is why wind and solar can balance each other. A good power portfolio will include nuclear, wind, and solar, with very little hydro, coal, and gas. Solar will most likely be solar thermal, so that they can replace existing heat source based turbine plants, but keep large amounts of infrastructure in place. It is also much "greener" than PV (afaict with wikipedia level research . . . not my field and hard to quantify). (captcha "fusing")
Same moronic ideologies, but with half the calories!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
They're protesting SUBSIDIZING turbines, not the turbines.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Those Ontario farmers are nuts. How else can you add $2-3,000 dollars/mo. to your income without precluding your primary activity, farming? The physical footprint of a wind turbine is incidental. Not like a solar array at all. Or strip mining for coal, which is another popular option in Canada.
You know but hey, knock yourselves out, intrepid farmers. Show the oil and coal industries you're still their bitches.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Wind Turbines are great, for private use. For example some Shopping Malls given the real estate they have, can offset heating and lighting costs using Wind Turbines by about 20% per year. Within 10-20 years they do pay for themselves.
However, for a public utility they are just nonsense. They are primarily funded by the Oil and Natural Gas companies in the public sector through government taxation.
Without this subsidization, they couldn't be built or operated.
If at anytime, the oil and gas companies don't feel like they are not getting the public benefit from these highly visible feel good projects, they will cut the funding and those green jobs of maintaining wind turbines will come screeching to a halt.
Large Wind Farms and factories are already being mothballed for example if Oil and Gas don't get what they want from your local congressman.
In short, it is a PR campaign because everyone knows it won't work (i.e. not a threat to gas or oil) and secondly it is a nice way too lobby..(i.e. you can put those big Oil names up there during half time commercials and say we are going to save the earth.) :-)
For a public utility energy sources have to have way more reliability and much higher energy density.
Luckily, there are many different forms of energy production much more sane than gas or oil. The bad news is, you are never going to see them, because they do not require large infrastructure to deliver (Governments and big biz can't control them). Secondly since they cannot be controlled, they can't be centralized (i.e. form monopolies with them to price fix markets like they do now.)
Also, it is very important to have central power generation facilities so that terrorists can attack them. With such an attack comes huge opportunities for the government and the military to tell you we have to protect you, so this is how we are going to reduce you to a slave even more....
(but don't worry, you are going to be safe! Trust us!)
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
They're noisy and I don't want to see them smeared across every open acre of the western landscape.
I don't care who owns that patch of earth. Like many people, I value open spaces and get a great deal of spiritual comfort from a wild landscape. And they are noisy. It's like hearing a train coming towards you, but it never quits.
If that makes me NIMBY, so be it. The aesthetic and noise considerations are legitimite and should be factored in as costs. We've gotta stop absorbing these costs for the sake of cheap energy production and just stop using as much of it.
Right, now refer back to my post and tell me where I supported oil or gas as an alternative fuel source. Thank you for providing a perfect demonstration of the straw man argument.
WHEN PROPERLY DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED (I cannot stress this enough), nuclear energy is absolutely safe, with zero emissions of any kind, cheap and reliable. Every single nuclear station that had an accident was based on 40-50 year old designs, and did not take into account all environmental factors. The obligatory car analogy? Look at the crash survivability of a 40-50 year old car compared to a modern one.
The same things applies to nuclear stations. The latest CANDU reactor designs are beyond safe, it is physically impossible for them to go into meltdown even if the plant shuts down unexpectedly and runs out of backup power like it happened with Fukushima. The same goes for other designs. But instead of decomissioning the old stations and building new ones, we continue using the old stations while scrambling for half assed solutions.
If you covered the entire surface of the US with wind mills, you would still run short of baseline power, let alone peak power requirements. Where the hell are you going to get the rest, if not from coal, gas or nuclear?!? Tidal energy? Solar energy? You just look at wind mills and get a warm fuzzy feeling inside without realizing their serious drawbacks. Yes, they work to power a few homes. Yes, they make sense in windy areas. But as an energy source for the entire planet? Give me a break.
And I will use your hatred of oil refineries, which I share, against you. Replacing all the gas and diesel cars on the road with electric ones would push these power requirements even higher. "But we'll charge them overnight." Right, guess when the wind is at its weakest? And where would we store the daytime wind energy? Batteries? Capacitors? Dynamos? All these were tried, and they failed miserably on a large scale.
As a last point, the French and Russians will laugh all the way to the bank once Germany decomissions all its reactors. The French will sell them nuclear energy generated just across the border while the Russians will sell them gas to run their gas power stations. And in the meantime the German landscape will look like it developed a hairy rash of wind mills.
Didn't you read the sign.... Don't feed the crack pots.
But the wind turbines have to be shipped halfway around the world, and they are usually made in countries whose manufacture requires coal power. So the "energy net-loss" is there, if you actually think about where they come from.
http://youtu.be/87TGW9eLAtU
http://windfallthemovie.com
Right, now refer back to my post and tell me where I supported oil or gas as an alternative fuel source. Thank you for providing a perfect demonstration of the straw man argument.
Why would I try to do that when I didn't say you did?
You said windmills were a blight, I said I like them and there are sure as fuck a lot better looking than what we have now. I don't see how anyone can see windmills as ugly when we have true ugliness all over the place.
This point does not require you to advocate for more refineries. There is no strawman in my post. Yours, however, is full of arguments against things I never said.
Nuclear energy is absolutely safe, with zero emissions of any kind, cheap and reliable
I'd disagree with "absolutely" as that's just unrealistic, but indeed they are safe and we should be building more of them. Should have been building more, including breeders and other types more advanced than our antiques.
Why did you assume I'm anti-nuclear? Because I'm also pro-wind?
You just look at wind mills and get a warm fuzzy feeling inside without realizing their serious drawbacks. Yes, they work to power a few homes. Yes, they make sense in windy areas. But as an energy source for the entire planet? Give me a break.
See, I forget where I said that because windmills aren't ugly they should be used as our sole source of power. "Not able to provide baseline power" is not actually a drawback unless you for some reason assume that's the goal and anything less than that is failure.
Like I said, I'm 100% for more nuclear plants. How fast do you think they could be built? How fast do you think they will be built? Well, in the meantime, wind farms are going up and providing clean energy.
Sane energy strategy would be to use diversified sources. Using something as low-impact as wind and solar for whatever power we can get from it, and using nuclear with it's not-so-low-but-vastly-lower-than-coal impact to provide base load is an example of such a sane strategy.
You seem to think nuclear and wind are enemies for some reason. This is counterproductive. You're not going to win on a platform of "let's do nuclear and NOT any form of renewable energy." The resistance to nuclear is much greater than resistance to wind and solar. If you alienate everyone who is open to nuclear but thinks that green energy is good energy even though it can't be all energy, then you've just cut off your nose to spite your face.
The enemies of Democracy are
Ironically this isn't the first time this has happened and won't be the last. In my old home town of Swindon, Honda wanted to put up a windfarm to supply their factory. And yes a local village complained with all the usual complaints to get them to stop and unfortunately it worked. The thing that made me laugh the most was the fact of noise pollution, even though there was a major road closer to then than the farm would have been. Again, they were only worried about the price of their properties being reduced, but threw a lot of other jibberish into the pot to stop them dead.
People want clean power and when we give them the choice of clean power they don't want that either because of other reasons. I think we should deny them of power altogether.
that anyone would protest this technology when it isn't really that "eco-friendly" when you consider that there have been many reports of top level predator deaths around wind farming. A thing isn't sustainable if it damages or degrade part or parts of ecosystems and if migratory birds or accipiters suffer directly from the existence of such a technology only the ignorant would claim it to be sustainable. Now, if there were a way to harness the wind, without emissions, but also without damaging part of the ecology on a continuous basis, then I would support it.
I think many people can agree that an ecological approach is the only true approach to sustainability.
Writing on my phone, so I will be brief. After reading your post, I mostly agree with you. We do need clean energy, however i would still argue wind mills are not an answer. At least not in their current form or distribution. Some areas in the world are perfect for them, but not Ontario.
and I know that the likelihood or a nuclear accident that would result in any radiation leakage in Canada is zero. While less efficient, Candu reactors are pretty much bullet proof, whether earth quakes, tsunamis or well, bullets were to hit them.
Famous last words. I'm sure the Japanese felt the same.
Well as long as we can agree that there are some places where they are perfect (maybe not Ontario, but definitely Texas), then it naturally follows that they should be part of the answer.
I think non-PV solar has a lot of potential, too. Some techniques solve the nighttime energy storage problem quite well.
I really wish we weren't in such a fucked situation with nuclear. New plants are being commissioned, but it's not enough and they don't include particularly novel designs. It's going to be a long time before we're a nuclear nation.
The enemies of Democracy are
So, you're from the city - and the noise and hectic atmosphere stresses you out. So you travel to the countryside for peace, and are upset... at the industry which is powering the city in which you normally live and provide the on-tap electricity you expect to have 24 hr, 7 days a week?
One alternative is perhaps a coal fired power station or nuclear power station near your aunt's farm. Would that be preferable?
I do find it amusing when city folks get upset that the countryside isn't some idyll as they'd imagined, and there's industry there. Of course another alternative might be to ask your aunt and her neighbours if they'd accept limited or no electrical power to their homes so you and other city folks can have peace and quiet when they come to the countryside.
If you want power, it has to be generated somehow - or you need to reduce your power demands? Not sure of the other alternatives...
From the editorial/commentary in the posting for the article:
With the cost of gas and oil on its way up it's a wonder that any one would be against the use of renewable energy sources.
The submitter is very ignorant about energy prices as are most people I suspect. Though crude oil and products refined from it (notably gasoline and diesel) are indeed high and rising, those fuels are never used for large scale electrical power generation. The vast majority of "carbon-based" power generation is from coal and natural gas. While those fuels are not totally "clean" nor renewable they are actually quite cheap. In the case of fuel coal, prices peaked in the mid 1970s to mid 1980s, and in the long term has closely followed inflation (that is, its price has been flat at about US$26 per short ton in year 2000 dollars). The price of natural gas, the second most popular method of carbon-based electricity generation, has not only failed to rise permanently but it has actually DROPPED significantly. They are presently hovering at a TEN and FIFTEEN YEAR LOWS, and adjusted for inflation the price also stays quite steady, with only brief spikes as in the last boom before the bust.
The thing is, though wind power is considered "clean" it is actaully more detrimental to the environment, and also more costly, than many proponents would have you believe. In order to produce the same amount of power as a relatively modest natural gas fired station requires dozens of wind turbines spread out across a much larger area. I live in Alberta, home to both "dirty" oilsands (Fort McMurray) and a significant amount of "clean" wind power generation (Pincher Creek). When news broke of birds perishing in the tailings ponds of oilsands upgraders it made international news, yet a comparable amount of birds are killed by wind farms by area as in the oilsands. There are also concerns about the size of the structures and the amount of low-level noise they make interfering with wildlife migration patterns and habitats. I believe it is important to invest in renewable energy for sure, and in the case of wind power the price has declined over time so that it is just now becoming competitive with more traditional sources of power. However, it should be put under the same scrutiny as any other kind of industrial operation, just as non-conventional oil and gas (heavy oil/bitument, oil and gas drilling in tight formations using fracing, deep-water drilling, etc) have been very heavily and closely scrutinised inthe past few years, so too should any other form of energy technology.
Wind can be used effectively and safely and affordably if done right, but it should not be blindly pursued with critics being shot down for being anti-environment. for those readers from Ontario, I'm sure you know that the province has a VERY poor record on properly managing the electricity industry. Not only has it approved and pushed forward poorly planned wind farms (of such close proximity to residential areas as to kill property values and even disrupt sleep), they've also managed to completely mess up the market with consumers burdened by expensive surcharges to pay for government boondoggles and a spot market for power that is so wild that sometimes the province even has to PAY TONS OF MONEY TO MAKE NEIGHBOURING STATES TAKE THEIR EXCESS POWER.
The story is far more complicated tham most people outside the situation might think. There is more to it than "rah rah for oil and gas" or "that wind farm might give me a tumour" hysteria. Because of the way the Ontario government has mistreated residents affected by past wind projects, in addition to the tragic waste of money on past "green energy" boondoggles in a province already struggling with massive government deficits, there is a lot of resistance to these sort of big expensive government-driven initiatives there right now.
Farmers spend their days spraying pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals on their land - poisoning their their families air & water. Drive through farm country during plowing season, when the air is filled with clouds of soil, and realize it is also filled with everything that was sprayed on that soil.
Children, who are too young for driving licences, are routinely crushed or torn apart while operating large equipment on the farm.I personally know of a boy whose arm was torn off after his sleeve was caught in a tractor's PTO. This is a fairly common farm injury, along with tractor roll overs, and electrocutions while riding tractors in thunderstorms.
I think the issue is each of the above risks are associated with the farmer making money. Windmills, not so much.
Same thing here in the Columbia Gorge. I used to love the drive out to NE Oregon where for long stretches the freeway was the only sign of human activity or development anywhere. You could stop on the side of the highway, walk up over a hill, and suddenly it was nothing but grassland and sky all the way to the horizon, exactly as my ancestors might have seen it from a wagon train 150 years ago.
Now it's miles and miles of huge white windwills. They are pretty in a way, but it kind of broke my heart the first time I saw it, knowing I'd never get to see that uninterrupted expanse again. However graceful, they are undeniably mechanical and human, and they change the landscape in a very real way. I think it's also the inescapably huge scale of these farms that makes people like me hate them. You can (visually speaking) get away from a big cooling tower or even a dam. But these stretch on for hundreds of miles and remind you, every direction you turn, that humans have turned the wind and the landscape into yet another resource to be harvested and sold.
Oh you naive people -- under the Green Energy Act developers are allowed to make secret deals with landowners and just bulldoze everyone else. The locals get nothing out of the deal but their property values go down the toilet -- no building permits within 550m of the tower. Most of the land in these exclusion zones belong to other people who effectively have their land stolen. Ontario has a surplus of power but the grid HAS to take the wind energy needed or not. So the hydroelectric plants and nukes are shutdown and the excess power is sold at bargain basement rates to the US, mostly Ohio. And there are massive subsidies for these plants -- that all end up in power rates, which have doubled and are expected to be the highest in the world soon. With no mechanism to store large amounts of power the electric utilities make extensive use of gas turbines to provide backup power -- wind maybe 'green' but using it without batteries is worse than burning coal due to backup generation. And the most sought after places for these things are along bird migration routes. And best of all, every wind farm in Ontario shows declining output year over year as the turbines break down due to blade flex and gear degradation. Looks like the engineering is lagging the marketing again. And there are no allowances for taking these things out -- before the next line of glaciers comes down from the North. This is not NIMBYism but opposition to classic 19th century colonialism or the troops being sent in to support United Fruit. The locals have a lot of reason to be angry - and there are more than a few retired engineers, bankers, lawyers and professors in the crowd. Not urban knuckle draggers...
I frequently travel to/through the Mojave desert in California where there exists a MASSIVE windfarm (seriously, google it, it's over 5,000 turbines)
While I've never been up close and pole dancing on the windmills themselves, I can't feel or hear any discernible vibration/noise or other effects from them from the nearby roads.
As an economist I've an obvious solution. Stupidity should no be counted as a negative externality, and taxed by the government accordingly to remove the harm it causes to the general public. The more stupid you are, for example 'fearing for your health because of wind turbines', the more you get charged. However if you are excessively smart, and do your part to inform the public, like Neil DeGrassi Tyson, you would then receive "anti-stupidity" credits. Which you could sell to rich stupid people in exchange for them not being taxed. This would create an incentive for people informing others of reality.
Heck, you could even extend it to a tax on spreading patent falsehoods. Fox News would cost a lot more to operate, everytime they, or anyone else, put out patently stupid arguments against global warming they'd ratchet up their tax bill.
A wind turbine tower only has a 15 year (or so) life. The turbine itself has to be replaced several times in the life of the tower and requires constant maintenance. The cement for the tower has to be imported, unless you're building them somewhere like Mexico. The mining of cement materials, like lime, is markedly more destructive than the (for instance) lime byproduct of burning coal. This then has to be done every 15 years.
Meanwhile, the area around air turbines is not "polluted", but it's fairly desolate. Wildlife does not like to live there. Birds which fly near the towers will often be killed.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
How is this any less of an argument than "roads cause noise pollution and harm wildlife", which I hear greens pushing all the time?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Talk about tilting at windmills.
Thanks for helping us look better.
Love,
The United States of America
Finding God in a Dog
Annoyance is indeed a reason to prevent something; under English common law (and by extension, America) a landowner has the right to the quiet enjoyment of their property.
One can sue under the common law tort of nuisance. There's a whole body of law built around it. Public nuisances, private nuisances, what the remedies are (under law or equity: money damages, an injunction, etc.), what mitigating factors there are (coming to the nuisance vs. the nuisance coming to you, what the previous prevailing conditions were, and so forth).
Candu reactors are pretty much bullet proof, whether earth quakes, tsunamis or well, bullets were to hit them.
Read this
When I read the responses and see the moderation activities on /., it leaves me with little hope for mankind.
Eh, hosers, everybody knows tha microwave radiation from them wind terbines kills tha moose. We gotta pertec tha moose.
Here is some research into the actual safety figures in deaths per TWh generated:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
As you surmise, Coal is the worst. Nuclear is the safest, bar none, beating Solar/Wind/Hydro.
The optimal solution (right now) is to build some more Gen IV reactors (such as the "Integral Fast Reactor"): this
uses far less uranium, and burns up the lanthanides in situ, yielding very small amounts of waste that are safe
[same level as the uranium ore] within 200 years.
Ah... the triumph of all that money that the fossil fuel corporations have at their disposal to buy advertising that puts these crazy ideas into peoples' minds. More wind power means that the power utilities won't have to use as much fossil fuel to generate power which will cut into the oil/gas/coal industry's profits. So they're going to fight it as best they can. I'd bet that most of the FUD directed at autos like the Chevy Volt is being funded by these same fossil fuel companies.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
On behalf of the majority of people up here, please just ignore these dolts. I somehow suspect that they're affiliated with the Catholic Teachers who want WIFI removed from schools...
Three Squirrels
If they were moving to where they actually wanted to live, and not with intent of reselling, then what difference should the diminishing value of their property make? Actually, if property values go down, then property tax goes down with it, so they'd save money anyways.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Are you under the impression that it takes more energy to create a wind turbine than the energy that you'd get out of it? I'd like to see the math for that calculation, please.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Your solution advocates a
(*) technical ( ) legislative (*) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to solving a looming energy problem. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state or country to country before a bad federal or international law was passed.)
( ) It will be fought by entrenched fishing interests
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(*) It will be fought by entrenched energy corporations
( ) Technology doesn't work that way
(*) NIMBY Syndrome will prevent mass deployment
Specifically, your plan fails to account for:
( ) Idiots with boats
(*) Infrasound making you sick
( ) WiFi allergies
(*) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) International reluctance to engage in sweeping change
(*) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who vote
( ) A lack of support from famous Musicians and Actors
(*) Conflicting environmental interests
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) The money could be better spent curing cancer
(*) Your solution is expensive
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
(*) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
(*) Your solution may be politically infeasible
( ) The money could be better spent implementing [another solution]
( ) It makes life harder, not easier
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I for one am a proud Canadian that these alternative sources of power generation are going up. I can also understand that these turbines are huge and can be an eye sore. However why are we and for that matter the property owners not looking into the use of airborne wind turbines. They are supposed to be up in the lower or high levels of the atmosphere, where wind currents are MUCH stronger and provide a high yield of power. Not to mention a smaller carbon footprint. What good is finding alternative sources of power generation if people fight it every step of the way, Sometimes you just need to keep it out of the line of fire. Out of sight, out of mind
"With the cost of gas and oil on its way up it's a wonder that any one would be against the use of renewable energy sources."
Considering it STILL needs subsidies for people to build them, it is safe to assume it is still more expensive then other choices. The point behind subsidies is to encourage people to do something they would otherwise NOT want to do. And if people have to be paid to do one thing, instead of something else, it is not worth doing.
I am surprised Canada can't lower their gas prices, do they have a leader that stops all oil drilling he possible can and builds no oil refineries?
The backyard of a suburban quarter-acre is markedly smaller than the backyard of a farm.
I am appalled at the number of people here who seem to just know, apparently without any expertise or even a reliable source of information, both those who are pro and those who are con. How about packing up your travel trailer, RV, tent, whatever and go spend a week or so living within a couple hundred feet of a wind turbine while maintaining your job and domestic responsibilities and find our for yourself. First hand.
For those trying to imagine that an electromagnetic or chemical threat exists, you are out to lunch. The "problem" appears to be that some people are susceptible to the low frequency whoosh-whoosh-whoosh of the turbine blades while they are trying to sleep. They cannot sleep. Extended periods of sleeplessness precipitates serious problems, as most of us should know without conducting any experiments.
BTW, going for a Sunday drive, finding a turbine and standing beside it for a few minutes will not provide reliable evidence. I tried it. Yes, I could pick out the "whoosh-whoosh-whoosh" but it did not seem troubling. I am not sure I would be able to report the same if I were to spend a night trying to sleep in that otherwise silent environment.
The absolute ugliness of these turbines on the landscape is another issue. I travelled to Windsor along Hwy 401 on Monday of this week and found the sight of all those installations just outside of Windsor quite repulsive. The ones that were still did not seem to be an issue but the ones that were spinning were a completely different thing. I definitely would not buy property within sight of even one of these wind turbines.
If I remember correctly, the main complaint was the noise (very loud, low frequency noise) the turbines generate. I had assumed that they were fairly quiet, but apparently they are extremely noisy (several hundred decibels at the base of the tower). I don't know why they need to be that noisy. Is it bad design? I've seen wind turbines spinning quietly in the wind for years, but the turbines that they seem to be using are very noisy. Is it that tough to engineer an acoustically quiet turbine? That's what they are complaining about.
Ok, if they're that worried about the health of their families just tell them that the dead birds that litter these areas are NOT free food. It's airfoulkill and intended to distract the local rats from eating your crops.
sony handycam to macSony Cyber-shot series|convert sony handycam to macare a new member in the Best seller |import mts to final cut pro xcamcorders in 2011, especially Cyber-shot|canon vixia video to macDSC series like Sony Cyber-shot DSC- HX9V,|sony cyber-shot to iphotoHX100V, HX5V,WX9 models, all of them recording 1080 HD|convert sony cyber-shot to iphotovideos and are in AVCHD formats.|sony cyber shot video converter And other outstanding features are the 16X-optical-zoom|convert sony cybershot video to mac|convert avchd video on macSony Cyber-shot is offered with fun extras including|convert canon fs200 mod to mac3D shooting, excellent video quality,|mod to imoviein-camera GPS, and groundbreaking scene modes.|convert Panasonic SDR to MacThe problem is,|hd video editor for macthe AVCHD has no good compatibility|canon vixia camcorder to macwith Mac program,|HD converter for macthough the latest iMovie'11 is claimed|avchd converter for macto have support hundreds of popular|MOD converter for Maccamcorder models. When you check out|canon vixia camcorder to macthe iMovie'11 supported camcorder list,|convert sony handycam to macyou will find that most of Sony|Sony Handy AVCHD converter for macHDR series camcorders are in the list. |Canon FS converter for macHowever, Sony Cyber-shot DCS|convert Canon FS to macseries like Cybershot DSC-W530|Mac MOD converter , DSC-WX9, DSC-HX9V,|mac avchd video converter have no luck.|HD converter for macbut it butchers the hell out of the quality for one.|dvd maker for macsecondly its out of synch.|burn to DVD from iMovie *audio WAY ahead*|dvd creator for lionand it
"With the cost of gas and oil on its way up it's a wonder that any one would be against the use of renewable energy sources."
/.ers never want to leave their basements so this might not mean anything to some of you]. But if the wind farm fans (who have the nerve to call themselves "green") get their way these remaining scenic places would soon be ruined as they become wind generation sites.
How about them being so damn ugly and intrusive. They are paricularly distracting because the blades are moving - the human eye/brain is tuned to be very sensitive to movement. They also tend to be put up in very conspicuous places, like on hill tops.
Here in the UK there is not much pleasant unspoiled contryside remaining - you know, places where you can go for a hike and get away from crowds, cities, offices, basements and industry. [Yes, I know many
This issue is the last ditch in the attack on the English countryside. Before anyone says NIMBY, I don't want to see these things anywhere.
A-okay! Anyone ever wonder why the Canucks aren't bothering to refine their sludge and sell the value-added gasoline instead? I believe the real reason for piping this tar to Houston refineries instead, is that the vast majority of that output will not be for domestic US use, but exported instead. All the while, the Idiocracy will patiently wait for the price of their gas to go down. When it doesn't it will obviously again be the fault of the Left.
>>>With the cost of gas and oil on its way up it's a wonder that any one would be against the use of renewable energy sources
Only a Canadian would be against cleaner, cheaper energy, eh?
We protested in Toronto to get media coverage and to bring the issue to city people. Reading just a few of your comments points out how much work we (the people that are having power plants built over our heads - effectively without regulation, consultation or compensation) have to do to educate you on the issues. Every 'talking point' that has been published by the GWEA is found multiple times in these comments. There are all the usual marginalization statements about the affected people - uninformed people like to marginalize their fellow citizens when something goes against their belief system and they are too busy (some might say lazy) to actually conduct thorough research.
I have a very busy work day so I can't take the time right now to get into a reasoned discussion. Here are some facts both pro and con. Each of these are factual, incontrovertible statements.
1. IWTs produce electricity. (pro)
2. Ontario pays nearly the highest price in the world to IWTs operators. (pro for the industry, con for the taxpayer)
3. In 2000, Ontario had the cheapest electricity in Canada and was near the bottom in North America. In 2015, only PEI and one US state will have higher electricity prices. (con for the taxpayer and most industry, con for the Wind Industry)
4. Some people are unable to tolerate living near large industrial wind turbines. (con for the people that abandon their houses)
5. IWTs do not generate residue from the 'fuel'. (pro for the Wind Industry and the environment)
6. Ontario has NO oil-fired electricity generation. (I'm pretty sure that Canada has no oil-fired electricity generation) Wind in Ontario has NO impact on the oil industry - other than providing offsetting environmental credits to the big oil/gas firms that operate many of the Wind Turbines. Con for the Wind Industry. Pro for the Environment.
7. Because of diminished demand, Ontario has a significant surplus today of electricity generation. Approximately 80% of that is generated without emissions. We actually don't need ANY new generation - and won't for some time. Pro for the environment. Con for the Wind Industry.
8. Ontario does not use COAL to generate significant volume of electricity. Our remaining Coal-fired plants are used for balancing and regional leveling - often to compensate for sudden loss of wind power. Our remaining Coal-fired plants are all equipped with scrubbers. This reduction is COAL generation is due to reduced demand, and increases in nuclear production. It has NOTHING to do with Wind Turbines. (Con for the Wind Industry sort of)
9. Air quality in Ontario has steadily improved over the last 30 years. Industrial Wind has NOT contributed to this improvement.
10. 500 ft Wind Turbines with horizontal blades kill avian species. The more IWTs there are, the more birds and bats are killed. If they are built where there are a lot of birds, they kill more birds. If they are built away from bird habitats, they don't kill as many birds. Sometimes they are built in areas where avian species at risk live. When that happens, they kill some of those birds. There are now over 400 conservation agencies and groups around the world that are either concerned or against the turbine siting practices of Wind Companies. (Con for the Environment, Con for the Wind Industry)
11. It doesn't take very long to build a Wind Turbine. (Pro for the Wind Industry)
So take a look at that very superficial overview of a very complex issue. You should 'believe' in Wind power. Wind Turbines are machines. They exist. Belief has nothing to do with it. The machines have benefits and impacts. Add up those and compare this particular industry's product to other renewables and come to an informed reasoned opinion.
You wonder why? Seriously? Because of the thermal sink of large bodies of water, winds are generated. Its simple. You may think they are put in random places but they are not. As for a blight, BS. As for nuclear I tend to agree. 4th generation CANDUs are awesome. Use thorium and you produce non bomb material as well. [as far as I understand]. As for subsidies, oil has been receiving subsidies for 100 years. I think the subsidy argument is moot from this standpoint. We need to be able to cost estimate future environmental harm. So called externalities. Blah blah blah. As far as I'm concerned we need to experiment and develop alternatives now. Ween ourselves off fossils asap. Do it is a manner that stimulates innovation, job creation, has positive environmental effect. The transition period will be large anyway so lets start doing it now to provide experience to get better at it as we go along. Efficiency would save Canada a great deal if we were serious.
I see windmill farms all around, mostly broken. Fucking disgusting blight on the land.
F'in Canadians. What a joke.
I'm going to call you out on a couple of things here.
1. It's true that there are no wind turbines (of which I'm aware) in the Muskoka region, where I'm from. This almost certainly has a lot less to do with the fact that it's an affluent area than the fact that there's no location in the district that comes to mind which would be suitable for a wind farm of any size; it's just not a very (consistently) windy place. By comparison, the Bruce wind farms or the Wolfe Island wind farm are adjacent to large bodies of water and are thus able to take advantage of the more consistent wind. People who build wind farms actually study this kind of thing, and they don't build turbines where there isn't enough wind for them.
2. You know what Muskoka does have, though? Hydro-electric dams. And they've been there a long time, longer than any Ontario wind turbine of which I am aware, by a margin of several decades. They're situated on rivers, obviously, and I suppose you could argue that they're a blight on the landscape. One of them sits at the foot of downtown Bracebridge. I'm sure that, all other things being equal, it would be nice to not have it there. But it's there because, over a century ago, we figured out that we need electrical power in order to live our lives the way we want to live them (and that's much, much more true today than it was then). I presume they understood that a hydro dam was the less-distasteful option relative to, say, a coal plant, so they built the damn thing. So your assertion that the affluent areas of the province are somehow excluded from consideration during the site-selection process is, I think, incorrect.
3. The CANDU reactor is absolutely a solid, safe design, particularly given its age. But you'd seriously prefer to have one of them in your backyard, instead of a wind turbine?
Please.
Before wind turbines were installed in Wethersfield NY - Violent, outraged, indignant, vehement, frothing at the mouth, "the sky is falling!" public protest. Oh and, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR!!!
After wind turbines were installed in Wethersfield NY - SILENCE. They're a mild scenic tourist attraction. The cows don't seem to care, no sudden in crease in 6 legged calves, or cows giving curdled milk, or any of the dozens of other outlandish problems that were supposed to happen.
Live near one, if you think they're so awesome.
Watch your property values halve.
And so far as the inevitable NIMBY remarks go, if you're going to advocate passionately for a technology that has a big downside so passionately, lobby for them in YOUR neighborhood. Let us know how that's going for ya'.
Stupid crazy is advocating for a "renewable" that isn't very "renewable" at all, has a big negative environmental impact, and which there is no real advantage to, because the infrastructure to make it actually beneficial doesn't exist. This isn't even baseload capacity. It's a boondoggle.
Billions in tax subsidies for oil companies that not only don't need them to survive, but are some of the most profitable business entities in the history of the human race.
Hundreds of billions to subsidize gas guzzling commuting habits (federal highways).
Billions to deal with oil spills (Gulf of Mexico, Exxon Valdez).
Billions to deal with pollution.
And the ultimate subsidy: the Department of Defense which is mainly concerned with keeping a certain level of "stability" in the world's gas station (the Middle East), costing taxpayers over a trillion dollars a year.
And then there's the ultimate cost: global climate change. Force migrations, resource wars, unable to grow crops because of wild swings in temperatures and rainfalls....
Windmills require an actual power plant to provide power when they are not producing it with wind, which is most of the time. Here in Ontario they will offset that shortfall with coal plants. The windmills are being made by Samsung in a sweetheart deal the provincial government gave them without a proper tender process. The windmills are very expensive, but compared to the annual maintenance cost, the initial cost amounts relatively to PENNIES. We the tax payer will foot this bill and pass it on to our children and they to theirs long after the near useless windmills have ceased to produce any usable amount of electricity if indeed they ever do.
You rocket scientists that are pissing on people who don't want subsidized windmills in their backyard and on their tax burden forever need to read about the situation first.