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?
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?)
I'm glad I don't give a fuck what's on my horizon and aren't contributing to making the world worse place with entitled assholeism.
Well, at least not that kind of entitled assholeism ;)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
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.
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.
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.
Imagine living in the shadow of one of these, even if only a few hours a day. You're basically sitting under a strobe light.
Headaches, epileptic seizures, etc, etc.. The same environmentalists hating on the people who don't want these are probably the guys who cant work under flourescent light because it upsets their eyes.
They also have a distracting/hypnotic effect on drivers, and there are lots of long empty stretches of road out Mount Forest way (where they are, highest point in Ontario), so they become something that helps lull drivers to sleep.
I'm in Canada, where these things are, there are valid complaints.
Also it's bullshit pork spending and is not adding any appreciable power to the grid. In fact, we already overproduce so much power we have to pay Quebec and New York to take the surplus from it.
Yeah, I'm against wasteful pork spending, even if it does make some simple-minded california liberal feel good about himself.
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
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!
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.
I'm not sure which wing is crazier Is a Catholic teacher's union left or right wing?
The people complaining are always the wealthy land owners thinking their property values will drop, which has been proved false. I live and fish on Lake Erie. Lake Erie is very shallow and is a perfect place for a wind farm. The structures would create reefs that would support aquatic life and would improve sport fishing. The fishermen, DNR, and environmentalists were all for the wind farm. Idiots over in Cleveland tied to electric utilities protested a wind farm would lower property values and destroy aquatic life. It's always the people with the most money can make their opinion loudest and drowned out the truth.