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."

Comments

There's always a downside

[crazyjj]

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.

Re:There's always a downside

[Dyinobal]

Well I for one am a bit baffled at the idea of Wind turbines effecting someones health. Is this one of those crack pot ideas, like being allergic to cellphones and wifi?

Re:There's always a downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It's similar to the "fan death" urban legend that's big in South Korea.

Re:There's always a downside

[cbiltcliffe]

It's not that people are against wind energy, per se. It's that the Ontario government passed a law giving them final and absolute authority over where they were placed, effectively killing any municipal control over zoning, land use, etc.

It's basically a bunch of idiot urban politicians saying to a rural county "We're putting a wind farm in your county, right here on the map, complete with massive construction traffic and huge amounts of concrete for the bases of these things, and it doesn't matter to you, because there's hardly anybody living there to complain. After all, you've got, what, 1/100th the population density of Toronto?"

If the local county had zoned that area agricultural, or had plans for a shopping mall that had been years and hundreds of thousands in the making, and were ready to break ground tomorrow, then tough luck.

Another thing is, considering the amount of concrete involved, it effectively kills the land for any agricultural use, anyway. Even if the turbine and its base is removed, the leach from the concrete will have done serious damage the the ground's ability to grow crops. Since the provincial government is frequently putting them in prime agricultural areas, rather than in, place where the soil is too shallow over bedrock to be productive, it's a reasonable concern.

Re:There's always a downside

[Chris Burke]

there is actually tangible reasons and evidence that there could be some health risks associated with living near large turbines.

Oh? Like what?

It's about constant exposure to low frequencies as I understand it, which is not something that people are generally exposed to in their daily lives.

Yeah I'm pretty sure we're all exposed to low-frequency EM radiation constantly. How exactly are low-energy photons supposed to be more dangerous than high-energy? Are all the Wi-fi/cell-phone people crazy for going after that rather than radio towers?

Now, I don't know if there are actual health risks or not - all I'm saying is that I accept the possibility.

Sure, it's possible. It's possible that there's some heretofore unknown mechanism that allows this to damage you. I just find it hard to believe that these protesters have stumbled across this revelatory new science so as to make them so sure that it's real.

If there is a real effect of being near wind turbines, then I'd bet anything it's actually due to a chemical like an herbicide with a perfectly understandable mechanism for causing harm. I don't know if these are organic farmers, but if they're not, then I have a hard time believing their occupation is less hazardous in this regard than wind towers.

Re:There's always a downside

[cbiltcliffe]

He's a farmer. Not the highest intellect.

You're an idiot. Farmers are meteorologists, veterinarians, heavy equipment operators, heavy equipment mechanics, small engine mechanics, welders, plumbers, geologists, and a bunch of other stuff all rolled into one.

I can't even begin to list the things that farmers have to know that you don't have a clue about.

Re:There's always a downside

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually a common misconception. That wind turbine did not "over-rev and blow itself to bits". It was a very specifically watched test to see exactly *how* a wind turbine would come apart in the event that the automatic brakes failed in a high-wind situation [in this case, if memory serves, the winds were in excess of 125 kph]. Turbines are fairly tightly controlled by software and human operators [almost always off-site], but the general consensus is that there's negligible danger in the event of a turbine destroying itself. You basically have to be standing underneath it during a hurricane, *and* have the redundant braking systems fail at the same time.

This is not to say that they're flawless and impeccably safe. But the relative danger is significantly lower than a coal plant failing, for example.

Re:There's always a downside

[Rhacman]

You are also exposed to infrasound from car traffic, household appliances, and your own beating heart. As for the intensity of the sound, there are already regulations for how close wind turbines can be placed to residences to control for this.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/738734--wind-gets-clean-bill-of-health

Re:Reality check

[ClioCJS]

The real problem is people who want to control everything within eyesight of the property they own, as if buying property at location X gives you authority over everything within eyesite of location X. We can thank them for the zoning laws that make any family wanting to own its business have to rent (and drive to) a separate building to operate their business because OMG SOMEBODY MIGHT USE THE PARKING ON MY STREET (which you don't own).

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 ;)

Re:Contradiction

[Anaerin]

Because oil is currently MASSIVELY subsidised. The tax breaks and benefits the oil industry get are huge, and if a tiny proportion of those subsidies were also available to so-called "Green" energy solutions then solar and wind power would be free, paid for entirely by the subsidy.

Re:Yes and No.

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Toronto, a few blocks from the windmill on the lakeshore. Since the windmill went in, my home's propey value has, approximately, doubled, along with the rest of the neighborhood.. The concern is pure BS, just like the shit about windmill health issues.

Re:Contradiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a quiz to tell if you're a libertarian or a normal person. Finish this sentence:

"An ounce of prevention is ___________________":

a) "worth a pound of cure."
b) "an unconscionable interference with the free market and an offense against human liberty."

Astroturf, ho!

[qeveren]

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.

Re:Contradiction

[Ichijo]

These tax breaks. Other benefits include minimum parking requirements that encourage people to use oil, and external costs of oil use (such as air pollution) that are not recovered in the price of oil.

Re:Contradiction

[Kozz]

Because oil is currently MASSIVELY subsidised. The tax breaks and benefits the oil industry get are huge, and if a tiny proportion of those subsidies were also available to so-called "Green" energy solutions then solar and wind power would be free, paid for entirely by the subsidy.

The problem comes in when we play fast and loose with semantics... to me, a subsidy is something that the gov't gives away, I guess. I don't classify a tax break (returning taxes paid into the gov't) the same way I do a subsidy. On top of that, are these not the same kinds of tax breaks received by all kinds of companies, not just oil companies? I'm not a huge fan of the oil companies and the seemingly large profits at our expense, but I AM a fan of arguing with facts...

A good friend of mine has very different political views, but sent me this link: http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/news/economy/oil_tax_breaks_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2

This article frames it in such a way as that the oil companies are not receiving "special treatment", per se. So how can you penalize them and say they're exempt from the tax breaks given to others? So my question is whether this CNN Money article is a piece of garbage that is also playing fast & loose with terminology, or not delivering the whole truth? I invite discussion.