Wind Turbine Syndrome
This is a special guest entry by my brother Lyle.
I visit my brother Glen in Lion’s Head a few times a year. Which means I feel like I know the place. Sort of. I’ve watched the rise of the Farmer’s Market that Megan started, and I love to see the growth over at the Harvest Moon organic bakery. I have been sailing a few times, I’ve done some hiking, some bird watching. A little bit of swimming when we can screw up the courage.
In some ways I am the stereotypical tourist. When I come to town with my tribe we basically see the sights, consume little in the way of government services—and basically just leave dollars behind. This year we deposited a couple of our boys at Celtic Sports and Arts Camp and passed the time reading, and eating, and enjoying a basic summer vacation.
Over the years I have watched the growth of Glen’s wind business, in which I am a proud investor. Glen passed the hat amongst family and friends and raised enough money to install a lone wind turbine on the Ferndale Flats. In doing so he demonstrated that there was a commercially viable wind resource here, and that it was possible to make a whole bunch of electricity from wind.
His project was marginal from an investment perspective. In the early days it was hard to find consumers who valued “green” electrons, and hard to get the power authorities to understand what he was doing. I was inspired by his project, and by renewable energy in general, and found myself charging into the biodiesel business where I live, in North Carolina. We don’t have a lot of wind in my neck of the woods, but we have plenty of used cooking oil.
Glen’s project turned the financial corner when Canada signed onto the Kyoto Accord and when Ontario began to properly value energy from renewable sources. By selling off renewable energy credits he had accumulated from his lone turbine, Glen’s project shifted from marginal to profitable and he was able to convince the bank to lend him money to build two more.
I have been on the sidelines of all of this. I remember when he found a farmer who was interested in leasing his land so that he could generate income from something other than just cows and hay. I remember thinking Glen was a genius when it became clear he had built a substation capable of handling three turbines—dramatically reducing the installation cost of the second two.
Both of us have ended up squarely in the renewable energy business. And as a result both of us have slammed up hard against entrenched interests, public policy that favors large scale, and an intractable status quo. It’s maddening. And challenging. And at times it is invigorating. Both of us have become accidental activists who are escorting our respective communities into a low carbon future.
We share gripes. And concerns. And strategies. At Piedmont Biofuels, where I work, we set out to change the hearts and minds of North Carolinians by offering free tours of our biodiesel facilities. Glen took a page out of our hymn book and started offering free summer tours of his first turbine every Saturday at 2:00. When he is out of town, he brings in substitutes. I will be leading the tour this week. It will be my second time.
I do a lot of writing, and blogging, and Glen has taken our lead in that as well. Glen doesn’t shoot his mouth off like I do, but his Wind Blog has seen considerable web traffic over the years, is cited far and wide, and has become a highly credible source of information on Ontario’s nascent wind industry. I should know—I host it for him on our domain—biofuels.coop.
Glen and I cross pollinate. I have done presentations on my past two books at the Bruce Peninsula Environmental Group, which Glen is active in. BPEG starts a lending library of books on climate change, energy and society in Lion’s Head, and shortly thereafter Piedmont starts the exact same thing in Pittsboro, North Carolina.
We both do education, and outreach, and we both see an urgent need for both increased sources of renewable energy, and an increase in energy literacy in general.
On this trip to Lion’s Head I’ve noticed something different around Glen’s place. He always has piles of reading materials everywhere—I typically ferry some of those home as part of my summer reading—but this year there are piles of The Bruce Peninsula Press. Prior to this visit I was unfamiliar with it. It appears to be more than an “advertiser,” since it is full of news and community announcements. In many ways it is a typical small town newspaper. What makes it interesting to me is that the back page is routinely a display advertisement bashing wind energy.
Some guy named Slavko Grguric from Miller Lake has been buying giant advertisements that spout gibberish about wind energy. In one he claims that “wind turbines generate nothing and yet draw power from the grid the rest of the time.” Bizarre. Each one of Glen’s turbines creates enough electricity to power 500 average Canadian homes. And each one does consume power—the equivalent of one big Canadian home.
Slavko’s tagline is “What they (Wind Turbine Tycoons) don’t tell us about wind turbines,” and then goes on to quote “known facts” about how wind turbines are a health hazard. No studies. No science. Just bald claims that he can afford to pay to print.
I find it interesting that he cites noise as a big issue. I wonder if he has ever been for a turbine tour? You can stand below it, at its loudest possible speed, and conduct a conversation in a normal voice.
I personally find the term “tycoon” a hoot, and have been teasing Glen relentlessly about it. Surely tycoons don’t drink beer. We need to move Glen to triple malted scotch. Do tycoons hang their laundry out to dry in the sun? Surely not. We need to get him some silk pajamas and upgrade the stain job on his porch.
I don’t know who Slavko is. A cursory Google search leads me to believe he is a machine shop guy who makes parts for nuclear plants. Since I know nothing more about the man, I will refrain from dubbing him a “fat cat machine shop operator.” I’m guessing there is a chance he likes to sit on his deck over in Miller Lake and watch the sun set over the water. Just like Glen likes to do in Lion’s Head.
Glen’s wind company, Sky Generation, has gone on to develop six new turbines in Ravenswood, and he is in the process of building 4 more. That will put him at 13 turbines spinning. Out of 600 in Ontario. Compared to tens of thousands in Germany.
The ads have inspired letters to the editor, and to an article by John Francis, who appears to be the publisher of the Peninsula Press. His was a well written piece, and I am guessing the wind controversy is great for his business. Who wouldn’t welcome a new full page advertiser—even if the content of the ads is ludicrous?
I’m coming to the end of a quiet afternoon at Glen’s place. He’s been out all day. My entourage is off buying whitefish in Tobermory, and making the annual run to the Sweet Shop. I spent part of the afternoon repairing Wind Blog—with help from Scott who did the database cleanup. And part of the day reading through the pile of Bruce Peninsula Press.
It’s funny. You kill yourself doing the right thing, you take a risk, you pour your heart into it, only to be greeted by the energy illiteracy and profound ignorance of supporters of the status quo.
As the sun begins to light up the bluff it strikes me that the whole wind/anti wind energy debate goes way beyond Sky Generation, and is really targeted at derailing the possible installation of 100 turbines on the peninsula. A company called PRENEAL has eyed the Bruce for a potentially large wind project.
As a guy who knows something about the wind business, Glen has voluntarily worked with farmers and interested citizens on framing what a project of that magnitude might look like to the community. Since there is nothing in it for him, he has had an eye on big public benefits, and a fair distribution of the wealth it might bring. For that he finds himself bludgeoned in the hometown paper.
Oh well. At least Wind Blog is fixed. Maybe he will read this, and take it back out for a spin…
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Keep fighting the good fight Lyle. It’s a massive change for an industry smoking the bureaucracy it cannot see the light. It wants to keep the status quo.
Good luck !
July 27th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Good post Lyle. I always look forward to the drive through Ferndale just to see the turbines. Unfortunately Saturday on my way home to Waterloo they were still.
Thanks for mentioning the tour. I am a Bullfrog subscriber and an Electrical Engineer and would love to take the tour sometime.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:57 am
You might be interested in seeing Mr. Grguric’s comment dated July 22,2009 on thegreenpages.ca entitled “Wind turbines nothing but a myth”.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:p86sqvM7ekIJ:thegreenpages.ca/portal/on/2009/04/enbridge_ontario_wind_power_tu/+%22Slavko+Grguric%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk
The anti wind movement is growing, and its scary stuff. I’d like to see the studies that all of these people keep refering to. None of us involved in renewable energy can find them…
August 6th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Dear Lyle,
I did not call you or your brother Glen any names other than quoting your brother word for word from Owen Sound Sun Times. My reference to wind turbines tycoons was no reference to your brother Glen whatsoever. It was a reference to the industry and its owners. If your brother feels he is a tycoon, than so be it.
I would like to ask you and the entire industry one question.
How much less CO2 has been put in to the atmosphere and how many fossil fuels power plants have been shut down in Ontario and or the rest of the world, for that matter, because of the wind turbines.
If and when you can come up with credible answer, I promises, I will stop buying advertising space in Tobermory Press.
For your information Sir, my company does not manufacture parts for nuclear industry. My company produces primarily aircraft parts.
My guess is, I struck a nerve. Maybe I should pat my self on the back.
Well done Slavko!
August 7th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Dear Yvonne,
The studies are everywhere. If you seek you will find. Try goggling “wind turbine syndrome” or “the national wind watch” or “wind concerns Ontario”
No one is against renewable energy. Waste majority of people are against wind turbines because it is documented that wind turbines are far from efficient renewable energy. The wind industry can show nothing other then “No benefits- Huge negative impact” by erecting those ugly giants.
August 8th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Great blog. I am lokking to start an Essex County blog in support of
offshore Wind Farms. I also have had the experience of negitive commentary in this area with unsubstantiated opinions and after touring/standing under the Port Alma Farm have found no noise issues or mountains of birds. If possible will link your blog
August 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Rick,
Ttry living under the Port Alma Farm and than make a comment. Better yet, buy a house there.
It is substantiated that there is no reduction in CO2 emmissins. So what’s in it for you? It must be money. Or you must like your country looking like hell. Maybe you just like that the developers, foreign to boot, can be filthy rich and exploit, what they call, poor Ontario landowners.
You are correct, great blog.
August 8th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I wonder why your brother wants to exploit the Bruce when both he and you seem to like it so much. I mourn for my beloved Bruce. It saddens me to see the proliferation of wind turbines and concrete. I think about how our beautiful Bruce Peninsula gave inspiration to John Muir, who William Sherwood Fox called “the father of the preservationist approach”, and who was a naturalist and wilderness advocate. What would he think were he to return and see all the concrete and huge turbines that your brother is helping to bring to the Bruce? What will our children think when they see what we have left for them? Perhaps your brother may use his goodwill to pursuade the developers that he is helping to destroy our beautiful landscape to put some money into researching some alternative power sources that are truly green and that have no detrimental effects associated with them. That’s what we all want. Let’s not try and save the planet by destroying the landscape. Please!
August 10th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Glad to see the blog up and running again! I was worried that Sky Generation had tanked, but it looks like nothing could be further from the truth. I spoke to Glen a few months ago, while trying to decide what to do with myself after the manufacturing facility I worked at went under, and will be going to college to study renewable energy engineering. Thanks for the input, Glen!
August 13th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I believe Mr. Grguric, that the reference to your connection with manufaturing parts for the nuclear industry refers to the information below:
Shop Evolves Into CNC, Away From Multitasking
By Chris Koepfer and Lori Beckman
Shop Jumps Into CNC MachiningThis shop saw such substantial results from its first CNC Swiss machine that it picked up a second to help win back the high-volume jobs it had begun to lose.
For More Information…..For more information from Acroturn Industries, Inc., call (905) 791-0090 or visit http://www.acroturn.com/.
Link a Friend to This Page Via E-mail
Print this article
When Slavko Grguric became part owner of a cutting tool business in 1978, his screw machine inventory consisted of Brown & Sharpe machines. His shop created tools for the nuclear fuel industry. “The most difficult to machine was a recess tool that could be cut off with absolutely no burr on the back,” he explains. His shop’s part runs were all over the board, anywhere from 50 pieces to 10,000 pieces or more.
And this information is found 2/3rd’s of the way down the page on the blog entry at this web address:
http://asep22.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html
This blog appears at this address:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=slavko+grguric+nuclear+power&btnG=Search&meta=
and is the 7th entry on the Google page.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Lyle here, (Glen’s little brother)
Susan,
I think John Muir would be delighted. In the mountains of North Carolina, where it is illegal to put up turbines because it might spoil the view, we are no longer able to see the mountains because of air pollution. Smoky Mountain National Park now closes its trails thanks to poor air quality.
That will happen to the Bruce too, if we continue to burn fossil fuels at our current rate. Better to switch to renewable energy all day long.
And can someone help me out with the “concrete” argument? The last time I drove past the cooling tower of a nuclear plant I noticed some concrete had been used.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I find the wind turbine syndrome preposterous and I get upset when people use fear to try and persuade others. I don’t know all the stats, Glen will have to respond to that, but as soon as we stop subsidizing coal and nuclear, wind & solar will become extremely attractive while giving our kids a future in breathing. Turbines are quite majestic while they produce clean energy. tami
August 14th, 2009 at 10:33 am
WINDMILL MELTS DOWN IN EUROPE…
THOUSANDS DEAD, MILLIONS HOMELESS, ENVIRONMENT TOXIC FOR GENERATIONS TO COME
Rooters
Reports out of northern Europe today indicate that a wind turbine, until now considered a safe source of renewable energy, in fact has melted down. Authorities fear the worst. Millions have been evacuated from their homes in a desperate effort to save them from Wind Turbine Fallout. Thousands of their countrymen were not so lucky, and succumbed to the dreaded Wind Turbine Fallout instantly, when the meltdown occurred.
Experts from around the globe are focusing their collective attention on this disaster, one that most agree, was inevitable.
“It was only a matter of time, really, “ one reliable source said, on the condition of anonymity, “ These damned turbines produce electricity you know, and electricity sometimes causes heat, and well…heat melts things! It’s a miracle one hasn’t melted down before now, and you can be sure it won’t be the last! What’s more, I hear that they cause miscarriages in turtles, and mess up the earthworm migration!”
Officials are working around the clock to contain the meltdown, fearing that there may be a “chain reaction” resulting in ALL wind turbines in the pristine countryside spontaneously melting down. They fear that a “China Syndrome” effect could occur if enough turbines overheat, and actually melt through the Earth’s crust, with disastrous results for life on this planet.
Even if the meltdown is successfully isolated, the ramifications are widespread and potentially dire. “ For long after this calamity, there will be harmful residuals, known as windturbinotopes, contaminating soil, water tables, and the atmosphere. These windturbinotopes have half-lives numbering into the thousands of years, and we know of no way to dispose of them, nor lessen their toxicity.”, the same source was quoted. Wind, rain, and ocean currents can transport these poisonous particles for thousands of kilometers, and the entire Northern Hemisphere could be affected by the fallout for generations to come.
Construction crews are working around the clock to pour a huge concrete “sarcophagus” over the doomed wind turbine in the hope that the windtubinotopes can be somehow contained.
The wind industry here in North America is bracing for a new round of opposition to their cause. Criticism of wind turbines has been mounting here at home, spurred on by the much safer and cleaner coal and nuclear power producers and their unions. Wind leaders fear this meltdown in Europe could sway public opinion, and hamper their plans to exploit poor farmers, governments, and nature herself in the name of renewable energy.
When approached for comment on the matter, one prominent wind tycoon would only say “Hrrrumpphh! Hrrrumpphh! Leave me alone scribe! Can’t you see that I have money to count? Farmers to exploit? Birds to kill?”.
In unrelated news, Typhoon Morakot continues its devastation of Southeast Asia and Taiwan, record high temperatures ravage the American Southwest, and the Texas “drought of the Century” continues….
Also in probably unrelated news…agriculturists now know that plants grown under high carbon dioxide and drought conditions show an increase in toxic compounds, a decrease in protein content and a decrease in yield….
Yes, by all means…let’s stop the wind turbines.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
The energy payback of wind turbines is 3-6 months, depending on the turbine model, the wind resources, the distance the wind turbine is shipped etc. So if we take the 6 month number, and a wind turbine lasts for 20 years (a conservative estimate), the wind turbine provides 40 times as much energy as was used in its construction and maintenance. (Milborrow, Dispelling the Myths of Energy Payback Time, as published in Windstats, vol 11, no 2 (Spring 1998), as well as numerous other studies. This is a better payback than solar, is competitive with most hydraulic, and of course is far better than any fossil source. I am not aware of such studies on CO2 emissions for nuclear, but of course the mining, milling, processing, and storing of uranium is not without emissions, nor is the building of the nuclear plant in the first place. In general, C02 emissions are related to energy consumption.
The issue of concrete is somewhat distinct, as the emisssions from concrete come not only from energy used to make the concrete, but also from the process itself. A typical wind turbine may use 350 tonnes of concrete in its foundation, which will have emissions of about 165 tonnes of C02. If that turbine is located where coal provides power that will not need to generate when the wind turbine is producing, the turbine will produce enough power to reduce the CO2 emissions from burning coal to provide a CO2 payback on the concrete used in about 10 days.
A final statistic of interest. One year’s worth of global concrete production would provide foundations for enough wind turbines to provide all of the world’s power for the next 20-30 years. That’s probably a better use for concrete than another garage floor.
And please don’t stop the advertisements in the Peninsula Press. The publisher needs the money, and area residents need the entertainment.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Wind power business has a bright future. The government should encourage the wind turbine industry. Especially the small wind turbine from 1kw-30kw. This is more useful for the house and small business.
I think wind power will not only reduce the CO2,but also help us save money.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Slavic
I personally do not find the wind turbines visually disturbing but rather majestic. When I travel around Lake Erie on my solar powered electric boat I relize that there simply has to be a better way, maybee slower than my counterparts who burn lots of fuel.
As for being filthy rich I don’t see the issue with that as most of us work to be finacially secure and have disposable income. By the way just to clear up any issues I do not have a stake in the industry, just attempting to be an informed consumer and perhaps leave a better future behind. Perhaps you could checkout the website peakoil.net
August 19th, 2009 at 9:06 am
The following is from a 2006 Sun Times editorial piece…I think it reminds us about the big picture. We should be feeling good that we have a means to provide clean, renewable energy…and we need to understand that the powerful, anti-wind sentiment is being driven by folks with deep pockets and vested interests in convention electricity generation.
“First of all, let’s remember the function of the windmills that we see being built in various locations around Southern Ontario. They produce clean, renewable electricity. They reduce, (not replace), our dependence on coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro-electric power.
These windfarms, as they are called, are located in areas that have been identified as likely sites for above-average winds, much the way that a hydro-electric facility needs to be near a waterfall. They are not placed haphazardly, but after at least a year of research. They also need to be near enough to the delivery grid, so that the energy produced can easily reach the consumer. This makes the very remote parts of the province unsuitable for windfarms.
Let us also be clear about what some people refer to as “our natural setting of farmland, forest, lakes, and streams.”
Forests are not being touched by windfarm developments. Rather, windfarms need to be built in open, windy spaces. Furthermore, it is erroneous to consider most of our farmland as “natural.” Most of our farmland in southern Ontario, during the last 200 years, has been clear-cut, burned, plowed, drained, parceled, fenced, hyper-fertilized, and sprayed with herbicides and pesticides…not even remotely resembling what it would have looked like in its “natural” state. It has, in other words, been farmed. Sometimes we harvest food energy from our farms. Recently we have learned to harvest ethanol from corn and biodiesel from oil-seed crops. These products are used not as food energy, but as fuel for combustion engines. Theoretically, these products could fire an electrical generator!
Therefore, to add a machine like a wind turbine to our landscape is nothing more than another way to harvest energy from the land!
Furthermore, windfarms provide an income-stream for the landowner, and allow him to be a partner in the future energy needs of our population.
Your readers also need to consider where the perception of windmills as eyesores comes from. When you drive around rural Ontario, the landscape is full of transmission lines, telecommunication towers, smokestacks, silos, and (let’s face it) sometimes less-than-well-kept buildings. I hope for many of your readers, the sight of a windmill is a sleek, streamlined symbol of hope for a sustainable energy future in this province.
August 24th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Temporary glitch, gang. Slavko posted a response that was deleted. We’ve upgraded software and accidentally deleted. Sorry about that. Here is what he wrote:
Bravo Susan well said.
For the rest of you,
My company, Acroturn Industries Inc. was established Mach 31, 1988 and it does not now nor did it ever produce anything for nuclear energy. End of that story. But you can twist it any way you like.
I challenge everyone on this blog to show the world any credible data, not an assumed data, real data showing how many fossil fuel power plants have been shut down and how much less CO2 was sent in to the atmosphere because of the wind turbines.
Furthermore, there is a definite proof that the wind turbines are a health hazard. So, please show us mortals some kind of independent study that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the wind turbines are not a health hazard and detriment to the environment.
Question: can you please explain how the energy pay-back in 3-6 months works in dollars and cents because I don’t understand that one. Maybe I’m just plain stupid.
Pat McGroin,
Wow, that is some story! Keep it up brother. Maybe you can win a prize for sarcasm.
August 24th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Energy payback is a comparison of the energy produced compared to the energy consumed. For example, if you drilled for oil in West Texas 60 years ago, you wouldn’t have to drill very deep to hit oil, and your odds of hitting oil were very high. A typical well, including all development, drilling, dry holes drilled etc. might still yield 50 times more energy than the energy consumed in drilling, making steel for pumps, pipes etc. Today, the cheap, shallow oil has been found, so today’s oil wells might have an energy payback closer to 5, as we have to drill far deeper, or way offshore. That is, they yield 5 times as much energy as was consumed in finding and developing the field. Obviously, when the energy yield falls all the way to 1 – and it takes as much energy to find oil as the well yields, then we will stop drilling.
Wind turbines have a very fast energy payback – 3-6 months. This will of course depend on the turbine model, the wind resource etc. But since the wind turbine operates for 20 or more years (240 months), the payback is between 40 and 80. The turbine generates 40 times more energy than was used to construct and maintain it. Solar panels have a payback of around 3 years, but this has been improving over time. If a solar panel lasts 30 years, then its energy payback is 10. I have not seen studies on what the payback on a nuclear plant is, but there is a lot of energy used to build it in the first place – steel, concrete, copper, and of course, gasoline for workers to get to the site. And there is additional energy used to mine, process, transport and dispose of the nuclear fuel.
Energy payback is different than economic payback. After all, the wind turbine supplier is going to charge you for more than just the energy they consume to build it! They will charge you for labour, engineering, profit, etc. In fact, energy is not likely even close to their biggest expense. Economic payback depends on the productivity of the turbine, the price paid for power it produces, and of course the total cost of building and maintaining the turbine.
The CO2 reductions done by building wind, or reducing consumption are real, not theoretical. If the wind is blowing, or people are consuming less, why on earth would the system operators keep running the coal and gas plants? The answer is they don’t. They curtail them. Last night, Ontario’s coal plants dropped to 137 MW of output. Right now they are at 1219 MW, as daytime demand increases. Ontario’s waterpower plants were as low as 2887 MW, and are currently 4721 MW, again, in response to demand, and supply from other sources. The water plants are storing water at night, for release during the day. The fossil plants are storing the coal at night, and buring it during the day. Any time the wind is blowing, we get to burn less coal or gas, or the waterpower plants can allow water to accumulate behind their dam. Any time we consume less, we get to burn less coal or gas. We don’t shut the nukes, we don’t shut the wind – we shut the coal, gas, and water. Wind clearly reduces the burning of fossil fuels, and that reduces CO2 emissions. That is why wind was the number one new source of generation capacity in Europe last year. And number 2 in the US. Because it works. And nobody cares if the fossil plant is shut or not – I am happy that it burns less fuel. A kWh of coal fired electricity release about 1kg of CO2. Natural gas is roughly half of that.
The statement that there is definite proof that wind is a health hazard is of course wildly untrue. There is no proof. There is only antecdotal, self reported studies, with no control groups, no baseline, no epidemiological studies. Does that sample include those who are getting compenstation for host wind turbines, or just those who perhaps are envious? Some people around wind farms report health problems. Just as some people who don’t live around wind farms report health problems. You know, I have had headaches from time to time, since April 28, 1986. That was the day Chernobyl melted down. Clearly my headaches are caused by that. (For the record, I am well aware that my headaches don’t prove that Chernobyl was the cause). But my proof is just as strong as yours.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Wind is a good energy source but it isn’t reliable. You need something like geothermal.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Perhaps posting your average daily output could dispel the whole “wind energy isn’t reliable” sentiment.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
I have been remiss in posting production data. Daily would be a bit tough, as it would be a manual process, and sometimes, I actually have things to do other than write for the blog! The production from a number of the large Ontario wind farms is posted electronically – hourly – at http://www.sygration.com – click on generator output. I will do some production updates in the future.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Thank you Glen,
I think I understand.
I also understand your position. You are a businessman and if you are not making money by being in business, then what’s the point? My problem is the untold truth about wind generation. As you hard last night directly from a horse’s mouth, there is undisputed evidence that the turbines are a health hazard to humans and animals. Seeing and listening to that person from Ripley, how in the heaven’s name can anyone say or believe otherwise? How can anyone say, as it was said last night by a young woman, that it was all in her head. She was real, her health was real. So why in the hell would anyone with some compassion place someone else in harms way. If wind power is here to stay, I don’t believe it should, but if it is here to stay, why can’t the industry and the government site those monsters a safe distance away from people.
You explained to me the energy pay back. Now, can you perhaps shed some light about your investment payback? We know that CO2 emissions went up instead of down. We know that there are more fossil fuels power plants in existence today than there was 10 years ago. So, where are we going with wind power? If your investment for your Ferndale wind farm, correct me if I’m wrong, was $11,000,000. How long will it take for you to make a profit?
August 28th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
One of the best post I have seen since Glen and Lyle debated wind vs biodiesel
Good to see the blg going again Glen welcome back
To Mr. Grguric: I have known for a long time its not easy to argue statistics with Estills.
Go Wind, Go Biodiesel
John
August 31st, 2009 at 11:04 am
Interesting comment about compassion. If we had compassion, we would stop burning fossil fuels. The Canadian Medical Association estimates that 5000 people per year die prematurely from smog related illnesses. That’s deaths, not illnesses. And the studies are scientific. Death rates for lung related illnesses rise on smog days, and the days immediately following. This has been determined by examining hospital admissions, and subsequent death rates for lung related ailments. Ontario’s coal plants emit about 20% of Ontario source smog. So let’s attribute them with only 1000 deaths per year. But that is just from smog. Millions of people will die from climate change. Subsistence fisherman on Pacific island nations are not be able to feed their family, because the coral dies in warm waters, making their sea a desert – no fish. Rainfall patterns are changing in the Sahel region of Africa, causing even greater uncertainty in crop yields. The breadbasket of Western Australia is likely to be unproductive due to changed rainfall. Bangladesh, Manhatten, New Orleans, much of the Netherlands, and elsewhere will be under water in perhaps as soon as 50 years. Studies suggest that 1 million species may be extinct within 50 years from climate change. That is species, not individuals. Where is the compassion?
Wind turbines do reduce CO2 emissions, for when the turbines are producing, we can burn less fossil fuels to make electricity. It is just wrong to say otherwise. We do not keep the coal plants burning when the wind is blowing. Ask the system operators. Germany’s CO2 emissions have decreased by 22% since 1990, and they lead the world in wind installations.
Are there health impacts from wind turbines? None of my landowners have experienced any adverse health effects. Hundreds of thousands of people live near wind turbines without health effects. The setbacks requested by your group would basically mean no wind could be built in southern Ontario. In most places, the country blocks are no more than 2 km X 2 km. The 1.5 – 2km setback proposed is nothing more than an effort to set a rule that prevents all wind development. And in doing so, ensures that we must continue to burn fossil fuels, and generate nuclear waste. The agenda is clear.
The incumbent sources of power do have reason to be concerned. The number one source of new generation capacity in Europe last year was wind. The number two in the US was wind. So STOP THE WIND. The vested interests have too much to lose.
September 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Glen and Lyle,
Thank you for the wonderful article, and the clear and compelling comments. We need to hear more of this in the media.
-Adina
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
A good news story, timed nicely after Glen’s most recent comment:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/09/03/opg-coal.html
While this isn’t solely as a result of wind power, it is nice to see concrete proof that coal facilities are being shut down in favour of using renewable sources.
By 2010, Ontario will have 40% less coal-generated power. Everyone feel free to take a deep breath and smile. We’re moving forward.
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I forgot to mention as well. I’m glad to see another post on this blog after quite some time. I missed reading about local wind news over the past months. I don’t get to visit my parents near Ravenswood enough, but whenever I do, it’s nice to see the windmills spinning away (silently).