Ontario's big windy gamble

The province is betting on wind power, and critics are lining up

by Jonathon Gatehouse on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:20pm - 57 Comments

Smitherman, whose temperament earned him the nickname “Furious George,” betrays hints that his patience is perhaps waning for both the backlash and industry whining. “I totally understand that there aren’t many people out there looking for more electricity infrastructure in their backyards,” he says. And if somebody has to go back to the drawing board and redesign some projects, “I apologize that it will be inconvenient in some circumstances. But bigger setbacks are part of the Green Act.” All part of a difficult balancing act that the province must execute if it is to do away with coal by 2014, cut 30 megatonnes of CO2 emissions annually, and generally improve the health of all Ontarians. (Every year, the province’s coal plants kill 668 people, while causing 1,100 emergency room visits and more than 300,000 minor illnesses, says the Ontario Medical Association.)

But the noisy debate—and the pending infrastructure announcements—might just be the kind of sideshow the Ontario government needs to distract attention from even bigger problems with its energy system. Seventy-five per cent of its existing generation system must be replaced over the next two decades, and the cost of refurbishing and expanding its aging nuclear plants—the source of 53 per cent of the province’s power—is spiralling. Plans for two new reactors at Darlington were put on hold last month after the lowest bid came in at $26 billion, more than the power expansion budget for the next 20 years.

Bryne Purchase, a former deputy minister of finance and energy in Ontario, now executive director of the Queen’s University Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy, says Dalton McGuinty’s government seems to be flying by the seat of its pants when it comes to energy. “This has all been driven by relatively simple political thinking: coal bad, wind good,” he says. A carbon tax, whatever the form, would have had the advantage of pricing the pollutants out of the market, rather than making wind the default winning technology—a problem, given that it is neither particularly cost-effective at the moment, nor efficient. (The amount of available wind power can change from minute to minute, depending on the breezes, which explains Ontario’s decision to install “backup” natural gas-fired plants, which can be quickly be pressed into service.) And as the cost of new transmission lines, grid hookups and the government-mandated preferential tariffs get buried on electricity bills, consumers will never know if wind was the way to go or not, says Purchase. “Soon it will be impossible to know what the truly cost-efficient alternatives actually were.” Green, but at a steep price.

Bookmark and Share
  • Sandy and neighbours

    Comment 1 of 2 from Ripley,
    “Moving forward" is an interesting title. That is exactly what the companies reps said whenever we asked for the health protocols used at their other projects to protect the health of families within the complexes. "If there are problems we will work/move forward to solve them.”. We have been 20 months waiting for the "milestones" to happen in the Ripley Wind Project which uses Enercon 82 turbines.
    If “moving forward” wants answers on health , contact your local MPP and all the ministers as well as the Premier to support the study outlined by Dr. McMurtry.
    End of Comment 1

  • Sandy and neighbours

    Comment 2 of 2 from Ripley
    Moving forward states," Standards are already in place that would require that the turbines be shut down if they exceeded 40dB, what is being proposed is much greater setbacks.” What a joke! You do not know the REAL truth about 40dB and compliance. A sound study done at 4 properties, in May 2008, found 4 turbines (10.5% of the project) out of compliance of 40dB which is ABOVE the World Health Organization standard of 35dB for restful sleep. NO TURBINES SHUT OFF! ( NOTE: The companies did not even release this information to the MOE until being requested to do so in FEB. 2009, 9 MONTHS after the study and remember the health of the family members was/is still being harmed.) The second study at 7 homes in March 2009, shows a possibility ( according to their PR guy) of 7 turbines (18.4% of the project) not in compliance so they were NOT SHUT OFF, but, powered back to ½ power. Imagine what would be found if the MOE did the monitoring through out the project without giving the companies a weeks notice that they are coming to do sound testing ( yes, the companies do get notification most of the time)? Moving forward…….. NOT!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/andersonboyz andersonboyz

    Please go to Wind Concerns Ontario website and see some short videos that show this is not just an Ontario problem.

    http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com

  • Melodie Burkett

    Has anyone considered that snow mobile trails that have been welcomed by farmers all over Rural Ontario will have to be closed if the trail is beside a property line that has these giant wind turbines on them. The huge blades have been reported to hurl ice up to 1000 ft ! Someone could easily be decapitated! I don't think Insurers want to take that chance. I have had to close our trail that enjoyed snow mobilers for over 20 years! Even if Insurance was increased by the Ontario Snowmobile Assc. and cost past on the snow mobilers for their pass, I do not want to feel responsible for allowing injury to happen on my 100 Acre farms. Rather than wait until the turbines are up , then closing the trails , I felt it was important to give snow mobilers a chance to weigh in on the matter in Stayner/Creemore Ont area

  • Craig Goodrich

    "“There are more than 68,000 wind turbines in operation around the world, some of them have been in place for over 20 years. And complaints about them are few and far between,” says Whittaker."

    Which, of course, explains why Denmark, Germany, and Spain have declared moratoria on further installations, the UK is in an uproar, and Norway has decided not to allow them in in the first place.

    Has anyone considered that wildlife — deer, bear, foxes, even raccoons — who don't have to worry about mortgages and property lines simply leave? In West Virginia, for example, mountain woods that used to teem with deer are now completely deserted for about five miles in all directions from these installations.

    As to offshore, the low-frequency noise of these things (and by the way, it should always be measured C-weighted, not A-weighted as the developers love to do), which travels dozens of miles underwater, is so stressing seals that many, many baby seals either born dead or abandoned are being found at a breeding ground off the English coast.

    In a generation, when all of these monstrosities are decommissioned and removed, probably at enormous taxpayer expense, we need to leave several of them standing to hang the likes of Whittaker and his political cronies.

  • http://enviralment.wordpress.com province let down

    The only thing that is really being grown in the Ontario energy sector is natural gas plants to base-load the intermittency of wind. Considering that we need to close down coal plants by 2014 its kind of disingenuous to replace them with another fossil fuel while hiding behind the guise of wind turbines. We need to have a real debate about our energy needs in this provence and about the pragmatism of including new nuclear plants in the energy mix. I support CANDU reactors and think the government is making a horrible mistake by waiting around to build them. http://www.pickcandu.ca

    • JoFerg

      It seems that the Ontario Power Workers Union is totally onside with nuclear as the backbone for future energy needs as well. Although the huge costs for building sophisticated CANDU plants (as opposed to cheaper, less safe, breeder reactors for example) is prohibitive in the short term, the long term benefits however of such a (RELATIVELY) clean source of power is certainly worth considering further. At least the Power Workers Union is realistic about the large "baseload" requirements for our Society…Even after factoring in reduction/conservation.
      SEE: http://bit.ly/qzKgr

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    I say we chain all our MPP's to little generator-bicycles and put them on a non-stop diet of Red Bull and chocolate. Problem solved.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    I say we chain all our MPP's to little generator-bicycles and put them on a non-stop diet of Red Bull and chocolate.

    Problem solved.

  • JoFerg

    It seems that the Ontario Power Workers Union is totally onside with nuclear as the backbone for future energy needs as well as supporting wind power. Although the huge costs for building sophisticated CANDU plants (as opposed to cheaper, less safe, breeder reactors for example) is prohibitive in the short term, the long term benefits however of such a (RELATIVELY) clean source of power is certainly worth considering further. At least the Power Workers Union is realistic about the large "baseload" requirements for our Society…Even after factoring in reduction/conservation.
    SEE: http://bit.ly/qzKgr for specifics or: abetterenergyplan.ca for some general info

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/savecanada savecanada

    I am surprised not to ses a single positive article. Does MacLeans censorship them or are all Canadians dumb? I cannot believe that.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

      Did it ever occur to you that there might be a third possibility? Say, that you're wrong and most Macleans readers are right? I can believe that.

  • Guest

    This is not fair. Big companies should not be given the right to come into rural areas and ruin our natural landscape.

  • http://www.lookyoungatlanta.com botox Atlanta

    It's environment friendly and very sufficient to provide power for every household. For me it's really a great idea.

  • http://Ruffie Rufffie

    How old is the statement by the Ontario Medical Ass. that the provinces coal plants kill 668 yearly, while causing 1,100 emerg. room visits and 300,000 minor illnesses. Seems like I first saw these figures many many years ago — when we used lots of old coal fired plants . We use very little coal generation these days — these exaggerated figure need to be updated and put into perspective. All in all this is a decent attempt by MacLeans to get the story out in an unbiased fashion but.
    Let’s face it anyone who can spell wind turbines knows that they are a symbol of stupidity for the naive and gullible. Until man can control the wind or store the power efficiently and economically then it is a waste of taxpayers money. Unfortunately we have a premier who never did understand the electrical grid and what’s required plus a energy minister whose related experience is to be part owner of a photo store. They rely on a whole group of self serving NOG’s that seize on such a situation to advance their own goals. Just look at the Green Energy Act -what sad pathetic bunch could dream up such a document in a so called democracy , they need to be tarred and feathered.
    Wake up Ontario – stand up and be counted – we are being lied to big time and we will pay big time .

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

    If wind manages to stay in the mix for a few more years I predict that you will see the wind industry start to develop systems that can store energy. This won't do too much to solve the problem that (after accounting for the service factor) so many wind turbines are required to generate the same amount that a moderately sized coal or nuclear plant can deliver, but it will at least remove the intermittency argument against wind.

    Not to say that wind can or will ever single-handedly deliver all the energy that Ontario requires, just that some of its current technological limitations will be solved over the next decade or two.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

    If wind manages to stay in the mix for a few more years I predict that you will see the wind industry start to develop systems that can store energy. This won't do too much to solve the problem that (after accounting for the service factor) so many wind turbines are required to generate the same amount of electricity that a moderately sized coal or nuclear plant can deliver, but it will at least remove the intermittency argument against wind.

    Not to say that wind can or will ever single-handedly deliver all the energy that Ontario requires, just that some of its current technological limitations will be solved over the next decade or two.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/andersonboyz andersonboyz

    I'm angry with the Ontario government. I'm angry at the NCOs who are awash with grants and funding and do their damnest to squash citizen's voices and reasonable debate. I'm really angry with the mainstream media who has turned a blind eye to this huge story of what is happening in rural Ontario. If it doesn't happen in Toronto, it's not news apparently. I do hope MacLean's explores this issue more deeply. It's incredible how families can be forced from their homes and no one cares.

  • right on!

    For Mowing Forvard: So, you just moving forward without looking back at Sandy and neighbours. No health problems? The get this, just one of many many reports on health rpoblems caused by the WIND FACTORIES
    http://video.ninemsn.com.au/video.aspx?mkt=en-au&…

  • glenncz

    >shame on you…
    Claire, very good point!!!! Shame on the greenies for not doing the research to find out how destructive this "green energy" policy will be.
    1 Nuclear Reactor Plant (two towers) on 60 acres = 2400 MW 24/7 almost 365 days per year
    Needs 5,000 2MW wind turbines thingamajigs, operating at 25% capacity to create that same energy, and DUH, we still need the Nuclear Plants!!!!!

From Macleans