 |
|
|
 | The Ontario government, Cleopatra-like, is keen to roll itself out before the citizens of this province from inside a big, green flag. Rather than educate its people on the hazards and inefficiencies of wind-power, it is pursuing policies increasingly discredited in other jurisdictions (see below). Further, it has taken draconion steps to muzzle the public: Bill 51 prevents municipalities from putting into their Official Plans any regulations which would prohibit a wind-energy factory within or near their communities. And it has effectively cancelled the Environmental Assessment process for wind-energy in its implementation of an environmental screening process: concerned citizens are told to address their worries to the wind-energy developers. If their concerns are not addressed to their satisfaction, they have 30 days to address their concerns to the Director of the Environmental Assessment and Aprovals Branch. Ultimately, the issues will be decided by the courts, at the opponents' expense. Thus, the protection of some of the most beautiful and environmentally sensitive places in Ontario is to be left to the interest and expense of ordinary citizens. |
| What is the rest of the world doing? David Lee, a professional engineer with a strong interest in energy matters, in his presentation to the Kingsville Public Meeting provides the following information (go to Links/Documents, then "Documents to download and review"):
DENMARK: Stopped the development of all wind-energy plants on land or near shore. The government is buying up homes where the property value has gone to zero. The Danish power generator (Elsam) states that "increasing wind power does not decrease CO2 emissions."
NORWAY: Studied the Danish experience and has cancelled all wind-energy factory plans.
GERMANY: Has 12,000 wind turbines, which over a 5-year period were only able to provide 14.7 per cent of their electrical capacity to the grid, resulting in a huge expense to taxpayers because fossil-fuel generated power had to be bought from neighbouring jurisdictions at spot-market prices. In late 2004 Germany stopped all wind-energy factory development on land and near shore. The German energy agency stated in 2005 that further wind energy would increase consumers' costs by a factor of 3.7 and that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved much more cheaply by installing filters and condensers on existing fossil-fuelled plants.
SPAIN: Ended all subsidies for wind factories in 2006.
NETHERLANDS: Is now placing turbines 8-40 km offshore. AUSTRALIA: Has reduced the level of renewable energy the utilities must buy. IRELAND: Has placed a moratorium on all new wind-energy development. SCOTLAND AND WALES: Have suffered significant impact on revenue from the tourist industry. They are now rejecting 95 per cent of applications for land-based and shore-based factories. |  |
|  | In light of this, why did Dwight Duncan, while he was the Ontario Minister of Energy, say: "At the end of the day, remember, if we don't get these things up and sited we are not going to have enough power" and "These [wind turbines] produce greener power, cleaner power and we all have to do our bit"? We know that we can only draw 3-5 per cent of our existing generating capacity from wind before we have to build more fossil-fuel-burning generating stations to balance the network. Why is the Ontario Liberal government persisting with this fiasco, when they must, or should know, that so many other countries, with long experience of wind-energy, are suspending subsidies for these factories, and if they are planning to use them at all, are placing them many kilometres offshore? |
| |
| |
|
|
