New Developments in Ontario’s Energy Politics- Wind Concerns Ontario is Making its Mark

In the last few weeks Ontario’s provincial politics have gained significant media attention.  With elections less than a year away, and Liberal support showing signs of weakening, significant attention has been given to the talking points of Premier Dalton McGuinty and the new Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak.  Energy issues were consistently part of their discourse.  Interestingly, it appears that the Progressive Conservative party has aligned itself with many of the anti-wind assertions made by WCO.  Hudak has pledged to scrap the Feed-In Tariff program introduced in 2009 that subsidized green energy development by guaranteeing premium per kilowatt-hour prices for green sources of energy.  McGuity was on the defensive, citing the huge increase in green energy produced, and planned for the near future, as a direct result of the green energy act, as well as, economic progress in the green energy sector.   

Hudak had two arguments against the feed in tariff. His first criticism was that the tariff would raise energy prices too high, and his second was that Ontario needs “consistency and long range planning” in its energy policies. This is a thinly veiled criticism of the inconsistent nature of wind and solar power sources, a criticism that is made more evident by his alternative proposal to give the “green light” to nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric power projects. These two arguments are consistent with those of WCO, who have steadfastly argued that the expansion of wind power will be too costly for consumers, and is a failure as a technology due to its inconsistent production of power.  This quote comes directly from the list of anti-wind arguments posted on the WCO website.

Industrial level wind energy is expensive and unreliable; other means such as conservation and using technology to improve existing power generating facilities and transmission would help meet Ontario’s power needs better. (http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/who-are-we/)

On October 14th in a speech to the Ontario Energy Association Hudak made a general criticism of Ontario’s current energy policies “Energy policy is about economics.  And stop treating it like a social program”.  As an environmental studies student and someone who is concerned about environmental issues this statement immidiately pulled up some very negative emotions.  With all the talk about climate change, environmental degradation, and emphasis on sustainability we still have politicians who will not accept that energy policies need to take into account more than simply “economics”.  This is astounding given the permation of environmental discourse, and experience of environmental harms in our society.  What about the environment? What about the massive die offs of coral reefs around the world, oil spills and persistent contaminants, increasingly erratic weather, sea ice melting and countless other indicators of a rapidly escalating global environmental crisis?  With all of these things happening is producing energy in a sustainable way with minimal environmental impacts not a worthy “social program”?  Ontarians are worried about the environment and want policy deliberations to integrate serious discussions about environmental impacts, at the local and global scale. 

Environmental arguments aside, the economics of green energy are actually pretty good too in states where strong green energy policies are in place.  A new report from the German government's Federal Environment Ministry found that as of the end of 2009, there were 340,000 jobs in the German renewable energy industry, double the figure for 2004 (160,000 jobs).  They also predict that this will continue to grow, so that by 2030, the gross employment will increase to more than half a million workers. Their modeling work also found that in the same period, the net employment effects of renewable energy sources in Germany are positive in almost all scenarios. If you can read German you can find more about this here: (http://www.bmu.de/erneuerbare_energien/downloads/doc/46538.php). The Ontario government predicts that up to 50 000 jobs will be created through the green energy act.

I think the liberals have a pretty good case when they assert that Hudak’s energy position is “looking backward”. Hudak asserts that, if elected, he would immediately give the “green light” to nuclear energy development. This is a gross over simplification of a highly complex issue.  To build a nuclear power plant takes ten years, billions of dollars, and the right location where people are okay with the development, and complex geographical criteria are met.  If the controversy over the placement of wind generators seems to be hot topic, I can only imagine what the development of a new nuclear facility might bring up (this is probably a reason why we have not seen a new nuclear facility come on line in Ontario in just over 20 years).  Indeed Hudak is looking backwards, to a time when nuclear power was still rapidly developed in Ontario, and when alternative energy sources like wind, and solar power were not used around the world on a massive scale.  The amount of new wind energy that has come online in the past few years far out strips that of nuclear.

I think WCO has influenced the stance of Hudak’s Progressive Conservative party.  If growing, organized, resentment against wind power exists in rural Ontario then the PC party probably sees an opportunity to capitalize on one, voters who apparently reject the Green Energy Act and two, free, effective promotion of their new energy plan through the well organized communication mechanisms of WCO.  If everyone were happy about wind power development in Ontario (or some were less mad) then Hudak’s energy policy would probably be less appealing to a lot of people.  To achieve this though communities must be included in the process of wind power development, and have their concerns addressed in a meaningful way. Concessions, compromises, and compensation should be provided through healthy discussions at the pre-planning phase of every large-scale wind power development. Better yet, policies should facilitate community led wind developments as part of locally based energy production, and economic planning. If this happens, communities will more than likely oppose Hudak’s plan to scrap the Green Energy Act.  Unfortunately this is not the case right now.  All too often the consultation process is flawed, superficial, and subordinates local concerns and risk assessments.  The government is making things up as it goes with its highly ambitious green energy policies. Policies need to adapt to get communities involved in a meaningful and productive way to make the story of wind development an undeniably positive one.  If they can do this Hudak will have a much harder time defending his energy policies in the coming months and WCO will be a flash in the pan (perhaps a necessary one at this juncture?) on the long road to a sustainable energy future in Ontario. 

 

Thanks for reading!

 

Commentaires

Thank you Matthias

Dear Matthias, Thank you for providing a thoughtful, well-researched and centered perspective on the wind energy debate in Ontario. There is clearly a need for discourse on this subject, based on the responses that I read in the comments section of your blog. I am curious about the scale of wind energy development that has been proposed. How many km^2/ha would be developed? What is the compensation for landowners and communities? Do local people receive cheaper energy for having the development next door? On another note, there is a group that has formed to oppose the project. Do you know how many people support wind energy in rural Ontario? Sometimes I worry that we are afraid of change and therefore resist it, without fully considering the alternatives. For example, we allow cosmetic pesticides in our communities to keep our grass green and dandelion-free, even when we know that these same chemicals may be harmful for people and dogs. Yet, there is a lot of resistance to outlawing these chemicals, even when the risk of NOT having them is only to have weeds in our yards. My intention is not to trivialize the arguments to wind energy development in Ontario, I just wish that there was room for dialogue on these issues. And, I wonder why we fear change, even when it may be for the best in the long run. How do we, individually and as a society balance the perceived risks and benefits of change? How do we minimize some risks while magnifying others? Finally, I was wondering if you have reviewed the literature on the health effects of wind energy (based on epidemiological studies)? And, has a solution been found for the inconsistent energy output from wind farms? These seem to be two key issues that are raised with respect to wind energy development. I have one final comment. I have noticed that there is a lack of consultation when it comes to large-scale development projects. Although I appreciate that we need to embrace clean, green energy as quickly as possible, it seems as though the political processes at play in these large scale developments are not allowing the voice of citizens to be heard. I know first hand how frustrating it is to try to be engaged in a process yet feeling ignored. And, the problem with this approach of ignoring 'dissent' or opposing views, is that it leads to anger and frustration and resolve on the part of those who feel they are not being heard. Poorer dialogue can only result when this pattern emerges. What is the solution? Education and communication can only help. Thank you for encouraging dialogue on this subject! sonzio

Sierra Club Cannot Make up it's mind

Come on Sierra Club. Quit pussyfooting around and take a stand. You http://maryland.sierraclub.org/action/p0133.asp Industrial wind is supported by some “environmentalists” while other “environmentalists” find wind plants a horrible choice for the environment. Even some organizations which support industrial wind, don’t support industrial wind! http://alleghenytreasures.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/the-sierra-club-how-s... Obviously the debate is being stifled, as we see here: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/263965

WCO Is Stifling Debate

If Wind Concerns Ontario was interested in real dialogue then comments from the general public would be allowed on the WCO web site, just like they are here. WCO continues to protect its anti-wind propaganda machine from any dissident voices. At least the Sierra Club provides a platform for all points of view.

wildlife destruction

Is it OK to install wind turbines while destroying the habitat and food sources of migrating birds? Is it OK to build roads over the habitat of a species-at-risk (Blandings turtle)? Is it OK to remove hectares of GLOBALLY RARE alvar habitat to build turbines? Gilead Power Corp is planning all of the above. Read their reports.Minimal environmental impact? It's a lie.

Logic vs. Faith

Matthias Your writing seems to have a good measure of blind "faith" in wind power. Bringing actual science into the argument regarding wind's lack of viability seems to be taboo or heretical to your faith-based thinking. Wind power does next to nothing to reduce CO2 (if that's your goal). Fossil fuel plant still have to chug away (often at less than ideal conditions) in case the wind suddenly dies down. Wind power is a lot like a bicycle. This bicycle must always be towing a Hummer behind it because 75% of the time it peters out and can't produce. Again, this seems like more of a moral commitment to wind energy rather than a scientific, logical one. Please show me any country in the world that has lowered CO2 emissions due to huge investment in wind power. It's a myth...a green, feel-good dream. It is certainly not based on reality. There will come a day when someone devises an economical alternative or alternatives to coal. But that day will not come just because eco-friendly politicians and activists wish it so. In the meantime, it appears the environmental movement has been hijacked by fast-talking large corporate interests. Remember...the wind companies for the most part are owned by the oil companies. Same bull$#!*. Different day. Here in Ontario: Enbridge, TransAlta, Suncor, etc. etc.

It's an Industrial Invasion

When a wind company (or 2, 3, 4 or 5 of them) invades your community, you can bet that every Liberal/Green voter, like myself and extended family, will vote for the party that doesn't shove our legitimate health concerns under that carpet. And if that means we all have to vote Conservative for the first time, then so be it. Too much is at stake: I don't want my home, farm and children's school surrounded by 40+ industrial wind turbine without being reassured with hard facts that they will not make us sick and force us to move (if we can afford to). WCO is about as grassroots as it comes, and you'd be surprised at how many intelligent and extremely environmentally conscience people are part of this group. They are people who care about health and wildlife, and reject massive industrialization of our rural Ontario.

Rural Ontario Is Already Industrial

WCO needs to come clean with this industrialization argument. The industrialization of rural Ontario started decades ago. Monoculture farming practices, hog and cattle feed lots and factory style chicken farms (30,000 chickens to a barn) are currently part of the vast industrial farm complex that now feeds North America. The small family farm, with a few chickens, a few hogs a cow and fields planted with multiple crops are few and far between these days; and those who think otherwise are dreaming of a time long past. One could suggest that the health effects on everyone in North America exposed to the anti-biotics, growth hormones, pesticides and herbicides that are common to the industrial farming practices used today, far out weigh the effects of “swooshing noises” or infrasonic pulses felt by a few people living in proximity to wind turbines. Rural Ontario has already industrialized itself in order to stay viable. Suggesting that there is a conspiracy to industrialize rural Ontario by the provincial government and wind energy corporations is just plain fear mongering.

Wind Concerns is trying to be realistic!

I would like to know how Matthias knows for certain that things like wind, and other renewables will help stop environmental degradation when nowhere has it been shown that these can exist without the backup of fossil fuel electrical generation nor reduce the amount of GHG emissions? Ontario is planning on subsidising renewables to the tune of $3.8 billion. This amount for a paltry 50,000 jobs???!!! In January alone last year, seems to me the reports were saying Ontario lost over 60,000. Please understand that Germany invested heavily in the manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels, on the basis they would be the leader in the supply chain for other countries. This is the only way they will make sense out of their heavily subsidized FIT rates. Spain in a review done by the University of Madrid found for every "green" job using taxpayers dollars for investment lost 2.2 jobs in other sectors. In the US DOE's Energy Information Agency indicates in their document http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm that in the EU-27 countries, there was an increase of thermal capacity (coal and natural gas aren't separated) of almost 29 GW from 2000-2007. Thermal generation increased from 1,520,965 GWh to 1,748,766 GWh. Coal consumption increased from 904,856,000 short tons to 920,230,000 short tons (consumption of other fossil fuels also increased, but only coal is used almost wholly for electricity). Non-hydro renewable capacity (presumably mostly wind) increased from 23.527 GW to 86.759 GW and generation from 21,143 GWh to 99,152 Gwh. This however only represented a 13% capacity factor (potential level of electrical generation that can be provided to the grid) in 2007 which by the way, was only up from 10% in 2000). Understand that wind represents only 1% worldwide of the total while fossil fuels represent 85% of our electrical generation. It is also important to understand that capacity factor is not an indication of the value that wind energy is providing the grid. The true capacity value of wind is generally less than 10% of it's nameplate capacity and often 0% or slightly above simply because, at the time of peak electricity demand, wind isn't blowing to allow generation. (Gleen R. Schleede,Electric Industry Terms Important in Understanding Two Critically Important Limitations of Electricity from Wind Energy). To continue with the EU-27, total electricity consumption increased from 2,633,494 GWh to 2,950,297 GWh, or 316,803 GWh, far outstripping wind's increased production of 78,009 GWh, therefore indicating that Ontario is planning to replace dirty coal with wind which the Liberals so often elude to in their statements concerning Ontario's electrical system, is ludicrous and unfounded. Real world data from Europe has shown that one kWh of wind does not directly replace one kWh of coal as so many seem to assume. As well, from 2000 to 2007 per capita C02 emissions in the EU-27 countries, increased from 8.5 to 8.7 metric tons. A difference of 0.2 metric tonnes over 7 years at what cost to the electrical consumer? Europe, especially Denmark are known to have the highest electricity rates in the world. Let's keep in mind that electricity is a master resource needed for almost everything we use to maintain our lives as we know it. Increasing electrical costs has far reaching effects including how funding is made available for groups such as the Sierra club.

Sign-up and get involved...

Receive important news and action alerts!