Let's Talk Offshore Setbacks – Poll Question Below

by John Laforet
posted on January 22nd, 2009 at 07:08:18 am

“A real technological challenge is the location of our wind parks, which will be 40-60 km offshore in a water depth of up to 40 m. But we will manage this, and in the process we will prove that environmental concerns (the fi rst kilometres are reserved for natural habitats) and other aspects (the next kilometres are shipping lines) can be taken into consideration.” Sigmar Gabriel, Minister for the Environment, Germany

Source: (Page 26, Wind Directions – Focus on Offshore November/December 2007 European Wind Energy Association)

“Priorities for the cooperation are the exchange of experiences and information on firstly, the effects of offshore wind on ecosystems, the atmospheric and marine environment. We still have to learn a lot about the birds and sea animals and plants surrounding our wind platforms. We should do our best to reduce and mitigate possible negative impacts.” Sigmar Gabriel, Minister for the Environment, Germany

Source: (Page 27, Wind Directions – Focus on Offshore November/December 2007 European Wind Energy Association)

“The plant is approximately 40 km from Oostend and will not be visible from the coast, one
aspect which greatly simplified the approval procedure.” (Page, 11)

“The Danish concept of expansion seeks to concentrate output on a few large regions in which
plants are to be built at a great distance (up to 40 km) from the coast. Smaller wind farms close
to the coast, such as the Middelgrunden project, are exceptions.” (Page, 12)

“The German projects are to be implemented in extremely deep waters at a depth of up to 30 meters and are often 40 km from the shore.” (Page 14)

“No offshore windfarms will be realised within a distance of 15 km from the coast line, the exeption being the demonstration farm NSW in front of the bathing resort Egmond aan zee.” (Page 17)

Source: Qualification Requirement Analysis Offshore Wind Energy Industry (completed for Pushing Offshore Wind Energy Regions)

The European Wind Energy Assocation makes the following recommendation to EU offshore wind policy:

“Encouraging efficient planning procedures which are based on past experiences and are in proportion to the scale and the impact of the project” (Page, 25)

Source: EWEA Delivering Offshore Power in Europe

Of six currently operating offshore wind farms between 100MW and 200 MW (the proposed size of the Toronto Hydro Energy Services project, the closest is 5km offshore, three are 10km offshore, one is 15km offshore and the farthest is 23km offshore).

Is it unreasonable to suggest that if Ontario is serious about setting minimum setbacks they heed the advice of European experience, considering to date, Europe is the world’s only jurisdiction to have successfully installed offshore wind projects?

Even though there are other serious concerns with their proposal, it appears the  proposed Trillium project in Lake Ontario at least got the shoreline memo as they are talking as far as 28 km offshore (the closest point is 15km off Prince Edward County – a community that can only be described as being swarmed by wind developers.) [updated to correct distance from Prince Edward County and to recognize the irresponsible concentration of wind development in this one county].

There isn’t a single example anywhere in the world of a project the size of the Toronto Hydro Energy Services project anywhere near as close to shore as they are proposing. Considering it is also an ecologically sensitive site that virtually all experts agree doesn’t have the wind to allow for a viable wind project why are we even going down this road?

I have next to no confidence in the Premier or Minister Smitherman making the right decision on this because each has already demonstrated a bizarre level of ignorance of the facts of offshore wind and the unprecedented lack of research into possible damage THES could do and a total lack of international precedence of what they propose. That being said, it is my hope that the Green Energy Act will include environmental setbacks, specifically for offshore projects that recognize generally accepted European standards.

I fear the Green Energy Act will serve as yet another example of why lobbyists and industry should not be allowed to self regulate. These guys are no different from any other energy company that is simply seeking a buck in an recession proof field. They are exploitive and without a care for the environment. Don’t believe me – take a look at what one of their founding members had to say about the environment.

“The dire need to stop global warming with an aggressive renewable energy plan for Ontario outstrips potential damage to sensitive environmental areas, says Marion Fraser, a founding member of the Green Energy Act Alliance.”

Marion Fraser worked as political staff to the Ontario Minister of Energy from 2003 to 2008. Incidentally, it is the current Minister of Energy who is ignoring legitimate environmental concerns and overriding local democracy to give Fraser’s latest project what they want. Call me crazy, but does it seem a tad sketchy to leave a sensitive position in government and turn around and begin lobbying that same office for things you used to be responsible for advising on from within? The fact that these organizations – a bunch of whom are either tied to industry insiders or receive public funds or have charitable designations have been campaigning for legislation seems entirely inappropriate to me. It certainly does not represent my view of how public policy decisions should be made.

Tags: European Shoreline set backs, George Smitherman, Green Energy Act, Green Energy Act Alliance, Guildwood, Guildwood Wind Farm, Lake Ontario, Lake Ontario Wind Farm, Offshore wind energy in Ontario, Ontario, Scarborough Bluffs Wind Farm, Shoreline Setbacks for Wind Projects, Toronto Hydro Energy Services