Just The Facts: Wind Power in Ontario and Europe
Below are a series of quotes from various sources I have come across during my research. I will summarize at the bottom.
The Role of the Public:
Greenpeace on Public Participation in Offshore Wind Project Decisions:
“Naturally, in a democratic society, public acceptance is vital to the ultimate success of any initiative.” Sea Wind Europe – Greenpeace
“Every wind farm will be required to seek some form of planning permission, and inherent in this process is affording the local community an opportunity to appraise and comment on a proposed development, or on a wider development plan for an area.” Sea Wind Europe – Greenpeace
European Wind Energy Association On Public Participation in Wind Project Decisions:
“Public acceptance is key for the future development of wind energy in Europe.” European Wind Energy Association
Dalton McGuinty on Public Participation:
“Taking a swipe at those who oppose wind turbines off the Scarborough Bluffs, Premier Dalton McGuinty is signalling he won’t hesitate to foist “green” energy projects on communities across Ontario.” Toronto Star - McGuinty vows to stop wind-farm NIMBYs
Bluewater Wind Power (Deleware Offshore Project) on Public Participation:
“We value open and continuing two-way communications. It is important to us that we know and understand each person’s concerns, questions and ideas. This understanding helps us to improve our responsiveness to the needs of the community, which in turn contributes to the success of our projects.” Bluewater Wind Values
NaiKun – BC Offshore Wind Project on Public Participation:
“NaiKun is committed to working with local communities to ensure that the project is designed and built in consideration of community interests.” NaiKun Community Consultation
Jim Gordon – President of Cape Wind (Cape Cod Wind Project):
“We at Cape Wind share our neighbors’ concerns for the environment—local, regional and global—and act accordingly. Our philosophy toward community relations is simple. Be honest and open, be a good neighbor, and safeguard our shared resources and environment.” Cape Wind – Being a Good Neighbour
Offshore Wind In General:
The Ontario Power Authority on Why Offshore Wind Isn’t In It’s 20 Year Power System Plan (June 2008):
“The Ontario Power Authority, the government agency that effectively determines which large power projects live or die, says offshore wind costs too much to be considered in its 20-year power system plan. It acknowledges that the technology provides more power than onshore projects, but not enough to justify the higher cost of building offshore wind farms.” (Toronto Star, June 30th 2008)
Earth Policy Institute on Scale of World Wide Offshore Wind Development (March 2008):
“Offshore wind capacity accounts for almost 1,170 megawatts worldwide, roughly 1.2 percent of the 94,100 megawatts of installed capacity at the end of 2007; while this is a small share of the total, it is up from less than 0.3 percent in 2000.” (Earth Policy Institute, March 4th 2008)
On Proper Siting of Wind Offshore Turbines:
German Wind Energy Association On Balancing Nature Conservation With Offshore Wind (Undated – 2008/9):
“Mainly for nature conservation reasons, most German offshore parks will be erected up to 20-60 km away from the coastline and in 20-40 meters deep waters. So far, experience of building such wind farms is very limited, hence higher risk attached make financing from banks more complicated.” (German Wind Energy Association – Future Trends: Offshore)
Bluewater (Deleware Wind Farm Developer) on Siting Their Project:
“Bluewater Wind’s plan to site turbines more than 11.5 nautical miles from shore removes them from close proximity to bird population fly zones. Nonetheless, expert ornithologists will conduct thorough avian studies before, during and after construction of the Delaware wind park.” – www.bluewater.com
Cape Wind – North America’s First Offshore Wind Project:
“The wind park will be sited on Horseshoe Shoal off the coast of Cape Cod. Hyannis will be over five miles away—and most of the Cape beaches will be further away.” Cape Wind Project Siting
Nai Kun (British Columbia) Offshore Wind Turbine Project On Siting:
“It is here, several kilometers from the nearest shore that NaiKun has secured a 550 square kilometer permit area within which we plan to build the first phase of our wind project, a 396 MW offshore wind farm, and future phases.” Nai Kun Project Site
Greenpeace Europe on ‘Buffer Zone for Offshore Wind’
“The 5km boundary was to reflect a general move by some countries to impose a coastal buffer zone for very large offshore wind farms on visual grounds.” Sea Wind Europe – Greenpeace
How Far Offshore Are Current 100 Megawatt Plus Wind Turbine Projects:
Denmark – Closest 5-15 KMs – Average 12 KMs (four projects)
Germany – Closest 100 KMs – Average 100 KMs (one project)
Netherlands – Closest 8-12 KMs – Average 16.5 KMs (two projects)
Sweden – Closest 10 KMs – Average 10 KMs (one project)
United Kingdom – Closest 7 KMs – Average 9 KMs (three projects)
Source: Offshore Wind Statistics January 2009 – European Wind Energy Association
Toronto Hydro’s Proposal – 2-4 KMs
Source: Toronto Hydro Energy Services, Stakeholder Anemometer Briefing
On Environmental Assessments:
Cape Wind – North America’s First Offshore Wind Turbine Project On Environmental Assessments:
“Cape Wind is committed to protecting the Cape Cod environment during construction and when the wind park is operating. Prior to receiving permits for construction, Cape Wind will complete comprehensive environmental studies for federal, state and local agencies, and provide opportunity for public comment.” Cape Wind Environmental Studies
Nai Kun Wind Development (British Columbia) On Environmental Assessments:
“NaiKun is strongly committed to the Environmental Assessment process. Through the process we intend to clearly identify any potential effects and propose appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures to ensure the project can proceed with no significant adverse effects.” Nai Kun Environmental Assessment [Nai Kun is subject to a Federal Environmental Assessment, a Provincial Environmental Assessment and a Haida Environmental Assessment]
Bluewater Wind on Environmental Assessments:
“We seek objective environmental reviews. Our experts conduct comprehensive scientific and environmental studies and analysis on all aspects of our wind park projects, and we welcome the input of all experts in the public discussion.” Bluewater Wind Values
Greenpeace On Environmental Assessments For Offshore Wind In Europe:
“It is noted that, when investigating a potential site, developers must consider in detail a wide range of constraints. Potential impacts, and their magnitude, are subject to in-depth assessment in both the Strategic Environmental Assessment and the Environmental Impact Assessment processes. The former is an assessment of government plans and policies carried out prior to their implementation, the latter an impact assessment carried out by a developer in support of an application for project consent.” Sea Wind Europe – Greenpeace
Dalton McGuinty’s Position On Wind:
Dalton McGuinty wants Ontario to be the only jurisdiction to install offshore wind projects without community acceptance and a process that allows for community participation in decision making.
Dalton McGuinty wants Ontario to place large offshore wind projects closer to shore than any other jurisdiction in the world.
Ontario is the only jurisdiction in the world that does not require an environmental assessment before construction of an offshore wind project. (The closest is a “proponent driven, self-assessment process”).
Dalton McGuinty supports a project that ignores the Ontario Power Authority’s 20 year power system plan and all available data on wind viability off the Scarborough Bluffs. The Canada Wind Atlas, the Helimax Report his Government commissioned, and the two waterfront turbines that act as book ends to the location (both failures).
Dalton McGuinty believes you’re NIMBY if you agree with Greenpeace Europe, the European Wind Energy Association, the German Wind Energy Association, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Deleware, Massachusetts or British Columbia all of whom support minimum setbacks from shore at least 60% farther than the Toronto Hydro Energy Service proposal.
Dalton McGuinty believes you’re NIMBY if you agree with The Ontario Power Authority, Helimax, the Canada Wind Atlas or the evidence from the Pickering Wind Generating Station and The Exhibition Wind Turbine data that suggest Toronto Hydro Energy Services project would not be feasible.
Dalton McGuinty believes you’re NIMBY if you want his government and his friends at Toronto Hydro Energy Services to carry out an environmental assessment like virtually all other offshore wind projects of this size in the world.
Dalton McGuinty believes you’re NIMBY if you expect Toronto Hydro Energy Services not to knowingly lie to the community, to hold a fair, open and honest consultation process and consider the community’s concerns instead of defending their project.
In truth – Dalton McGuinty doesn’t have an answer for why his government doesn’t have minimum setbacks, doesn’t require environmental assessments and why they refuse to accept science and instead of doing something about that – he bows to pressure from the wind industry and uses the politics of divison to create conflict among citizens in his Province.
Dalton McGuinty is wrong. He should be ashamed of himself and he should apologize to Guildwood residents for wrongfully singling them out in a poorly thought out speech in London. Our concerns are environmental and it would be great if the Premier could join Guildwood residents in taking the environment seriously.
Tags: Dalton McGuinty, Environmental Assessment, Greenpeace, Guildwood, Guildwood Wind Farm, Lake Ontario Wind Farm, NIMBY, Offshore Wind Ontario, Ontario Power Authority, Public Participation, Scarborough Bluffs Wind Farm, Toronto Hydro Energy Services, Toronto Wind farm
February 14th, 2009 at 10:49 am
It’s no great surprise that he ignores science and the facts; he did it with coal. I have friends who moved here (Cayuga, Haldimand County) from Germany. They asked me, “Why do they allow all that pollution to come out of Nanticoke; it’s not that way from the German coal plants?” It’s a political decision, not an engineering or economic decision. Even President Obama is pro-coal. “Clean coal technology is something that can make America energy independant!” http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=barack+obama+clean+coal&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
February 14th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I wish proponents of wind energy would come up with some hard “facts” to back up their claims that windfarms are cost effective as a means of reducing greenhouse gases. Last night I happened to catch a short debate between Marilyn Churley and a representative (sorry, I didn’t catch his name) of Wind Concerns Ontario on CHCH, the local Hamilton TV station. Ms. Churley kept insisting that Canada is far behind Europe with respect to wind energy, and referring to numerous reports indicating that windfarms do in fact reduce greenhouse gases. When challenged by Wind Concern Ontario, she could not back up her statements with references to specific reports, nor explain why Germany is building 20 new coal plants if their wind projects are so successful.
I simply do not understand why there is such a rush to wind energy before all the facts are in.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
The placement of the wind farm close to the shore and foregoing any environmental assessment could create a Walkerton like water problem in Toronto.
The proposed wind farm is to be installed in the shallow waters 2 to 4 km south of the Scarborough bluffs shoreline. The water is shallow here due to centuries of soil erosion of the Scarborough bluffs. It is this soil erosion and the strong east to west lake Ontario water current that created the Leslie Street spit and the Toronto Islands. The main water intake for the R.C. Harris water treatment plant is located 2.6 KM off shore. This location is right in the line between the proposed wind farm and the westward moving lake Ontario water current. Construction activity will no doubt disturb the lake bed from dredging and drill activities. Construction debris from the barges, equipment and materials such as diesel fuel residue, cement residue, welding debris, and other materials associated with the construction of these industrial machines will unavoidably be discharges into the water. All of this material will be pushed by the water current toward the R.C. Harris water intake. This water treatment plant provides approximately 45% of Toronto’s drinking water. The R.C Harris water treatment plant was built over 60 years ago. It was not designed to treat the additional materials and toxins introduced by construction/dreadging activity right next to the water intakes. The normal process for wind farm installations in Ontario is to forego an environmental assessment. To date all wind power installations in Ontario (approximately 17) have been installed without an environmental assessment. This project needs an environment assessment. The drinking water of millions of people could be adversely affected.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:22 am
The crazy thing Mike is that saying just that has you labelled NIMBY. It’s unbelievable how irresponsible the government is being.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:40 am
The problem is McGuinty has staked his entire reputation on the irresponsible statement of closing all the coal plants down…without a realistic plan to replace them. His ego is at stake here. He must resort to bully tactics and blind adherence to whatever CanWEA tells him. He put himself in this position. Now he must make US pay for his arrogance.
February 15th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
MA – the best part is that Joyce McLean is the past President of CanWEA. We have her on record lying about wind facts. She was unable to answer even basic questions about wind generation in Ontario. She is the one who so poorly handled the Toronto Hydro Energy Services project that the Premier needed to step in to protect this insane idea.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
nimby
January 10th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Jan 10 2010
Steel Winds project will add six windmills
By Barbara O’Brien and Robert J. McCarthy
NEWS STAFF REPORTERS
Updated: January 10, 2010, 6:59 AM / 0 comments
Story tools:
* Larger
* Smaller
* Save
* Print
* Email
* Get Alerts NEW
Share this story:
Buzz up!
Add to My Yahoo!
Six new windmills will be built on the old Bethlehem Steel site this year, and the state is announcing plans to study construction of other windmills — although smaller — at local Thruway interchanges.
First Wind, the company behind the Steel Winds project at the former Bethlehem Steel site, plans to build four new turbines on the Hamburg side of the site and two more in Lackawanna, according to First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne.
“We hope to build sometime this year, I couldn’t tell you when,” Lamontagne said.
The new towers will be about 240 feet tall, and with the blades, the windmills will be about 400 feet tall, Lamontagne said. They are the same as the eight turbines that the company operates along the Lackawanna shoreline. Problems encountered two years ago with the gearboxes and blades have been addressed, he said.
“They’re running fine and operating well,” Lamontagne.
Frontier Central School District and the Town of Hamburg will split most of the payments for the turbines.
While the project is tax exempt, First Wind agreed to a payment in lieu of taxes of $10,000 for each megawatt generated by the turbines, Hamburg Supervisor Steven J. Walters said.
“We don’t know the figures of what we’re going to get because nothing’s been built yet,” he said.
First Wind’s payment in lieu of taxes will be divided among Erie County, the town and the school district. Walters said he expects the county to receive between 5 percent and 10 percent.
“It’s now our responsibility to reach out to the county and work out with the county what their percentage will be,” Walters said.
After the county takes its share, the town will receive 51.5 percent, and Frontier schools will get 48.5 percent of the remainder under an agreement between Hamburg and the school district.
He said the town will receive the largest percentage because most of the regulation and monitoring of the turbines will fall to the town.
Meanwhile, the Thruway Authority announced Friday it will seek proposals from the wind turbine industry to assess the feasibility of constructing “medium-sized” windmills at six Thruway sites in Western New York.
The idea is to determine if the authority could generate power from the machines to sustain many of its own operations and possibly sell excess power back to the grid, spokeswoman Betsy Graham said.
“We think this goes a long way to offset our utility costs, and in turn, protect and enhance the environment,” she said.
The interchanges under study for turbines are Batavia, Eden-Angola, Silver Creek, Dunkirk, Westfield and Ripley.
Graham said the proposed turbines are not as big as those n the Bethlehem Steel site and will be appropriately sized for the Thruway properties at the exits. She said the studies will also determine if wind velocity at the six sites is strong enough to sustain the proposed turbines. It is expected the authority will make a final decision on the idea this summer, Graham added.
“The Thruway Authority is eager to hear from the wind power development industry as to how it can work towards a more sustainable environment and making New York a greener state, benefiting all New Yorkers,” said Thruway Executive Director Michael R. Fleischer.
The plan is also part of Gov. David A. Paterson’s objective of meeting 45 percent of the state’s electricity needs through energy efficiency and renewable energy.
“Last month, I accepted the State Energy Plan which provides a detailed road map for achieving this clean energy target, and one of the recommendations is to inventory state-owned land that is suitable for renewable energy development,” Paterson said. “I commend the Thruway Authority for acting so swiftly to help us implement this piece of the State Energy Plan.”
January 10th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Deflating some misconceptions about wind power
Comments (94)
Friday, October 31, 2008 | 03:55 PM ET
By quirks
By Bob McDonald, host of the CBC science radio program Quirks & Quarks.
When does going clean and green look bad?
When it’s in your back yard.
Offshore on Lake Ontario, where the city of Toronto is nothing but a skyline, there is seldom a problem finding wind to fill my sails. That’s why Toronto Hydro is considering installing 60 offshore wind turbines to provide clean electricity to this power-hungry city. But in a long tradition of attempts to bring wind power to the Great Lakes, some local residents are opposed to the idea for the usual wrong reasons.
Allow me to clear up some misconceptions about modern wind turbines: They do not make noise, they don’t kill birds and if they are sitting two kilometers off shore they’re not intrusive on the landscape.
The noise and bird problems were issues in older windmill designs, which used shorter, multi-bladed propellers that needed to spin at high speed to generate power. The rapidly spinning blade tips produced noise and were a hazard for migrating birds.
Newer wind turbines are much larger, standing 10 stories high with only three giant blades that are 20 to 30 meters long. These huge machines sweep such a large area they can produce power at very sedate speeds, usually around 25 to 30 revolutions per minute. That’s slow enough that the blades are visible all the time and birds can easily fly between them without being struck.
The slow rotation, which is always maintained at a constant speed regardless of wind speed, coupled with smooth aerodynamic design, makes the blades virtually silent.
I’ve stood directly beneath the 91m tall windmill currently operating on the Toronto waterfront, and the sound of the wind in the trees surrounding the windmill is louder than the whisper of the blades. And no dead birds can be found around the base. On the other hand, take a walk around the base of a downtown skyscraper in the early hours of the morning during migration season, and you will find dozens of dead songbirds.
Recently on Quirks, we covered a study that showed migrating bats in Alberta were being killed by wind turbines, not by running into the blades, but by flying so close they were getting whacked by low pressure vortices coming off the blade tips. Still, the number of bats affected was small and the industry is looking at ways to limit the use of the turbines during bat migration.
Another argument against wind power is that since the wind doesn’t always blow, conventional power will be needed to supplement it. Well, duh. The sun doesn’t always shine either.
It’s the new reality of energy production. We’ve been spoiled with mega-projects that feed cities using nuclear power, coal or hydro. The future is a multitude of energy sources all working together. Wind power will probably never account for much more than about 20 per cent of our energy needs, but that’s 20 per cent less of the conventional methods. Besides, the more windmills you have over wider areas, the more the variability evens out.
The final and silliest argument against wind energy is that wind turbines are unsightly. So are nuclear plants, so is the brand new gas-fired generating station that just went up in my neighbourhood. Energy production has never been pretty, and frankly, a bank of stately turning turbines way out on the lake is one of the least offensive designs.
It’s also a symbol that we are technically progressive and environmentally responsible. But that’s a subjective opinion.
The point is this. We Canadians are among the worst energy hogs and highest emitters of greenhouse gasses on the planet. When a clean alternative comes along, arguing against it because it looks ugly is like standing on the tilted deck of the Titanic, complaining about the colour of the lifeboats. Let’s get on with it.
January 10th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
The District of North Vancouver has recently approved the construction of a wind turbine at the top of Grouse Mountain, to provide power to the ski area. There was (as in Toronto) some opposition, but much less than I expected, and approval was relatively swift.
I, for one, think that wind turbines are esthetically pleasing. No one thinks that the old wooden windmills in Holland are unsightly – now they are considered quaint and are preserved as Heritage buildings!
I’ve worked on a number of power plant projects, and I can tell you that there is not much that is pretty about a coal- or gas-fired boiler! They are impressive, to be sure, but they aren’t designed to be nice to look at. Wind turbines (because of the way they work) have to be streamlined, and to my mind look very pleasing indeed.