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.

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.

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.”

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.

I simply do not understand why there is such a rush to wind energy before all the facts are in.