Is George Smitherman Familiar With the Environment?

by John Laforet
posted on February 20th, 2009 at 08:01:40 am

While both Premier McGuinty and Minister Smitherman have softened their ‘absurd’ rhetoric since unleashing a very public backlash on themselves across the Province, Minister Smitherman still doesn’t seem to get it. They’ve backed down from flinging insults at Scarborough residents, but still don’t seem prepared to recognize the environmental concerns Scarborough’s residents have.

Smitherman’s latest comments represent the fundamental lack of understanding the Premier and he seem to have regarding Scarborough’s concerns. It’s not about our homes, it’s about preserving the environment from untold degradation. Perhaps if either of them or their staff cared to read or reply to a single letter Guildwood residents sent them before dismissing us as ‘NIMBY’ they would know this.

Smitherman again took aim at opponents of a proposed Toronto Hydro project to put a string of wind turbines in Lake Ontario two to four kilometres off the Scarborough Bluffs, saying they are far enough away from homes not to be “impactful.”

“We have done a lot of work looking at the evidence … we’re always reviewing the literature,” Smitherman added, suggesting polluted air from coal-fired electricity plants poses health dangers that outweigh concerns about wind turbines. Toronto Star, February 20th 2009

It is important that the Minister is now prepared to recognize there is a human health impact worth considering, but why can’t he recognize there is an environmental impact too?

This isn’t a balancing act. The environment should never be a balancing act. I get for political reasons comparing wind to coal makes for a decent talking point, but it isn’t a coal power plant that currently has the potential to release harmful substances into Toronto’s drinking water, cause untold damage to the shoreline or to bird, bat and fish populations. It is a wind turbine project that will not require a single ‘iota’ of provincial environmental review whatsoever. Nothing. Once they have the anemometer application from Natural Resources as far as the Government is concerned it’s officially ‘go time’. (You could already suggest the Government has decided it is ‘go’ time, considering Toronto Hydro Energy Services has stalled their application and the Premier and his Deputy have already come out swinging in favour of the application they have yet to received.)

Can Smitherman seriously ignore the fact that the proposal calls for the installation of 18 000 tonnes of massive structures in the lake, stirring up all kinds of unstudied lake bed sediment upstream from where 45% of Toronto’s water is sucked out of the lake? All of this disturbed debris, like the sand that created the Beach and the Toronto Islands will naturally drift towards the waterworks, where it has the potential to get sucked into the City’s fresh water supply. There will be no environmental review first so we won’t even know what we’re sending down current. Although should it be a problem, the good people at Toronto Water will tell us about it when the release their annual report monitoring the dozens of contaminants in our water they monitor.

As for his coal reference, at least to me it appears the Minister is giving folks the choice between getting their toxic Mercury fix between the air we breathe and the water Toronto drinks. Lake Ontario’s fish are inedible due to high mercury levels, and like other heavy metals that don’t dissolve in water they concentrate in lake bed sediment on the bottom with other harmful materials like PCBs. Construction will undoubtedly displace massive amounts of lake bed sediment.

Smitherman appears ready to ignore the fact that the Scarborough Bluffs is the most sensitive portion of shoreline anywhere on Lake Ontario and this project if ‘forced’ (the Premier’s word) on the community would be the world’s closest project of it’s size. Most European countries say one needs a minimum distance from shore of 5KM for nature conservation reasons. Germany thinks 20KM is necessary. Greenpeace Europe agrees that offshore plants need to respect this minimum distance, European wind energy associations do too. They also acknowledge the importance of full environmental assessments. So why can’t Minister Smitherman and Joyce McLean (the past President of Canada’s Wind Energy Association) take the advice of Denmark, Germany, Greenpeace Europe (McLean is also the former Greenpeace Canada Chairperson, and a former Great Lakes Campaigner for Greenpeace), and the wind industry. Do they seriously believe that they know something that the industry, governments and environmental lobby in Europe don’t?

Joyce McLean has no credibility left on this after the series of misleading statements, dirty tricks, and a demonstrated inability to appreciate any of the environmental, viability or economic concerns residents have put forth. (Once again, I am fully prepared to back up this claim if challenged.) Does the Minister really want to cast his lot in with her and hope for a different outcome?

In it’s current form this bill is not a “green” anything. It’s a fraud of a bill. It is bill cloaked in a label, written by industry insiders with a vested financial interest, introduced by a guy whose chosen to attack folks who object to the fact that not a single Provincial environmental review of any sort is required to construct 60 objects as tall as the Royal York with each weighing the equivalent of 6 subway cars each and anchored up to 90 metres deep on an unstudied sand bar. It is madness that the Province believes no environmental study whatsoever is required.

If he is serious about passing a true Green Energy Act he would recognize that set backs are necessary for environmental protection as well. He would recognize that there is a legitimate need to do a thorough environmental assessment before approving any project that has the potential to release heavy metals and PCBs into Toronto’s drinking water or have any negative environmental impact. He needs to recognize that the Scarborough Bluffs are unstable by their nature, and the construction and heavy pounding that is required to anchor a wind turbine 90 metres into a sandbar could cause erosion and further destabilize the cliffs. He needs to recognize that provincial legislation exempts wind projects from any environmental review. The provincial government just doesn’t care what kind of impact these things have.

I’m not an expert. But based on the current legislation, this blog and my attempt to use other studies and data to educate my audience, is the closest thing to an environmental study that will come out of this proposed project if Minister Smitherman doesn’t find the guts to tell the wind industry that they too need to follow the rules and actually care about the environmental impact their projects have.

The Premier and the Minister need to wake up before they risk damaging the amazing shoreline that is the Scarborough Bluffs because they were either too stubborn to admit they are wrong or not strong enough to stand up and show the leadership needed to protect the cliffs from a moneyed interest that doesn’t appear to care. They need to ask themselves before Monday when they introduce the bill why they wouldn’t want to adopt well recognized international standards for shoreline nature conservation and why the Scarborough Bluffs, which are far more delicate than other shorelines in the world, needs to have literally the closest project of it’s size anywhere in the world? And if so, why does it need to be the closest project of it’s kind in the world and the only one without any environmental review?

Finally – if anyone in a position of responsibility wants to contact me in either the Premier’s office or the Minister’s Office to discuss internationally recognized shoreline set backs for all offshore wind projects, or internationally recognized full environmental reviews, I would be more than happy to share this and can be reached at john.laforet@laforet.ca anytime today or over the weekend.

Through All the Hot Air: Some Truths About Wind Power Generation in Ontario and the World

by John Laforet
posted on January 22nd, 2009 at 15:27:27 pm

Below are some quotes from experts with knowledge of the wind power industry who don’t work for a corporation that stands to make millions from a proposed industrial wind project off the Scarborough Bluffs. You’ll also find a snapshot of today’s electricity market, some facts about wind that you won’t find in Toronto Hydro’s presentation, and finally my commentary on the whole mess. I also coin the phrase “commercially humiliating”.

“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)

“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)

“The increased presence of wind power on the IESO-controlled grid will contribute positively to Ontario’s future supply mix. The variable nature of wind will however introduce specific challenges to the reliability of the integrated power system. These challenges are magnified as the number of wind power projects that are connected to the grid increases.” (The Independant Electricity Operator, accessed January 22, 2008)

In 2007 industrial wind turbine operators in Ontario over forecast their output (read under delivered what they promised to the grid) 58% of the time. This forced unexpected imports and caused $186 000 in additional, unplanned, expense to the Ontario grid. Based on planned 2009 capacity, the same level of error would cost the grid a total of $866 000. (Data from Wind Forecast Error Impacts on Efficiency, May 14 2008 Meeting of the Wind Power Standing Committee, The Independent Electricity Operator) Incidently if the Nuclear, Gas, Coal or Hydro plants did this, we’d have rolling blackouts all the time.

The Pickering Wind Generating Station owned by the Ontario Power Generation reports a five year output average of just 18% capacity. Ontario hydro describes this output as being “low compared to other forms of generation and results mainly from a lack of consistent strong winds at the Pickering Site, as well as the high maintenance required for a prototype unit.” (Ontario Power Generation, Backgrounder: Pickering Wind Generating Station) The Pickering Wind Generating Station where the Ontario Power Generation reports a lack of consistent strong winds is literally right on the shore about two kilometres away from Toronto Hydro Energy Services proposed industrial wind generating station. It’s also 117 metres tall.

Both Jack Simpson and Joyce McLean claimed ignorance when asked about the Pickering Wind Generating Station’s failure to actually generate anything. I found this as the first hit in google by searching “Pickering wind turbine”. I know from viewing my web stats that someone at Toronto Hydro knows how to use google to at least find my blog entries relating to their project. Presumably they could google something experts have to say as well.

At 11am January 22th 2009 (the most recent data at the time of writing) Nuclear power was operating at 96%of available capacity and providing 10679 mega watts of power to the system. Coal power was generating 86%of available coal capacity and providing 3761 mega watts of power to the system. Gas power was operating at 44%of available capacity and providing 2104 mega watts to the grid. Hydro electricity was providing 71% of available capacity with 4478 megawatts being added to the grid. Wind power was operating at 10% capacity and providing 94 megawatts to the grid (available capacity is 903 megawatts.) (Generators Output and Capability Report, January 22, 2009.) This isn’t what is being used by the system… this is production.

The Prince Farm with 189 megawatts of installed capacity was operating at 0.5% capacity and providing 1 megawatt to the grid. The Prince Wind Farm is a $400 million, 126 wind turbine project is the largest wind project in Ontario and was the forth to open. Luckily for Ontario, this plant is owned by Brookfield Renewable Power. Brookfield Asset Management is the 100% shareholder in Brookfield Renewable Power.

At this particular moment, one would need to have an installed wind capacity of 37610 megawatts (approximately 6000 megawatts more than Ontario’s total generating capacity) to replace coal, which is currently providing 18% of total capacity. At the current wind output in Ontario, not even 100% of all the world’s installed wind turbines could power the province right now. They’d get about half the job done. I won’t even comment on what would be needed to power Ontario using the Prince Farm output rate right now.

Other Facts about Wind Power:

Zero industrial wind turbine generating stations are in urban residential areas anywhere in the world. There are simply no examples anywhere in the world of anyone building an industrial wind turbine generating station in an urban residential neighbourhood. The fact that the developer who wants to, publicly tries to discredit medical research around “Wind Turbine Syndrome” should be of concern to everyone.

Zero offshore wind projects anywhere in North America. North Americans are considerably more cost conscious than Europeans when it comes to government expenditures. The result has been significantly lower taxes and user fees. Electricity rates in Denmark are considerably higher than Canada. Offshore projects have a marginal increase in wind yield, but it does not cover the massive cost differential between inland and offshore projects.

Zero fresh water offshore wind projects anywhere in the world. Ocean water is not potable and therefore is not consumed by humans. Torontonians drink, bathe in, and cook with Lake Ontario water that is collected within the proposed wind generating plant site.  The sheer size of these structures will see serious disruption to the lake. Consider the weight and what will be needed to properly secure these things in clay.

Zero manufacturing jobs will be created in Ontario by wind turbines. There are no wind turbine building facilities in Ontario. There isn’t even a foreign owned branch plant in Ontario. This would require turbines to be purchased overseas and brought to Toronto by freighter, providing little help to Ontario workers who’ve lost high paying manufacturing jobs in Ontario. I highly doubt 8000 moving parts made somewhere else will have any economic benefit for anyone on this side of the pond.

Zero of seventeen industrial wind turbine installations has gone through a full environmental assessment process. Considering turbines like the one in Pickering have a weight of 220 to 300 tons and Toronto Hydro would like to place sixty of these in clay deposits in the underwater portion of the Scarborough Bluffs, presumably the anchoring will result is a very serious construction project that would be closer to bridge building than turbine placement. We haven’t even talked about all the cables they will need to bury over the 25 km stretch and then back to shore yet either. Seems to me there is enough environmental concern to warrent a full investigation.

Toronto Hydro Energy Services is so confident there is sufficient wind power off the Scarborough Bluffs, regardless of what the Canada Wind Atlas, the Helimax Study says or virtually anyone who has tried to sail near the bluffs, that should they be allowed to install an anemometer, Toronto Hydro plans on powering the platform (something smaller than a fridge, but bigger than a bread box with a few navigation lights) with three small turbines and, solar panels. I wonder if Jack Simpson is brave enough to commit to monitoring the percentage of any possible anemometer staging project that is powered by turbines, compared to the solar panels he has also committed to utilizing to power the wind test? Perhaps that data would be considered ‘commerically humiliating’ and therefore not available for public consumption.

Some Final Thoughts and Comments

I do oppose this project. I think that part is clear. It was not an easy position to come to I have to say. I do not oppose renewable energy or measures to reduce our carbon footprint. In fact I have made a number of small changes to my behaviour to reduce my personal carbon foot print. As an example, this website is hosted by www.dreamhost.com- a carbon neutral hosting service. I’ve also replaced all of my light bulbs with the curly guys. Apparently that not only will save me money on my electricity bill, but CFL light bulbs also save 2000 times their own weight in greenhouse gases.  I also turn out lights when I’m leaving a room and never leave any on when I’m not home. I also cut down on my “phantom power” by not leaving unnecessary things like my cell phone charger or lap top plugged in when I’m not using them, and using a power bar that allows me to fully turn off power to my TV and VCR when they aren’t being used. All really easy stuff to do to both save money and lessen one’s carbon foot print. I also don’t drive, and prefer walking to the TTC when downtown or within a reasonable walking distance of my destination. For a guy who isn’t even trying that hard, I think I’m doing ok.

I oppose this project because it represents some of the worst public policy I’ve seen in a long time. It lacks the kind of oversight that ensures both economic viability, and ecological sensitivity. The process Toronto Hydro Energy Services and the City of Toronto has employed has been exclusionary, misleading, at times factually inaccurate. It has also denied residents the right to control the destiny of their community, something that should be a right, particularly when a clear ‘greater good’ can’t be established. By that I mean there is no compelling reason why a wind project must be placed here, and in fact evidence that other areas are probably better. I could name 64 better sites for Toronto Hydro if they’d like.

The Scarborough Bluffs is one place to put wind turbines, sure. Cemeteries have a lot of open space too. It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Helimax gave the OPA a list of 64 offshore sites it deemed viable, after considering wind speed, local habitat, proximity to human populations, proximity to protected areas, parkland, wetlands and other important natural features. The Bluffs was not included. Perhaps not due to wind and perhaps because Helimax had the good sense to recognize some of the other limiting factors of a site that unique.

Joyce McLean and Jack Simpson can say whatever they want. They can pretend Helimax was not a comprehensive study as they have stated. They can challenge a paediatrician on her findings as it relates to Wind Turbine Syndrome. They can pretend not to know just how bad the Pickering experiment has gone. They can even refuse to disclose the data they collect with public money, for a public board that is solely owned by the City of Toronto and use the embarrassingly weak excuse of ‘commercial sensitivity’ all they want. The facts just don’t agree with the positions these wind farm developers have taken. They presumably will need their professional reputations when this is over, which is why I am perplexed as to why anyone would sell a project in the way they’ve chosen to. I know personally being able to look at myself in the mirror and know that regardless of what the day will bring I’ll get to go home with my integrity intact is something I value far more than a pay cheque. It’s too bad more people don’t as well.