Hudak vs. wind power

[WIP]

The Conservatives say they stand with “local families” who oppose wind turbines. I'd like to know if Hudak would be standing with "local families" if a major conservative benefactor wanted to build a gas, coal-fired or nuclear power station next door!

Edited May 1, 2010 by WIP

[Wild Bill]

The Conservatives say they stand with “local families” who oppose wind turbines. I'd like to know if Hudak would be standing with "local families" if a major conservative benefactor wanted to build a gas, coal-fired or nuclear power station next door!

This is a difficult one. Not for your example. You can't hang someone on a "what if". You can "what if" anything! We have no way of knowing what Hudak would do with another kind of generator.

We can only deal with the wind turbine issue and it's more complicated than your OP spells out. Is the fuss against wind turbines by themselves? Or with where McGuinty wants to place them?

So far McGuinty and his crew have never impressed me with how they deal with anything the slightest bit technical. I'm still pissed about doing my laundry after 10:00 pm to save on my electrical bill! Frankly, I don't think anyone in his entire caucus could replace a plug on a bedroom lamp.

Anyhow, so far McGuinty DOES seem to be plunking these things down where ever he wants and if the residents have issues he just blows them off by saying it's just NIMBYism on their part! Isn't it at all possible that in some situations residents WILL be bothered by a wind farm close by?

It's similar to how the city of Hamilton, after drafting all the suburbs into itself with amalgamation, put a methane recovery system into a dump in Glanbrook, a nearby farming community. This was just done as a fait accompli, with no local consultation. True to form for Hamilton, they screwed up the installation and for months the stench drifting over to many farmers homes was so bad that they couldn't sit outside!

Now mistakes do happen, of course. Eventually Hamilton fixed the problem. My point however is that at the beginning they blew off the local residents affected as "grumblers" who didn't understand the "needs of the many". That ignited a political firestorm and the Mayor had to do a lot of damage control.

Politicians can be arrogant and McGuinty has always struck me as a prime example. Somebody has to champion the underdog. We need more info about this situation before we can take an informed position.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Smallc]

Anyhow, so far McGuinty DOES seem to be plunking these things down where ever he wants and if the residents have issues he just blows them off by saying it's just NIMBYism on their part!

No, and it is NIMBYism. These things go where trhe wind is. If they don't, they're rather uselss.

[Argus]

The Conservatives say they stand with “local families” who oppose wind turbines. I'd like to know if Hudak would be standing with "local families" if a major conservative benefactor wanted to build a gas, coal-fired or nuclear power station next door!

Maybe you should ask McGuinty about why he's building a power plant right next door to where people live in Oakville.

Giant Gas Plant being built next door to schools

[Argus]

No, and it is NIMBYism. These things go where trhe wind is. If they don't, they're rather uselss.

There's wind everywhere. The problem with wind turbines is they're not very reliable, and the energey they generate costs five times more than the energy generated by gas, coal or nuclear plants.

[Smallc]

There's wind everywhere. The problem with wind turbines is they're not very reliable, and the energey they generate costs five times more than the energy generated by gas, coal or nuclear plants.

There isn't reliable wind everywhere. Generally, turbines are put where there is reliable wind, making them far more reliable. There isn\t wind everywhere in the context of actually being useful wind.

[Topaz]

There's wind everywhere. The problem with wind turbines is they're not very reliable, and the energey they generate costs five times more than the energy generated by gas, coal or nuclear plants.

You MAYBE right but why then does Europe have them in the ocean and on land, Texas has masses of them, then ar eall over the world.

[Jack Weber]

This is a difficult one. Not for your example. You can't hang someone on a "what if". You can "what if" anything! We have no way of knowing what Hudak would do with another kind of generator.

We can only deal with the wind turbine issue and it's more complicated than your OP spells out. Is the fuss against wind turbines by themselves? Or with where McGuinty wants to place them?

So far McGuinty and his crew have never impressed me with how they deal with anything the slightest bit technical. I'm still pissed about doing my laundry after 10:00 pm to save on my electrical bill! Frankly, I don't think anyone in his entire caucus could replace a plug on a bedroom lamp.

Anyhow, so far McGuinty DOES seem to be plunking these things down where ever he wants and if the residents have issues he just blows them off by saying it's just NIMBYism on their part! Isn't it at all possible that in some situations residents WILL be bothered by a wind farm close by?

It's similar to how the city of Hamilton, after drafting all the suburbs into itself with amalgamation, put a methane recovery system into a dump in Glanbrook, a nearby farming community. This was just done as a fait accompli, with no local consultation. True to form for Hamilton, they screwed up the installation and for months the stench drifting over to many farmers homes was so bad that they couldn't sit outside!

Now mistakes do happen, of course. Eventually Hamilton fixed the problem. My point however is that at the beginning they blew off the local residents affected as "grumblers" who didn't understand the "needs of the many". That ignited a political firestorm and the Mayor had to do a lot of damage control.

Politicians can be arrogant and McGuinty has always struck me as a prime example. Somebody has to champion the underdog. We need more info about this situation before we can take an informed position.

'Cause Mike Harris,and his Harrisite apparatchik,Tim Hudak,could'nt ever be arrogant,could they?

And the Harrisites never did anything without consulting with people first to see if thier policies might cause unnecessary collateral damage,did they?

Hudak as a "Champion of the Underdog!"...

[WIP]

This is a difficult one. Not for your example. You can't hang someone on a "what if". You can "what if" anything! We have no way of knowing what Hudak would do with another kind of generator.

We can only deal with the wind turbine issue and it's more complicated than your OP spells out. Is the fuss against wind turbines by themselves? Or with where McGuinty wants to place them?

So far McGuinty and his crew have never impressed me with how they deal with anything the slightest bit technical. I'm still pissed about doing my laundry after 10:00 pm to save on my electrical bill! Frankly, I don't think anyone in his entire caucus could replace a plug on a bedroom lamp.

Anyhow, so far McGuinty DOES seem to be plunking these things down where ever he wants and if the residents have issues he just blows them off by saying it's just NIMBYism on their part! Isn't it at all possible that in some situations residents WILL be bothered by a wind farm close by?

It's similar to how the city of Hamilton, after drafting all the suburbs into itself with amalgamation, put a methane recovery system into a dump in Glanbrook, a nearby farming community. This was just done as a fait accompli, with no local consultation. True to form for Hamilton, they screwed up the installation and for months the stench drifting over to many farmers homes was so bad that they couldn't sit outside!

Now mistakes do happen, of course. Eventually Hamilton fixed the problem. My point however is that at the beginning they blew off the local residents affected as "grumblers" who didn't understand the "needs of the many". That ignited a political firestorm and the Mayor had to do a lot of damage control.

Politicians can be arrogant and McGuinty has always struck me as a prime example. Somebody has to champion the underdog. We need more info about this situation before we can take an informed position.

Yes, there are legitimate zoning issues every time some new development is proposed. But unlike the methane recovery system, the evidence of health problems from being too close to windmills is as sketchy as the claims that being near electrical powerlines causes cancer. It is more likely to be an imagined health concern rather than a real physical problem. But, if we're really concerned about doing something to phase out coal-fired power stations, all options should be available. And it looks like Hudak's concerns stem from being in the pocket of big industry players rather than concerns over health and property rights.

[Jack Weber]

Yes, there are legitimate zoning issues every time some new development is proposed. But unlike the methane recovery system, the evidence of health problems from being too close to windmills is as sketchy as the claims that being near electrical powerlines causes cancer. It is more likely to be an imagined health concern rather than a real physical problem. But, if we're really concerned about doing something to phase out coal-fired power stations, all options should be available. And it looks like Hudak's concerns stem from being in the pocket of big industry players rather than concerns over health and property rights.

Hudak in league with Big Industry????

Impossible!!!!!

[Argus]

You MAYBE right but why then does Europe have them in the ocean and on land, Texas has masses of them, then ar eall over the world.

I don't know what the economic circumstances are over there. I do know that the Ontario government is basically offering the people who make them a guaranteed, no-risk profit, paying far more for the energy than they could get from other sources - for political reasons. There's no way wind power makes economic sense right now. I'm not sure it ever will. If there are wind turbines, it's done for political reasons.

[Argus]

But, if we're really concerned about doing something to phase out coal-fired power stations, all options should be available.

Really? Does that include clean-coal plants?

Canada is going to need to bring on-line about 60,000 mw of power over the next 25 years. A large wind farm supplies about 100 mw, at a 500% premium in electrical costs.

By comparison, a coal plant can put out 2000mw and a nuclear plant 6,000-8,000mw

And it looks like Hudak's concerns stem from being in the pocket of big industry players rather than concerns over health and property rights.

Try to pay attention. Paying 5 x more for power not only severely hurts all Ontarions to the tune of something like $500 per month per family, but it will be a huge additional cost for manufacturers - many of whom will decide they can not operate profitably in that costly environment and will move elsewhere - the US or Mexico, for example, where power is comparatively plentiful and cheap.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Argus

[Wild Bill]

'Cause Mike Harris,and his Harrisite apparatchik,Tim Hudak,could'nt ever be arrogant,could they?

And the Harrisites never did anything without consulting with people first to see if thier policies might cause unnecessary collateral damage,did they?

Hudak as a "Champion of the Underdog!"...

Hey, Mike Harris was no better. So what? Does that make McGuinty right?

How about they both were mistaken! Harris forced amalgamation on us in the first place. Since then the resentment seems to be perpetual. How can it ever die when there's not a single success story for amalgamation as far as the quality of service or the taxes necessary to pay for them? It's just salt in the wounds, forever.

Argus is quite correct about the economics of wind power but there is still the issue of plunking down a wind farm in an existing neighbourhood where there may be real inconveniences to people who may have lived there for generations!

You can't say that there are NO negatives to living beside such farms when McGuinty refuses to even consider the issue! He essentially is saying "WE think this is a good idea so we really don't care if it screws YOU FOLKS!"

McGuinty is really just trying to finally fulfill his promise to scrap the coal-fired generators before the next election. That promise really showed how stupid he and his people were. They were totally ignorant of the fact that we couldn't afford to lose that much power and we had nothing immediately available to replace it. If he had turned those generators off Ontario would have been in blackouts!

Once he realized he couldn't shut them off he's been dinking around for all these years and finally is pinning his hopes on the wind generators. In the meantime, it would have cost him FAR less to put anti-pollution measures into the coal generators to make them clean and green! Other folks in other states and provinces have done that with no problem. McGuinty has chosen to stick with the idea of just closing coal-fired generators down.

That's also the real reason he's ramming wind farms down many communities' throats. He has no time! Studies and consultations would take months if not a few years. McGuinty needs this done before the next provincial election. There's no way he's going to let any homeowners stop him from burying his dirt before the next vote comes up.

He has enough negatives on his scoreboard already! Notice how these wind farm complaints are coming from more rural areas where he's not likely to get any votes anyway.

[Jack Weber]

Hey, Mike Harris was no better. So what? Does that make McGuinty right?

How about they both were mistaken! Harris forced amalgamation on us in the first place. Since then the resentment seems to be perpetual. How can it ever die when there's not a single success story for amalgamation as far as the quality of service or the taxes necessary to pay for them? It's just salt in the wounds, forever.

Argus is quite correct about the economics of wind power but there is still the issue of plunking down a wind farm in an existing neighbourhood where there may be real inconveniences to people who may have lived there for generations!

You can't say that there are NO negatives to living beside such farms when McGuinty refuses to even consider the issue! He essentially is saying "WE think this is a good idea so we really don't care if it screws YOU FOLKS!"

McGuinty is really just trying to finally fulfill his promise to scrap the coal-fired generators before the next election. That promise really showed how stupid he and his people were. They were totally ignorant of the fact that we couldn't afford to lose that much power and we had nothing immediately available to replace it. If he had turned those generators off Ontario would have been in blackouts!

Once he realized he couldn't shut them off he's been dinking around for all these years and finally is pinning his hopes on the wind generators. In the meantime, it would have cost him FAR less to put anti-pollution measures into the coal generators to make them clean and green! Other folks in other states and provinces have done that with no problem. McGuinty has chosen to stick with the idea of just closing coal-fired generators down.

That's also the real reason he's ramming wind farms down many communities' throats. He has no time! Studies and consultations would take months if not a few years. McGuinty needs this done before the next provincial election. There's no way he's going to let any homeowners stop him from burying his dirt before the next vote comes up.

He has enough negatives on his scoreboard already! Notice how these wind farm complaints are coming from more rural areas where he's not likely to get any votes anyway.

How 'bout...I agree with all of that...

In fact,how's this...The province really has to admit that if it wants to retain industry to create jobs in this province,it had better consider the nuclear option they turned down because of "cost" last spring!!!

[WIP]

Really? Does that include clean-coal plants?

Clean Coal? Clean coal is a figment of George W. Bush's imagination and nothing more. The U.S. has spent over 5 billion dollars subsidizing the development of clean coal technology and ended up with a system that merely shifts some of the toxic wastes from air to water. And the disaster that happened in Tennessee last year, when a Coal slurry reservoir overflowed during a flood and poisoned land and streams from the toxic runoff. And it's worth noting that all of the money spent on this clean coal research so far, hasn't figured out how to dispose of non-combustible wastes that build up in those slurry ponds. Ironic that people who would have caused an uproar if a nuclear waste dump was built within a hundred miles of home would think nothing of living downstream from a coal slurry reservoir!

Canada is going to need to bring on-line about 60,000 mw of power over the next 25 years. A large wind farm supplies about 100 mw, at a 500% premium in electrical costs.

By comparison, a coal plant can put out 2000mw and a nuclear plant 6,000-8,000mw

Then why not go with the nuclear plant rather than coal? Nuclear produces no hydrocarbon emissions and new Generation III reactors that are being developed, such as the Advanced Candu Reactor, have improved safety systems over the existing reactors, longer operation cycles and lifespan of reactors, greater fuel efficiency and corresponding reduced waste production.

And, since billions have been spent over the last thirty years on fusion research that has only recently managed a sustained fusion reaction, it's worth mentioning that proposed Generation IV reactors, some of which could be built in ten years, would have very high thermal efficiencies, producing minimal wastes while producing 100 to 300 times as much energy from the same fuel. The high temps that Gen IV reactors would operate at could also supply a solution to the existing nuclear waste problem since they could use the spent fuel that existing, less efficient reactors leave behind. Fusion research is still sketchy, and looks more like a Holy Grail than a practical energy source (something like Cold Fusion), whereas the Gen IV reactors look like the most practical solution for providing the bulk of the energy needs after dirty sources of power are phased out.

That said, windmills and solar panels have also come down in cost and greatly improved efficiencies over the last 30 years. Windfarms seem to be working fine in Germany, what's stopping us here. They also have the appeal of offering some degree of independence from big utility companies, and my suspicions are that much of the claims of harmful health effects or effects on birds are being raised by big institutions who don't want even a modest threat to a utility company's monopoly on the power supply.

Try to pay attention. Paying 5 x more for power not only severely hurts all Ontarions to the tune of something like $500 per month per family, but it will be a huge additional cost for manufacturers - many of whom will decide they can not operate profitably in that costly environment and will move elsewhere - the US or Mexico, for example, where power is comparatively plentiful and cheap.

One way or another we are going to be paying more for electricity in Ontario if the government is serious about phasing out coal and fixing other messes that were supposed to be solved by privatization. And now is not a good time to be moving to the U.S. if you're looking for cheap energy!

[Wild Bill]

That said, windmills and solar panels have also come down in cost and greatly improved efficiencies over the last 30 years. Windfarms seem to be working fine in Germany, what's stopping us here. They also have the appeal of offering some degree of independence from big utility companies, and my suspicions are that much of the claims of harmful health effects or effects on birds are being raised by big institutions who don't want even a modest threat to a utility company's monopoly on the power supply.

I think you've touched on the biggest factor when you mention big institutions and monopolies from big utility companies.

What is really happening is that we are witnessing the start of a "war" between individual citizens producing their own power and big utilities trying to retain control and stay "big"!

Windfarms are "working" in Germany because of subsidies that cannot be maintained forever. Wind and solar need extra "backup" generators for when the wind dies or it's overcast. The cost of such backup could be reduced a lot if we had battery techology that could store megawatts of reserve power but today that's just a dream. For some time yet wind and solar are not going to be able to supply anything but a pittance to the total capacity of a large utility.

However, battery technology has lots of cost-effective solutions at the level of an individual's residence! Not everyone has a convenient back yard situation, especially in older parts of a city but still, LOTS of people could use wind and solar just FOR THEMSELVES! And if you added up all the people who potentially could drop off the national grid that would represent a HUGE slash in customers for large, centralized utilities!

Here in Ontario, we still have a "stranded debt" for all the years of using nuclear reactors as a patronage slush fund and a gravy train for politicians and their friends that's somewhere to the tune of 30 BILLION dollars! Every homeowner pays a small fee on his electricity bill to pay off that debt. How could that debt be paid if big numbers of homeowners never bought their electricity from the utility company again?

There are no "universal fits all" techologies for every application. Different strokes work better for different folks. Wind and solar are no exceptions. They can be a good fit on an individual basis but not so on a large scale. The problem is that we have evolved over a century into a large scale, central supply grid. That grid depends on customers for its very existence.

I'm sure the "suits" at the Ontario Power Generating Corporation are not that happy with McGuinty encouraging individual wind and solar installations. Still, if you look closely at his new MicroFit program, it's set up so that there's no batteries involved! The individual does not produce any power for himself! He continues to draw and be billed for the power use in his home in the traditional manner. The power from his wind/solar system is fed directly onto the grid. There are meters on both systems. So he gets his regular bill but he also gets a cheque for the power he produced.

Without a battery as a reserve bank, he cannot supply power to himself! He has to stay connected to the grid forever and of course, paying that stranded debt fee! :angry:

His only option is to scrounge up a battery bank of his own and go totally off the grid. If he does, he CANNOT sell surplus power to the grid!

Obviously, this has been done deliberately to serve the interests of the utility company.

[Argus]

Then why not go with the nuclear plant rather than coal? Nuclear produces no hydrocarbon emissions and new Generation III reactors that are being developed, such as the Advanced Candu Reactor, have improved safety systems over the existing reactors, longer operation cycles and lifespan of reactors, greater fuel efficiency and corresponding reduced waste production.

I'm fine with nuclear, but dithering dalton can't make up his mind on what to do and has pushed the decision way down the road. Hudak, on the other hand, says we need to build more nuke plants.

[Wild Bill]

I'm fine with nuclear, but dithering dalton can't make up his mind on what to do and has pushed the decision way down the road. Hudak, on the other hand, says we need to build more nuke plants.

Nukes would take too long for McGuinty. His goal is not to ensure our electricity supply and presumably at an affordable price. His goal is for himself!

He made a promise to dump some coal-fired generators and looked like an idiot when he found out we couldn't afford to lose that amount of power. Now he desperately wants to keep his promise before he faces an election next year. Nukes will take longer than that to go through all the studies, environmental assessments and whatever.

So yes, nuclear is the better choice for US, assuming that we don't see the waste and patronage like we had with the Bruce Nuclear plants run up a huge public debt.

Wind and solar are better choices for McGUINTY!

[WIP]

I'm fine with nuclear, but dithering dalton can't make up his mind on what to do and has pushed the decision way down the road. Hudak, on the other hand, says we need to build more nuke plants.

I'd rather give McGuinty a backbone than have another wreckless conservative to go with the one in charge of the federal government.

[PIK]

I was told last year hydro was ordered to dump water on the ottwaw and not m ake power ,becasue we have contracts to buy very expensive wind and solar power. Damn power is cheap and clean ,but oh no we can't use that. Anybody here that think dalton is doing a good job, is someone with no worries. Being in small business ,I will pretty well be screwed by the HST and very costly hydro thru the day.

[PIK]

A good friend of mine is a iron worker who help build wolfe island turbines. Paid 38/hr and then over time and they got paid untill they left the island ,so they sit in a bar untill the last ferry leaves and he was saying how the trucks were totally abuse by the workers , brand new trucks done in a very short time. All solar and wind is , is a feel good tactic to keep the loons happy. Eventually when canadians smarten up and put a end to all these scams and get back into nuclear. One small reactor up in the tars sands would be a start, if the greenies are really serious about things.

[WIP]

A good friend of mine is a iron worker who help build wolfe island turbines. Paid 38/hr and then over time and they got paid untill they left the island ,so they sit in a bar untill the last ferry leaves and he was saying how the trucks were totally abuse by the workers , brand new trucks done in a very short time. All solar and wind is , is a feel good tactic to keep the loons happy. Eventually when canadians smarten up and put a end to all these scams and get back into nuclear. One small reactor up in the tars sands would be a start, if the greenies are really serious about things.

Wind and solar power seem to be working in Germany, where alternative energy is becoming a greater and greater share of energy production; so it makes no sense not to encourage alternative energy suppliers. They can be an important contributor in the U.S. and Canada, where lower population densities cause a lot of power to be lost because of the distances the grid has to stretch.

That said, replacing coal and oil will be a lot quicker if a serious attempt is made to bring nuclear power back into the mix. I mentioned in a post elsewhere about new reactors that are being developed, and how they eliminate most of the safety concerns regarding nuclear power. The Third Generation reactors are starting to come online now, and proposed fourth generation reactors operate at such high energy levels, they produce negligible amounts of waste and would be able to process present day spent nuclear wastes. This would eliminate the nuclear waste problem and the fourth generation reactors have the added benefit that because of their high operating temperatures, they nuclear reaction will cease if there are malfunctions. Since the nuclear reaction is unable to continue, the risk of nuclear accidents can be taken off the table.

Much of the present day fear of nuclear power and reluctance to develop newer, better nuclear plants is due to irrational fear of radiation. When that coal slurry containment pond of a so-called "clean coal" plant in Tennessee overflowed last year, it poisoned all of the land the spill went over as long as an unknown quantity of ground water. Would any of the farmers living downstream allowed a nuclear waste pond on higher ground? Not likely! Even though the coal slurry is loaded with every toxic chemical imaginable, they still would have considered it less threatening than something radioactive!

For info on nuclear power, my main go-to site is the Atomic Insights blog because it's written by someone who is not directly connected with either the nuclear industry or anti-nuclear activism. It's by a nuclear naval officer at Annapolis, who's day job is looking after the small nuclear reactors that the U.S. Navy has in its fleet of carriers, destroyers and submarines...and that answered another question that always stuck with me: if nuclear reactors are so dangerous, how has the Navy been running these small reactors safely for over half a century now? Rod Adams explains some of the problems present bureaucracy presents to nuclear power. For one, the licensing costs by the AEC are at a flat rate and make no distinction regarding the size of the reactor. This has made small atomic reactors commercially unviable and relegated them to military and space applications.

[ToadBrother]

This is the future of electrical generation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

Wind, tidal and solar will all play a part. I think in the long long term solar will probably win out, but for the next century or so, we should be going nuclear, but not with uranium, which may at some point peak just like oil.

If Canada wanted to be at the forefront of peaceful nuclear energy, this is the way to go.

[Guest TrueMetis]

This is the future of electrical generation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

Wind, tidal and solar will all play a part. I think in the long long term solar will probably win out, but for the next century or so, we should be going nuclear, but not with uranium, which may at some point peak just like oil.

If Canada wanted to be at the forefront of peaceful nuclear energy, this is the way to go.

I hope Tidal doesn't, it would do to much damage to the enviroment and generates to little power, a magazine I was reading claimed that even if we used all current areas that could support tidal we would only produce some 60 gigawatts. If we got the tech good enough to use all tidal energy available in the ocean maybe 2 terra watts. Which would destroy the oceans of course because all tidal currents would be bloked by these generators.

[Oleg Bach]

Mike Harris sits on a board as an appointed yes man to Frank - what's his name - Frank is not a nice guy - so Harris must be the same...so-called rich conservatives that do not like wind power are usually corporate Nazi elite.. I personally don't mind wind power ...the only gripe I have is that it kills birds - as for ruining the "view" - they do not look bad - as far as the health effects due to some droning noise - let the neo-con supporters go on anti-depressants - besides they have shares in big pharma..ha