Im guessing by the apparent size of the turbines that they are in the 100kw range. Lets try something else. Solar panels covering twice to three times the area. Maybe another coal plant or nuclear plant to replace every 25-30 of these ... maybe more. Think of a alternative then complain and suggest something better that does not pollute while generating electricity. Until then your just making noise, Just like the turbines.
@leadpelletinass In Ontario, we're not building coal plants. We've closed almost all of them and what's left has pretty good scrubbers on them. We're actually going to build gas plants and a couple of new nukes. If we didn't build another IWT, we'd still build the same number of gas plants and the couple of new nukes. BTW one of Ontario's nukes generates approx 800MW - about the same as 265 3MW IWTs running at 100% of nameplate capacity (how often does that happen). We don't need Wind in ONT.
@NorthernWes Gas is not a clean energy (although cleaner than coal) and you ignored the point I made against nuclear: the raising rarity of Uranium. It's already a very expensive energy, more expensive than wind in almost every cases.
@Tamizushi Cows are clean animals neither are humans. There is NO "raising rarity of Uranium" - that statement is not factual. As to the "more expensive that wind" statement, the US Department of Energy disagrees with your learned opinion on that - but what would they know.
@NorthernWes "There is NO raising rarity of Uranium" Please I beg you to read a little bit about the uranium market. You couldn't be so wrong. I wish youtube didn't block all websites so I could give you some likes. "As to the more expensive that wind statement, the US Department of Energy disagrees with your learned opinion on that - but what would they know. " How is 97.0$MWh for wind more expensive than 113.9$/MWh for nuclear?
@Tamizushi I did a little bit of Northern work last spring. Trust me. There was almost no uranium prospecting going on. My understanding of the current market (Japan, Germany) is that several developments have been suspended and that there continues to be almost no new exploration going on. Message me the links that you've found and I'll forward mine to you but I know for a fact that there is little to no Ur exploration going on in Canada. P.S. Thorium. Buy Thorium futures.... you'll be rich.
@NorthernWes And don't forget that almost all 'old' spent fuel is recyclable and reusable in a 3G reactor. But we will need deep storage facilities - about 8 of them worldwide to handle the next couple of hundred years until we invent something better.
Sort of unrelated but I remember reading about a nuclear reactor that was shut down for a few years. Because it was shut down for a few years, 3 people or so died due to pulmonary illnesses because coal plants had to pick up the slack. But then again birds are more precious then people.
We are fighting for our town, trying our hardest to keep the turbines out....two sites are slated beside a local school....can you believe it..with everthing we now know...health risks and so on.....I never thought I would see the day our government would treat its people like this....people should not have to live beside turbines or be forced out of their homes we have enough crownland the turbines should have been built on it,.my heart goes out to everyone affected by this greed and stupidity
A huge number of families have walked away from homes in this province after suffering until they couldn't stand it anymore. I've spoken with many of them. We don't know how many have quietly sold toxic homes to a bargain hunter just to escape the relentless noise and vibration. Some remain, unable to afford to walk away or unable to sell a home next to turbines. Pompous, self righteous and pat, dismissive remarks are all these people have received from the government as well.
Peer reviewed articles on adverse effects from turbines are available.
Information that goes beyond blind worship to a 40 story tower that's been marketed by the wind industry for 10 years is everywhere and industrial wind turbines are a scam, an expensive and destructive SCAM.
Put a turbine next to you and see how long you stay in your home. At least it would be your own doing. Do some research. Industrial wind turbines are useless and destructive.
Try to go past your 'blinkers on' greenwashed thinking. It's wrong and it's destroying rural Ontario.
@Tamizushi In Ontario, we are running the remaining coal plants at about 10-15% of name plate capacity - often just to compensate for wind energy fluctuations. Our supply today (and for the next 5 years minimum) is so much larger than our demand, that we could get by pretty easily by turning off ALL coal and ALL WIND. In fact, if Ont. entered into a long term supply agreement with Quebec Hydro (zero emission!), we wouldn't need more generation for years! We simply don't need WIND.
@Tamizushi No one in Ontario is dying from our remaining coal plants. Our life span is 40% longer than it was in 1960s, and our air is cleaner than it was in the 70s. Given that we've managed to eliminate 60-70% of Ontario's heavy industry in the past 2 decades, I don't think we're putting anyone's health at risk with a couple of 10% coal plants (all with scrubbers by the way).
@NorthernWes When you say no one is dying from Coal plant emission, do you think they are so clean that they don't emit any particulate waste? CO2 concentration in the world went from about 335 ppm to about 390 ppm since the 70s. The emission from hydrodams is very low but still higher than wind and certainly not nil. Also, don't think Ontario are the only one hungry for Quebec's power. Uranium is also becoming scarce which is dangerous for Ontario. Yes, Wind is a necessity right now.
@Tamizushi No one is dying from Coal plant emissions in Ontario. There are lots of places in the world that use dirty coal (e.g. the brown coal generators in Germany). Ontario just isn't one of them to any significant extent anymore. We've shut down the older coal plants and what we have left running have scrubbers which make a significant difference. Coal in Ontario has been shut down because we don't need the electricity not because of the Wind Turbines.
@Tamizushi Quebec has significant available clean green hydroelectricity now. Lower Churchill isn't in production yet. And Manitoba intends to build a significant capacity all at prices that are about 40% what we're paying for intermittent Wind. Why don't you figure out the contribution that Canada's electricity generation makes to worldwide CO2. Then compare that to the growing contribution from China/India and explain to me how ANYTHING we do with CDN Electricity Generation reduces real GHG.
@Tamizushi First of all, Canada has the second largest repository of Uranium in the world. We've stopped looking for it. Second, there's a much better, safer, more efficient, and easier to handle fuel in thorium. We should start building 4G nuclear reactors and MNRs - there are a lot better ways of doing things than 40 year old Candu reactors. We're going to have a 10B human population in about 50 years - you can't possibly believe we can power that with wind turbines and solar panels???
@NorthernWes No, Canada has not stopped looking for Uranium. I don't know where you are getting that, and since it's not produced in Ontario it's frankly irreverent. And the and you are still forced to by it on the Uranium marker. And you got your question backyard. The right question is "you can't possibly believe we can power that WITHOUT wind turbines and solar panels???"
@Tamizushi I get my observations from facts. Take a look at wiki: List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves. Note that we have not explored large areas of our northern lands. Note that the current anti-nuke movement has successfully reduced demand for uranium. But you also know one of the fuels for the next generation of nuclear reactors is thorium. One discussion of thorium reserves is here: nucleargreen.blogspot.com 2008/03 today-nuclear-power-offers-large.html (replace spaces with "/".
@NorthernWes Not to mention that 4G reactors use what some people erroneously call "waste" to produce energy. It is environmentally responsible to recycle existing stored partially used nuclear fuel rods and extract more energy from this resource. That reduces the mass of "waste" and continues to use radioactive substances in productive ways.
@Tamizushi Look at IESO statistics. Look at Ontario's air quality reports. Look at our life span improvements in Ontario. I'm a statistician. I've looked at a bunch of energy related models including CAPE's "Coal Kills Thousands in Ontario". I'm very suspicious of agenda driven models (including several on the opposing side). We need real, hard data - ask the CMO's in Ontario, how many people have cause of death - PM2 Particulate poisoning listed on death certificates? We don't need WIND.
@NorthernWes But WE DO need to be building industry in Ontario and that means inventing things that the world needs or wants. We should be investing x10 in "Made in Ontario" green tech - biomass, geothermal, waste stream gassification, smart building materials, 4G nuclear, better, faster, cheaper Hydro... all things that we have a shot at being competitive at. Instead, we're spending $15B+ on other countries' machines at Retail+ prices. Think of what that spend could do for Ontario.
@NorthernWes Hydro is a mature technology and has seen very little improvement in the past 50 years. Nuclear is expensive,slow to build and relies on the uncertain uranium market. Geothermal is a very good energy but its availability in Ontario is low and it's very slow to build. Gassification is still a bleeding edge tech. Waste-to-energy technologies (which I assume is what you mean by biomass unless you're crasy)are good but can not provide a lot of energy.
@Tamizushi Youtube isn't the best way to educate you. Your summarization of energy technology shows how little you know of the topic, unfortunately. "Easy" geothermal - the use of near-surface hotspots isn't practical in Ontario - (i.e. the Canadian Shield) but newer geothermal technologies, INVENTED in Ontario, are showing that community/campus level heating/cooling is practical once efficiencies in heat tranference are achieved. Suggest you subscribe to magazines like Scientific American.
@NorthernWes You understand that their is a difference between a geothermal plant that produces electricity and a geothermal heat pump which is used to cool and heat buildings?
@Tamizushi I'm only talking about plants. Existing geothermal plants are community/campus scale efficient with some exceptions. Heat pumps, which I considered installing in my own home, would be good grid demand reduction tech if they were less expensive.
@NorthernWes It's great that Ontarian invest in energy efficiency but that doesn't make any miracles. Your energy consumption is likely to become higher with time and even if you can diminish it, it's not like you live on an island. Extra energy can be sold to your neighbor and is therefore not lost. Unless all the coal plants in north america are shut down producing more clean power is still a good idea.
@Tamizushi Actually, we're "selling" surplus energy to our neighbours now... increasingly at a loss. The worst case is when we buy Wind Energy in the middle of the night at 13.5c per kwh for which there is no demand and then have to "sell" it to New York or Michigan by PAYING them to take it at 4 or 5c/kwh. Sometimes its even worse than that. We're obligated to buy everything a Wind Turbine generates. Great deal , eh? Why should Ont taxpayers subsidize dirty energy practices in the US?
@NorthernWes It is possible that energy demand may grow. If the economy ever recovers AND if Ontario restores its competitive advantages. BUT the current energy policy in Ontario will pretty much ensure that Ontario's energy costs are higher than almost ALL other North American jurisdictions so its unlikely to competitively attract new industry thus maintaining downward pressure on energy demand. We don't need WIND in Ontario.
@NorthernWes Yes, if you decide to take policies against one of the cleanest and cheapest energy source available, your energy will certainly become more expensive than everyone else. No questions asked. You certainly need wind in Ontario.
@Tamizushi Your arithmetic is a little suspect. If we eliminated ALL subsidies to all forms of energy, we'd be building gas, coal and hydro plants - in that order. Seems to me if you put in place policies that force the acquisition of unneeded electricity at prices 2.4 times market price (i.e. WIND) and about 12 time market price (Solar), you are making energy more expensive. But heck maybe there's something about multiplication I didn't understand when I got my stats degree. We don't NEED Wind
@NorthernWes I don't know what source you used to say that wind is 2.4 times market price but I will give you mine. The EIA estimate the cost($/MWh) of new installations for 2016 to 94.8 coal, 86.4 hydro, 97.0 wind. Gas is a special case because they evaluated differently technologies differently, but the lowest price is 63.1 with advanced combined cycle making it the least expensive. No other tech beats wind. Nuclear cost as high as 113.9. Solar is not even worth mentioning.
@Tamizushi These estimates do not include subsidies(which in the us would put wind at about the same level a gas). Other agencies commentators(California Energy Commission, the UK give similar numbers. Sa basically, wind is generally the 4rth cheapest energy source but it has over advantages. Hydro is an excellent energy but few adequate sites are available to build it and projects are slow to build. Gas and coal present a risk because of the variable market price.
@Tamizushi Ontario pays wind generators approximately 2.4 x what it pays for baseload generation. That's the result of the guaranteed pricing in our Green Energy Act. I'm talking about pricing that we (taxpayers) pay for electricity. We (Ontario) pay approximately 12x market price for baseload generation for Solar. That's why our "retard" leaders as you've called them, proudly proclaim Ontario is "leading" the world in Green Energy .... that's political speak for "we're paying a lot more".
@NorthernWes " Why should Ont taxpayers subsidize dirty energy practices in the US" last time I checked, the US is on the same planet as you and you still have not demonstrated that you "subsidize" their dirty practices. If you pay your wind power 13.5c per kwh I take it your government have poor negotiators. Quebec pays only 9c/kwh and it's not even a good price compared to what's going on in the rest of the world.
@Tamizushi OK. Let me try to be more clear. If Ontario "sells" WIND power during the night to Michigan at a "negative price" - i.e. we pay them to take our surplus which we wouldn't have if we weren't forced to buy Wind power 24x7. Got it so far. Now Michigan is accepting our clean, green energy (remember 80% of Ontario's power is 100% emission free without any WIND) PLUS we are paying them. That means Ont taxpayers are subsidizing the cost of "Green" energy in Michigan. Do you follow this?
@NorthernWes Selling your energy at low price is not the same as paying someone to take your energy. If you have to pay them so that they take your energy, you should just waste it.Alternatively, you could also sell it at low price to HydroQC.Because of their hydro dams, they can take full advantage of the energy you sell them and it has the additional advantage that you can then buy their energy for less latter(because their dams are full). Otherwise, it's bad management not bad technology.
@Tamizushi We can't 'waste' Wind Energy. The GEA obliges our utilities to buy all generated Wind supply. Plus, as you know, what goes into the grid has to be used or transferred somewhere else. There is NO pumped storage in Ontario. As you know, HydroQC is flush with power and have generation capacity that hasn't been turned on - when they "buy" it from Ontario, we're often paying HQC to take it - depends on how much they're selling to NY at any given moment. Read Tom Adams material for depth
@NorthernWes We have so much supply in Ontario that we're often steaming off Nuclear power and shutting down hydro while continuing to build Wind! One of the clear advantages of Industrial Wind is that it take almost no time to build (3 months construction?). CanWEA say costs are decreasing due to competition. Ontario has a surplus today. We're at zero coal today effectively. Wouldn't you buy it later IF you need the supply? It would be cheaper, wouldn't it???
@Tamizushi Waste stream gassification techs (some of the best are INVENTED in Ontario) are environmentally responsible ways to manage garbage, reduce the impacts of dumps, use a low value resource etc. Biomass - the conversion of vegetable and biological materials to energy is another tech. Every significant farm should have a "cheap" biomass generator to reduce their grid demand. Right now they aren't cheap. And once again, "fourth generation" (4G) and Mini-Nuclear-Reactors (MNR) are options
@NorthernWes Gassification is a promising bleeding edge technology. There are few plants in the world implementing it. I would love to see more research made on it. It's potential is particularly high when combined with the Fischer–Tropsch process to make synthetic oil, something we might very well need in a decade or two. When used to produce electricity though, incineration almost always give better result and you can't expect miracles from there.
@Tamizushi P.S. Who wrote this for you. Entirely different sentence structure, vocabulary, orientation, etc. Maybe you can get that person to set up a youtube account and post directly.... I'm familiar with the process and also familiar with other promising technologies but the waste-stream gassification tech that I'm most familiar with is Ontario's plasma tech. Industrial strength now. Just needs a "CanWEA" scale marketing effort to get off the ground.
@NorthernWes I write my own comments thank you. MSW gassification has already been attempted industrially. I know there are existing plants in japan but they have had disappointing results. You are correct. I'm not from Ontario but from Quebec, the where the Ontarian wind goes. I don't see how your "electricity prices wouldn't go up as fast" isn't a valid effect in your mind. Yes, considering that coal plants stop producing when the demand is low to save fuel wind does reduce their emission.
@Tamizushi But I keep repeating... if Wind wasn't operating in Ontario at ALL - we still wouldn't be using our Coal plants any more than we currently do. There a bunch of pricing/economic models that analyze Ontario's energy pricing policies - every single one (including the Auditor General's) point out that buying Solar/Wind energy at prices that are multiples of market price WILL increase electricity pricing. Just look at IESO data - don't take my word for it. The evidence is right there.
@NorthernWes As I said, if you pay for wind power several times more than market price, I blame whoever made these contract because it doesn't take several times market price to produce. It will reduce your bill if they pay a fair price for it. Now stop protesting the technology and start protesting because you are governed by retards.
@NorthernWes I never said that Nuclear power was not an option. I think the best would be to get rid of coal altogether and work with a mix of everything else. I find it interesting that you promote specifically technologies that are not yet ready to be implemented on the industrial level. Wind on another hand doesn't need to prove itself. It has a significant penetration in many grids and we know that it works.
@Tamizushi In Ontario, today, we have effectively shut down ALL dirty coal. As I've said before, this has nothing to do with Wind Turbines. What's left is scrubbed "standby" operations. I suspect the remaining coal activity will be shut down close to the next election to provide the incumbent government with a nice "environmental" message.
Oh there is a couple of other effects that would happen. A dozen or more families that would have been affected by new IWTs will live better quality lives. A couple of more Liberals would be elected in the next provincial election. And Ontario would be able to invest in more strategic economic development. But that's just me. I've got to go to work now. Thanks for the polite discussion. Enjoyed the exchange.
@Tamizushi Well at least we agree on that. But I certainly don't agree that Industrial Wind has proven itself. Twenty years in and where is the effect on GHG emissions? So far undetectable anywhere. The fact is Industrial Scale wind hasn't successfully displaced carbon sourced generation (unfortunately) anywhere. But it has made several grids (e.g. East Germany and Ontario) much more difficult to manage. I'm sure it has its place - but I just haven't seen where yet.
@NorthernWes Yes, Industrial wind does displace CO2 emission. Opponents keep denying that and it's completely ridiculous. I do know some arguments in support of you claim but they are easily refutable and since you didn't make them I won't counter them. I'm not interested in attacking a strawman.
@Tamizushi So far, the Wind Industry is unable to produce any third party analyses which demonstrate measurable reductions in GHG attributable to Industrial Wind electricity production. If there are such studies (not the marketing models that GWEA produces) please cite them and I'll look at them. I do have a couple of US DOE analyses and, of course, Colorado State's Bentek studies.
@NorthernWes I didn't find the US DOE report you are refering to and the message you are attributing them is contrary to their general message. They promote 20% of energy from wind before 2030. I read the summary form Bentek's study and it doesn't support your assertion. It states that coal doesn't go well with wind with a policy to buy all wind power must before coal. First, I don't think Ontario should adopt such a policy and second, your grid combines wind with hydro, not with coal.
@Tamizushi Grid combines wind with hydro not with coal? That's not how the Ontario grid works. Hydro is NOT paired with Wind. Gas/Nuclear/Coal/and Hydro are ALL impacted by Wind's intermittent supply characteristic. Only a small percentage of Nuclear can be "steamed off" during a surplus situation. Gas can be spun down (the Mississauga plant was intended to to help with intermittent supply - but it got "moved" in order to save a Liberal riding during the election). Ditto for coal and hydro.
@NorthernWes No, they don't list "Particulate poisoning" on the certificate but cancer, asthma or pneumonia. Seriously how much do you have to go to deny even that?
@Tamizushi I know a bit about Cancer in my line of work. Number one (by far) correlation to cancer is age. The longer we live, the higher the likelihood that we will develop a cancer of some kind. Environmental exposures is one factor, food a more important one, cigarette smoking, etc. The problem with attributing one specific irritant (i.e. PM2 emissions by Ontario Coal Plants) is that the attribution methodology is NOT empirical - i.e. we don't base the model on observed clinical cases.
@NorthernWes I searched for "carbon particle health" on podmed and I found plenty of empirical studies showing that carbon particles are hazardous for the health. That's not a controversial. I don't even see why you are disputing this.
@Tamizushi I'm not - PM2 emissions (of which carbon is one component but not the only or even the most hazardous) are one source of environmental exposure. What I said that attribution - particularly at the source level - i.e. Coal Plants is pretty tenuous. In Ontario, we have PM2 generation from cars, trucks, ships, Ohio manufacturing, airplanes, dust on dirt roads, and our remaining 10% coal plants. Attributing specific health impacts to any one of those is a modelling exercise - not clinical
@NorthernWes I don't see why it matters if we can say who exactly died because of it. The fact is that we can estimate the number of people who died from it and it's far from zero. Therefore it does kill people.
@Tamizushi It matters because the marketing engine of CanWEA and their business partners (the Ontario Liberal party) cite these models as FACTS not estimates (and tenuous estimates at best). I spoken to about a half-dozen clinical doctors about the CAPE model - they think its politically motivated hype. No clinical studies to back up the model - no peer reviewed science behind it. P.S. Let's apply CanWEA Marketing techniques to this claim.....
@NorthernWes (Warning - I am not trying to offend or downplay any patients suffering asthma, COPD, emphsyma or any other number of conditions that are aggravated by airborne pollutants). Just applying CanWEA/Wind logic to your claim that # of people killed by Ontario Coal plants is "far from zero". Here goes...
"Cars, guns, cigarettes, and alcohol ALL kill far more people than Coal Plants. If you want to really effect people's health, we should BAN cars, cigarettes, and alcohol."
@Tamizushi Correct. That's why using this argument to counter observable wildlife impacts is also fallacious. It is impractical to tear down skyscrapers, and cars, and kill domestic cats. It is practical to simply not build IWTs where there are significant bird habitats. But the Ontario Wind Industry seems to have a "build everywhere" principle.
@NorthernWes The second reason it is fallacious is something called "cumulative effect". If there were very few of us humans left, and someone wanted to build a new coal plant right beside a few of us - that would be stupid. Why introduce yet another hazard? But we are willing to build IWTs right beside or in the migratory paths of endangered species.... Wind Turbines vs Oil Tailing Ponds - both hazards are equally dangerous to birds. Especially endangered species.
@NorthernWes ... I'm sure you can see the fallacy in that little illustration. With better health care, radically improved air quality, better nutrition, and other improvements, WE (i.e. Ontarians) have improved life span by 40% since the 60s. During that period, we have shifted Ontario energy generation completely away from oil and today almost 100% away from Coal - because there are better ways i.e Gas and Nuclear. Industrial Wind has not contributed to that shift AT ALL. We dont need Wind
@NorthernWes I'm sure wind haven't contributed at all since you didn't have any of it. BTW saying "We don't need Wind" is not gonna become true even if you repeat it a million times.
@Tamizushi Thanks for agreeing with me. The Coal argument is not one of the benefits accrued by Ontario if Ontario builds 7000 IWTs as intended. That's my point. And if we build them in Ontario, that won't, in any way, affect Ohio's use of Coal-fired electricity generation.
@Tamizushi It actually is true. We don't NEED Wind. Some people (urban dwellers, Liberals, Wind Industry companies, foreign suppliers, and a segment of the environmental/sustainability community) WANT Wind. But if Ontario doesn't build another IWT - nothing bad happens to us. Nothing. The lights stay on, our emissions continue to improve, our grid becomes easier to manage, we get to invest to "made in Ontario" tech.... etc. etc. etc. But nothing bad happens.
@Tamizushi I actually have the list of North American coal mine disasters - I'm very familiar with it. The Coal industries OHS record is not good - ranks up there with commercial diving and fishing. BTW, of the Green Technologies, the Wind Industry's OHS record is, appears to be, the worst by far. I say "appears" to be because they don't formally publish their safety statistics... funny for a worldwide industry. I have to rely on Caithness for Wind accident stats.
@Tamizushi You haven't actually bought the benefits of Wind Turbines - which are, at best, minor when compared against other Green Tech, and really poor when compared against new Nuclear, gas, and hydro. You've bought the Brand.
We're going to build the gas plants regardless of how many Wind Turbines are erected.
We don't need Wind in Ontario - certainly not for at least 10 years.
@NorthernWes Yes wind power can and will replace gas plants, especially in a system with high hydro penetration and you are a full to think you are not gonna need the second cheapest renewable energy in the next 10 years.
@Tamizushi The rate of discovery of various types of economically viable gas is actually accelerating right now. And that's without looking at sea-ice methane (BTW it will become very important to harvest that in some controlled fashion if global warming projections are accurate) which some estimates are 5-6 times ALL known natural gas reserves. We're going to be using gas (and a lot of it) for a very long time. Watch what Germany does over the next few decades.
@NorthernWes Again talking about future technologies.Listen, it doesn't matters.There are countless different ways that we could possible make energy in the future. Which one will actually work we don't know. Or rather, we only know with technologies that already work today, which includes wind.
Gas may be the less expensive energy right now but it also highly contributes to global warming and since its price is directly linked to oil's price relying heavily on it presents a high economical risk
@Tamizushi PM2 pollutants in our air (which is internationally assessed by environmental organizations are very high quality) now comes from two primary sources - transportation (i.e. cars/trucks/trains/airplanes) and untreated emissions from the US midwest manufacturing best (Ohio Valley etc). Its the particulate emissions that cause health impacts. Not CO2. Our coal plants reduced over the past five years because we didn't NEED the electricity (not because we built a couple of hundred IWTs).
@NorthernWes Energy demand globally is growing because the so-called "second" and "third" worlds are industrializing at a frantic pace. Electricity demand in Ontario and other areas in Canada has either stabilized or dropped in the past decade. We don't need Wind in Ontario. These are observable facts not opinions. I'm sorry that they don't fit with your belief system.
@Tamizushi I also suspect you're not from Ontario, right? I don't pretend to speak globally on this issue.... I just don't have the time to read the world's debate on Industrial Wind Turbines and other energy issues. But I do know Ontario. If we didn't build one more Wind Turbine starting today, there would be NO effect other than our electricity prices wouldn't go up as fast. No increase in GHG. No change in new gas plants. No change in Coal plants. No worsening in air quality. No effect.
These people just want money. i worked in the wind industry for 10 years. the "toxic noise" levels is suck a damn lie. Then the damn bird issue. I grown so sick of it. more birds are killed by car, plans, building, tv towers, and cats. here you have the cleanest form of power. and still people cant be happy. It come down to the fact that the companys give in. And pay out. and you know what happens if you give a mouse a cookie, next he'll want something else.
@sickboi1982 I would argue that geothermal is slightly cleaner, because of its extremely low land usage, but otherwise I agree. When people are trying to discredit an energy because it kills a few birds, you know they have run out of arguments.
@Tamizushi I think people discredit big WIND because, 1) in Ontario, we don't actually need it, 2) the industry overhypes its benefits and mutes its risks, 3) it gets placed everywhere - even in completely inappropriate places (e.g. Ostrander Point, Collingwood, etc), 4) is just isn't as stable as any of the other Green energy techs 5) its 100% foreign designed and developed - no I.P. in Ontario, 6) the job claims are completely unrealistic and 7) we pay too much for its output.
@Tamizushi I think people discredit big WIND because, 1) in Ontario, we don't actually need it, 2) the industry overhypes its benefits and mutes its risks, 3) it gets placed everywhere - even in completely inappropriate places (e.g. Ostrander Point, Collingwood, etc), 4) is just isn't as stable as any of the other Green energy techs 5) its 100% foreign designed and developed - no I.P. in Ontario, 6) the job claims are completely unrealistic and 7) we pay too much for its output.
@Tamizushi I think people discredit big WIND because, 1) in Ontario, we don't actually need it, 2) the industry overhypes its benefits and mutes its risks, 3) it gets placed everywhere - even in completely inappropriate places (e.g. Ostrander Point, Collingwood, etc), 4) is just isn't as stable as any of the other Green energy techs 5) its 100% foreign designed and developed - no I.P. in Ontario, 6) the job claims are completely unrealistic and 7) we pay too much for its output.
@Tamizushi I think people discredit big WIND because, 1) in Ontario, we don't actually need it, 2) the industry overhypes its benefits and mutes its risks, 3) it gets placed everywhere - even in completely inappropriate places (e.g. Ostrander Point, Collingwood, etc), 4) is just isn't as stable as any of the other Green energy techs 5) its 100% foreign designed and developed - no I.P. in Ontario, 6) the job claims are completely unrealistic and 7) we pay too much for its output.
@sickboi1982 I don't think we stop building IWTs because some of them are placed in areas that kill a lot of birds. I think we STOP building IWTs in places where there are a lot of birds. And the companies give in because their lawyers tell them to do so, its all based on costs and potential liabilities. So far, when someone gets BigWind into court, they ALWAYS settle - because the industry can't afford to have legal precedents on record that go against them.
@sickboi1982 My very significant complaint with BigWInd is that they believe that their product MUST be erected ANYWHERE they choose to do so. Whether its in the flighpath of an regional airport, in or near to a national park, close to a bunch of people, or right smack in the middle of conservation areas or important migratory paths of endangered species. BigWInd fights to overturn or minimize every control that has been put in place. They CHOOSE to build in areas of max impact.
@switchitgreennow Actually, several mountain tops have been flattened in Ontario to install IWTs. The damage to the environment isn't on the same scale as a coal mine, a quarry, or a strip mine of course... but we're not making a choice on that particular habitat on whether we should build IWTs or Coal Mines or a quarry. We're incrementally damaging the environment with these particular machines and ALL environmental damage is significant. Do we NEED IWTs in Ontario?
@switchitgreennow P.S. The Fukushima comparison is nonsense. We don't live on the "rim of fire". The Canadian Shield is one of the most geologically sound area on the ENTIRE planet. In fact, if you want to minimize risk from nuclear accidents, and you must build nuclear power plants, this is one of the very best places to build them on the whole planet.
The uk is being invaded by these fckin ugly things and i for one did not know of the problems caused by them,although i'm a long way off you have my support.
@mark1simon ....hey just wanted to say thanks for the support.....Ontario is under attack by these turbines invading peoples health and invading there homes and killing wildlife...all the best to the UK from Canada
Im guessing by the apparent size of the turbines that they are in the 100kw range. Lets try something else. Solar panels covering twice to three times the area. Maybe another coal plant or nuclear plant to replace every 25-30 of these ... maybe more. Think of a alternative then complain and suggest something better that does not pollute while generating electricity. Until then your just making noise, Just like the turbines.
leadpelletinass 1 month ago in playlist More videos from ccluff01
@leadpelletinass In Ontario, we're not building coal plants. We've closed almost all of them and what's left has pretty good scrubbers on them. We're actually going to build gas plants and a couple of new nukes. If we didn't build another IWT, we'd still build the same number of gas plants and the couple of new nukes. BTW one of Ontario's nukes generates approx 800MW - about the same as 265 3MW IWTs running at 100% of nameplate capacity (how often does that happen). We don't need Wind in ONT.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes Gas is not a clean energy (although cleaner than coal) and you ignored the point I made against nuclear: the raising rarity of Uranium. It's already a very expensive energy, more expensive than wind in almost every cases.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi Cows are clean animals neither are humans. There is NO "raising rarity of Uranium" - that statement is not factual. As to the "more expensive that wind" statement, the US Department of Energy disagrees with your learned opinion on that - but what would they know.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes oops... should read "Cows are NOT clean animals (in terms of emissions)"
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes "There is NO raising rarity of Uranium" Please I beg you to read a little bit about the uranium market. You couldn't be so wrong. I wish youtube didn't block all websites so I could give you some likes. "As to the more expensive that wind statement, the US Department of Energy disagrees with your learned opinion on that - but what would they know. " How is 97.0$MWh for wind more expensive than 113.9$/MWh for nuclear?
Tamizushi 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi I did a little bit of Northern work last spring. Trust me. There was almost no uranium prospecting going on. My understanding of the current market (Japan, Germany) is that several developments have been suspended and that there continues to be almost no new exploration going on. Message me the links that you've found and I'll forward mine to you but I know for a fact that there is little to no Ur exploration going on in Canada. P.S. Thorium. Buy Thorium futures.... you'll be rich.
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes And don't forget that almost all 'old' spent fuel is recyclable and reusable in a 3G reactor. But we will need deep storage facilities - about 8 of them worldwide to handle the next couple of hundred years until we invent something better.
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes Gotta go.... Haven't had this much on Youtube for.... ever.... Thanks.
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes should read "this much fun"
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
Made me feel genuinely sick when the raptor was struck. This is happening in the Highlands of Scotland too. :'¬(
angusogcrofter 2 months ago
@imillard56
you certainly have showed your lack of intelligence
0003ooo3 2 months ago
Sort of unrelated but I remember reading about a nuclear reactor that was shut down for a few years. Because it was shut down for a few years, 3 people or so died due to pulmonary illnesses because coal plants had to pick up the slack. But then again birds are more precious then people.
deltasabre 3 months ago
We are fighting for our town, trying our hardest to keep the turbines out....two sites are slated beside a local school....can you believe it..with everthing we now know...health risks and so on.....I never thought I would see the day our government would treat its people like this....people should not have to live beside turbines or be forced out of their homes we have enough crownland the turbines should have been built on it,.my heart goes out to everyone affected by this greed and stupidity
ryoukiddinme1 4 months ago
A huge number of families have walked away from homes in this province after suffering until they couldn't stand it anymore. I've spoken with many of them. We don't know how many have quietly sold toxic homes to a bargain hunter just to escape the relentless noise and vibration. Some remain, unable to afford to walk away or unable to sell a home next to turbines. Pompous, self righteous and pat, dismissive remarks are all these people have received from the government as well.
lorrie000 5 months ago 2
Peer reviewed articles on adverse effects from turbines are available.
Information that goes beyond blind worship to a 40 story tower that's been marketed by the wind industry for 10 years is everywhere and industrial wind turbines are a scam, an expensive and destructive SCAM.
lorrie000 5 months ago
Put a turbine next to you and see how long you stay in your home. At least it would be your own doing. Do some research. Industrial wind turbines are useless and destructive.
Try to go past your 'blinkers on' greenwashed thinking. It's wrong and it's destroying rural Ontario.
lorrie000 5 months ago 2
Seriously? Do you know how many people die each years from sicknesses caused by coal?
I can't help but notice that every single one of your arguments are anecdotal in nature, making them very weak.
I'm curious, what are you proposing as an alternative? And before you say it, think of the problem associated with them and compare them with wind.
Tamizushi 5 months ago
@Tamizushi In Ontario, we are running the remaining coal plants at about 10-15% of name plate capacity - often just to compensate for wind energy fluctuations. Our supply today (and for the next 5 years minimum) is so much larger than our demand, that we could get by pretty easily by turning off ALL coal and ALL WIND. In fact, if Ont. entered into a long term supply agreement with Quebec Hydro (zero emission!), we wouldn't need more generation for years! We simply don't need WIND.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@Tamizushi No one in Ontario is dying from our remaining coal plants. Our life span is 40% longer than it was in 1960s, and our air is cleaner than it was in the 70s. Given that we've managed to eliminate 60-70% of Ontario's heavy industry in the past 2 decades, I don't think we're putting anyone's health at risk with a couple of 10% coal plants (all with scrubbers by the way).
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes When you say no one is dying from Coal plant emission, do you think they are so clean that they don't emit any particulate waste? CO2 concentration in the world went from about 335 ppm to about 390 ppm since the 70s. The emission from hydrodams is very low but still higher than wind and certainly not nil. Also, don't think Ontario are the only one hungry for Quebec's power. Uranium is also becoming scarce which is dangerous for Ontario. Yes, Wind is a necessity right now.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi No one is dying from Coal plant emissions in Ontario. There are lots of places in the world that use dirty coal (e.g. the brown coal generators in Germany). Ontario just isn't one of them to any significant extent anymore. We've shut down the older coal plants and what we have left running have scrubbers which make a significant difference. Coal in Ontario has been shut down because we don't need the electricity not because of the Wind Turbines.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@Tamizushi Quebec has significant available clean green hydroelectricity now. Lower Churchill isn't in production yet. And Manitoba intends to build a significant capacity all at prices that are about 40% what we're paying for intermittent Wind. Why don't you figure out the contribution that Canada's electricity generation makes to worldwide CO2. Then compare that to the growing contribution from China/India and explain to me how ANYTHING we do with CDN Electricity Generation reduces real GHG.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@Tamizushi First of all, Canada has the second largest repository of Uranium in the world. We've stopped looking for it. Second, there's a much better, safer, more efficient, and easier to handle fuel in thorium. We should start building 4G nuclear reactors and MNRs - there are a lot better ways of doing things than 40 year old Candu reactors. We're going to have a 10B human population in about 50 years - you can't possibly believe we can power that with wind turbines and solar panels???
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes No, Canada has not stopped looking for Uranium. I don't know where you are getting that, and since it's not produced in Ontario it's frankly irreverent. And the and you are still forced to by it on the Uranium marker. And you got your question backyard. The right question is "you can't possibly believe we can power that WITHOUT wind turbines and solar panels???"
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi I get my observations from facts. Take a look at wiki: List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves. Note that we have not explored large areas of our northern lands. Note that the current anti-nuke movement has successfully reduced demand for uranium. But you also know one of the fuels for the next generation of nuclear reactors is thorium. One discussion of thorium reserves is here: nucleargreen.blogspot.com 2008/03 today-nuclear-power-offers-large.html (replace spaces with "/".
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes Not to mention that 4G reactors use what some people erroneously call "waste" to produce energy. It is environmentally responsible to recycle existing stored partially used nuclear fuel rods and extract more energy from this resource. That reduces the mass of "waste" and continues to use radioactive substances in productive ways.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@Tamizushi Look at IESO statistics. Look at Ontario's air quality reports. Look at our life span improvements in Ontario. I'm a statistician. I've looked at a bunch of energy related models including CAPE's "Coal Kills Thousands in Ontario". I'm very suspicious of agenda driven models (including several on the opposing side). We need real, hard data - ask the CMO's in Ontario, how many people have cause of death - PM2 Particulate poisoning listed on death certificates? We don't need WIND.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes But WE DO need to be building industry in Ontario and that means inventing things that the world needs or wants. We should be investing x10 in "Made in Ontario" green tech - biomass, geothermal, waste stream gassification, smart building materials, 4G nuclear, better, faster, cheaper Hydro... all things that we have a shot at being competitive at. Instead, we're spending $15B+ on other countries' machines at Retail+ prices. Think of what that spend could do for Ontario.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes Hydro is a mature technology and has seen very little improvement in the past 50 years. Nuclear is expensive,slow to build and relies on the uncertain uranium market. Geothermal is a very good energy but its availability in Ontario is low and it's very slow to build. Gassification is still a bleeding edge tech. Waste-to-energy technologies (which I assume is what you mean by biomass unless you're crasy)are good but can not provide a lot of energy.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi Youtube isn't the best way to educate you. Your summarization of energy technology shows how little you know of the topic, unfortunately. "Easy" geothermal - the use of near-surface hotspots isn't practical in Ontario - (i.e. the Canadian Shield) but newer geothermal technologies, INVENTED in Ontario, are showing that community/campus level heating/cooling is practical once efficiencies in heat tranference are achieved. Suggest you subscribe to magazines like Scientific American.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes You understand that their is a difference between a geothermal plant that produces electricity and a geothermal heat pump which is used to cool and heat buildings?
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi I'm only talking about plants. Existing geothermal plants are community/campus scale efficient with some exceptions. Heat pumps, which I considered installing in my own home, would be good grid demand reduction tech if they were less expensive.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes It's great that Ontarian invest in energy efficiency but that doesn't make any miracles. Your energy consumption is likely to become higher with time and even if you can diminish it, it's not like you live on an island. Extra energy can be sold to your neighbor and is therefore not lost. Unless all the coal plants in north america are shut down producing more clean power is still a good idea.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi Actually, we're "selling" surplus energy to our neighbours now... increasingly at a loss. The worst case is when we buy Wind Energy in the middle of the night at 13.5c per kwh for which there is no demand and then have to "sell" it to New York or Michigan by PAYING them to take it at 4 or 5c/kwh. Sometimes its even worse than that. We're obligated to buy everything a Wind Turbine generates. Great deal , eh? Why should Ont taxpayers subsidize dirty energy practices in the US?
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes It is possible that energy demand may grow. If the economy ever recovers AND if Ontario restores its competitive advantages. BUT the current energy policy in Ontario will pretty much ensure that Ontario's energy costs are higher than almost ALL other North American jurisdictions so its unlikely to competitively attract new industry thus maintaining downward pressure on energy demand. We don't need WIND in Ontario.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes Yes, if you decide to take policies against one of the cleanest and cheapest energy source available, your energy will certainly become more expensive than everyone else. No questions asked. You certainly need wind in Ontario.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi Your arithmetic is a little suspect. If we eliminated ALL subsidies to all forms of energy, we'd be building gas, coal and hydro plants - in that order. Seems to me if you put in place policies that force the acquisition of unneeded electricity at prices 2.4 times market price (i.e. WIND) and about 12 time market price (Solar), you are making energy more expensive. But heck maybe there's something about multiplication I didn't understand when I got my stats degree. We don't NEED Wind
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes I don't know what source you used to say that wind is 2.4 times market price but I will give you mine. The EIA estimate the cost($/MWh) of new installations for 2016 to 94.8 coal, 86.4 hydro, 97.0 wind. Gas is a special case because they evaluated differently technologies differently, but the lowest price is 63.1 with advanced combined cycle making it the least expensive. No other tech beats wind. Nuclear cost as high as 113.9. Solar is not even worth mentioning.
Tamizushi 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi These estimates do not include subsidies(which in the us would put wind at about the same level a gas). Other agencies commentators(California Energy Commission, the UK give similar numbers. Sa basically, wind is generally the 4rth cheapest energy source but it has over advantages. Hydro is an excellent energy but few adequate sites are available to build it and projects are slow to build. Gas and coal present a risk because of the variable market price.
Tamizushi 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi Economically speaking, the best is to spread the risk between different technologies.
Tamizushi 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi Ontario pays wind generators approximately 2.4 x what it pays for baseload generation. That's the result of the guaranteed pricing in our Green Energy Act. I'm talking about pricing that we (taxpayers) pay for electricity. We (Ontario) pay approximately 12x market price for baseload generation for Solar. That's why our "retard" leaders as you've called them, proudly proclaim Ontario is "leading" the world in Green Energy .... that's political speak for "we're paying a lot more".
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes " Why should Ont taxpayers subsidize dirty energy practices in the US" last time I checked, the US is on the same planet as you and you still have not demonstrated that you "subsidize" their dirty practices. If you pay your wind power 13.5c per kwh I take it your government have poor negotiators. Quebec pays only 9c/kwh and it's not even a good price compared to what's going on in the rest of the world.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi OK. Let me try to be more clear. If Ontario "sells" WIND power during the night to Michigan at a "negative price" - i.e. we pay them to take our surplus which we wouldn't have if we weren't forced to buy Wind power 24x7. Got it so far. Now Michigan is accepting our clean, green energy (remember 80% of Ontario's power is 100% emission free without any WIND) PLUS we are paying them. That means Ont taxpayers are subsidizing the cost of "Green" energy in Michigan. Do you follow this?
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes Selling your energy at low price is not the same as paying someone to take your energy. If you have to pay them so that they take your energy, you should just waste it.Alternatively, you could also sell it at low price to HydroQC.Because of their hydro dams, they can take full advantage of the energy you sell them and it has the additional advantage that you can then buy their energy for less latter(because their dams are full). Otherwise, it's bad management not bad technology.
Tamizushi 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi We can't 'waste' Wind Energy. The GEA obliges our utilities to buy all generated Wind supply. Plus, as you know, what goes into the grid has to be used or transferred somewhere else. There is NO pumped storage in Ontario. As you know, HydroQC is flush with power and have generation capacity that hasn't been turned on - when they "buy" it from Ontario, we're often paying HQC to take it - depends on how much they're selling to NY at any given moment. Read Tom Adams material for depth
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes We have so much supply in Ontario that we're often steaming off Nuclear power and shutting down hydro while continuing to build Wind! One of the clear advantages of Industrial Wind is that it take almost no time to build (3 months construction?). CanWEA say costs are decreasing due to competition. Ontario has a surplus today. We're at zero coal today effectively. Wouldn't you buy it later IF you need the supply? It would be cheaper, wouldn't it???
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi Waste stream gassification techs (some of the best are INVENTED in Ontario) are environmentally responsible ways to manage garbage, reduce the impacts of dumps, use a low value resource etc. Biomass - the conversion of vegetable and biological materials to energy is another tech. Every significant farm should have a "cheap" biomass generator to reduce their grid demand. Right now they aren't cheap. And once again, "fourth generation" (4G) and Mini-Nuclear-Reactors (MNR) are options
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes Gassification is a promising bleeding edge technology. There are few plants in the world implementing it. I would love to see more research made on it. It's potential is particularly high when combined with the Fischer–Tropsch process to make synthetic oil, something we might very well need in a decade or two. When used to produce electricity though, incineration almost always give better result and you can't expect miracles from there.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi P.S. Who wrote this for you. Entirely different sentence structure, vocabulary, orientation, etc. Maybe you can get that person to set up a youtube account and post directly.... I'm familiar with the process and also familiar with other promising technologies but the waste-stream gassification tech that I'm most familiar with is Ontario's plasma tech. Industrial strength now. Just needs a "CanWEA" scale marketing effort to get off the ground.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes I write my own comments thank you. MSW gassification has already been attempted industrially. I know there are existing plants in japan but they have had disappointing results. You are correct. I'm not from Ontario but from Quebec, the where the Ontarian wind goes. I don't see how your "electricity prices wouldn't go up as fast" isn't a valid effect in your mind. Yes, considering that coal plants stop producing when the demand is low to save fuel wind does reduce their emission.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi But I keep repeating... if Wind wasn't operating in Ontario at ALL - we still wouldn't be using our Coal plants any more than we currently do. There a bunch of pricing/economic models that analyze Ontario's energy pricing policies - every single one (including the Auditor General's) point out that buying Solar/Wind energy at prices that are multiples of market price WILL increase electricity pricing. Just look at IESO data - don't take my word for it. The evidence is right there.
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes As I said, if you pay for wind power several times more than market price, I blame whoever made these contract because it doesn't take several times market price to produce. It will reduce your bill if they pay a fair price for it. Now stop protesting the technology and start protesting because you are governed by retards.
Tamizushi 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes I never said that Nuclear power was not an option. I think the best would be to get rid of coal altogether and work with a mix of everything else. I find it interesting that you promote specifically technologies that are not yet ready to be implemented on the industrial level. Wind on another hand doesn't need to prove itself. It has a significant penetration in many grids and we know that it works.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi In Ontario, today, we have effectively shut down ALL dirty coal. As I've said before, this has nothing to do with Wind Turbines. What's left is scrubbed "standby" operations. I suspect the remaining coal activity will be shut down close to the next election to provide the incumbent government with a nice "environmental" message.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
Oh there is a couple of other effects that would happen. A dozen or more families that would have been affected by new IWTs will live better quality lives. A couple of more Liberals would be elected in the next provincial election. And Ontario would be able to invest in more strategic economic development. But that's just me. I've got to go to work now. Thanks for the polite discussion. Enjoyed the exchange.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@Tamizushi Well at least we agree on that. But I certainly don't agree that Industrial Wind has proven itself. Twenty years in and where is the effect on GHG emissions? So far undetectable anywhere. The fact is Industrial Scale wind hasn't successfully displaced carbon sourced generation (unfortunately) anywhere. But it has made several grids (e.g. East Germany and Ontario) much more difficult to manage. I'm sure it has its place - but I just haven't seen where yet.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes Yes, Industrial wind does displace CO2 emission. Opponents keep denying that and it's completely ridiculous. I do know some arguments in support of you claim but they are easily refutable and since you didn't make them I won't counter them. I'm not interested in attacking a strawman.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi So far, the Wind Industry is unable to produce any third party analyses which demonstrate measurable reductions in GHG attributable to Industrial Wind electricity production. If there are such studies (not the marketing models that GWEA produces) please cite them and I'll look at them. I do have a couple of US DOE analyses and, of course, Colorado State's Bentek studies.
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes I didn't find the US DOE report you are refering to and the message you are attributing them is contrary to their general message. They promote 20% of energy from wind before 2030. I read the summary form Bentek's study and it doesn't support your assertion. It states that coal doesn't go well with wind with a policy to buy all wind power must before coal. First, I don't think Ontario should adopt such a policy and second, your grid combines wind with hydro, not with coal.
Tamizushi 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi Grid combines wind with hydro not with coal? That's not how the Ontario grid works. Hydro is NOT paired with Wind. Gas/Nuclear/Coal/and Hydro are ALL impacted by Wind's intermittent supply characteristic. Only a small percentage of Nuclear can be "steamed off" during a surplus situation. Gas can be spun down (the Mississauga plant was intended to to help with intermittent supply - but it got "moved" in order to save a Liberal riding during the election). Ditto for coal and hydro.
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes No, they don't list "Particulate poisoning" on the certificate but cancer, asthma or pneumonia. Seriously how much do you have to go to deny even that?
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi I know a bit about Cancer in my line of work. Number one (by far) correlation to cancer is age. The longer we live, the higher the likelihood that we will develop a cancer of some kind. Environmental exposures is one factor, food a more important one, cigarette smoking, etc. The problem with attributing one specific irritant (i.e. PM2 emissions by Ontario Coal Plants) is that the attribution methodology is NOT empirical - i.e. we don't base the model on observed clinical cases.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes I searched for "carbon particle health" on podmed and I found plenty of empirical studies showing that carbon particles are hazardous for the health. That's not a controversial. I don't even see why you are disputing this.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi I'm not - PM2 emissions (of which carbon is one component but not the only or even the most hazardous) are one source of environmental exposure. What I said that attribution - particularly at the source level - i.e. Coal Plants is pretty tenuous. In Ontario, we have PM2 generation from cars, trucks, ships, Ohio manufacturing, airplanes, dust on dirt roads, and our remaining 10% coal plants. Attributing specific health impacts to any one of those is a modelling exercise - not clinical
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes I don't see why it matters if we can say who exactly died because of it. The fact is that we can estimate the number of people who died from it and it's far from zero. Therefore it does kill people.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi It matters because the marketing engine of CanWEA and their business partners (the Ontario Liberal party) cite these models as FACTS not estimates (and tenuous estimates at best). I spoken to about a half-dozen clinical doctors about the CAPE model - they think its politically motivated hype. No clinical studies to back up the model - no peer reviewed science behind it. P.S. Let's apply CanWEA Marketing techniques to this claim.....
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes (Warning - I am not trying to offend or downplay any patients suffering asthma, COPD, emphsyma or any other number of conditions that are aggravated by airborne pollutants). Just applying CanWEA/Wind logic to your claim that # of people killed by Ontario Coal plants is "far from zero". Here goes...
"Cars, guns, cigarettes, and alcohol ALL kill far more people than Coal Plants. If you want to really effect people's health, we should BAN cars, cigarettes, and alcohol."
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes The difference is that banning cars, cigarettes and alcohol is impractical contrarily to banning coal.
Tamizushi 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi Correct. That's why using this argument to counter observable wildlife impacts is also fallacious. It is impractical to tear down skyscrapers, and cars, and kill domestic cats. It is practical to simply not build IWTs where there are significant bird habitats. But the Ontario Wind Industry seems to have a "build everywhere" principle.
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes The second reason it is fallacious is something called "cumulative effect". If there were very few of us humans left, and someone wanted to build a new coal plant right beside a few of us - that would be stupid. Why introduce yet another hazard? But we are willing to build IWTs right beside or in the migratory paths of endangered species.... Wind Turbines vs Oil Tailing Ponds - both hazards are equally dangerous to birds. Especially endangered species.
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes ... I'm sure you can see the fallacy in that little illustration. With better health care, radically improved air quality, better nutrition, and other improvements, WE (i.e. Ontarians) have improved life span by 40% since the 60s. During that period, we have shifted Ontario energy generation completely away from oil and today almost 100% away from Coal - because there are better ways i.e Gas and Nuclear. Industrial Wind has not contributed to that shift AT ALL. We dont need Wind
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes I'm sure wind haven't contributed at all since you didn't have any of it. BTW saying "We don't need Wind" is not gonna become true even if you repeat it a million times.
Tamizushi 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi Thanks for agreeing with me. The Coal argument is not one of the benefits accrued by Ontario if Ontario builds 7000 IWTs as intended. That's my point. And if we build them in Ontario, that won't, in any way, affect Ohio's use of Coal-fired electricity generation.
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi It actually is true. We don't NEED Wind. Some people (urban dwellers, Liberals, Wind Industry companies, foreign suppliers, and a segment of the environmental/sustainability community) WANT Wind. But if Ontario doesn't build another IWT - nothing bad happens to us. Nothing. The lights stay on, our emissions continue to improve, our grid becomes easier to manage, we get to invest to "made in Ontario" tech.... etc. etc. etc. But nothing bad happens.
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes I only know of one peer reviewed study supporting that black smoke from coal plants causes deaths.
L Clancy, P Goodman, H Sinclair… - The Lancet, 2002 - Elsevier
I must say I didn't spend a lot of time searching for something else. But there is a lot of studies about death caused by coal mining.
Tamizushi 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi I actually have the list of North American coal mine disasters - I'm very familiar with it. The Coal industries OHS record is not good - ranks up there with commercial diving and fishing. BTW, of the Green Technologies, the Wind Industry's OHS record is, appears to be, the worst by far. I say "appears" to be because they don't formally publish their safety statistics... funny for a worldwide industry. I have to rely on Caithness for Wind accident stats.
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi You haven't actually bought the benefits of Wind Turbines - which are, at best, minor when compared against other Green Tech, and really poor when compared against new Nuclear, gas, and hydro. You've bought the Brand.
We're going to build the gas plants regardless of how many Wind Turbines are erected.
We don't need Wind in Ontario - certainly not for at least 10 years.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes Yes wind power can and will replace gas plants, especially in a system with high hydro penetration and you are a full to think you are not gonna need the second cheapest renewable energy in the next 10 years.
Tamizushi 1 month ago
@Tamizushi The rate of discovery of various types of economically viable gas is actually accelerating right now. And that's without looking at sea-ice methane (BTW it will become very important to harvest that in some controlled fashion if global warming projections are accurate) which some estimates are 5-6 times ALL known natural gas reserves. We're going to be using gas (and a lot of it) for a very long time. Watch what Germany does over the next few decades.
NorthernWes 4 weeks ago
@NorthernWes Again talking about future technologies.Listen, it doesn't matters.There are countless different ways that we could possible make energy in the future. Which one will actually work we don't know. Or rather, we only know with technologies that already work today, which includes wind.
Gas may be the less expensive energy right now but it also highly contributes to global warming and since its price is directly linked to oil's price relying heavily on it presents a high economical risk
Tamizushi 4 weeks ago
@Tamizushi PM2 pollutants in our air (which is internationally assessed by environmental organizations are very high quality) now comes from two primary sources - transportation (i.e. cars/trucks/trains/airplanes) and untreated emissions from the US midwest manufacturing best (Ohio Valley etc). Its the particulate emissions that cause health impacts. Not CO2. Our coal plants reduced over the past five years because we didn't NEED the electricity (not because we built a couple of hundred IWTs).
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@NorthernWes Energy demand globally is growing because the so-called "second" and "third" worlds are industrializing at a frantic pace. Electricity demand in Ontario and other areas in Canada has either stabilized or dropped in the past decade. We don't need Wind in Ontario. These are observable facts not opinions. I'm sorry that they don't fit with your belief system.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@Tamizushi I also suspect you're not from Ontario, right? I don't pretend to speak globally on this issue.... I just don't have the time to read the world's debate on Industrial Wind Turbines and other energy issues. But I do know Ontario. If we didn't build one more Wind Turbine starting today, there would be NO effect other than our electricity prices wouldn't go up as fast. No increase in GHG. No change in new gas plants. No change in Coal plants. No worsening in air quality. No effect.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
These people just want money. i worked in the wind industry for 10 years. the "toxic noise" levels is suck a damn lie. Then the damn bird issue. I grown so sick of it. more birds are killed by car, plans, building, tv towers, and cats. here you have the cleanest form of power. and still people cant be happy. It come down to the fact that the companys give in. And pay out. and you know what happens if you give a mouse a cookie, next he'll want something else.
sickboi1982 5 months ago
@sickboi1982 I would argue that geothermal is slightly cleaner, because of its extremely low land usage, but otherwise I agree. When people are trying to discredit an energy because it kills a few birds, you know they have run out of arguments.
Tamizushi 5 months ago
@Tamizushi I think people discredit big WIND because, 1) in Ontario, we don't actually need it, 2) the industry overhypes its benefits and mutes its risks, 3) it gets placed everywhere - even in completely inappropriate places (e.g. Ostrander Point, Collingwood, etc), 4) is just isn't as stable as any of the other Green energy techs 5) its 100% foreign designed and developed - no I.P. in Ontario, 6) the job claims are completely unrealistic and 7) we pay too much for its output.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@Tamizushi I think people discredit big WIND because, 1) in Ontario, we don't actually need it, 2) the industry overhypes its benefits and mutes its risks, 3) it gets placed everywhere - even in completely inappropriate places (e.g. Ostrander Point, Collingwood, etc), 4) is just isn't as stable as any of the other Green energy techs 5) its 100% foreign designed and developed - no I.P. in Ontario, 6) the job claims are completely unrealistic and 7) we pay too much for its output.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tamizushi I think people discredit big WIND because, 1) in Ontario, we don't actually need it, 2) the industry overhypes its benefits and mutes its risks, 3) it gets placed everywhere - even in completely inappropriate places (e.g. Ostrander Point, Collingwood, etc), 4) is just isn't as stable as any of the other Green energy techs 5) its 100% foreign designed and developed - no I.P. in Ontario, 6) the job claims are completely unrealistic and 7) we pay too much for its output.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tamizushi I think people discredit big WIND because, 1) in Ontario, we don't actually need it, 2) the industry overhypes its benefits and mutes its risks, 3) it gets placed everywhere - even in completely inappropriate places (e.g. Ostrander Point, Collingwood, etc), 4) is just isn't as stable as any of the other Green energy techs 5) its 100% foreign designed and developed - no I.P. in Ontario, 6) the job claims are completely unrealistic and 7) we pay too much for its output.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@sickboi1982 I don't think we stop building IWTs because some of them are placed in areas that kill a lot of birds. I think we STOP building IWTs in places where there are a lot of birds. And the companies give in because their lawyers tell them to do so, its all based on costs and potential liabilities. So far, when someone gets BigWind into court, they ALWAYS settle - because the industry can't afford to have legal precedents on record that go against them.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@sickboi1982 My very significant complaint with BigWInd is that they believe that their product MUST be erected ANYWHERE they choose to do so. Whether its in the flighpath of an regional airport, in or near to a national park, close to a bunch of people, or right smack in the middle of conservation areas or important migratory paths of endangered species. BigWInd fights to overturn or minimize every control that has been put in place. They CHOOSE to build in areas of max impact.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
What total crap. Go live next to a mountain-top removal coal mine or pull up a chair next to Fukushima.
switchitgreennow 6 months ago
@switchitgreennow Actually, several mountain tops have been flattened in Ontario to install IWTs. The damage to the environment isn't on the same scale as a coal mine, a quarry, or a strip mine of course... but we're not making a choice on that particular habitat on whether we should build IWTs or Coal Mines or a quarry. We're incrementally damaging the environment with these particular machines and ALL environmental damage is significant. Do we NEED IWTs in Ontario?
NorthernWes 1 month ago
@switchitgreennow P.S. The Fukushima comparison is nonsense. We don't live on the "rim of fire". The Canadian Shield is one of the most geologically sound area on the ENTIRE planet. In fact, if you want to minimize risk from nuclear accidents, and you must build nuclear power plants, this is one of the very best places to build them on the whole planet.
NorthernWes 1 month ago
The uk is being invaded by these fckin ugly things and i for one did not know of the problems caused by them,although i'm a long way off you have my support.
mark1simon 6 months ago 2
@mark1simon ....hey just wanted to say thanks for the support.....Ontario is under attack by these turbines invading peoples health and invading there homes and killing wildlife...all the best to the UK from Canada
ryoukiddinme1 4 months ago
Great work. Right to the point.
nasumusa 6 months ago in playlist nasumusa - ilmastonmuutos 2
Music backgrounds to infovideos SUCK.
BrianFH1 7 months ago
Thank you Chris. You tell the story in 3 1/2 minutes. Been there, and it hurts.
Montanawana 7 months ago
Thank you.
inblik65 7 months ago
Amazing video Chris. Thankyou for doing this!
lorrie000 7 months ago