By Doug Draper
As a supporter of renewable energy, I was pleased to look down from a bridge I was crossing to Cape Cod, Massachusetts this November and see two towering wind turbines, their blades turning proudly in the wind blowing off nearby Buzzards Bay.
One of the wind turbines on Cape Cod, Mass. Photo by Doug Draper
One of the first thoughts that came to mind at the sight of these wind turbines was this. If these turbines are spinning above the line of trees, and homes and businesses occupying a region that has become a haven for tourists and for people affluent enough to still be able to afford to live here, then what is all of the fuss over them possibly operating in rural regions of Niagara, Ontario or any other part of the province, for that matter?
To get closer to the point, if wind turbines cause the health problems and the depreciation of property values some people say they do, it is hard to believe that these two turbines would ever be erected in this picturesque New England town on Cape Cod called Falmouth, let alone turned on.
Then, a few days after we arrived on the Cape for an annual Thanksgiving gathering with our American friends, there was a front-page story in the Cape Cod Times about these turbines with a headline that read; ‘Closed for the Holiday’, and a sub-heading that read; ‘In a good will offering to abutters, Falmouth selectmen vote to turn off two wind turbines on Thanksgiving and Christmas’.
A “good will offering?” What that means, both supporters and opponents of wind energy might be interested to know, is that the town leaders of Falmouth decided it would be nice to give people living close to these turbines and complaining about headaches, nausea and other health problems they are convinced are caused from the noise from them, a break for the holidays by turning the turbines off.
“The action will ‘give a little relive on the holidays,’ as well as compensate neighbors for moments … when the turbines operated outside the agreed-upon time parameters,” the newspaper quoted the chairman of the Falmouth municipal board saying.
The obvious question that comes to mind is this. If these facilities pose no real problems to people who live near them, why turn them off in the first place? Especially, when the story goes on to note that Falmouth has a vested interest in them as a source of energy that relieves the town from having to purchase energy off the conventional grid.
One Falmouth resident said the town’s good will gesture is an acknowledgement that the turbines are “a real problem.” The town chairman countered that “it couldn’t be further from the truth. … There was no acknowledgement of any effects whatsoever,” he said.
All the more reason why in Ontario, where in Niagara alone, rural residents face the possibility of living near dozens of these turbines, study continues on the possible impacts of these facilities on surrounding communities, and just as importantly, any provincial government that follows McGuinty agrees to give local municipalities and their residents more say in where these turbines go.
(Niagara At Large invites you to share your views on this post. Please note that we only posts comments from individuals who also share their first and last name.)
Niagara At Large 
Doug, this is the first article I’ve read that convinced me that there may be a problem with the turbines, so as a reader I’ll probably be a bit more open minded to the anti wind power movement in Niagara.
I looked up the newspaper and it seems like Falmouth and area is currently fighting a war comparable to the condominium tower in Port Dalhousie with one article claiming a group of locals had raised 12 million dollars to fight their installation. Just made me wonder what type of politics might be involved with the Thanksgiving shut down.
LikeLike
In Western New York we encountered similar incongruity whereby an organized group opposed Wind Turbines for very little substantial reasons. In fact the reasons they used were pretty uniform but had little scientific basis.
I came to a realization that the opposition was more political and in one case even economic. One group was ultra conservative and they were just determined that renewable energy was a needless Liberal development.
Another aligned group feared wind turbines could have a negative impact on real estate values of waterfront property they owned.
I use some information I gained from “The Merchants of Doubt,” when I confront most opposition. But even then once doubt is successfully sowed it is not easy to turn heads.
LikeLike
While driving from Orange County California to San Diego We came accross hundreds maybe even thousand of these Turbines silently working, generating energy and there was no sound to speak of which made me think of Wainfleet and the most adverse person whose comments somehow seems to get volumes of ink on our local paper(Rag), But then of course this person would be opposed to anything that did not fit into his narrow mind set……
LikeLike
Doug you will have more opposition to wind turbines now that urban Ontario are waking up to the cost of the Gas CO-GENS associated with this renewable source of power. People in the city think ,as you do that when these blades are turning that it is totally clean power . But in order to have that dream you have to have greenhouse creating gas burning back up . As of last count 17 of them . How can that be classified as Renewable? Not to mention that to mine and smelt 350 to 400 tons of steel that goes into building 1 Tower Hardly clean! So we are now producing 20 % of our electrical needs from these peaking plants (part time use ) that donot burn as clean as a gas plant that is designed to burn 7/24 ! Instead of building these inefficient peaking plants the power from wind should be used to create clean burning hydrogen gas . Thus they could have been built in willing host jurisdictions with the unnecessary costs of trying to incorporate them into the existing grid.
LikeLike
I spent 30 years working in the heating department of one of the most efficient and productive Steel Mills in the World and have participated in making the operation as clean as possible. The stacks had monitor cameras and if a breath of smoke is observed the fact is noted and there was/is instant response. Gas, Natural and Coke oven was and is the preferred fued back up by Oil…and the residue is captured, and hauled away to storage areas.
where it is neutralized. People purchase cars, stoves, fridges and everywhere one looks there is steel…So the cost of these towers is relative to the fact that Steel is here to stay and without Steel much of our luxury items would not exist. We breath in Oxygen and breath out a carbon mixture so in esxsence the world population expansion makes for pollution…Solar energy generation has a place in the green plan as so al;so does Turbines (Placed stragetically away from densely populated areas. So I would suggest that reality be front and center and NOT the wishes of the huge Oligopolies (Oil Companies) who literaly feel they own the energy distribution. Ecuador in South America has a $37 Billion dollar lawsuit pending against Chevron for pollution of the Amazon rain forest area by Texaco a company they bought out a few years ago there ios a molvie callerd “CRUDE” that depicts the facts of this case. So POLLUTION is HAPPENING but we MUST work to CONTRO and elimated it wherever possible .
LikeLike
There’s no legitimate scientific evidence that points to any negative health effects associated with wind turbines. Medical Associations give it a free bill of health. There’s plenty of dangers around the corner for ignoring the reality of man-made global warming though. Hurricane Sandy was just a warm up.
LikeLike
As a resident of Niagara I consider myself a willing host for a wind farm. I am a climate advocate, active volunteer in my community, supporter of local business and a technology enthusiast. I am happy to have a discussion about the pros and cons of wind energy, and energy in general. The implication that Niagara is not a willing host for wind is a bit of a misnomer, though as Mr. Somers pointed out, with the way CKTB and the Osprey Suite CC the opinions of the uninformed minority, public opinion may yet be swayed by the press.
The basic fact that confronts those of us in the modern world is that we are always using power. Non-stop. When one of the WLWAG people took me to their leader at the NRWC infosession, a point he made, that I agree with, is that conservation is an important part of the energy puzzle. Until we address our constant need for power, we will need nat gas, nuclear, petroleum based feul for our cars, etc. I just hope that there is interest in the general public in having a dialogue about energy, and that there is consideration that advancing renewables.
Our understanding of clean energy, such as wind power, through centralized forecasting of variable generation and how it relates to the way the IESO works to meet the ebbs and flows of our demand cycles, amongst other issues, can help to make Ontario an industry leader again. When the province first invested in hydro and nuclear at different points in Ontario history it made a difference that changed the face of history. There may have been flaws in the exact way that our current energy plan was put together, but it is an ongoing effort to try to do something great. I am sorry Mr. Jantz that you have been swayed by what is at best incomplete information, and I am sorry Mr, Holborne that you and I seem to only be able to have this discourse on Mr. Draper’s blog, but mostly I am sorry that opposition to change is skewing the path of the future in such a way that will never allow us to try to change the way we look at how we provide for our province’s energy needs into the future…
LikeLike
Karl I have enjoyed reading you posts because your thoughts on what we need in Ontario seem to be based on a reality of what is possable in our energy mix and how it should move forward . I for one would love it if we could power our lives and our economy with wind and solar . what a dream come true that it would be . But I gather that you realize as I do that the best we can achieve TODAY is only part of that dream considering the type of system we have . Adapting the best and most suitable Renewables to the cleanest overall base lode that we have which is Hydro and Nuclear . We waste so much of our base lode at night when we have to give it away for free or pay people to take it . Wind and solar as of now only add to that problem and as I have said the cost to incorporate them into the existing system is enormous ( 17 CO-GENS ) . But I would like to suggest again that if we built Hydrogen producing plants to create this gas as opposed to selling the excess power at a loss . This gas could be stored and then used to generate clean electricity on days of high heat and pollution .
LikeLike
Although everyone talks about using Wind & Solar to avoid Greenhouse gasses, if Ontario is lucky, the real avoidance will be to Not refurbish &/or replace our soon-to-retire Nuclear plants. Over 50% of the power in our homes comes from Pickering, Bruce & Darlington. If the Japanese, Germans and French are re-considering Nuclear, Ontario should do so too, but all 3 political parties favour Nuclear baseload.
There are several reasons why Not to do this, but think “Stranded Debt” on your hydro bill – the huge cost overrun to build Darlington. No Nuclear plant has ever come in on-budget.
Ontario bet on the wrong horse (Nuclear) in the 1960’s and we’re about to start paying for our failure to treat the waste on site. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance suggested that Nuclear could cost $.19 to $.27 /kWhr (with delivery charges on top of that) if they government removed all the hidden subsidies. (We currently pay $~.10 /kWhr + delivery + Stranded Debt + HST = $~.18/kWhr.)
We all want cheap power to squander, but wait til it comes time to pay for cleanup.
If you think Wainfleeters are NIMBY now, wait til the OPG wants to move the radioactive spent fuel rods & concrete & steel from Pickering up the Welland Canal to Goderich, where they plan to store it 4000′ under Lake Huron in a dead salt mine for 10,000 years…. And if we could block them from shipping it up the canal, do you think Toronto and the GTA would let the OPG move it through there by rail or truck? If we’re NIMBY about Wind, we’ll be NIMBY-er about Nuclear, but it’s already in our back yard, just waiting for ‘disposal’.
The cost of Wind & Solar will soon be quite competitive with Nuclear, Gas & Coal. A ‘North American Windpower’ report 2012-11-20 says that Wind can already compete with grid rates in Kansas.
BTW, there are reports that when CO2 is sequestered in old natural gas formations, unexpected streams of natural gas are produced. Some say that there are underground microbes that ‘eat’ the CO2 to form CH4 (methane). This would mean that natural gas might also be … a Renewable source of energy.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Renew Niagara's Energy and commented:
This is the conversation that is only being held amongst a select group of people, this is our Niagara, please have say.
LikeLike
As I have always maintained, to install or not to install is not a question of health (although it should be considered). It is a question of land ownership rights and the rights of municipalities to engineer the design of their own environments without having projects like this shoved down their collective throats. The people have voted, they don’t want it! To the Province – find another location. Simple!
LikeLike
I wasn’t at the vote, which is unusual because I read every pro or con article in the paper, study renewable energy as a profession, and try to have say on every pertinent issue in the community that I plan on calling home for the rest of my life…
LikeLike
Here’s a report by a qualified source. If I want to know health effects on humans, I consult a qualified medical authority. By the same token, if I want my car fixed, I go to a mechanic. There are plenty of opinions on the internet, but we need to look only at the qualified ones. The same applies to global warming.
Click to access Ontario%20Health%20Stides_4combined.pdf
LikeLike
http://news.ontario.ca/mohltc/en/2010/05/new-report-from-ontarios-chief-medical-officer-of-health-says-there-is-no-direct-causal-link-between.html
LikeLike
I am positive that Mark Taliano could find a “qualified source” that supports the elimination of hiking within 100 meters of a trillium.
LikeLike
As an update to the situation in Falmouth:
The Falmouth Board of Selectmen voted Jan. 30 to support removing the town’s industrial-sized turbines, in hopes to unify a divided community. Wind 1 and Wind 2, the turbines at the Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Facility, have divided Falmouth residents and public officials since they were first erected about two and one-half years ago.
Read more: Falmouth Selectmen support removing wind turbines – – Falmouth Bulletin http://www.wickedlocal.com/falmouth/news/x206919835/BREAKING-NEWS-Selectmen-support-removing-wind-turbines#ixzz2JZ6S973F
LikeLike