Canadians Protest Wind Turbines 533
NIK282000 writes "Ontario farmers rallied in downtown Toronto to protest the subsidization of wind turbines. Several of the protesters stated that they fear for the the health of their families and that they refuse to live near wind turbines. Others fear that the value of their property will be reduced significantly by the presence of turbines. With the cost of gas and oil on its way up it's a wonder that any one would be against the use of renewable energy sources."
There's always a downside (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, there is no such thing as "free" energy. There is always some price to be paid, some tradeoff. If someone out there is selling you on the perfect energy source that is the answer to all out problems with no downsides, they're selling you on something that just doesn't exist.
It's a question of what tradeoffs you think are better than others. Poll any five people on /. and I'll bet you'll get 7 different opinions as to which source(s) are most practical/safe/efficient/cost-effective. That's not to say this means they're all created equal, just an acknowledgement that none of them are anywhere close to perfect.
My own opinion is that solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are almost certainly the three cleanest and safest sources we have at present--but current practical considerations also stick them into the "can supplement, but not replace" category when compared to the dirtier and less safe sources (at least for now). I'm not so concerned with birds, fish spawning, and farmers' property values as I am the more industrial-scale waste issues that you get with coal, oil, and nuclear fission. I'm sure someone can also make the case for natural gas, thorium reactors, and fusion too--but we'll see on that. But there's always someone who's going to bitch, no matter what path(s) you take.
Re:There's always a downside (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's always a downside (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. It's similar to the "fan death" urban legend that's big in South Korea.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There's always a downside (Score:5, Informative)
This is actually a common misconception. That wind turbine did not "over-rev and blow itself to bits". It was a very specifically watched test to see exactly *how* a wind turbine would come apart in the event that the automatic brakes failed in a high-wind situation [in this case, if memory serves, the winds were in excess of 125 kph]. Turbines are fairly tightly controlled by software and human operators [almost always off-site], but the general consensus is that there's negligible danger in the event of a turbine destroying itself. You basically have to be standing underneath it during a hurricane, *and* have the redundant braking systems fail at the same time.
This is not to say that they're flawless and impeccably safe. But the relative danger is significantly lower than a coal plant failing, for example.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think (hope!) that this is just some right wing conservative whacko group pretending to be real people. Worried about their health?! I used to think all the crazies were down in the States, but lately it seems like Canada is making a real effort to out-crazy our neighbours to the South. :(
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Much louder than claimed (Score:3, Interesting)
From what I understand, many turbines are considerably louder than claimed, particularly at low frequencies. If nothing else, this could affect sleep md hence health.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I understand, many turbines are considerably louder than claimed, particularly at low frequencies. If nothing else, this could affect sleep md hence health.
I've stood right under a turbine. They don't make any noise apart from the wind blowing across the blades. Anything makes a noise when wind blows past it, even the ground.
Turbines turn with the wind. To make low frequency throbbing noises like the NIMBYs claim they'd have to have a motor inside them and actively push the air around.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe they're worried that the windmills will loosen the soil, and they'll all take off, eh?
Windfall, the movie. (Score:4, Informative)
Sigh. I hate to give credence to urban myths and junk science, but if you want to know of the fear of the unknown, here is a trailer for a movie that will explain it all.
http://windfallthemovie.com/index_1.html [windfallthemovie.com]
Re:Windfall, the movie. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not this shiat again (Score:3)
Your solution advocates a
(*) technical ( ) legislative (*) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to solving a looming energy problem. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state or country to country before a bad federal or international law was passed.)
( ) It will be fought by entrenched fishing interests
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(*) I
Re: (Score:3)
My brother-in-law lives within a couple of hundred of feet of one and he can’t tell that it’s there so I am guessing that it’s under 200. (and the individual Windmills are co-owned by the farmer(landholder) and the energy company, so there’s a little more information floating about.)
Well, what get’s me is when the people are taking about the “fact” that nobody knows the impact that these things will have on people. My initial reaction was that we still have not figu
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that dihydrogen monoxide is some nasty shit. Most abundant corrosive solvent in every house today. That shit's downright dangerous. They oughta ban it!!!!
Oh, wait, they already tried banning that... http://www.dhmo.org/environment.html [dhmo.org] and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about constant exposure to low frequencies as I understand it, which is not something that people are generally exposed to in their daily lives.
Is 50/60Hz not considered a low frequency anymore?
Re:There's always a downside (Score:5, Interesting)
there is actually tangible reasons and evidence that there could be some health risks associated with living near large turbines.
Oh? Like what?
It's about constant exposure to low frequencies as I understand it, which is not something that people are generally exposed to in their daily lives.
Yeah I'm pretty sure we're all exposed to low-frequency EM radiation constantly. How exactly are low-energy photons supposed to be more dangerous than high-energy? Are all the Wi-fi/cell-phone people crazy for going after that rather than radio towers?
Now, I don't know if there are actual health risks or not - all I'm saying is that I accept the possibility.
Sure, it's possible. It's possible that there's some heretofore unknown mechanism that allows this to damage you. I just find it hard to believe that these protesters have stumbled across this revelatory new science so as to make them so sure that it's real.
If there is a real effect of being near wind turbines, then I'd bet anything it's actually due to a chemical like an herbicide with a perfectly understandable mechanism for causing harm. I don't know if these are organic farmers, but if they're not, then I have a hard time believing their occupation is less hazardous in this regard than wind towers.
Re:There's always a downside (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, is that what this is about? Well that's even more retarded since low frequency sounds are ridiculously common and not something that should be mysterious to non-engineer/scientists.
Re:There's always a downside (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, to be fair the province did allow some turbines to either be built too close to houses or houses built to close to turbines, I'm not sure the exact order. Apparently that group (which is smaller than this group of scared people) has a legitimate gripe, because they can't sleep because of the constant low, but audible, noise. The lack of sleep is causing other health problems which they are then blaming on the turbines rather than the insomnia. At least, that's the way I understand it.
Re:There's always a downside (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes they do. Which is why I have tremendous sympathy for anyone who has a freeway or airport built near the residency..and very little sympathy for people who move into a house when the freeway or airport is already built.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound#Human_reactions_to_infrasound [wikipedia.org]
Note all the 'citation needed' in this section.
Re:There's always a downside (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, when I thought pseudo-science couldn't go any lower when it came to electricity generation, here comes a theory that wind turbines produce the same effect as "haunted places" and "ghost sightings" through low-frequency noises.
Too bad there isn't a moderation option for "pseudo-science".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There's always a downside (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/738734--wind-gets-clean-bill-of-health [thestar.com]
Re: (Score:3)
And elephants. Don't forget elephants.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Been there. After a week you don't hear it anymore, just like when you have a half-dozen computer fans on 24/7 in the same room as you through all four years of college.
People can get used to just about anything.
For something like two weeks in college our apartment had a malfunctioning CO detector that would go off randomly. It was really fucking annoying the first couple days but then we got used to it.
Re:There's always a downside (Score:5, Insightful)
He's a farmer. Not the highest intellect.
You're an idiot. Farmers are meteorologists, veterinarians, heavy equipment operators, heavy equipment mechanics, small engine mechanics, welders, plumbers, geologists, and a bunch of other stuff all rolled into one.
I can't even begin to list the things that farmers have to know that you don't have a clue about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>meteorologists, veterinarians, heavy equipment operators, heavy equipment mechanics, small engine mechanics, welders, plumbers, geologists
No (they let the weather predictions to the weather bureau, same as us). No (they hire vets). Yes (as if that's hard). Maybe (some fix their equipment but most hire mechanics). No, maybe, no (plowing the earth does not make you a geologist).
I worked on a farm. It doesn't take a high IQ. If it did, most of humanity would have starved during the last 10,00
Re:There's always a downside (Score:4, Insightful)
If he truly is a farmer, it's probably more like jealousy that they didn't pick his field to put it in. My parents are in talks right now to have upwards of 3 mills put on their land. At $12k per mill plus a percentage of energy generated... per year... you can make a nice chunk of income from being picked.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My own opinion is that solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are almost certainly the three cleanest and safest sources we have at present
Nuclear kills fewer people per kWh than any of those. People are just more afraid of invisible radiation than they are of falling off of rooftops.
Re:There's always a downside (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If falling deaths are so preventable, why are they so prevalent? People make mistakes, and there's nothing you can do to prevent that. So no, deaths by falls are not any more preventable than death by radiation.
Radiation is scary even if it is -safe-.
Only if you're stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just because nuclear hasn't YET failed in a spectacularly bad way doesn't mean it isn't possible. They actually considered evacuating Tokyo as one possible fallout of the Fukushima disaster. Tokyo. Where the hell do you evacuate 10 million people to?
It isn't *likely* to have such an event, but it is *possible*. No other power so
Re: (Score:3)
quoted from your source:
"An inter-agency analysis concluded that the accident did not raise radioactivity far enough above background levels to cause even one additional cancer death among the people in the area. The EPA found no contamination in water, soil, sediment or plant samples."
that's not particularly bad, let alone "spectacularly bad". Not one death? Not even a freaking heart attack?
Re:There's always a downside (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not that people are against wind energy, per se. It's that the Ontario government passed a law giving them final and absolute authority over where they were placed, effectively killing any municipal control over zoning, land use, etc.
It's basically a bunch of idiot urban politicians saying to a rural county "We're putting a wind farm in your county, right here on the map, complete with massive construction traffic and huge amounts of concrete for the bases of these things, and it doesn't matter to you, because there's hardly anybody living there to complain. After all, you've got, what, 1/100th the population density of Toronto?"
If the local county had zoned that area agricultural, or had plans for a shopping mall that had been years and hundreds of thousands in the making, and were ready to break ground tomorrow, then tough luck.
Another thing is, considering the amount of concrete involved, it effectively kills the land for any agricultural use, anyway. Even if the turbine and its base is removed, the leach from the concrete will have done serious damage the the ground's ability to grow crops. Since the provincial government is frequently putting them in prime agricultural areas, rather than in, place where the soil is too shallow over bedrock to be productive, it's a reasonable concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydro with proper zoning and planning is perfectly save even when it fails. Nuclear is only safe when it doesn't fail.
Re: (Score:3)
2. Uh, oil can too be used for electricity. Anything combustible is capable of producing electricity. Natural gas is a finite resource. It *will* go up in price just as oil is now. What that time frame is I won't pretend to know. The question is do you want to wait for those prices to inevitably go up, or do you want to start investing in renewable sources that won't *ever* go up
Anyone named Kennedy? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes and No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Several of the protesters stated that they fear for the the health of their families and that they refuse to live near wind turbines
This is the most retarded thing I've heard in the past hour.
(I've unfortunately heard a lot of stupid crap lately, so i can't claim all day or all week or whatever.)
Others fear that the value of their property will be reduced significantly by the presence of turbines.
This, however, is a legitimate concern for those who plan on selling their house.
The loss of value on the house might be compensated enough by the energy provided by the wind turbines though, though I'm unsure.
Re:Yes and No. (Score:4, Informative)
I live in Toronto, a few blocks from the windmill on the lakeshore. Since the windmill went in, my home's propey value has, approximately, doubled, along with the rest of the neighborhood.. The concern is pure BS, just like the shit about windmill health issues.
Contradiction (Score:4, Insightful)
If the price of oil has made wind power a cost-effective alternative, then why do they need to be subsidized?
(This is similar to a statement out of the administration a couple weeks back that forcing insurance companies to cover birth control should be a non-issue, since it would save insurance companies money. If insurance companies save money by offering birth control, then why do you need to force them to do it?)
Re:Contradiction (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Contradiction (Score:5, Informative)
Because oil is currently MASSIVELY subsidised. The tax breaks and benefits the oil industry get are huge, and if a tiny proportion of those subsidies were also available to so-called "Green" energy solutions then solar and wind power would be free, paid for entirely by the subsidy.
The problem comes in when we play fast and loose with semantics... to me, a subsidy is something that the gov't gives away, I guess. I don't classify a tax break (returning taxes paid into the gov't) the same way I do a subsidy. On top of that, are these not the same kinds of tax breaks received by all kinds of companies, not just oil companies? I'm not a huge fan of the oil companies and the seemingly large profits at our expense, but I AM a fan of arguing with facts...
A good friend of mine has very different political views, but sent me this link: http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/news/economy/oil_tax_breaks_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2 [cnn.com]
This article frames it in such a way as that the oil companies are not receiving "special treatment", per se. So how can you penalize them and say they're exempt from the tax breaks given to others? So my question is whether this CNN Money article is a piece of garbage that is also playing fast & loose with terminology, or not delivering the whole truth? I invite discussion.
Re:Contradiction (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Contradiction (Score:4, Insightful)
A significant amount of the US military effort is in direct support of keeping our oil supply flowing.
That's not chump change.
Then there are numerous tax breaks, early depreciation allowances and numerous accounting shenanigans that cover oil exploration and recovery. To be fair, that nonsense is pretty typical for several other major industries (medicine, automobiles, aircraft, military, agriculture) but one should always call a spade a spade....
Re: (Score:2)
If the price of oil has made wind power a cost-effective alternative, then why do they need to be subsidized?
It's not YET, but it's clear to 100% of everyone that the cost of fossil fuels will continue to increase over the long term, until it's done.
We're just-starting the process with subsidies while it's less painful, instead of later.
Re:Contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a quiz to tell if you're a libertarian or a normal person. Finish this sentence:
"An ounce of prevention is ___________________":
a) "worth a pound of cure."
b) "an unconscionable interference with the free market and an offense against human liberty."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Existing power generation technologies based on coal and oil have had a hundred years to mature and become established. Even if wind energy can be more cost effective than coal and oil eventually, it is not yet an established industry, so subsidies may help it become established and competitive more quickly than without them. Of course, government programs don't often like to go away when they're no longer needed.
I'll buy that property!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
FTA:
He says it's worth $, so if I offer him a hundred bucks, that's actually being really generous right?
Oh... what's that? He won't take it, because he thinks it's actually worth more?
Then it's not *REALLY* worth $0, is it?
the NIMBY crowd (Score:3, Insightful)
To the guy carrying the sign that says "my property value is now $0" I want to say: sell it to me for $1. Surely, if he truly believes the property is worthless, any money he can get from it is pure profit.
I really want to hear what are the supposed "health problems" attributed to wind turbines. Amazingly, the same people who protest wind turbines have no problem with coal plants spewing ash and sulfur dioxide on their land.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazingly, the same people who protest wind turbines have no problem with coal plants spewing ash and sulfur dioxide on their land.
No, they have no problem with coal plants spewing ash and sulfur dioxide on other people's land.
Re: (Score:3)
So do buildings. Orders of magnitude more often, in fact.
Re: (Score:3)
WTF? Where the hell did that come from?
Yes humans created the domestic cat as surely as we created the domestic dog; we didn't need genetic engineering to do it. We did not create their predator instinct, we created their willingness to co-habitate with humans and thus made them into a pet that we would bring with us around the world.
Which leads me to the main point that, yes, humans most certainly did introduce the domestic cat to North America.
The domestic cat was introduced to North America. Of all hu
NIMBY (Score:3, Informative)
Imagine your house is in the shadow of one of these things, the sun becomes a strobe light. This is the most legit criticism I've heard.
Other than it just being more pork spending, and not a real road to energy independence, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is Canada... there are 4 months of the year where the sun is never very high.
There's always someone paddling upstream... (Score:2)
I don't really get this one myself. I see it a lot in the Niagara region of Ontario; farmers absolutely opposed to wind turbines as well as solar farms. They state a number of baseless reasons as mentioned above like - my favourite being health concerns. Do they think they're radioactive or something? Or that they put out electromagnetic interference akin to a neutron star? Or that the Solar farms take up valuable farm land (currently sitting unused).
Any technology has its downsides - green energy is n
Protecting their revenue stream? (Score:3)
I don't mean to come of as purely cynical, but usually farmers who own large swaths of otherwise undeveloped land benefit pretty significantly if they sign a lease for oil & gas drilling rights.
Maybe they are trying to protect their revenue stream. Low energy prices do have a downside. If they drop enough, energy companies may choose not to exercise their drilling leases, which means no revenue for the landowners who own them. Sure, they may receive money from the wind turbines, but oil revenue's would probably be greater.
Oh well, I guess nuclear it is. (Score:2)
Just scrap wind turbine subsidies and instead propose to build more CANDU reactors in the backyards of the complainers.
They must support that, given than Ontario is mostly powered by nuclear and hydro already.
Forget Green In Your Lifetime (Score:2)
With fracking/natural gas and more offshore drilling, there is enough fossil fuel to last our lifetime and longer. This stuff is cheap compared to anything "green." As soon as any green tech takes hold, fossil fuel cartels (both US and abroad) will drop the price of their product and starve out the alternatives.
The only way green works is with a $5 per gallon fossil fuel tax that goes to alternative energy subsidies. But will anybody support that? Can you say "political third rail?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To me, however, it's not just cost, but the idea that it's cleaner. Basing the argument for/against green tech on just its cost defeats the purpose of why green tech's been in the works to begin with, amirite? You make good points, definitely, and no, the tech isn't 100% perfect; but it'd be nice to clear the air. Look at China, LA and the like. You can barely breathe.
You Probably Haven't Spent Much TIme Near One (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If these were built literally in your back yard, that might be a problem. I always felt building these things in the middle of large Highway intersections would make the most sense. They're way better looking then the highways themselves, and the sound doesn't matter much if you already have engine breaking semi-trailers and idiots beeping at one another.
Re:You Probably Haven't Spent Much TIme Near One (Score:4, Informative)
This is only second hand, but from what I've read the noise can carry quite a ways. And one of the problems is that if you *can* hear it, its as consistent as the wind is -- which, unfortunately, is likely to be pretty consistent or why else put up one of these turbines?
Re: (Score:3)
Please.
A mere 350 m away, the decibel rating on a wind turbine farm is generally going to only be about 35 db. For comparison, rural night time background noise is about 40db.
Public ignorance... (Score:3)
... is really a part of the problem. Certain elements of the public have shown themselves so braindead (as these farmers are no doubt). Yet these kinds of people don't think about the unseen long-term consequences of what is currently generating their power that is more harmful for the environment but is not easily perceived by the human mind due to the long term effects and the inability of the public to get behind anything that doesn't emotionally grab them.
In perspective (Score:3)
The story covers people who work regularly around diesel fumes, pesticides, and animal waste protesting the safety of wind turbines.
Just how noisy are they? or vibration-causing? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I went to visit an area with them last time I was in Ontario, and if you get even remotely close there's significant noise. Far enough away and you can't hear it, but you don't want one in your backyard.
Ontario farmers are against everything (Score:2)
Ironically, I'd love one in my back yard. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
We'd even have enough excess power to put power back onto the grid for a profit (Well, we would if SaskPower had that option)
They don't advertise it, but Saskpower does offer that through their Small Power Producers Program [saskpower.com].
Alternatively, net metering [saskpower.com] is available, but they just give you a credit on your account for any surplus fed into the grid and won't give it back to you in cash.
Disclaimer : I currently work for Saskpower.
Astroturf, ho! (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole thing is actually astroturf by a competing energy company in the region. They've been going around basically stirring up the farmers and whatnot with BS about the wind turbines, posting protest signs along the country roads, etc. All with their little energy company website url at the bottom.
Health... (Score:2)
Wait, what? I might get a complaint about wind turbines affecting the weather or something, but health issues for being near what are effectively... windmills? Really?
Okay. Sigh.
Put one in my yard! (Score:2, Informative)
I remember the first time I saw wind turbines. We were on vacation in Pennsylvania, and a small mountain ridge had row upon row of them. All I could say was, "WOW, those things are so fucking cool!" Am I the only one who thinks they look awesome? I'd love 'em out here in my area. There's a lot of unoccupied space on the mountain ridges we have, and any move toward getting away from the reliance on fossil fuels is fine by me. I know wind/solar power needs more development and consideration, but why not start
It's a clear case of NIMBY, but I agree with them (Score:3, Informative)
As city dwellers, we tend to think of wind mills as majestic, beautiful sculptures that provide green energy. I used to subscribe to that idea, until I saw what happened to the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario, where there are hundreds of wind mills all over a beautiful landscape.
They are a blight!!! As far as I'm concerned, I will never visit Sauble Beach again, because I can't stand driving through that area anymore. So I definitely sympathize with these farmers, their properties have already been devalued. Notice the Ontario government did not install ANY wind mills around Huntsville and other affluent regions. I wonder why?
The same thing happened in the US and Cape Cod (?) offshore wind mills. The Kennedys were the first to oppose them.
I am not going to debate the ecological merits of windmills vs gas vs coal vs nuclear. I am a supporter of nuclear energy, and as far as I'm concerned they can build one in MY back yard rather than a wind mill. Then again, I have family members that work in the plants, and I know that the likelihood or a nuclear accident that would result in any radiation leakage in Canada is zero. While less efficient, Candu reactors are pretty much bullet proof, whether earth quakes, tsunamis or well, bullets were to hit them.
Re: (Score:3)
I see hundreds and hundreds of windmills all over west Texas (there are more every time I go out), and I still think they're beautiful. They're an aesthetically pleasing symbol of our progress towards a cleaner, better society.
And then when I head to the Gulf coast I pass all the oil refineries. Fucking disgusting blight on the land.
I know which I'd rather see.
What if I just oppose subsidization? (Score:4, Insightful)
I noticed the headline said "Canadians protest wind turbines," and I thought, "That sounds really silly; I'll send it to my wife to see if she gets a laugh out of it." Then I opened up the story and saw the truth: "Canadians protest subsidization of wind turbines." There's a huge difference there, and I think it's often lost in public discourse.
I would be opposed to taking tax dollars to buy Bibles to distribute in public schools. I sure would be upset if I were misrepresented as opposing Bibles, or favoring censorship of the Bible, or some other such slant. Opposing subsidization is really, really radically different from opposing the thing being subsidized.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are protesting their location as well. It's been a hot topic in Ontario for the last few years are rural areas have fought against them being built in their back yard. Everything from noise issues (whirling of blades keeps people up at night) to destroying bird species (it's a massive bird strike zone) has been raised.
Protest? (Score:2)
NIMBYs (Score:2)
Perception is everything (Score:2)
I fully support wind, water and solar power. BUT as with any change, you need to manage that change. I grew up in rural Ontario, and now live in the city. There is a big perception that often the concerns of those that live in the rural Ontario (and probably all rural areas) are over looked or are somehow perceived as less important than those of their urban counterparts.
I think that the implementation of wind power in Ontario should have been better handled, more participatory both from a information an
Gas is still cheaper (Score:3, Insightful)
Notice we are talking about subsidies here. Wind turbines still are not turning a profit on their own. Otherwise they would not have to be subsidized. I would be fine if solar, wave or wind was close to "almost" breaking even, after factoring in some way to "store" the power for when the sun is not out or there is no wind. Then a subsidy would be to "jump start" the market.
But when the facts are that these things cost x millions to build, cost y thousands to maintain and generate z dollars worth of power, and it turns out that x + y z. Way less than Z, then someone has to absorb the cost of building power generation systems that do not turn a profit.
The person or company who builds the never to turn a profit wind turbine should eat this expense. Not the tax payers. As it stands , the turbines built 5 years ago did not turn a profit, the ones being built now are not turning a profit, the ones we will build 5 years from now will not turn a profit. What is the point of subsiding them? If it is evident that "jump starting the market" means after 10 years and they are still no where near profitable, that is the wrong market for the government to encourage.
Do you know why gas and oil are so hard to kill? Because they are cheap. Even with the rising prices, they can still be produced at a profit.
They have a point (Score:3, Informative)
"With the cost of gas and oil on its way up it's a wonder that any one would be against the use of renewable energy sources."
One of the problems I would have with it is that wind farms tend to fall into disrepair after they are built. Somehow the money to maintain them disappears. Imagine having this [blogspot.com] in your backyard.
Re:Reality check (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm glad I don't give a fuck what's on my horizon and aren't contributing to making the world worse place with entitled assholeism.
Well, at least not that kind of entitled assholeism ;)
Re: (Score:2)
When windfarms are everywhere and every size (small ones on your roof for personal wind harvesti
Re: (Score:3)
And if you are too close they can be noisy
That's a total myth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD0v9_zV2uk [youtube.com]
Wind turbines are not aircraft propellers.
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't like it" is being given the respect it dese
Re: (Score:2)
> Quite possibly because wind turbines are horribly ecologically destructive, economically costly devices which are actually an energy net-loss for the size necessary for industrial generation, while costing taxpayer money to subsidize someone else's false industry? That, and they're annoying (at best) to live near.
haha, not. Not even close. Environment impact of wind turbines is far far less than that of coal power plants. And claiming that somehow they are "energy net-loss" just makes you look stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooooooh.... they're "annoying" to live near.
This is compared to ... oh... being annoyed that we are basically destroying the entire planet because some people are too effing proud to get off of their high horse and actually realize that keeping an advanced civilization in the long term just might mean we have to make some compromises?
Of course you're right... your own personal comfort means sooooo much more than the environment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine living in the shadow of one of these, even if only a few hours a day. You're basically sitting under a strobe light.
Headaches, epileptic seizures, etc, etc.. The same environmentalists hating on the people who don't want these are probably the guys who cant work under flourescent light because it upsets their eyes.
They also have a distracting/hypnotic effect on drivers, and there are lots of long empty stretches of road out Mount Forest way (where they are, highest point in Ontario), so they beco
Re: (Score:3)
They're in a lot more places than just Mount Forest. It's basically the Ontario government saying "We're going to line rural Ontario with wind farms, wherever we think they should go, and it doesn't matter, because nobody lives in rural Ontario. And think how good we can feel about ourselves in Toronto for using green energy to run our electric shavers while we get ready for the 15km 2 hour commute to work in our SUVs!"
Re: (Score:2)
And the French were getting so uppity too, just seconds before they launched a far-right wingnut's serious run at office and then caught post-9/11 fever in the wake of a terrorist attack...tsk tsk...
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite possible that the subsidy system doesn't make sense. However, that in no way strengthens ludicrous claims about wind turbines causing health problems or rendering land worthless.