County News
Windy issue
Navigating the murky politics behind wind energy: not for the birds
Power is a necessary part of the life we know. From our homes and vehicles to our offices, construction sites and manufacturing plants, everything needs power. But everything also comes at a price.
Right now that price is too high. Oil and fossil fuels are harmful from extrication through to use and disposal.Well known, internationally recognized environmental activists have been warning us for years of the long-term damage we’re doing to our planet by using these forms of power.
Wind and solar power are presented as alternative sources of electricity generation. The sun and wind don’t require us to scar the earth with mines, split the ocean floor with rigs and risk disasters like last year’s oil spill in the gulf of Mexico.
Everything comes at a price.
Prince Edward County is a windy place, right in the centre of one of the world’s largest lakes. It has been identified as a prime place to harvest wind energy. Perfect. Right?
Not so much.As it turns out, human beings are not the only species to use wind energy. Birds thought about it long before we did. For millennia migratory birds have been using the wind of the great lakes.
In fact Ostrander point, along with much of the south shore of the County, has been labelled an IBA; an important bird area.
Last Tuesday Gilead Power put together an information session about a planned industrial wind park at Ostrander point.
The presentation at the South Marysburgh central school in Milford was visited by wind power opponents concerned about human health effects. Dozens of residents stood outside of the school, holding signs and chanting “no turbines on Ostrander!”
Still another voice was heard: what about the birds?
Beth Harrington is an old hand at following wind power. She is the media relations coordinator for Wind Concerns Ontario, a group that opposes industrial wind turbines.
“The government is going through the process of potentially approving a project that would do so much harm to the environment,” says Harrington. “It would completely neutralize the impact of any benefits whatsoever that industrial wind turbines may provide.”
Harrington isn’t alone in protesting the environmental effects.
In November 2010 Mara Kerry, director of conservation for Nature Canada and Anne Bell, senior director of conservation and education for Ontario Nature, co-penned a letter to Gilead Power.
“Our organizations are strong supporters of the Ontario Government’s effort to rapidly deploy wind energy,” wrote Kerry and Bell.“However, we strongly oppose the development of the Ostrander Point Wind Energy Park at this location, inside the globally significant Prince Edward County South Shore Important Bird Area.”
The letter goes on to cite at-risk species of birds that would suffer from the construction. It also discussed inadequacies in the methods used by the environmental research company to find out what birds fly though the area.
Paul Pede, president of Gilead Power, feels the company has made enough concessions to be able to proceed safely with the project.
“We’ve done four years of just specific avian studies,” says Pede. “Our studies suggest that any impact would be minimal. It’s expected that there can be bird impacts or mortalities from different birds.”
In response to the concerns from Nature Canada and Ontario Nature, Pede says that Gilead’s studies “certainly indicate that this project is still a very vibrant project that takes into consideration those types of issues.”
Wind power has been a hot topic internationally for over a decade, with powerhouse proponents like Al Gore and David Suzuki arguing that the damage caused by wind turbines is minor compared to the devastation of oil and coal power.
This newspaper contends that intermittent energy sources such as wind and solar electricity generation don’t work. To ensure the lights stay on, the electrical utilities use spinning reserves, typically gas-fired, to support intermittent sources when clouds roll in or the wind fades.
Opposition to wind power, especially in Ontario, has grown since Ontario’s Green Energy Act was legislated in 2009. It is the McGuinty Liberals’ attempt at becoming a leader in renewable energy. But activists argue that the Act lowers and eliminates public safeguards put in place specifically to protect the environment and safeguard human health.
To a newcomer, navigating the issue is exhausting. There is very little middle ground.
To those who support it, these turbines are taking us one step away from environmental Armageddon. To those who dispute it, these turbines are damaging our wildlife, our sleeping patterns and our landscapes.
To Gilead, these turbines are a good business decision.
What price are we willing to pay?
Yes, Renee, should they be allowed to build, they will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gilead has given all sorts of assurances that it will “discuss” items such as who pays for road damage etc… with the County. They have not, as far as I know, committed to RESOLVE any of the issues Council has raised, let alone pay for them. Nor have I heard or read that Council is actively pursuing this.
I repeat my concern that this Council is sitting idly by while events continue to unfold around us. If Council is actively engaged in any of these areas, it would be helpful to know what is being done and to what end.
We have somehow allowed the proponents of wind factories to usurp the term “environmentalist” away from those who are truly concerned about the environment in which which we and other species live. Let’s be clear. If these projects were being judged on their environmental merits they would fail miserably. They are loud, mechanical, oil bleeding, rusting skyscrapers which inevitably end up being built in rural settings for the supposed benefit of city dwellers. If they were being judged on their ability to reduce green house gasses, again they would fail. They do no such thing. All intermittent power has to be matched with something dirty. As counter intuitive as that sounds it is nevertheless a hard fact. Until we come up with an energy source that is both clean and constant, we gain absolutely nothing by investing in spinning good intentions. These projects are sponsored by promoters; hucksters banking on government subsidies to line their pockets. They peddle simple flavour of the month solutions to complex problems in the hopes that they can do so before the rubes wise up. They will leave the rest of us to clean up the mess.
“To Gilead, these turbines are a good business decision.”
Indeed, they are laughing all the way to the bank.
The main issue, as I see it, with these specific developments is whether or not turbines should be allowed in, or next door to, an environmentally sensitive International Birding Area. The consensus of many environmental groups is they should not. Disturbing evidence of more bird deaths than expected (by the turbine developers!) on Wolfe Island – another migratory bird route – is beginning to emerge. It makes no sense to destroy one part of the environment to improve another. Put the turbines in a non-sensitive area.
Our MPP seems to be “missing in action” on this issue. She simply refers letters to others rather than answering them, and I haven’t read a single quote from her either for or against the location of these turbines even though it is probably one of the single most important issue facing the constituents in her riding.
Our Council asked for a moratorium on turbines for health reasons. This has apparently been ignored. Is Council now going to sit on its collective hands? Why not go back and appeal, citing the critical environmental importance of this Important Birding Area? Promoted properly, Prince Edward Point could be a tourist mecca and a huge boon for the local economy. That won’t happen if it’s destroyed.
Mayor Mertens and Council – do not sit idly by. You need to work tirelessly on this matter. This is likely the most important issue this, or perhaps any, Council will ever face. Do not go down in history as the Council that allowed the destruction of this environmental gem.