In the Harrow News of Jan 13, 2009, AIM Powergen included an advertisement with regards to letting our community benefit from the Power of Wind.
If we take the time to research the claims of increased tax revenues, creation of jobs and less coal being used, we will find that AIM is in fact misleading us with partial statement of truth.
For example, doubling of farmers’ and landowners’ cash flow leads one at first reading to imagine that growers will be doubling their income. So many of the wind developers like to emphasize how, as growers, we could never make as much money off each acre of land as wind will allow us to do.
I see instead this kind of remark as a poor reflection on the agricultural industry, where growers, because of poor gov’t policy, are forced more and more to subsidize with off-farm income. The wind developers know this all too well and in turn prey on the concerns of many growers looking to supplement their limited farm incomes.
As for the taxes, the developers forget to relay to us that these are capped by the provincial government at $40,000/MW. In other words AIM’s turbines valued at $2 to $3million each, will only be taxed at a value of a light industrial enterprise worth $66,000. On top of that, AIM, because of their misrepresentation of the project, will receive provincial funding @ 11 ¢/Kwh, with an additional 1 ¢/Kwh supplied by the Feds. This represents 2× the rate we are presently paying for electricity for the next 20 years.
As for the creation of jobs, there will be approximately 60 low-paying jobs offered to the area in construction of roadways, security and trucking of inputs such as gravel and concrete. The highly skilled jobs in maintenance will represent approx. 4 to 6 people outside of our community. The construction of the turbines are alloted to an outside firm not interested in taking care of prime agricultural land.
As for “every time the wind blows, less coal is burned” this statement is a huge leap from the truth. In theory, one displaced unit of coal generation would mean less coal burned, however in practise, fossil-fuel generation has to stay in spinning reserve in order to respond to the intermittent nature of wind. Alberta, because of so much windpower generation, had to construct a new natural gas generator to fall back on. “The problem with wind power is that the wind doesn’t blow all the time, so the greater percentage of the system depends on wind, the more vulnerable to disruption the system becomes when the wind stops blowing,” said Peter Hunt, an Enmax spokesman. Wind developers try to discount this by saying that in Ontario, we should be using Hydro power for backup. Aside from the fact that Hydro forms a part of the base load, (i.e. Needs to run all the time to support infrastructures such as hospitals) the whole idea behind wind was to replace coal, which is not happening. Germany, the country with the largest influx of wind generation, are now proposing 26 new coal generation plants despite having 10% of their electrical grid dedicated to wind.
In their advertisements, AIM forgets to included that in December 2008, the British Wind Energy was forced by the Advertising Standards Authority to reduce by half its claims of how much carbon emissions might be reduced by wind energy. This and other claims by the wind energy industry need to be examined by independent experts, so that energy policy is based on facts rather than sales material.
AIM also forgets to let us know of the forthcoming peer-reviewed epidemiological study by Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, New York, who describes the effect on people as “wind turbine syndrome”, a common and consistent set of symptoms that include tinnitus, nausea, and depression. When people suffering from this syndrome leave the area, the symptoms subside. Several families have had to abandon their homes to regain their health.
A more recent point not advertised by the wind industry happened in the New York Supreme Court, who annulled a town law regulating large wind turbines because the town board did not take a “hard look” at relevant areas of environmental concern, and it disregarded study committee recommendations for setbacks and noise standards to protect the health and well-being of residents.
Everyone involved in promoting and supporting the spread of industrial wind needs to take a “hard look” at the facts. As Eric Rosenbloom, president of National Wind Watch, said, “If we have learned anything from the last eight years, from the collapse of Enron who helped create the modern wind industry to the demise of Lehman Brothers who invested heavily in wind to avoid paying taxes, we can not trust the players themselves to look out for our or the environment’s interests. We need policies based on facts, not promotional materials or wishful thinking.”
Colette McLean
Harrow
Filed under: Truth about wind, environmental fraud, greenwashing
