Public back wind farm subsidies, survey suggests

By Richard Black

Environment correspondent, BBC News

April 23, 2012

More Britons than not regard subsidies for wind power development as a good deal, an opinion poll suggests.

Commissioned by trade body RenewableUK, the Ipsos-Mori poll found that 43% see the UK subsidy as good value for money against 18% who do not.

Another survey has also found a big majority in favour of renewable energy.

The poll comes ahead of the Clean Energy Ministerial which will bring ministers from more than 20 nations to London to discuss low-carbon energy.

Among various initiatives there, the UK and US are announcing a joint push to develop floating wind turbines.

On Thursday, Prime Minister David Cameron will make what is being trailed as his first "green" speech since taking office on a pledge to lead the "greenest government ever".

A recent opinion poll found that only 2% of the public believed the government was living up to that billing.

Recent months have seen an escalation in the battle of words in and outside Westminster over wind power.

In February, 100 MPs wrote to Mr Cameron asking that wind subsidies be slashed.

Newspapers including the Daily Mail have run many articles criticising the technology, US property magnate Donald Trump is campaigning against it in Scotland, and last week saw the launch of a new anti-wind campaign group, National Opposition to Windfarms.

But the public appears to be supportive of wind and other renewables.

Earlier this month, Ipsos-Mori asked a representative sample of just over 1,000 adults to what extent they favoured wind power.

Sixty-six per cent were either "strongly in favour of" or "tended to favour" the technology, against just 8% who were opposed.

Two-thirds also found turbines' impact on the landscape acceptable.

'2p per day'

Clean energy development is subsidised through the Renewables Obligation, which obliges electricity companies to buy a certain amount of their electricity from renewable sources.

The additional cost is passed onto the consumer.

According to the regulator Ofgem, the cost of this in 2010-11 amounted to £15.15 per household per year. Just over half - £7.74 - was accounted for by wind power.

Ipsos-Mori asked people "to what extent do you consider this good or poor value for UK energy consumers?"

RenewableUK has just released the responses to this question - 43% thought it was either "very good" or "fairly good" value, against 18% who found it "fairly poor" or "very poor".

Asked why they approved of wind power, a majority of respondents said it helps curb greenhouse gas emissions, helps tackle climate change, and contributes to the UK's energy security.

"The misleading refrain that wind energy is an expensive burden on the public was disproved by recent figures from Ofgem," said Maria McCaffery, Renewable UK's chief executive.

"In fact it adds just 2p per day per household to energy bills through the government's Renewables Obligation. Wind energy is a fantastic investment that brings broad benefits and the public knows it."

Scottish power

However, the price of building offshore wind farms is rising.

Companies are constructing ever bigger turbines, which should prove more economic in the long run despite their higher initial costs; and are moving into locations where construction is more difficult, for example in deeper water.

Ofgem calculations indicate that the £7.44 annual figure is likely to rise to £12.75 for 2012-13.

Further endorsement for renewables came in another poll, this time by YouGov, commissioned by Friends of the Earth.

The survey asked a representative sample of 2,884 UK adults which sources of energy they would most like to see providing more electricity in 10 years' time.

Sixty-four per cent backed renewables - wind, wave, tidal and solar - while just two per cent wanted a gas-led supply.

Support was higher in Scotland, where 88% wanted a future based on renewables.

The Scottish government plans to generate all of its electricity from renewables by 2020; and with further capacity due to be added after that date, it is set to become a net exporter of electricity to England.

Recent moves by the UK government, however, suggest an expansion of gas-fuelled generation, with generating companies assured that new and existing gas plants will not face limits on CO2 emissions until 2045.

Details of Mr Cameron's speech are being kept under wraps, though Energy and Climate Change Minister Greg Barker has described it as "a major policy intervention".

The government has revealed that the UK and US will sign a memorandum of understanding on the joint development of floating wind turbines.

A number of prototypes have been built and tested, with Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden among the countries involved.

In principle floating machines can access the higher wind speeds found further offshore, but many engineering issues remain to be resolved.

The coming week will also see the launch of several reports on clean energy in the UK and globally.

Here's a great post from neil blanchard.

You know what I hate about wind turbines?

The smokestacks.
The smoke.
The smog.
The mercury pollution.
The cooling towers. 
The explosions.
The spills.
The limited fuel supply.
The other countries that control the wind.
The military cost to defend the wind.
The radiation.
The death of miners.
The fly ash.
The tailing ponds. 
The methane gas releases.
The huge carbon footprint.
The increasing cost over time.
The inefficiency.
The pipelines.
The contaminated water.
The damage to our lungs and overall health done by wind turbines is horrendous.
The acid rain is nasty.
The mountaintop removal. 
The waste.

I also hate the fact that they look like graceful wind sculptures, that let us see the wind.  I hate the fact that they are much quieter than a highway.

+++

Not really...

PUT THEM IN MY BACK YARD -- PLEASE!

New poll shows that Ontario likes wind

Ontarians say wind energy is one of the safest forms of electricity generation, new poll finds

Ottawa, March 6, 2012 – A high 78 per cent of Ontarians say wind energy is one of the safest forms of electricity generation according to a recent Oracle Research poll commissioned by the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). The poll was conducted between February 22-29 and has a margin for error of +/- 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

"This poll indicates that the majority of Ontarians clearly believe wind energy is a safe form of electricity generation despite a minority voice that suggests otherwise. We will continue to ensure wind energy is developed in a safe and responsible manner for the benefit of all Ontarians," said Robert Hornung, president of CanWEA.

Ontario is the current provincial leader with close to 2,000 MW of installed wind energy capacity – enough to power over 600,000 homes in Ontario. In fact, 2011 was a record year for wind energy development in Ontario with the installation of 522 MW across the province.

"It is time to embrace renewable energy in all of its forms, including solar and wind powered energy. Ontarians with asthma and other chronic lung disease are already benefiting from the closure of coal plants and looking forward to the decommissioning of the last one as soon as possible," said Dr. Robert Oliphant, President and CEO, Asthma Society of Canada, in a statement. "If for no other reason, we should support renewable energy generation because it does not harm the air we breathe. In all forms, renewable energy is a safe and healthy alternative to fossil fuels."

Wind energy projects bring direct investment, new high-value jobs, and economic growth to rural areas as well as a new source of taxes for municipalities.

"New jobs and investment from wind energy mean a brighter future for our local economy. Farmers, landowners and municipalities have the opportunity to participate in Ontario's world-leading green energy economy. By using a small amount of land, we provide the clean energy that Ontarians want and realize very localized benefits at the same time. I'm proud that Chatham-Kent is on the cutting-edge of seeking new economic opportunities," said Chatham-Kent Mayor Randy Hope.

LOCAL JOBS AND INVESTMENTS

According to a report by ClearSky Advisors, Ontario is expected to install more than 5,600 MW of new, clean wind energy capacity by 2018, creating 80,000 person-years of employment, attracting $16.4 billion of private investments (with more than half of that invested in the province), and contributing more than $1.1 billion of revenue to municipalities and landowners in the form of taxes and lease payments over the 20-year lifespan of the projects.

"Wind energy has created thousands of jobs for our IBEW members and affiliate organizations in Ontario and is providing green electricity for the families of the many communities we live in. These highly skilled jobs help build our local economies and provide new work opportunities for our future generation," said Phil Flemming, International Vice-President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).

Ontario's stable policy for wind energy has attracted millions of dollars in new investments and jobs in manufacturing in areas of the province hit hard by economic challenges.

"We have established an office in Toronto and look forward to continuing to provide jobs and investments as we help build wind and other renewable energy projects throughout Canada. Ontario, specifically, is a growing market and with a stable, long-term policy, the wind industry will continue to provide significant economic benefits to communities throughout Ontario and beyond," said Mark Donahue, Vice-President and General Manager of Mortenson Construction.

The poll can be found online at: http://www.canwea.ca/wind-energy/talkingaboutwind_e.php.

Steckle supports green energy

This Letter to the Editor of the Goderich Signal Star is from Mr. Paul Steckle, MP for Huron-Bruce from 1993 to 2008.

We need better, cleaner ways of producing power

Goderich Signal Star

February 15, 2012

Paul Steckle  Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor:

All communities will, from time-to-time stumble into an issue that causes division and I think it is fair to say that an issue currently dividing our community is the question of the size and appropriateness of building a sewage treatment plant. Questions of cost and the rate of anticipated growth in our community seem to cause much hand wringing and frustration for everyone. These are difficult questions and, as a result, people on all sides of the issue tend to speak with passion and apparent authority. I agree that expenditures of this magnitude require the utmost of scrutiny but I would also suggest that issues impacting on future ratepayers likewise require strict attention. Accordingly, it is not the treatment plant that has caused me to put pen to paper.

Today I would hope to weigh in on the subject of renewable energy, particularly wind power. For the sake of clarity, I make no claims to be the definitive authority on the subject but, I do believe that we must collectively look at our indiscriminate use of energy. If we continue in this pattern we must find better and cleaner ways of producing the power that we need to run our homes, cars and places of business. Sequestering of carbon is essential over the long term but, in the meantime, the current debate does nothing to bring us closer to understanding the issues at hand. Concerns, real or imagined, become real unless rebutted by reliable sources. I may or may not be that reliable source but, I wanted to take a moment to address a few concerns.

A) Wind turbines kill birds. I have heard this claim thousands of times but, the National Audubon Society tells us that wind turbines are, in all likelihood, responsible for the death of approximately two birds per year. More birds die on my kitchen window than that. When I was in Ottawa, I watched almost daily as birds met their end on the walls and windows of high-rise buildings. Are we to truly believe that windmills are that much of a threat?

B) Strobe light/flicker effect from turbine blades is bothersome. How do people in urban centres live with all the changing variations of light? From street lights and headlights, to neon and flashing signs, light is everywhere. Most reasonable people know that a wind turbine is no more offensive than any other source of light that we already see each day.

C) Turbines are noisy and offensive to the eye. In a word… rubbish. The setback requirement for current turbine construction is 550 metres based on a maximum allowable sound limit of 40 decibels (dB). I have personally visited a number of turbine sites and would concur that nothing close to 40 dB was audible at 550 metres. Aesthetics are a personal matter. I saw this in 1985 with the construction of a new power line from the Bruce Nuclear through Huron County. The plan had many people upset and, as the Warden of the County that year, I listened to every conceivable argument as to why we shouldn’t allow the lines through our backyard. Think for a moment, try and recall the last time someone spoke negatively about power lines in our community. The power lines haven’t changed, only time. Windmills are no different.

D) Turbines diminish land values. In response I would ask, based on what? Probably the best source of data on this would be the real estate people. In the Kincardine and Chatham-Kent areas (areas with a longer history of turbines), realtors will tell you that land values have actually gone up… including the land surrounding towers.

E) Negative health concerns. In October of 2009, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health issued a memo stating that, while some people may find the noise from turbines annoying, a comprehensive review of the relevant medical science found no evidence of noise induced human or health effects caused by wind turbines.

These are but a few of the arguments I hear regularly but, despite these contrary opinions, wind energy is strongly supported by all respectable polls. In July of 2010, IPSOS found that 80% - 90% of the population in Ontario felt that way. Of the remaining 10%, less than 5% strongly objected to wind turbines.

Empirical or casual knowledge is never the best premise from which to judge any issue, particularly one as complex as renewable energy. Wind power is here to stay and, like the power lines of 1985 which have been all but forgotten, we have choices to make. Let us see wind turbines as a positive step towards a greener future for our children. After all, the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago but the next best time is right now.

A green energy supporter,

Paul Steckle

(Member of Parliament, Huron-Bruce, 1993-2008)

A Bluewater Taxpayer

Council's stance on wind project doesn't represent everybody

County Live.ca

January 26, 2012

by Nicole Kleinsteuber

This blog entry concerns Prince Edward County and the County Sustainability Group.  For original article click here.


Local wind supporters addressed council Tuesday night requesting they defeat a motion to submit a series of concerns to the Ministry of Environment and Gilead Power.

“We do not find it to be relevant to the original motion, reflective of sound science or representative of the greater good,” said John Thompson, past president of PEC Federation of Agriculture.

The motion states the municipality believes Ostrander Point is an inappropriate site for the proposed wind farm and should not be approved for a list of reasons. Concerns ranged from unresolved adequacy of the proposed setbacks of turbines from residents homes to infrastructure having negative impact on birds, wildlife and the environment.

Rob Williams, a member of the County Sustainability Group agreed with Thompson when he addressed council. The local group wants the community to adopt green initiatives, including windmills.

“Informing the ministry of the municipality’s belief is one thing,” said Williams. “Requesting that the belief that Ostrander Point is an unsuitable site must be addressed to the satisfaction of the County of Prince Edward is quite another. It blocks any opportunity for the ministry to grant approval.”

Williams said most of the reasons in the motion have not been critically evaluated by council or staff and are rife with subjective complaints.

“Exaggerated localized threats to humans and wildlife are given prominence yet the far greater threats from climate change, against which clean sources of renewable energy like wind are our primary defence, are completely ignored,” said Williams.

Williams said the concerns are a thinly disguised attempt to circumvent the approval process and impose a municipal veto on any approval decision by the ministry.

“It is a direct challenge to the ministry’s authority,” said Williams. “It will severely compromise the credibility of council as a reasonable partner and hence diminish council’s stature and influence in future ministry decisions.”

“I’m quite intrigued by the information that we received saying that this is a disguised attempt to circumvent the approval process and impose a municipal veto,” said councillor Robert Quaiff. “Absolutely, that was the complete intent. It was for this municipal council to take a line and draw it in the sand and all declare once and for all whether or not we support the industrial wind turbine location at Ostrander Point.”

Councillor Jamie Forrester wanted to know how councillor Quaiff came to the conclusion that the entire municipality is against the Ostrander Point location.

“I’m not quite sure how we can make that assumption one way or another,” said Forrester. “There hasn’t been any surveys with results backing up the statement.”

Councillor Bev Campbell agreed that the introductory paragraph should be rephrased.

“That paragraph doesn’t belong with matters to be addressed,” said Campbell. “We want Gilead and the province to provide us with mitigation measures to the items we’ve listed.”

Campbell said she wasn’t in favour of deleting the environmental concerns pertaining to the Important Bird Area, wildlife and endangered species. Campbell said the portion pertaining to negative human health impacts, reduced quality of life and noise emissions should be omitted from the list.

Councillor Brian Marisett said the sections about health studies should be left out.

“I don’t think it’s possible for a study to come out with conclusive proof that’s going to satisfy all of the residents regardless of what position they’re taking,” said Marisett. “I’ve heard this debate since 2002. Experts from this side and experts from that side on and on. Everyone is claiming that they’re the authority on the issue and I don’t think we’re ever going to get there.”

But councillor Terry Shortt disagreed, stating these are concerns from a portion of the community.

“They should be included,” said Shortt. “We have a divided community. Part of that community is in support of wind energy and part of the community is not.”

Council decided to amend the original motion to read the province and Gilead to provide mitigation measures for the following concerns.

“It’s some improvement,” said Thompson in an interview. “They’ve taken out the most offensive part. You can’t say the county doesn’t think that it’s an inappropriate site. It’s not possible to say it in all honesty. That information isn’t available.”

Thompson also requested council to bring in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s decision to suspend new feed in tariff contracts for wind until their issues are resolved into the debate. Thompson said there are inconsistencies in last week’s press release that said the OFA wants to suspend all wind developments across the province.

The concerns the OFA wants addressed surround the price to be paid for wind power, the inefficiency of wind energy, setbacks and induced currents, health and nuisance issues and the removal of municipal input for projects.

OFA President Mark Wales agreed the call for a suspension should be clarified.

“A lot of people understand what we’re saying and for those who don’t we need to clarify that point,” said Wales in an interview. “The OFA isn’t against wind energy. It’s time to put a pause on the process, don’t issue any new projects until concerns are dealt with. The projects that are in the works are going to go ahead.”

Wales said these issues have to be resolved to ensure the success of all projects.

Ontario polls show support for wind

Our last post highlighted a peer-reviewed poll conducted by CSIRO in Australia that showed strong support by the silent majority in spite of active anti-wind activities by a few.

Two polls conducted in Ontario say the same thing.

The first, conducted by Ipsos Reid covered all of Ontario in the summer of 2010.  The key findings were:

Most Ontarians –in every region of the province –support the production of wind energy in their region of the province.

In fact, support for wind energy production remains high, even when the geographic location mentioned is “in your community”. Just three in ten say they wouldn’t want wind turbines in their community. 

While a minority of Ontarians are aware of wind energy developments in their area, a majority of those living in the southwest corner of the province claim to be aware of these developments. 

The main benefits of wind energy, unaided, are that it is cheap, good on the environment, clean and renewable.

The main drawbacks of wind energy, unaided, are that it is loud, ugly, needs wind and concerns over health issues.

Most Ontarians believe that cleaner and alternative forms of energy should be produced in Ontario, particularly since the BP oil spill. Ontarians want governments to support these kinds of initiatives, perhaps because most think wind energy would provide economic benefits and most believe it has less impact on human health. 

Here's the data when people are asked if they support wind in their community.  Click on the image to magnify it.

The second poll was also conducted by Ipsos Reid, but conducted in Grey Highlands, also in the summer of 2010.  Seventy percent support wind in their community.

Admittedly, these polls aren't current but they still demonstrate a strong level of support for wind everywhere in Ontario, including at least one rural area.

Strong support for wind farms obscured, says CSIRO report

Dr. Jim Smithman Photo: Stefan Moore

Sydney Morning Herald

January 18, 2012

Kelsey Munro, Ben Cubby

Article is here.

THERE is much stronger public support for wind farms than media coverage of the issue would suggest, because a ''vocal minority'' who oppose wind farms secure the majority of media and political attention, according to new CSIRO research.

A peer-reviewed study by Brisbane researchers investigated attitudes to nine wind farms in various stages of development in NSW, Victoria and South Australia, concluding there was a strong level of support ''from rural residents who do not seek media attention or political engagement to express their views''.

By contrast, more than half of all wind farm proposals had been opposed by members of the Landscape Guardian group, the report noted.

The CSIRO's deputy director, energy technology, Jim Smitham, one of the reviewers of the report, said it showed a disconnect between negative and conflict-oriented media coverage about wind farms and the attitude of a majority in the communities where wind farms were proposed or already operating.

''You find more media stories supporting the case against wind farms than those for it,'' he said. ''Whereas, going into the field and doing interviews at community level, they have different reasons but many of them support the wind farm; it just isn't as apparent as the people who are able to find a short sharp reason to reject it.''

Dr Smitham said wind farm developers that proactively consulted with communities and responded to their concerns had achieved far higher local acceptance of their projects.

The report, Acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia: A snapshot, by CSIRO's social research team, comes as the draft guidelines on wind farm development in this state are open for public comment.

The researchers conducted interviews with wind farm developers, councils, turbine hosts, community opponents and supporters of the projects in each of the nine locations.

Wind farm opponents cited negatives including poor consultation, visual amenity and noise, while supporters cited benefits including improved infrastructure such as roads and firebreaks, clean energy and better local job prospects, the report found.

The debate over noise and health impacts has been a key issue raised by opponents. A series of peer-reviewed studies have found no evidence that low-level sound from wind farms has made people sick, but some international studies included self-selected surveys in which people living near wind farms reported annoyance and interrupted sleep as a result of vibrations from the turbine blades.

The CSIRO report noted wind farms can create stress which affects wellbeing.

The Landscape Guardians could not be reached for comment yesterday.