Inventing Victims - Wind Turbine Syndrome in Ontario

Today's guest editorial comes from Richard (Dick) Hill, a retired researcher who is interested in the social advantages of wind power and environmental protection.   As a former mayor, he is also intrigued by the political and activist hypocrisy approach in attacking this new energy source.

The effect and non-effect of Ontario wind turbines is a topical discussion.  I have just read a book, The Righteous Mind by Jonathon  Haidt (Pantheon 2012), which provides significant thought on how humans react with something new and what drives people who are resistant to change.  Haidt basically comments that if somebody doesn’t like change or the appearance of wind turbines, they will invent victims to justify their assumptions.

In Ontario, the anti-wind turbine syndrome is mainly a creation of the Conservative Party in an effort to minimize any environmental and economic effects initiated by the Liberal Party, in particular the Green Energy Act of 2009.  It is used as a political wedge issue to create FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt.  The unsubstantiated issues of public health and economics are secondary to the political challenge of defeating the opposition by any means.

There are over 250,000 large wind turbines around the world producing environmentally friendly electricity with little social or economic comment.  Even in Ontario the most effected people, with operating wind turbines on their property, do not complain.  If the anti-wind activist statements were true, most of Europe would be dead by now.  The wind turbine syndrome is essentially an Ontario illness.

The well-funded anti-wind activists talk of supposed harms without scientific or technical evidence that stand jurisprudence.  It is an issue searching for a problem with reasoning in support of emotional reactions for the judgements they have already made.  Most people make first judgements quickly and then search for reasons to support them.

Many of the supposed harms from wind turbines are fabricated myths with preposterous victim claims. The anti-wind zealots are not searching for veracity, but are reasoning in support of their emotional reactions using distorted scientific studies, social media and Google to find support.   This confirmatory mindset is a one-sided method to rationalize a particular point of view in support of their decision.  This extreme partisanship can be addictive, forming a consensual hallucination.

There are multiple ills attributed to wind turbines with headaches, nausea, and sleep loss being most prevalent. These problems are common with modern living of which around 20 to 50 percent of the population complain whether or not they live near wind turbines.  The symptoms are real but the causes are general.

This situation is political opinion that is not based on real facts.  Well-funded lobby groups have the skills and resources to distort reality making it difficult for the medical community to overcome.  Most of the anti-wind evidence is based on personal stories without medical certification or judicial review.  Also myths and mischief Information are provided by vested interests.

Front organizations such as Wind Concerns Ontario and Ontario Wind Resistance spread misleading stories and faux facts about wind turbines that scares people in the manner of a flu or small pox epidemic.  Other social scares have been created for cell phone, WIFI, wireless phone towers, high-voltage power lines, fluoridated water and vaccinations to which the same illnesses such as headaches and sleep deprivation are attributed.  The medical community has not been able to find any linkage causing human adverse health.  Studies have shown that attributed symptoms continue as long as the sufferer believes they are exposed to the source even when the source no longer exists.  This is known as psychogenic illnesses, otherwise known as the nocebo effect - belief that something causes real harm- and is the opposite to a placebo.

Some Ontario residents are suffering genuine health symptoms but the source of these symptoms should not be attributed to wind turbines.  Possibly these illnesses are caused by the extreme hype of the anti-wind organizations that spread misinformation and bully citizens at public meetings.  It is the misinformation from vested interests that causes harm, not wind turbines.  The syndrome is mainly a communicated disease causing medical panic related to either hysteria or NIMBY-ism.

Haidt’s ‘The Righteous Mind’ helps to understand the anti-wind political aspects and how balanced information can help the wind industry to proceed with the their environment friendly and cost effective energy programs.  Ontario residents are foolish to be consumed by fear of hypothetical harm from the supposed health effects of living next to wind farms.

Nepean MP hijacks Jubilee Medal program to push political agenda

Source: http://www.pierremp.ca/news/

On November 22, 2012 Nepean MP Pierre Poilievre presented four Diamond Jubilee Medals.  

The Diamond Jubilee Medal was struck to commemorate the Queen's 60th anniversary of her accession to the Throne.  Nominations are handled by Members of Parliament, Provincial Lieutenant Governors and Premiers; plus a number of Non-Governmental agencies.

This presentation, at Kars, ON (a small village in the MP's riding) carried the theme of honouring "rural champions".  Those rural champions deservedly included Glenn Brooks (a local municipal official who served for over a decade and advocated for farmers), Paul Mussell (a local comedian who pokes fun at rural life) and Mrs. Marion Newman (a local teacher who volunteered to promote Agriculture in the Classroom). 

Unfortunately one of the medals was tarnished by being awarded to an anti-wind activist via a number of her political allies.

Jane Wilson, the recipient, is (or certainly was) Chairperson of the North Gower Wind Action Group ever since a project was proposed in her area.  She is the current head of the anti-wind group Wind Concerns Ontario.

Lisa MacLeod is the MPP for the riding.  It appears that MacLeod is part of a PC campaign to take Ontario's energy system back to the virtual stone ages.  It is now PC Leader Hudak's stated policy to place nuclear energy over any other sources of electrical power generation in Ontario, while reversing all advances in renewable energy by repealing the Green Energy Act .  They intend to replace renewable energy with nuclear power based on a lop-sided tender.  Nuclear supplier 1 would compete with nuclear supplier 2 but neither would be required to compete with wind, gas, hydro or solar - because nuclear would lose every time based on cost and risk. 

Put another way, nuclear would be guaranteed a price premium that ratepayers would be required to pay for decades.  Even as the whole world turns away from ridiculously expensive nuclear power (not to mention safety issues revealed by Fukushima), the PC's want to return to the 1970's.

Pierre Poilievre is the MP for Ms. Wilson's riding.  He was somewhat late into the wind turbine fray but joined on when the federal Conservatives's joined in the provincial anti-wind fight a few years ago.  At some point, the provincial PC's and federal Conservatives in Ontario realized that they had a common cause.  They could disrupt the provincial Liberals' wind file.  Perhaps these Conservative ties also had a hand in Health Canada's unprecedented $2 million study on the possible health effects of wind turbines, even though 17 other studies had found no connection.  For their own purposes, they ignored the fact that the University of Waterloo had been conducting an identical study for many months in Ontario.  

Mr. Poilievre maintains a website.  Here are some examples of how the three have collaborated:

July 16, 2012: Poilievre, MacLeod call for a moratorium on North Gower industrial wind turbines

July 16, 2012: Put the Brakes on the North Gower Wind Turbines

August 17, 2012:  Marlborough Moratorium Makes Cents

Plus this article from EMC Manotick dated August 23, 2012:  http://www.emcmanotick.ca/20120823/news/Poilievre+launches+petition+to+stop+wind+turbine+project

What this constitutes is an unholy alliance of the federal Conservatives and provincial PC's and Wind Concerns Ontario, at the very least in Nepean.  The provincial PC's played off the NIMBY attitudes of urban weekenders who threw their farmer neighbours under the bus.  The federal Conservatives also threw their farmer constituents under the same bus.  In the picture below, you'll see a small bunch of wind protesters plus their MPP, Lisa MacLeod (left, in the black suit with the capri slacks),  their MP Pierre Poilievre (centre, in the open neck blue shirt holding the sign) and Jane Wilson (right, in the black top and slacks).   We suspect that there weren't a lot of local farmers in the picture (farmers seldom wear sandals), plus farmers like the fact that turbines provide income and don't disrupt farm operations.

Source: http://www.pierremp.ca/news/

We don't think that a Commonwealth Medal should be so brazenly exploited politically. 

This is especially true with a medal that typically celebrates genuine volunteerism towards the most vulnerable members of society. And, whether they want to accept it or not, Wilson and her anti-wind gaggle do not qualify as vulnerable members of society. Thousands of rural Ontarians are lined up to participate in the clean energy economy; hundreds of farmers are staying on family land thanks to the clean energy economy; and dozens of rural communities have seen millions of dollars in much-needed economic benefits thanks to the clean energy economy.

There are so many people who are investing their reputations and their personal finances to advance renewable energy - including most of the country's top banks.  Developers risk hundreds of millions of dollars in projects based on a 20 year contract with the Ontario people.  They get paid off the meter, i.e. by the kWh.  If they spend too much on their projects, if they misgauge the energy potential of their site or if their technology under performs, they take the hit and go bankrupt.  

This is in stark contrast with nuclear operators who receive forgiveness when their projects go over budget - and they go over budget EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Ontario is still paying off their stranded debt .

In our opinion, it's the real risk-taking pioneers, the landowners, the developers and the municipal leader and politicians who have stepped forward to clean up this province's ancient electricity system who deserve the Medal.  They bring much to the rural economy - in fact, they have saved many family farms and contributed income to rural economies.  

What have wind opponent's done?  Nothing.  Absolutely nothing, other than creating hysteria and political mischief.  And yet they get a medal. 

What's wrong with this picture?

Where are wind-energy opponents' alternatives?

Guelph Mercury - May 02, 2012, Page:A8
Roger Short, Letter to the Editor

Dear editor: 

I would like to compliment you on Owen Roberts’ column from Monday: Wind Energy Predictions in Ontario Hit New Highs. 

It attempts to lay out facts and points of view with balance and objectivity for a subject that is very much on many tongues these days.

The one area which all interested parties have been unable to discover to date is the reasoned alternative that opponents would recommend as their energy mix for Ontario’s future, say for the next 20 years or so. 

I believe all parties would benefit from this disclosure, which should be in sufficient depth to disclose full real lifetime costs and impacts for each energy type, including subsidies attached to each energy type, estimated using a consistent pricing model along with the pros and cons of each energy.

From this, Ontarians might be better equipped to contribute to this critical matter.

For greater clarification, I’d like to see recognized items such as the following: the price of energy for each type, and comments on their risk, given events outside Canada, which could impact them. I’d like to see recognition that health costs associated with fossil fuels (deaths and independently verified annual costs) be added to the costs of that type of energy. Further, carbon cost attributions should be estimated, along with any assumptions about “clean coal” and its costs and risks, as appropriate. 

Also, I’d like it acknowledged that nuclear energy comes with a number of encumbrances not currently included such as the debt retirement charge, which has not yet been expunged. Without government underwriting, this industry is unlikely to be insurable or financeable independently.

To date, the Ontario industry record for on-time-on-budget for either a new nuclear plant or major overhauls has been appalling. In addition, there still isn’t any permanent solution to the spent fuel disposal issue, which is growing daily.

What are the operating risks and security costs related to this form of power generation? What is the impact that Ontario’s inflexible nuclear technology has on the sale of surplus base load power into the spot market, especially since major decisions on nuclear expansion are imminent?

Finally, we need to be discussing how Ontario’s grid infrastructure is in dire need of upgrading and modernizing after years of neglect; this is regardless of fuel but a significant capital investment. 

Roger J. Short 

Kimberley, Ontario, May 1, 2012 

If a Bill falls in the House and nobody reports it ...

.... did it really happen?

That was the case with Bill 42.  Bill 42 was a private members bill proposed by Tim Hudak, the leader of the Ontario PC's. The Bill would have killed the Feed-in Tariff program for renewable energy that has so successfully made Ontario the green energy capital of North America.  This was the PC's second run at the Green Energy Act.  The first was by Lisa Thompson and it was also defeated.

This Bill had first reading earlier in the month and second reading on March 22.  However, with little fanfair, it was decisively  defeated 49-36.  The only media coverage of the defeat was in a backwater publication called netnewsledger.  The netnewsledger is a Thunder Bay publication that offers the following opportunity:

"Our Leader’s Ledgers feature columns from our federal, provincial and municipal elected leaders. They are their opportunity to share their ideas and vision with you directly without editing."

The article appears to have been written by Vic Fedeli, the Nipissing MPP and PC Energy Critic.  


And that's it.  No other media coverage. 

And, this time, both the anti-wind websites (Ontario Wind Resistance and Wind Concerns Ontario) didn't even cover the Bill or its defeat.  Maybe they didn't want to set false expectations when they knew that there wasn't a hope that the Bill would pass.   For the Lisa Thompson bill, they filled the gallery.  This time, the Bill died quietly.

As stated earlier, this is the second private members bill regarding renewable energy in the current session.  The first was raised by Lisa Thompson about a month ago ago.  It was also trounced.  Makes you wonder why the PC's would try again.  Apparently, the anti-winders were wondering as well, otherwise they would have covered the event.

As reference, here's the background to Bill 42, as seen by CanWEA:

Ottawa, March 8, 2012 – The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) strongly opposes the

private Members Bill introduced in the Legislative Assembly yesterday by Ontario Progressive

Conservative leader and MPP Tim Hudak (Niagara West-Glanbrook). The Affordable Energy and

Restoration of Local Decision Making Act proposes to end Ontario's Feed-in Tariff (FIT) Program

which would create significant policy uncertainty and put local jobs, investments, and new

manufacturing at risk.

The proposed Act further ignores the sanctity of signed contracts by opening the door to the

possibility that such contracts can be revoked. Such actions would create significant uncertainty

among investors looking to new opportunities in Ontario and expose Ontario to the risk of paying

damages to investors who have already made good faith investments in the province.

"The FIT Program has successfully attracted investors to Ontario from around the world, facilitating

investment and job creation that has made Ontario a North American leader in renewable energy

development," said Robert Hornung, President of CanWEA. "Hundreds of much-needed jobs are

being created in places like Windsor, Tillsonburg and Niagara, and thousands more are being

created in construction and local services. A stable policy framework is critical to our ability to

continue to attract investors, create new jobs and build a world-class manufacturing capability."

Despite its successes to date, the FIT program can be strengthened and improved, according to

CanWEA. The FIT Review currently underway has received input from many stakeholders including

CanWEA on changes that would serve to make the program even more effective and we await the

results of the review.

It must be noted the FIT Program has not played any significant role in increasing electricity prices

in Ontario to date. In fact, "the cost of conservation and all the renewable subsidies in 2010

amounted to 0.4 cents of the 13 cents we paid for a kWh in our homes," states the Environmental

Commissioner of Ontario in The True Cost of Renewable Energy and Conservation.

Ontario is, however, in the midst of modernizing an aging electricity system that requires

investments to renew and build new transmission and distribution infrastructure for system reliability

and load servicing and to phase-out conventional and polluting coal-fired generation. In that

context, wind energy is cost-competitive today with most other forms of new generation, particularly

when life-cycle costs and future environmental regulations are considered.

A July 2011 Pembina study, Behind the switch: pricing Ontario electricity options, found that Ontario

consumers would see virtually no relief from high electricity prices if the province cancelled its

support for renewable energy under the Green Energy Act. In fact, the study indicates that investing

in renewable energy today is likely to save Ontario ratepayers money within the next 15 years, as

natural gas prices are forecast to start to rise. The addition of any new generation (all more

expensive than existing generation) and badly needed investments in electricity infrastructure

guarantee increased rates for consumers going forward.

"Wind energy is playing a growing role in helping Ontario build a cleaner, stronger and affordable

electricity system that will ensure Ontarians continue to enjoy the lifestyle they are accustomed to,"

said Hornung. "At the same time, investments are required to ensure the province's aging electricity

system is ready to meet the needs of a prosperous future."

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. 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.

The proposed Affordable Energy and Restoration of Local Decision Making Act would give Ontario's

municipal governments authority for issuing Renewable Energy Approvals (REAs) and for applying

significant conditions on projects that go beyond environmental protection. It is unclear how this

would operate in practice as REAs are associated with many significant areas of provincial

jurisdiction and municipal governments will likely be challenged to find the resources and expertise

required to take on these responsibilities.

CanWEA believes municipalities have a vital role to play in any new local development, and has

always encouraged municipal governments to take full advantage of all opportunities for

engagement under the GEA. Municipal engagement and consultation is an important part of the

renewable energy development process. The Renewable Energy Approval (REA) requires

municipal consultation, including public consultations and CanWEA has always advocated that its

members go beyond minimum regulatory requirements. Our mandate to support the responsible

and sustainable development of wind energy is backed with the development of Best Practices for

Community Engagement and Public Consultation – which were informed through discussions with

dozens of municipal leaders.

****************************

It sounds like the PC's are pandering to the anti-wind movement.  However, they seem to have misread the mood of Ontario.  Ontario recognizes the value of green energy - especially wind energy - the lowest cost source of replacement electricity in Ontario.

Is Fedeli writing Christina Blizzard's column?

On March 8, 2012, Christina Blizzard wrote a column in the Toronto Sun claiming that the Province's green energy policy is putting at least one company at risk.

In the article, Blizzard cites the case of Fabrene, a North Bay company that makes industrial fabrics.  She claims that "The Liberal government's green energy plan has added $1 million a year to his hydro bill - an amount he says will eventually force his company out of this province."  She goes on to claim that the Global Adjustment is the culprit.

The Global Adjustment (GA) is the charge electricity consumers pay for power above and beyond the price charged for Ontario's legacy fossil fuel sources.  The Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP) is the spot market price for those fossil fuels and tends to run in the 2.5 to 3.7¢/kWh range in the last year.  The GA ran in a range of 3.1 to 5 ¢/kWh in 2011.  The sum of the two is what you pay before transmission, distribution and debt recovery charges are added.

The GA includes:

•Non-utility generation (NUG) contracts established by the former Ontario Hydro and now administered by the Ontario Electricity Financing Corporation (OEFC); 

•Nuclear generation operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG); 

•Certain “prescribed” hydroelectric generation owned by the OPG (plants in Niagara Falls, St. Catharines and Cornwall); 

•Generators (including natural gas, renewable energy and Bruce Power nuclear) and suppliers of conservation services contracted to the OPA. 

The OPA portion of the GA was 54% in 2011 on a cash flow basis.  Renewable energy represents 30% of the OPA capacity under contract in commercial operation.   Wind represents a little less than 50% of that portion (the rest is hydro and solar). So, if you do the math, wind represents .54x.3x.5=8% of the GA.  Obviously, if you add hydro and solar, the number doubles.  We don't know the specific capacity factors and prices within the OPA portfolio, so this is an approximation.

So, while Fabrene may be blaming the GA for it's problems, renewable energy at 5% of the GA is clearly not the issue.   It's possible that they may be complaining that they now have to pay their fair share of the GA.  New rules introduced early in 2011re-allocates GA amongst industrial users.  Prior to that, consumers carried most of the burden of the GA.

More fundamentally, though, we need to take a look at Fabrene itself.

Based on Fabrene's website, its North Bay plant is 40 years old and their other plant is in Portland, Oregon. Fabrene is a trademark for woven polyethylene fabric.  It's the material that you see covering shipments of wood, construction sites, etc.

My experience with situations like this is that if there is one plant in Canada and any less than five in the US, then you have to question what's going on.  If there's no obvious unique source of competitive advantage in Canada (e.g. a potash mine) then you ask whether the location was just a historical accident.  

And why would you put a plant in North Bay fifty years ago?  It might have been because their parent at the time, Dupont, already had an explosives plant there.  It was probably because the woven poly wrap was used for the lumber industry.  Nowadays, there is low demand in the lumber industry, a high Canadian dollar, and competition from non-woven fabric.  Perhaps the Canadian plant has old technology.  Maybe that's why they use the words "both the capacity to fill long run orders and the flexibility to engineer and produce specialized shorter runs" in their marketing pitch.  Specialty short runs is frequently code for subscale equipment.

You could give them the power for free and it might not make a difference.  If power was the issue, all the Canadian poly plants would be in Manitoba, BC and Quebec.

Fabrene is used to calling on government for help.  Fabrene appealed to North Bay for tax relief over ten years ago - long before the Green Energy Act.   Then again for government funding for water service three years ago.  In 2010, North Bay paid for a power transformer near their plant.  

And who was the mayor of North Bay at the time?  Vic Fedeli.  Vic Fedeli is now the energy critic for the Progressive Conservatives.   Makes you wonder where Christina Blizzard got her story.

   

Ontario anti-wind-power group accused of breaking election financing rules

Who put up this sign and when did they do it?

Find the original story here.

January 17, 2012 00:01:00

Tanya Talaga

QUEEN’S PARK BUREAU

A prominent anti-wind-power group is under fire amid accusations it broke election financing by running a negative advertising campaign against Liberal candidates last fall.

Toronto resident Jude MacDonald and her lawyer Clayton Ruby have made a formal complaint to Elections Ontario, the non-partisan agency that runs and polices provincial elections.

They say Wind Concerns Ontario failed to comply with the Election Finance Act by allegedly spending over the $500 threshold on political advertising during the provincial campaign without registering as a third party.

MacDonald points to billboards that said, “Hudak In Turbines Out,” and a pro-Progressive Conservative speaking tour of 24 ridings carried out by the grassroots anti-wind group.

But John Laforet, former president of WCO, said the spending allegations are completely false and the complaint is “baseless.”

“The fact is, we did no advertising during the campaign,” he said.

WCO had “no budget” for advertising. “It’d be interesting to see what their concern is,” said Laforet, who also denied WCO put up the billboards. He left the organization late last year. Jane Wilson is the new president.

MacDonald is an activist, former journalist and a supporter of the NDP. She said she lodged the complaint because she is troubled by the influence groups such as Wind Concerns and the Working Families coalition of anti-Tory unions seem to have in Ontario politics.

“I believe in democracy,” MacDonald said. “How much money they (WCO) are spending, I don’t know. All I do know is they did have billboards, lawn signs, they had a number of events where they had what looks like professionally printed signs and that adds up.”

MacDonald, who helped launch the news web site Rabble.ca in 2001, said she first became aware of the on Facebook.

The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party believes the rise of third party advertising, in general, was a big problem during the election, said Alan Sakach, the PC party director of communications.

“We believe the biggest violation of election laws was the $9 million that Working Families, a front group for the Ontario Liberal Party, spent attacking our leader Tim Hudak and the Ontario PC Party,” Sakach said.

Did Ontario AG rely on discredited Exxon-funded study?

Adam Scott

Environmental Defence

I was going to write about this, but Adam did a much better job.  Adam rightfully says that the AG's report accords the oil industry reports a credibility that was manifestly undeserved.  By doing so, the report seriously diminishes the AG's credibility - at least on this issue.

Environmental Defence
December 05, 2011
Adam Scott

Here's the post.

We are not in the habit of criticizing the hard-working Ontario Auditor General (AG), but were disturbed today to see his apparent reliance on a series of widely discredited oil industry-backed reports attacking the value of "green jobs". 

 

Page 118 of the Ontario AG's 2011 Annual Report, released today, states that:

“A 2009 study conducted in Spain found that for each job created through renewable energy programs, about two jobs were lost in other sectors of the economy.” 

 

While not properly referenced, it would appear the AG's report is referring to the infamous "Spanish Jobs Study" from 2009.  The study was created by a libertarian think tank tied to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The AEI is partly funded by oil companies Exxon Mobil and the Koch Industries Inc – major funders of climate change denial campaigns worldwide.

 

The "Spanish Jobs Study" report didn’t actually show that any jobs were lost, but simply implied this through a highly discredited methodology. The U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory explains the false methodology here. The study has also been called into question by the Spanish Government itself, and the Wall Street Journal. The study’s author, Gabriel Calzada, was a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute’s climate change denial conference in 2009.  

 

The Auditor General also makes reference to two other nearly identical ‘zombie studies’ using the same flawed methodology for Denmark, and the UK. Not one of these reports actually shows any evidence of real job loss. 

 

These are reports mostly used by right-wing republicans and Fox news in the U.S. to discredit renewable energy policies and confuse the public. Their unfortunate inclusion in the Ontario AG's report accords them a credibility that is manifestly undeserved.

Why does (only part of) the CBC hate wind? Conclusion

It's time to wrap up this series with some overall conclusions.  But first, here's a reminder of how this series started.  From September 21 to October 1, Dave Seglins and John Nicol authored the following stories (followed by two on-line polls):

2011 September 21: Wind farm health risks claimed in $1.5 M suit 

2011 September 22: Should there be stricter limits on wind turbines in rural areas? (online poll)

2011 September 22: Ont. wind farm health risks downplayed: documents

2011 October 1: Ontario wind power bringing down property values

2011 October 1: Would you live near wind turbines? (online poll)

2011 October 4: Ontario wind power faces test over property values

To the best of my knowledge, Seglins and Nicol have not covered the wind issue since the election.

Inquiring minds want to know .....

So, why did these reporters cover the story the way they did?  If I was the CBC Ombudsman, I'd ask these questions:

1. How did the story come to you?  

Based on how the stories were written, the interviewees and underlying evidence seemed to have been somewhat pre-packaged.  In other words, the tipster probably sat down with the reporters and laid out their case, offering documents and recommended interviews.

What is unknown is whether the tip came in "over-the-transom" or whether it was introduced by someone the reporters knew.  Beth Harrington is the Communications Director of Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) and is, or was, also on the Board of the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County.  She was also a CBC reporter in the 1990's when Seglins was starting his career.  Did Beth Harrington have any influence in introducing the tipster?

2. Why did you print the stories when you did?  

This story cycle seemed to have a well defined beginning and end, and the cycle appeared to synchronize with the Ontario provincial election on October 6.  It also appears that there was a concerted effort to get the story published during the campaign since it was packed into a time frame of less than month leading up to the election.

Some of the documentary evidence was a few months old and had already been published on a WCO website.  

Then, following the election, there was no follow-up reporting on the issues.

3.  Do you have any views on wind turbines that might have entered the story?  

I have absolutely no evidence that this might be the case and I don't believe that either reporter makes a habit of reporting on wind issues.  However, I'm continually amazed that when you dig below the outer skin of a wind story you find someone with a cottage or farm near a proposed wind farm.  I have well over a dozen examples, but that's a blog entry for a different day   So, if I was the ombudsman, I'd ask "Do you or your family have a residence near a proposed wind farm?"

4. Why didn't you dig deeper, cover both sides better?

I haven't analysed the number of words for and against wind in these stories, but they are decidedly anti-wind.  There were the typical calls to the usual suspects (CanWEA, Ministry of the Environment, developers' PR departments) but there could have been so much more.  It's easy enough to find a host landowner.  Pick a turbine and look around.

CBC isn't all that bad

I don't want to leave the impression that I believe that all of CBC is bad.  I listen to and watch CBC most of the time.  I've even donated to groups fighting to keep it alive.  And there are other areas of CBC that have been very pro-wind over the years:

Bob McDonald, host of Quirks and Quarks, first Canadian to be included in Sigma Xi, the most prestigious research society in the US and Officer of the Order of Canada, said this about wind turbines:

The point is this. We Canadians are among the worst energy hogs and highest emitters

of greenhouse gasses on the planet. When a clean alternative comes along, arguing

against it because it looks ugly is like standing on the tilted deck of the Titanic,

complaining about the colour of the lifeboats. Let’s get on with it.

George Stroumboulopoulos, while host of The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos, provided leadership for One Million Acts of Green and celebrated the wind farm in the Ontario Highlands that is now featured in the Seglins/Nicols critique.

David Suzuki, founder of Quirks and Quarks, host of The Nature of Things, ...   Enough said.

However, for some reason Seglins and Nicol missed the boat on this one.

They're not the only media outlet to do the same.  The National Post is not only anti-wind but also proud climate change deniers.  The QMI Agency and the Sun Media network regularly write slanted coverage.  These, however, appear to be errors of commission.  

Then there are the other media channels that get caught up in the controversy and don't do a thorough job - the errors of omission.  I'll put these two reporters in that camp.

Root causes

So, what's the root cause of these errors?  Let's put aside the egregious errors of commission.  They arise from blind ideology, ignorance, denial and even outright support from wind's natural enemies - coal and nuclear power. 

Lets focus on the sources of the errors of omission.  They're harder to discern.

First, the media can be susceptible to tipsters who bring them their stories.  In this case, it was an easy story.  The documents had been mined by someone under a Freedom of Information request, posted on a website and then pointed out to the reporters.  It was probably backed up by a schedule to introduce reporters to real-life "victims".  Easy sound clips and web postings.

Second, wind is a topical issue.  For some reason, some people become quite polarized about wind turbines, especially when the turbines approach within a few kilometres of their bucolic life style .  Even though poll after poll reveals that over 70% of people support wind installations, even in their community, a reporter can always be guaranteed of a good response if they bring up the wind issue.  Talk radio thrives on it as do regional newspapers with their Letters to the Editor.  Editors, publishers and advertisers love it.  One local newspaper even dedicated an entire section to the issue after trolling for advertisers.

Third, is the fact that reporters have less resources than previously to truly investigate an issue and maybe even less motivation to do so.  I don't have much insight into the life of a reporter but those  that I've met are concerned about their ability to truly investigate a story.  Maybe it's a consequence of the internet stealing ad revenue from the traditional media.

Finally, is the question of consequences.  These reporters published a successful story if you measure it by the the numbers of comments - well over a thousand.  It was also successful for the tipster based on the results of the on-line poll results.  It may also have successful for the anti-wind candidates in the election.  They almost won the election.  

Now then, what are the consequences for the tipsters, reporters and candidates when the truth from this series of blogs is revealed?  Up until now, absolutely nothing.

For, as Winston Churchill once said:

" A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

So, how do we change that?

Why does (part of) CBC hate wind? Part 3a

Would you live near wind turbines?
CBC News
October 1, 2011

Suppose you were asked that question?

Now suppose that question was preceded with the following:

Wind turbines are shooting down property values some Ontario homeowners are complaining. 

A CBC News investigation has found that the expansion of wind power projects is creating a backlash in rural communities where property owners say they're unable to sell their homes. 

Despite assurances from the government and industry experts that there are no health impacts from turbines, a fear of the effects is keeping people away. 

Stephana Johnston lives near several turbines and has found it nearly impossible to sell her home. 

"My hunch is that people look at them and say: 'As nice as the property is going south, looking at the lake, we don't want to be surrounded by those turbines.' Can't say that I blame them," she says.


The results were 68% against living near a turbine, based on over 3000 votes.  What do you bet that a number of people then said, blogged or wrote, "A CBC poll of over 3000 people shows that 68% of those polled would not want to live near a turbine".  


All of this less than a week before the Ontario election.

Response to "McGuinty's green energy deception"

The Owen Sound Sun Times (OSST) recently published an editorial by Janice Middleton entitled “McGuinty’s green energy deception”.  Ms Middleton claims to be a journalist and former Globe and Mail reporter.  In my opinion, this editorial explains why she’s a former reporter.  It’s one thing to post a point of view.  It’s another to base one’s opinion on untruths.  Either this author is ignorant of the facts or she has deliberately mislead her readers.

Even Wind Concerns Ontario, which published her piece in their online blog were astonished at some of her outrageous claims. 

Let’s evaluate the editorial falsehood by falsehood.  Be warned, there are plenty of them so this may take some time for you to read.

“McGuinty's Green Energy Act, the centerpiece of the Liberal's re-election campaign, is anything but. The 2009 bill, pushed through the Ontario legislature in just two and-a-half months without public consultation, is costly, unproven and undemocratic. The legislation which stripped municipalities of their control over renewable energy projects, facilitates 20-year contracts with foreign energy companies to proceed with installing up to 13,500 industrial wind turbines, each about 49 stories high with blades the length of eight school buses -- years before they'll actually be energy producers for the province”.

The Green Energy Act (GEA) was passed after extensive public consultation by a multi-party standing committee.  In fact, much of the motivation for the GEA was from municipalities who wanted a common set of standards across the province.  The major companies in the wind sector, representing 80% of current capacity, are Transalta, Brookfield, Suncor, Enbridge, Kruger and Epcor – hardly foreign companies.  Ms Middleton claims that 13,500 turbines are looming on the horizon.  That would imply over 20,000 MW of wind capacity.  However, in a directive by Energy Minister Brad Duguid to Colin Anderson (OPA) dated Feb 17 2011, the output  target (in MW) for wind, solar and bio-energy by 2018 is 10,700 MW combined, making Ms. Middleton wrong, probably by a factor of three.

“If you haven't seen them take a drive south to Lake Erie along historic Highway 3 between Blenheim and Leamington. On a windy day, "The sound is like a freight train," says Dave Benson, Heritage Coordinator for the Municipality of Chatham and Kent. "A modest house is worth 30 per cent less and a million-dollar property is unsaleable." Are they ugly? You bet. Texan billionaire T. Boone Pickins, a heavy investor in wind power, has said he won't put any turbines on his 68,000 acres. On a gorgeous fall day the rolling hills of golden fields east of Lake Huron rival Tuscany. Imagine turbines over Tuscany”.

Some people may not like the look of turbines but most – over 80% of the population are in support of wind in general and even 70% are in support when asked if they would support wind in their community (Sources: Canadian Nuclear Association, Ipsos Reid).  Typical sound levels from a turbine are 40 dBa, equivalent to a modern refrigerator’s emitted sound.  On top of extensive independent studies, farm prices have recently risen in Chatham-Kent, an area of extensive wind development (Source Re-Max).  As for turbines in Tuscany, just go to Scansano and take a look.

“Yet, McGuinty talks proudly in television election ads of 900 turbines installed so far. However, with the exception of one Lake Ontario project, the power's not going anywhere. Wind farms along Lakes Huron and Erie are not, as yet, on the grid. While this is talked about locally, few Ontarians are aware that the turbines are mainly just gigantic lawn ornaments. Repeated calls and e-mails to Liberal MPP Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce) were not returned.

Statistics provided by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) indicate that of 11,571 applications current for wind turbines, 3,165 contracts have been signed, 2,266 are under development and just one -- Wolf Island with 86 turbines -- is in commercial operation. It could be many years and as much as $40 billion of taxpayers dollars being spent to upgrade the nuclear power plants before most of the turbines can be plugged into the power grid”.

Now this is a jaw-dropper.  The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) publishes an hourly report of every generator in Ontario.  If you take a look at a sample day and scroll down to the wind section, you’ll see sixteen active wind farms.  Only one, Point aux Roches, hasn’t been commissioned yet.  Ms. Middleton is either purposefully telling untruths or doesn’t have the research skills of a gradeschool student with access to the internet.  Many other projects are indeed in development and some of them are relying on the new line from the Bruce nuclear complex to be completed in 2012.

"It's all a series of lies," says John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO). Wind and solar energy is neither clean nor efficient, he says. "What is really disturbing is that it appears this Liberal government is operating in a culture of willful blindness at the most senior level including the Ministers of Environment, Health and inside the Premier's office."

WCO is a coalition of 53 grass-roots citizens groups across 38 Ontario counties and districts, which presides over regular meetings in various communities across the province. WCO has launched a website www.windyleaks.com to release and feature what it calls "revealing documents through Ontario's fall election campaign to educate voters on the Ontario Liberals' dishonesty on the impacts of industrial wind turbines." At WCO information sessions, charts are displayed showing that since each turbine is backed up by a gas generator for when the winds don't blow, which is up to 40% of the time, there is really little or no reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Armed with information about how wind turbines kill wildlife, make people sick, destroy property values and don't cut greenhouses gases, WCO speakers talk up the unpleasant side effects of renewable energy projects. The nasty part of wind power includes how the Wolf Island turbines on the Bay of Quinte on the north shore of Lake Ontario west of Kingston kill scores of bats and birds. And, in Prince Edward County, turbine installers have asked for permission from the Ministry of the Environment enabling them to kill the rare Blanding's Turtle if necessary. In the pristine wilderness of Lake Superior north of Thunder Bay, several thousand trees are to be clear-cut to make way for wind turbines.

Ms. Middleton allocates much of her editorial to coverage of the views of Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) and portrays them as merely trying to educate the public.  For contrast, read the article by Martin Cohn in the Toronto Star. Where he describes their type as “turbine truthers”:

“…..a hardy band of mostly rural protesters and transplanted urbanites who shadow McGuinty across the province, berating him for pressing ahead with wind turbines. No credible studies show evidence of harm, but these righteous turbine truthers have forsworn the science, swear by their headaches, and harangue anyone who questions their questioning.”

The notion that gas turbine backup negates carbon dioxide displacement has been disproven over and over.  You just have to look at the IESO generator reports on a windy day and notice that coal is shut out of the system and gas is only used in co-generation applications where they are part of generating steam for heating and industrial process purposes.  The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers has published estimates that wind eliminates 96% of equivalent fossil fuel generation (Source: IEEE Power and Energy, Milligan, 2009 Nov/Dec).

“At a project in Ripley, several residents who signed contracts with Enercor to install wind turbines on their land found they couldn't live with the swoosh noises of the rotating turbine blades, signed buyouts (with gag orders attached so they can't reveal details of the agreements) and fled to new homes. A former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, Dr. Robert McMurtry, says he has identified 135 cases of illness related directly to the industrial wind turbines and is calling for a study of the health impacts of wind turbines”.

The recent Environmental Review Tribunal review of a project in Chatham Kent found that noise from wind turbines that meet Ontario’s regulations does not cause serious health problems.  Research shows that some people find turbines annoying. This can be stressful but this is not a health problem caused by turbines but by individuals’ reaction to turbines.

As a practical example that living near turbines doesn’t necessarily cause health or other problems, there appears to be little or no complaint from over 1000 landowners and their families who host turbines on their land.  They sleep very well at night.

“Is a renewable energy project that requires bigger nuclear generators really green? Tim Butters, spokesman for the Ontario Power Authority, says wind and solar energy can't reach its potential without revamping and expanding the province's nuclear generating stations, which now provide 56% of Ontario's energy needs. "The modernization of Ontario's nuclear fleet is an important element of the province's long-term plan. To achieve this, the province's electricity system plan has identified that the modernization of the fleet will entail the refurbishment of 10,000 MW of existing nuclear capacity at the Bruce nuclear generating station and the Darlington nuclear generating stations as well as the procurement of two new nuclear generating units at the

Darlington site (on Lake Ontario)."

Unless there’s another quote out there, I fail to see how Mr. Butter’s statement demonstrates a belief that nuclear modernization is a requirement for expansion of renewable energy.  Germany is ditching it’s nuclear program in favour of renewable energy.  A number of organizations in Canada have thought through how to do it in Ontario.  For example, see the Pembina Institute’s website.

“Has McGuinty put the cart before the horse? Hydro One last month asked the Ontario Energy Board for a six month exemption from meeting deadlines for assessing and connecting small renewable energy projects. Complaints poured in after more than 12,000 solar panel operators, whose projects were approved, are waiting to be connected to the grid. So far, just under a third of 18,000 solar panels are providing power, says Hydro One.

In February this year the solar operators got letters from Hydro One advising them that they wouldn't be connected to the power grid for lack of capacity. Their expectations of a 12% return on their investment, receiving 20 years of payments for the green power from their solar panels is on hold. In late August, Energy Minister Brad Duguid offered to allow about 1,500 rural Ontario families who have ground or roof mounted solar panels to relocate the units at their own expense to another place that might be able to provide grid attachment.

"A crazy-sounding idea,"' said one retired farmer who bet on green energy.

The Liberals have come under fire by the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party for making a multi-billion-dollar deal with South Korea's Samsung Group. The government did not seek competitive tenders before awarding a contract that guarantees taxpayer-subsidized revenue for 20 years for 2,500 megawatts of wind and solar energy.

Despite the fact that Ontario's energy distribution system is years from being able to handle the extra

megawatts, under the Liberal plan, wind and solar proponents, the manufacturers, installers, and contract holders maintain turbines and panels are going in anyway.

For example, in Goderich, Capital Power has announced it signed a power purchase agreement with the OPA to install 150 more wind turbines to the current 22 within Ashfield Colborne Wawanash Township. The project is expected to cost nearly $1 million--with no date of grid access established”.

It’s pretty clear that the sign-up for renewable energy, specifically solar energy, outstripped OPA and Hydro-One’s ability to evaluate and approve projects.  However, it’s not clear why so much solar capacity was built when investors didn’t have a connection agreement with Hydro One.  Probably it was a mix of back-stepping by Hydro One and naïve over-exuberance by small investors. 

What is missed by critics, though, is that while there were a large number of solar applications, the actual collective power rating was still modest.  In contrast,  the OPA has approximately 3400 MW of wind under contract, half in commercial operation and the other half in development with transmission access.  A further 6000 MW of projects are on the drawing board, many of which will be enabled by the Bruce to Milton transmission line reinforcement project in 2013.

However, why would anyone build projects and then sit by with a bunch of idle hardware?  Financiers won’t release funds until they see a connection agreement and date.  Even if they did, it wouldn’t cost the consumer a cent.  The consumer only pays if and when the power flows into the system.  All financial risk is borne by the developer. and all the funding is from the private sector, not the taxpayer.

“Ontario has branded itself as a world leader in renewable energy offering high prices for solar and wind power. The Liberal's Feed-in Tariffs incentive program guarantees energy producers above-market prices for their power for 20 years. The rates for solar range between 44.3 cents and 80.2 cents per kilowatt hour. Wind energy producers are offered 13 cents per kilowatt-hour. The McGuinty offer says it has attracted $20 billion in investment commitments and a promise of 20,000 jobs. So far, media reports indicate a fraction of investment and jobs have been realized. McGuinty's office and the local members of provincial parliament haven't responded to e-mails asking for details”.

Critics claim that Ontario is offering high prices for solar and wind.  In truth, the prices are similar or lower that other jurisdictions.  Wind’s cost is already on par with gas and handily beats nuclear when compared on the same basis.  Solar is expected to match the prices for gas peaking plants in the next five years or so.  In saying that producers are guaranteed above-market prices, Ms Middleton assumes that conventional prices don’t rise and is ignorant of the fact that the renewables contracts have no escalation clauses.  An analysis by John Harrison, a retired physics professor associated with WCO actually claims that the financial returns by developers are unattractive.  However, and to repeat an earlier point, the consumer only pays for what is produced and the developer takes all the production risk.

“All told, says Laforet, about 200,000 people in the rural counties along Canada's Great Lakes shores are being tossed under the bus for the so-called greater good of the future power needs of the province's 10 million population. "And there's no word of a health study”

There’s Ms. Middleton’s favourite source again.  What Mr. Laforet fails to mention is that the rural communities benefit from royalties, municipal tax and amenity payments along with temporary and full-time local jobs.  He also fails to mention that the green energy is being predominantly consumed in those rural communities.  As for “no word of a health study”, he must be unaware of the work being done by the University of Waterloo, specifically by Dr. McColl and Dr. Bigelow from the Faculty of Applied Health Studies:

“We’ve assembled a multidisciplinary team in order to carry out one of the first in-depth

clinical and epidemiological assessments on the human health effects of both audible and low

frequency sound from wind turbines,” explains Bigelow. “By including nursing professionals

and other specialized health expertise on the team, we’re hoping to use clinical and biological

markers of stress to examine the association of exposure to wind turbine noise with sleep

disturbances, fatigue, headache, depression, and other psychophysiological problems.”

Now, of course, there will debates about methods and interpretation of results but it can’t be said that there’s no word of a health study.

The PCs promise they'll cancel the Samsung deal if they win the election on Oct. 6. They will also scrap 1,800 contracts Ontario has signed with developers, causing investors to put wind-solar plans on hold. The NDP has said, if elected, the party will re-examine the Green Energy Act and will alter legislation to place renewable energy projects under public control.

Unfortunately, I can’t disagree with this statement.

Neither Ms Middleton nor the WCO has put forward any fully explained and costed suggestions on how they would come to grips with Ontario’s energy mix, costs and pro’s and con’s of their solutions.

It seems they try to stymie wind power at every turn while ignoring such concerns as :

1. Coal kills about 370 Ontarians a year and impairs several hundred thousand from pollution (Source: OMA)

2. Municipalities are strapped for cash so taxes will have to go up or services reduced unless new sources of tax revenue can be found.

3. No nuclear project in Ontario has ever come in on time and budget, yet it is assumed that a couple of new units in Darlington will do just that. Germany has just decided to exit their entire nuclear business by 2020 for risk, safety and other reasons and aggressively increase their fleet of renewable energy sources.