prince edward county and wind turbines

steve-hamilton · **Joined:** Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:40 am **Posts:** 1776

you mean Niagara Falls?

Sir Adam Beck was built in 1922.

I believe Niagara Falls is Canada's most wonderful natural feature. The hydro dam was built almost 100 years ago.

Billy Dee · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:24 pm

steve-hamilton wrote:

Ontario is selective.

No forms of coal energy, or soon, natural gas energy, will be required in the Ontario energy grid.

Incorrect. Wind and solar are so inefficient and unreliable that for every X number of turbines and cells, a gas, hydro or coal fired power source is REQUIRED. See: Ontario's gas power plant scandal.

Also, basing energy infrastructure decisions on technology that does not yet exist is not only foolish, it is negligent to the point of being criminal.

Trading gas powered energy for huge battery arrays (batteries that are full of chemicals and elements that are toxic) as you suggest is trading a manageable amount of pollution for an unknown used battery problem. Batteries have an inefficient life-span for anything more than small scale storage. For every part of particulate matter you save from the power plant, you have excess pounds of battery waste that has to be put in a landfill. And that is not even considering the amount of wasted energy and pollution that would go into the manufacture and transportation of such battery arrays. This is the reason that electric cars are not so "green" after all. The resource extraction and transportation involved is vastly worse per car than if that car ran on regular fuel only.

Both wind and solar power generation have been around for over 100 years. At no time during that period has either been improved in reliability or efficiency. Your assertion that somehow the "HUGE amounts of money" being invested in this technology is somehow going to improve it is like throwing good money after bad.

As far as I can see, the ONLY improved technology in the energy sector (other than fracking) is that of Clean Burning Coal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology

However, the green nazis will decry this advance at every opportunity because they cannot see beyond their ideology.

steve-hamilton · **Joined:** Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:40 am **Posts:** 1776

Billy Dee wrote:

steve-hamilton wrote:

Ontario is selective.

No forms of coal energy, or soon, natural gas energy, will be required in the Ontario energy grid.

Incorrect. Wind and solar are so inefficient and unreliable that for every X number of turbines and cells, a gas, hydro or coal fired power source is REQUIRED. See: Ontario's gas power plant scandal.

Also, basing energy infrastructure decisions on technology that does not yet exist is not only foolish, it is negligent to the point of being criminal.

Trading gas powered energy for huge battery arrays (batteries that are full of chemicals and elements that are toxic) as you suggest is trading a manageable amount of pollution for an unknown used battery problem. Batteries have an inefficient life-span for anything more than small scale storage. For every part of particulate matter you save from the power plant, you have excess pounds of battery waste that has to be put in a landfill. And that is not even considering the amount of wasted energy and pollution that would go into the manufacture and transportation of such battery arrays. This is the reason that electric cars are not so "green" after all. The resource extraction and transportation involved is vastly worse per car than if that car ran on regular fuel only.

Both wind and solar power generation have been around for over 100 years. At no time during that period has either been improved in reliability or efficiency. Your assertion that somehow the "HUGE amounts of money" being invested in this technology is somehow going to improve it is like throwing good money after bad.

As far as I can see, the ONLY improved technology in the energy sector (other than fracking) is that of Clean Burning Coal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology

However, the green nazis will decry this advance at every opportunity because they cannot see beyond their ideology.

Sir, I suggest you do some reading.

The reliability and efficiency of both wind and solar over the last FIVE years is up 300% to 400%. (the most recent panels and turbines are actually almost 5x greater than in 2010 from FIT 1).

To suggest the wind and solar power generation has not improved in reliability or efficiency in the last 100 years is incorrect and very short sighted.

Also, if you are looking to expand your knowledge (totally up to you) have a read on alternate forms of energy storage that don't include batteries.

Because you are 100% correct on your assessment of battery waste.

Renewable forms of energy are not going anywhere...neither is Nuclear. Coal is a thing of the past.

Solar, Wind, Bio and Hydro are the future....along with Nuclear.

Billy Dee · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:34 pm

lone ranger wrote:

Shouldn't we be more selective on what type of green energy that we use? Are these methods only a temporary solution? Why do we need all this power? Not much demand with manufacturing moving south or overseas. I might have just opened a can of worms. Lol

Not a can of worms at all. These are all very important questions. Questions that the government should have listened to before embroiling our beautiful province on the flawed, failed, and irresponsible Green Energy Program.

The only problem is, those questions would have undermined the ideological bent of the government and upset their social engineering program. Don't forget, how could they have justified giving those sweetheart power generation contracts to their friends with you asking all of those intelligent and important questions all the time?

Billy Dee · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:37 pm

steve-hamilton wrote:

Billy Dee wrote:

steve-hamilton wrote:

Ontario is selective.

No forms of coal energy, or soon, natural gas energy, will be required in the Ontario energy grid.

Incorrect. Wind and solar are so inefficient and unreliable that for every X number of turbines and cells, a gas, hydro or coal fired power source is REQUIRED. See: Ontario's gas power plant scandal.

Also, basing energy infrastructure decisions on technology that does not yet exist is not only foolish, it is negligent to the point of being criminal.

Trading gas powered energy for huge battery arrays (batteries that are full of chemicals and elements that are toxic) as you suggest is trading a manageable amount of pollution for an unknown used battery problem. Batteries have an inefficient life-span for anything more than small scale storage. For every part of particulate matter you save from the power plant, you have excess pounds of battery waste that has to be put in a landfill. And that is not even considering the amount of wasted energy and pollution that would go into the manufacture and transportation of such battery arrays. This is the reason that electric cars are not so "green" after all. The resource extraction and transportation involved is vastly worse per car than if that car ran on regular fuel only.

Both wind and solar power generation have been around for over 100 years. At no time during that period has either been improved in reliability or efficiency. Your assertion that somehow the "HUGE amounts of money" being invested in this technology is somehow going to improve it is like throwing good money after bad.

As far as I can see, the ONLY improved technology in the energy sector (other than fracking) is that of Clean Burning Coal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology

However, the green nazis will decry this advance at every opportunity because they cannot see beyond their ideology.

Sir, I suggest you do some reading.

The reliability and efficiency of both wind and solar over the last FIVE years is up 300% to 400%. (the most recent panels and turbines are actually almost 5x greater than in 2010 from FIT 1).

To suggest the wind and solar power generation has not improved in reliability or efficiency in the last 100 years is incorrect and very short sighted.

Also, if you are looking to expand your knowledge (totally up to you) have a read on alternate forms of energy storage that don't include batteries.

Because you are 100% correct on your assessment of battery waste.

Renewable forms of energy are not going anywhere...neither is Nuclear. Coal is a thing of the past.

Solar, Wind, Bio and Hydro are the future....along with Nuclear.

A 300% increase of the efficiency of a technology that was only 2% efficient to begin with is still a failure.

And your statement on the death of coal just proves my point on the blinders of the "green" folks.

steve-hamilton · **Joined:** Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:40 am **Posts:** 1776

can you point to your 2% efficiency claim? a source perhaps?

You seem to have a little bit of knowledge, just enough to sound smart to those who are not in the know.

But for those folks who have a deep understanding of the industry, the ENTIRE power industry, can see through much of the rhetoric you are preaching.

So please, for those reading this, can you show me the 2% efficiency you are suggesting?

Billy Dee · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:48 pm

steve-hamilton wrote:

can you point to your 2% efficiency claim? a source perhaps?

You seem to have a little bit of knowledge, just enough to sound smart to those who are not in the know.

But for those folks who have a deep understanding of the industry, the ENTIRE power industry, can see through much of the rhetoric you are preaching.

So please, for those reading this, can you show me the 2% efficiency you are suggesting?

Perhaps, but only after you post some information on why ad hominems are not arguments. Attacking my "knowledge" and calling it "rhetoric" is not rebuttal.

In fact, you haven't offered a decent rebuttal of anything I have asserted. You've just tried to call me names.

steve-hamilton · **Joined:** Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:40 am **Posts:** 1776

So far the only name I have addressed you as is "Sir".

It's ok.

Once I get this far with folks such as yourself it usually ends.

"Facts" often get presented (such as your 2% "fact" or the 100 years without improvement in efficiency "fact"), which are clearly incorrect, and without any basis or merit.

Hutchy · **Joined:** Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:06 pm **Posts:** 399

I refused taking it this far long ago :lol:

When you look at the effects of all the other wonders of the world, windmills are a pretty small part, like pulling the wick out of a Lady Finger when your sitting on burning tanker ship full of C-4. Maybe Don Quixote should be put on the case.
You can always tell when the walleye season is over on this forum. "Pickerelpartum depression" I call it. :lol:

Billy Dee · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:16 pm

Okay, not sure that you know what ad hominem means.... but suggesting I am only sounding smart and full of rhetoric, are still not rebuttals.

Follow this:

As you may know, solar panels (the kind used for big projects and home solar) convert 11 -14% of the energy they attract into usable power. Some "new" technology has boosted that to near 20% in a lab, but it cannot practically be replicated in a "usable" format and so is not acceptable in any discussion of solar efficiency. "But, Billy.... even 11% files in the face of your 2% assertion!" you might say. Well, not really. When all cost variables (i.e. % efficiency, construction, replacement, maintenance etc.) are compared to other types of energy production, Solar is comparable to 2% of the efficiency of other sources. This is widely known information but you have to look for it. It is wildly repressed by the green stasi.

If you really want your mind blown, do the calculations on efficiency based upon the price per kilowatt that the current solar and wind power companies get paid through their government subsidies (thank you Dalton) and the number is staggeringly into the negative.

I am not at all against wind and solar energy. In fact I embrace it. What I do not embrace is having it shoved down my throat as a viable alternative when I know it is not. The money wasted in this infrastructure today will have to be repaid by our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

There is no way, ever, that energy production and distribution should be undertaken in any manner other than what the market decides. I would be much more accepting of a solar or wind project in my neighbourhood if it resulted in a benefit to me. If the provider came to me and said "the current cost of energy is x. I can provide it for cheaper than x" then we are talking. Then there is motive on the provider to improve the service and technology. The current program does not do this. It fails in every respect. The providers are paid at the current kilowatt per hour production rate and so that is what I pay, even if solar and wind are cheaper. And it keeps getting worse with every contract the government gives out and every project they force on unwilling hosts.

steve-hamilton · **Joined:** Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:40 am **Posts:** 1776

Thank you for a logical response.

I'm just heading out to clear out in front of the garage so I can get the boat out for a troll tomorrow.

I will continue this conversation later this evening when I get everything together.

You are correct in that renewable energy sources are less efficient than traditional fossil fuel energy sources.

However, a trade off will always occur when moving towards cleaner energy sources.

polliwogg · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:57 pm

We should dam up Niagara falls before we trash the Great Lakes (largest natural wonder of the world) with wind turbines. Let it run on weekends.

When I do the math the green energy act is not a make energy project it is a make work project, They're looking for something to replace the auto industry.

teppy · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:57 pm

Sniff Sniff... SH I smell a Liberal supporter...lol

Time to have the kids divorce the parents, rent an apartment and get "free education" and let the middle class and rich pay for it. Another bright idea... no incentive to work hard.

123 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:59 am

Wind turbines are so loud and such a terrible sight, they wreck the view when fishing. Also it takes so much energy with the giant pieces coming on trucks and backing up traffic. Not to mention the cost of the employees too build which is taxpayers pay for so our taxes will have to go up. I wonder how much fossil fuels and iron that was mined just to make the steel for the wind turbines.

charlie464 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:36 am

teppy wrote:

Sniff Sniff... SH I smell a Liberal supporter...lol

Time to have the kids divorce the parents, rent an apartment and get "free education" and let the middle class and rich pay for it. Another bright idea... no incentive to work hard.

lol

HOME	Bait&Tackle	Bed&Breakfast	Boat Rentals	Campgrounds	Contact Us
Cottage Rentals	Guides/Fishing Charters	Hotels/Motels	Hunting Supplies	Ice Huts/Ice Guides	Marinas
Outfitters	QUINTE FISHING SERIES	Resorts	Tourism	Trailer Parks	Launches

Quinte Fishing

prince edward county and wind turbines

Who is online