prince edward county and wind turbines

Swiftdeer · **Posted:** Sun Mar 06, 2016 7:21 pm

123 wrote:

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.

Most of the turbines that go up are not provincial turbines. In fact, a good portion are not even Canadian. Take a look into it. Both American and foreign companies are the ones installing them. But what I find interesting are the ones that can't wait to get out there big boats once the ice is clear, fire up merc, and not stop to think about the fossil fuels being burned, and the pollution it adds to the lakes.

EvesR · **Posted:** Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:35 pm

Steve has made some very good points based on facts. If you refuse to give citations for your claims then, yes he is right to call you out. Your claim of efficiency of wind power is, well, wrong and a red herring as well. Inefficiency means nothing, it is the cost to generate electricity that counts. This site gives the unbiased facts and show wind to be one of the best choices
https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/elect ... ration.cfm
Also Steve has highlighted the new technologies to harness off-peak power which will make wind even more viable
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science/story/16902
http://www.siemens.com/press/en/feature ... -mainz.php
The old argument about the use of fossil fuels to construct wind turbines is silly. how much fossil fuels are used to build a nuclear plant or coal plant or gas plant, not to mention the decommission cost and nuclear waste storage

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

I have never read so many misinformed posts ever in a thread! Wind and solar is nothing but a complete waste of money!! Why do we need to create more power in a already flooded market??? Back in 2003 coal fired plants amounted for 25% of all power supplied to ontario. Why is it that today wind and solar only makes up 4% of today's power supply to Ontario ?? Because it's inefficient !!!! We pay the US millions of dollars daily to take our excess hydro but we continue erecting wind and solar farms! Unreal!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=daS-QzB-pKI

And a s far as fossil fuels are concerned nuclear plants last for over a hundred years, wind turbines life expectancy is 15-20yrs. And 1 turbine does not create the power in its entire life than that of 1 year of steam powered turbine.

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

Swiftdeer wrote:

123 wrote:

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.

Most of the turbines that go up are not provincial turbines. In fact, a good portion are not even Canadian. Take a look into it. Both American and foreign companies are the ones installing them. But what I find interesting are the ones that can't wait to get out there big boats once the ice is clear, fire up merc, and not stop to think about the fossil fuels being burned, and the pollution it adds to the lakes.

You should do some reading on who owns them, maybe Google mike Crawley! U know the former president of the ontario Liberal party that was later awarded a 454 million dollar turbine contract!

Also, I think your in the wrong forum if u don't understand people that want to get there "Big" boats out! :roll:

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:50 am

I find it amusing that someone would accuse others of putting out misinformation and then continue to put out false information, wind power produces 9% (and rising) of Ontario's power not 4%.
http://www.ieso.ca/Pages/Power-Data/Supply.aspx
Then you decide to use a biased source youtube video from Sun news (the Fox news of Canada) as your source. That fact is, to use a government policy to cut down a technology is a poor argument. How much money was spent to move a GAS plant to this region? China now has more wind power generation than any other country, Why? Because they could no longer breathe in their cities from the smog created by coal fired plants (see Beijing for an example). Many other countries are using wind as a mix in their power needs very well like Denmark, Germany, Spain and India.
And "clean coal" is a misnomer as well, it is only somewhat cleaner than traditional coal
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/ ... jhuis-text
Ever see pics of open pit coal mines? I wonder how many would prefer coal if a mine was proposed near them? Turbines wouldn't seem as bad I would guess. But hey, as long as these things are built where they should be, near poor peoples homes, then all is good right?

PS when did this site switch from a fishing forum to a political forum?

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

I have worked in every nuc plant in ontario, so here's how it is working right now with our ageing nucs.
In 2006 they started the re-furb at Bruce power. That was completed in 2012. The reason for re-furbishing these existing plants is because pickering power plant is going to be decommissioned by 2020. Maybe a lil longer if the CNSC (government Ran) allows them to run longer. Starting this October the 12 billion dollar re-furb of Darlington starts. And then also in 2018 the B Plant at Bruce power starts there next re-furb. All of these re-furbishents are takeing place right now so they can take Pickering off-line by 2020ish. Bottom line is we do not need the power being created by wind turbines! We sale off our power daily to the U.S.!!!
5 years ago when coal only produced 3% and wind was only at 2% our province ran just fine on 2 nuc plants! (Pickering and Darlington). We are spending billions of dollars fixing these plants up to run into the next 50years but for some reason some dumbasses think we also need wind power on top of an already flooded electricity grid! Not mention by the time we actually could need these wind turbines for thère generation would not be until Etleast another 50 years down the road when Darlington and brucepower are taken offline. But by then we will have to replace all the wind turbines anyways because there life expectancy is 15-20years!

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

EvesR maybe since my post was just incorrect information maybe u can show me that the liberal governent did not award there own employee the 454million dollar contract. Or maybe u can explain why we need to keep produceing wind and solar farms when we pay the U.S. on a daily basis to take our surplus hydro

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

Here's another one for you evesR since your quoting Germany! Europe once lead the way to green energy until they realized its crippling there economy last year!
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5f615850 ... z42EMmp1qj

The long-gun registry kind of rings a bell

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:41 am

Again your post is misleading, but I get it because you work in the industry. To say we ran the province on nuclear alone is, well, wrong. Nuclear is 37% of our electricity production in Ontario, so no, we did not run Ontario on Nuclear. And again I stated you use government policy to put down a technology so I will post another link to show that wind power is one of the cheapest, especially when you strip away the subsidies all the other forms get as well.
https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazar ... sis-90.pdf

I don't recall saying you entire post was incorrect, I pointed out the part that was incorrect and provided supporting data. I did not mention the Liberal party once in any of my posts so I don't see your point in bringing up who owns what company and what their party affiliations are is quite irrelevant as "back-door" deals exist all over, again I give the gas plant plant scandal. I am not here to defend the Liberal party whatsoever, so to use that argument is flawed.

So at this point you are lauding the 12 billion dollar refurbishment as great move. This will give us 50 years and you are assuming that they will come in on budget (history tells us this is not true)
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cos ... t2dVn0rIsY

Nuclear in it's current state of cost has an estimated 200 years at current consumption using cheap sources of uranium enrichment. The world is producing 11% electricity with nuclear and 38% coal. If we want to switch to nuclear from coal our cheap source of uranium is now much much shorter and we must now use the less cheap versions. Then there is the storage issue, I could go on and on but why bother.

The bottom line is, we cannot base our energy needs for our children and grandchildren future based on what political party did what, that is crazy because it happens for every industry, but rather on the merit of the technology itself.

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:48 am

I'm sure the energy woes have nothing to do with the 88 billion euros they had to spend to decomission the nuclear plants in Germany

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

EvesR wrote:

I'm sure the energy woes have nothing to do with the 88 billion euros they had to spend to decomission the nuclear plants in Germany

Ya and now there crapping in there pants, realizing it's a dumb move! They had no clue of the financial impact it was going to have. That's why germany just backtracked and extended there life of there nuc plants by 17 years and decided not to go ahead with deleting them all.

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:53 pm

I agree 100%, it was a stupid move. You seem to be missing the point I have been making all this time. Blaming a technology for the knee-jerk reactions based on public outcry with no plan in place to meet future needs is ridiculous. It is not the fault of renewable energy, nor the nuclear power industry, that they have made a mess but rather poor political planning.

Why do we have a debt retirement charge on our hydro bills that was accrued during a time when renewables were only a blip on the radar in Ontario?

Also I have seen nothing that says Germany has plans of extending it's nuclear program past 2022 and this was from this article from last week. Can you provide a link?

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/te ... er-163704/

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

Following decades of protests against nuclear power, the government of social democrats and the Green Party in 2002 agreed with the big utilities to limit the lifespan of nuclear power stations in Germany to 32 years so that the last one would be closed by 2022. In 2010, a new government under chancellor Angela Merkel reversed this legislation, extending the operating time of nuclear plants for up to 14 more years (See Factsheet The history behind the nuclear phase-out). In 2011 under the impression of the Fukushima accident, parliament voted by an 80-percent majority to shut down all Germany’s nuclear reactors by 2022 and Germany had its nuclear phase-out back.

The country has been coming to terms with the practical and financial implications of this ever since. Compared to the task of covering a major industrial nation’s energy needs with renewable sources, switching off the 22 remaining NPPs once looked like the easy bit of Germany’s ambitious energy transition (Energiewende), a project that also aims to drastically reduce CO2-emissions. Now, the country is discovering just how laborious it is to shut down what was the country’s biggest single source of electricity in 2005 – covering 26.2 percent of production.

pickerel killer · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 648

There is a plan in place!!! what is so hard to understand about the fact that we do not need wind and solar farms. There already is a plan in place and that's to re-furbish the existing plants. That's what close to "one Hundred Billion" is being spent on between Bruce power and Darlington to run longer. You still have not answered the question of why do we spend millions daily to US and Quebec to take our surplus Hydro if we need these ugly useless wind turbines???? I think your crazy to believe that Germany is going to phase out nuclear!

Here's the link
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/dossier ... -phase-out

EvesR · **Posted:** Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:36 pm

I think we are in agreement on this issue?? My position personally is nuclear should play a major role for the foreseeable future along with renewable and we should be phasing out gas plants which are a band-aid fix. I feel the 2 could meet our needs very well together along with energy storage methods. At this point there is a market we are missing out on and should jump on it. Electric cars a a great first step but I feel they have a limit to there applications, that is where I feel hydrogen technology will be the key. Hydrogen can be used to replace fossil fuels in areas where electric may not work and can be created from hydrolysis from electricity which is over-produced in off-peak times which is win-win situation.
This article gives an unbiased view of real costs and emissions break down of both.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810 ... 08.99.html
I enjoy the intelligent debate, I always learn so much when you can engage someone on a subject.

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