At times I feel that we as citizens of a democratic society have lost our will to fight for what is right; that we have we bought the myth that those with the power and money have the final say and our voices don’t count.
This feeling has resurfaced as I watch the grave injustice happening in Brockton, West Grey, and Southgate. Why is nobody debating the merit of the $600 million dollar hydro line expansion that is forcing the destruction of homes, farms, and businesses? Municipal councilors, landowners, and the media seem to have swallowed the lies of Hydro One hook, line and sinker about the need for this project.
Let’s start with the misleading name of this project, “Ontario’s green energy corridor”. This is “greenwashing” at its worst. It would be more accurately named “Ontario’s big money, private interest, oops we screwed up the contract so to hell with the landowner corridor”. Why should we care about the 61 year old small business owner who is losing his retirement home and his business that was to be passed on to his grandsons? Why should we care about the 76 year old single woman near Cedarville with nowhere to go? Or why should we care about the farmland being lost to production? We can just import more food from China right?
Aside from the unjust intrusions on people and land, let’s look at the economic and legal facts.
First of all, this project is NOT a done deal. There is a lengthy and in-depth environmental assessment process to be undergone, and Hydro One should be held to the letter of it, the same way you or I would be on our land.
Second and most tragically, this project is not in the least bit necessary, and is in fact based on regressive and outdated planning. Hydro One claims that without the hydro line expansion they do not have the capacity to deliver energy from renewable generation in Grey/Bruce. This is entirely false.
Here are the numbers. Reinforcements to the existing hydro line, which is the acceptable part of the current proposal, will increase transmission capacity from 5,000 megawatts to 7,300 megawatts. This is more than enough capacity to transmit ALL current and planned electricity production from Grey/Bruce up to the year 2013. Hydro One’s concern arises from “potential” energy production between 2013 and 2017 due to a contract committing Ontario to buy all power pruduced at Bruce Nuclear, whether or not there is sufficient transmission capacity. And no I am not joking. Hydro One committed the Ontario taxpayer to purchasing power that it knew in advance it may not be able to transmit! Now we are to foot another $600 million and throw people out of their homes to make good on that contract.
Back to the numbers. The capacity shortage between 2013-2017 assumes 100% operating capacity and efficiency from all generation sources in the region. Based on 2006 production, nuclear and wind operated at 69% and 28% respectively. Assuming similar numbers between 2013 and 2017 this means a total generation of 4873 megawatts. Subtract this from the total capacity of the existing reinforced lines (7,300 megawatts) and we have a surplus capacity of 2,427 megawatts.
It is possible that generation could surpass transmission capacity on a few select days during the period 2013-2017, but is that power worth $600 million dollars and the mistreatment of citizens in a democratic and just society?
The real issue is Hydro One not wanting to look bad for signing a foolish contract with a private company, Bruce Power.
The future of Ontario’s energy supply lies in the establishment of an affordable network of distributed renewable energy. This will require the government to provide aggressive incentives for a variety of small-scale energy projects including solar roofs, anaerobic digesters for farms, community scale wind turbines, geothermal heating and cooling, and many more. These systems will be grid tied but not require inefficient and intrusive power corridors that lose 20% of the energy in transit. A distributed system is the most affordable, reliable, and clean option for Ontario. While many nations are rapidly heading down this road our government still insists on investing in dinosaur technology at the taxpayer’s expense. Are special interests calling the shots here, or do we perhaps have a government that dislikes decentralized systems?
Whichever is the case, it’s time we rediscovered our spine. Councilors, stand up for your citizens, and they’ll thank you for it. And where do our current MPP and MP stand on this? If elected I will certainly not take such intrusions on our citizens lightly. The future viability of this region is at stake. It’s time to begin thinking long-term.
Comments
Oh boy, I don’t know where
Oh boy, I don’t know where to start on this one!
I think first I must clear up what seems to be a misconception re the actual output from both Bruce Nuclear and local wind turbines. Shane said “Based on 2006 production, nuclear and wind operated at 69% and 28% respectively. Assuming similar numbers between 2013 and 2017 this means a total generation of 4873 megawatts.” Sorry but this is incorect, it sort off like saying that “I plug my stove into the end of my Xmas light string because I only use it for 1 hr a day”.
The efficencies given are for total output over a period of time against the potential output. It includes downtime for scheduled maintenance, off line due to breakdown, reduced or no output due to no wind etc. It is NOT a measure of how much power is output at any given time, for instance if a wind farm has a good stiff breeze one day and runs at full capacity and none the next day due to no wind that is given as 50% efficency. The capacity of the lines leading from that facility to wherever the load is must be large enough to carry the MAXIMUM output at any given time, not the average output.
It is possible that it may be PLANNED to have a small percentage of the units off at any given time for maintenance and reduce the line by that amount but if things are working well that may be not efficent. In the case of bruce nuclear it is now unclear whether reactor A will be shut down for refurbishment immeadeatly after reactor A is brought back on line which would affect the required capacity untill such time as they both were on line.
The figures I have seen put the POTENTIAL output from the Bruce A AND B at a little over 6000MW although 5000MW is usually the figure given WITHOUT Bruce A, and the LOCAL proposed (government approved) wind farm output at slightly under 400MW. This includes Kingsbridge I & II Wind Power Project near Goderich and Enbridge Ontario Wind Farm phases I & II north of Kincardine, (see
http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=924&SiteNodeID=234 )
I was not able to find a list of the existing wind farm outputs but am aware of around 5MW. The Blue Mountain projects will be connected via an upgraded line to Stainer. I also note here that wind power is but a very small part (as yet) of our supply, particularly that it is only online approximately “28%” of the time.
It can be seen that whilst updating the existing 250,000 volt line to 7000MW will cover the currently planed output it is VERY tight even given that some of this output will be for local use. Those lines south of Shelburne will also be asked to carry the output from the Melancthon I & II Wind Projects near that community (another 200MW). Given the push for increased reliance upon wind power and the preferred location around Lake Huron and Georgian Bay due to the more reliable wind patterns (see http://www.ontariowindatlas.ca ) we can expect to have many more wind farm projects proposed for our area. The output from these will be mostly required in the ever growing concrete jungle called Toronto and nearby heavily populated areas.
So is a new line necessary? Well not right away, there IS time to properly debate the need, give property owners time to consider their options, and negotiate a better deal if required to move or take land out of productive farming. I do agree that ANY expropriation procedures, no matter what corridor is being improved or proposed, is at best a confrontational undertaking. Who wants to loose the use of part of their property or be forced to relocate especially when compensation rarely pays for all the expense of such upheaval and certainly not for the trauma involved for those involved. That is no different for those impacted for a road widening, hydro corridor or (what if) a rail corridor. One does wonder what the highly paid Hydro execs would say if told to move out of their probably million dollar homes for “market value”! It seems that whilst the demand is in the urban areas it is the rural folks, particularly farmers that pay the price for expansion.
Finally I agree that “The future of Ontario’s energy supply lies in the establishment of an affordable network of distributed renewable energy.” However that will NEVER supply more than a small part of the energy requirements of Toronto and area and will take many years to even become a reality in areas where solar and wind is more practical. Our best short term solution is to reduce the PEAK demand by shifting our use to other times, time of day “smart” metering and pricing will do much to encourage consumers to do this and is being implemented in this area as we discuss this. I don’t know if it is happening in the larger cities but would hope that a priority is being put upon those areas where the majority of the power is being used. For a really good idea of how much the demand varies from hour to hour (see www.iseo.ca/imoweb/media/md_index.asp ).
Wow Shane... I have already
Wow Shane... I have already voted Green in Aurora and voted "Yes" on the referendum, but you have my full support and good wishes none the less !
You really have nailed an issue that we have faced in York Region for three years now. Toronto and communities in BC and Alberta are also facing the same approach to public infrastructure planning. In fact a Supreme Court case could result in BC (see www.trahvol.com for details) and there is a massive spy scandal in Alberta resulting from the Energy Board being caught spying on farmers concerned with the impacts resulting from a similar transmission project that is facing your constituents. Search "EUB" or "spy" at the Edmonton Journal or Calgary Herald for some interesting reading and don't think for a second that the same could not be true in Ontario.
The Environmental Assessment process appears to me to be seen by Hydro One and their ilk as an obstacle to overcome verses a valuable planning tool.
The mandate of the OEB, OPA, Hydro One and the Ministry of Energy is to delivery the best technical solution at the lowest possible cost. The socio-economic and other environmental impacts on land owners, communities and the urban and natural environments are a complete after thought and they are more often than not give little sincere consideration or weight in the planning process, based on my experience.
Google "Injurious Affection" in order to find the Lazar vs. Hydro One Networks case. Hydro One lost their case at the OMB (who is notorious for rubber stamping development) in 2004 after a nine year battle with an impact farmer that lives not far from you. If you want to better understand Hydro One's approach to "public consultation" this case says it all, as does the recent York Region example where the OPA eventually found over 40 alternatives to what Hydro One told us initially was the only viable alternative. Keep in mind that the 40 alternatives did not even include specific conservation measures… so the actual number of alternatives was many more and even now we have barely started to scratch the surface of implementing long term solutions (two years later).
I fully expect that Hydro One will use a lot of semantics to tell you there are no health concerns worthy of being addressed as a result of prolonged exposure resulting from living in close proximity (i.e. within 200 meters) to transmission lines. They will say, no doubt, that there is "no cause and effect relationship between EMFs and health concerns", which means that if we do not understand why there appears to be an effect, we should ignore the issue and take no precautionary measures what so ever. Wrong again; check out the Recently released SAGE report from the UK or a recent news story in Australia's Sydney Herald entitled "Research underlines powerline cancer risk", August 22, 2007, or read the Canadian Cancer Society's position on EMFs.
The aesthetic impacts are yet another concern that Hydro One will try and suggest residents should just accept without comment. In our case in York Region they initially suggested that strategically placed shrubs would address the impact of 140 foot high towers spaced every 800 to 900 feet, located approximately 50 to 70 behind the back fences of 12.5 km of homes and schools. Go figure.
I realise that there are serious challenges to addressing power supply needs in an environmentally responsible fashion given that all power generation, transmission and distribution alternatives have some form of impact that needs to be addressed in some way. Conservation and demand management are clearly the most cost effective and most environmentally friendly solutions, however our long term power supply needs will require a great number components, including some forms of sustainable generation.
The good news is that we are still "energy hogs" when compared to Europe and many other jurisdictions, therefore there must be a lot of "low lying fruit" yet to be picked when it comes to developing new cost effective and environmentally progressive policies and programs. That is precisely why we need the Green Party's voice in our government.
Business as usual does not cut it any longer. We're hitting the environmental wall and it's time for a change, big time.
On a closing note, I have to say that calling a power source "clean" that in fact generates waste that is dangerous for a 100,000 years, in order to benefit a couple of generations is nothing less than a irresponsible and flies in the face of the facts so lets call a spade a spade and start having a serious dialog without the spin and distortion of the basic facts.
The old approach to development and power generation is clearly not sustainable or environmentally responsible, so what part of that do some people not understand ? I hope that the tide is turning and people start standing up for both themselves and our collective environment.
Thank you Shane for breathing some life and common sense into these issues !!!!
Regards,
Richard
I understand, Rural that
I understand, Rural that these numbers are averages, not peak outputs. My point is that it is not worth $600 million dollars to make sure we can transmit the "peaks", during a four year period.
You are absolutely correct that one of the best strategies for the immediate future is to reduce peak demand which would allow us to eliminate more coal and natural gas burning.
Where I disagree most emphatically is that we cannot meet electricity needs through renewables only. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, the Pembina Institute, the David Suzuki Foundation and others have demonstrated repeatedly how this can in fact be done. Why are our leaders not taking these sound numbers seriously? Hmm...vested interests maybe?
Our current administrations are not even willing to put the proper policies in place to see how far we can go. What are they afraid of? Let's get on with it.
“Where I disagree most
“Where I disagree most emphatically is that we cannot meet electricity needs through renewables only.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Whilst I must say that much can and must be done to increase our use of “renewables” (and I would prefer to use the term “non polluting” or just simply “clean” power) I simply cannot see how it can COMPLETELY replace all other forms of generation either now or in the foreseeable future. I have seen no proposal that I can take seriously that proves that it can, although I will admit that the Pembina report ( http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/renew-doable-res-potential-rpeters-pcobb.... ) makes a good case. It assumes a great deal more Hydroelectric and in fact relies upon developing all possible major sources of water power to accomplish its targets, a laudable goal, but I can see a disagreement between green power advocates and environmentalists as to the impact upon our rivers and wild life on that one!
Gas & Nuclear included in some of the scenarios is considered by some as clean and by some as dirty, I will leave it in the “undecided” list for now. (by the way, our Federal Government is considering joining the international U.S. led “nuclear club” which says that all nuclear fuel should be returned to the country of origin when spent, as one of the two major producers of uranium this would make us a dumping ground for other countries waste!)
If we exclude coal, oil, gas & nuclear and have a massive increase in Hydroelectric by utilizing any and all the viable rivers it is just possible that in 20 or 30 years we could have exclusively “clean” power, but I would not want to bet on the lights staying on during a dry spell especially on a windless night! Unfortunately at this point in time we do not have an easy means of storing large amounts of electricical power and must produce it as and when we need it and therein lays the major problem. I note however that the Pembina report does advocate peak load shifting by pumped water hydroelectric projects, a method I have advocated for some time. The reliance upon wind and solar in making the calculation that we can go all green bothers me, there seems to be no allowance for the fact that at times large portions of any generation that relies upon wind or sun will in fact be off line. It may be in there somewhere as I did not read the entire 60 page document in detail, (takes forever to download that size pdf on dialup so viewed it via google!) but I did not see any allowance for any increase in population either. I did see that part of the strategy was to import from Manitoba and Quebec which is a valid point IF those Provinces generation is hydroelectric also.
As an aside here I made a small rather rough calculation for the anti nuclear crowd of what it would take to replace Bruce Nuclear with wind power assuming CONSTANT sufficient wind to drive the turbines. To replace 5000MW with 1.65MW turbines equals approximately 3000 turbines at the normal spacing of one per Km that’s about 750,000 acres. Each one has a footprint very similar to a transmission tower so if you think landowners are upset now ………..! Multiply by four to get a more realistic, but still not equal, scenario. The figures of acreage of solar cells for large outputs is also enormous.
None of the above means that we must not do all we can to move in that direction or that conservation, micro generation, net metering, time of day power shifting, water cooled buildings and other such initiatives will not help in this regard. The government has the major role in encouraging this change and must do more, but unfortunately I find that lack of definitive figures on both sides of this issue simply increases debate and decreases action, and yes, I am just as guilty as the next guy for talking but doing little to change!!.
We must indeed “get on with it” but let us have reasonable readily achievable goals that we can agree to move towards.
“The generation at the
“The generation at the Bruce complex totals about 5060 MW- four 890 MW nuclear units at Bruce B and two 750 units at Bruce A. Additional generation will be added in the Bruce area in 2009 when Bruce Power refurbishes and returns to service units 1 and 2 at the Bruce A nuclear plant. Bruce A units will add about 750 MW each of generation to the system.”
“The new line will provide transmission capability to reliably and safely deliver an additional 3,000 MW of generation capacity.”
In addition to building the new $600 million line, they are planning to spend $100 million on various High Voltage system upgrades on existing lines. The upgrades would raise transmission capacity from Bruce to 7500 MW in the interim.
Approximately 700 MW of wind development projects have also been identified in the Bruce area to date, with another 1,000 megawatts of future renewable energy potential in the region.
Bruce would not need more than 7000 MW. So one could argue that the $600 million new line is needed to get the 1700 MWs of wind power out, wind power that produces less than rated output for 95% of the time.
Let’s be generous to Bruce’s industrial wind power farm installations and only assign 50% of the $600 million line cost against those inefficient industrial wind parks planed for Bruce (1700 MW). Instead of forcing Ontario industry and private consumers to pick up the tab for someone’s green dream that also just happens to guarantee nice profits for the corporate industrial wind developers, the dreamers can themselves step up to the plate and pick up the costs, ie. the industrial wind fans can put their money where their mouths are.
Why would Bruce power invest $4.5 billion in private money to refurbish the Bruce Units if they wouldn’t be able to get the power out? Perhaps we should have left the Bruce units in the ownership of the Provinces of Ontario who ran the units into the ground and then left them to rust away into a pile of scrap that would have to be cleaned up for a $billion or so? The performance of Ontario’s nuclear fleet doesn’t reflect on the technology. It reflects on how we do business in Ontario. France has managed to run its fleet efficiently. Is David Peterson, the former Ontario liberal premier that added billions in costs to the Darlington plant, sitting on the board of directors on a corporate industrial wind developer?
The biggest threat to our democracy, meaning your right and my right to meaningful participation in the decision making process is that insiders get to lobby for policies and programs that are not in the public interest. Do Greens think it’s NOT OK when Big Oil & Gas lobbies but its OK when Industrial Wind lobbies? Funny thing Big Oil & Gas are building those industrial wind plants around people’s homes in Bruce. People are forced to live 300 meters from an industrial WTG and don’t get one cent in compensation for having their equity in their homes whipped out. Greens (samll G) have labelled those who object as NIMBY’s. Looks like a double standard to me.
I have more trust in Joe Public to get it right and make principled choices than the technocrats and politicos who resort to spin and deception to sway Joe Public.
I chose not to take issue with Shane in the Sun Times because that would be counter productive. But Shane, if you are going to stand for leader, get the story right, stay principled and drop some of the party ideology. There is a line.