Op-Ed Article for The Hamilton Spectator

SPEAKING TRUTH TO (WIND) POWER:
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Dr. Jim Murray

Failing to rush the Green Energy Act (Bill 150) through the Legislature, the government has been forced to hold public hearings. This is an opportunity for an objective examination of evidence compiled worldwide over the past 20 years on the perils and pitfalls of using tax dollars to heavily subsidize the erection of industrial wind turbines across Ontario’s rural landscape.

Our Premier says Bill 150 will create 50,000 “green” jobs. Specifically, he says wind farms will create 2,222 jobs yet Enbridge, a respected energy company, says their wind project (admittedly a somewhat smaller development ) will create only 7 jobs. So, using the right scale, even if we concede 20 new jobs might be created, where are the rest to come from? And what about the other 49,980 jobs?

Economist Gabriel Calzada, of Spain’s Juan Carlos University, has researched the impact of green jobs in a country committed to renewable technologies. He says “Every green job created ploughs under 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy, and that doesn't account for the indirect job losses to come of the higher energy prices that accompany green energy technologies. Companies can be counted on to flee this green, or should we say gangrene, economy.” Examples abound in Europe and California. And Spain's jobless rate is 14%.

Pro-wind lobbyists say wind energy reduces greenhouse gasses. The evidence indicates otherwise. Denmark is the world’s most wind-intensive nation with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. Yet not one fossil fuel power plant has been closed, 50% more coal-generated electricity is needed to cover wind’s failings, and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (36% in 2006 alone).

The head of Denmark’s largest energy utility tells us “Wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” Der Spiegel reports that: “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram” and more gas-fired plants have been constructed to combat wind’s failings as a dependable energy source. Globally, wind energy contributes less than 1% to the reduction of greenhouse gasses. There is no scientific evidence anywhere which refutes this figure.

Which brings us to cost. While wind power is proven to be unreliable and inefficient (Ontario’s existing turbines operate at 27% average efficiency), the enormous tax subsidy required to bring it on line would logically be reflected in our electricity bills. In the U.S., on a dollar per Mwh basis, the government subsidizes wind at a cost of $23.34 compared to the more reliable energy sources of natural gas at 25 cents, coal at 44 cents, hydro at 67 cents and nuclear at $1.59.

Denmark’s electricity costs are the highest in Europe (41 cents/kwh compared to Ontario’s rate of 5.6 cents). Germany’s are not far behind. The Danish Federation of Industries says, “Economically windmills make no sense.” The Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament calls it: “a terribly expensive mistake.” Spanish regulators lavish renewable energy producers with payments up to 11 times greater than on those who produce conventional power.

The Liberal government has yet to tell us the real cost of wind power. They’ve given the developers a 20-year guarantee at more than double the cost of our existing electricity charges but have not factored in the expense of new transmission lines or fossil-fuel back-up plants needed to ensure reliable output from the grid. If the government knows the real cost, why aren’t we being told? If they don’t, then why not? Good government should be prudent with public resources and answerable to the taxpayer.

Which brings me back to the public hearings. In light of worldwide evidence on the health, economic and environmental risks of industrial wind turbines, isn’t it time some hard questions were asked and accountability for answers demanded?

Premier McGunity demeans those who have legitimate concerns about their health or declining property values as NIMBYs. Yet, in December/07, he said (in reference to Bill C-22) that everyone should have “a fair voice in debates that affect them.” So why does he parrot the unproven advice of industry lobbyists but so readily dismisses research conducted by a coalition of 29 community groups that have spent years studying these problems. Since when does corporate self-interest supersede the concerns of Ontario’s taxpayers?

Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that “Wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners. The idea that it can replace coal or natural gas in electrical generation is a fantasy.”

I am not anti-green. I believe we need to invest in technologies that reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. I also believe we must do so with intelligence and not be seduced by vague or reckless promises that do not stand up to scrutiny. Nor should we proceed with massive expenditures without appropriate due diligence, especially when it comes to the health and welfare of fellow citizens and the future of our children. The public hearings are an opportunity for reasoned and informed debate. Let’s hope the government listens.

Jim Murray is former Supervisor of the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board.