The Ontario government's recent announcement that it will add 900 megawatts of new renewable energy to the provincial grid is welcome news indeed. Projected to come on-line starting in 2014, the new electricity will be sufficient to power over 125,000 homes every year and create over 6,000 jobs. It shows Queen's Park is committed to building up renewables and is to be applauded.
But if the government really wants to develop this sector in the long-run - and the health of every Ontarian depends on it - it must also boost the renewable targets contained in its Long-Term Energy Plan. That document - released in 2010 and currently being reviewed by the Ministry of Energy - says by 2030 wind power will supply just 10% of electricity generation and solar will provide a measly 1.5%. Nearly half the grid will be hogged by nuclear - effectively blocking renewables' expansion.
To its enormous credit, Ontario is getting out of the business of coal-fired power. It has promised to close the province's last coal plant in 2014 and this will be a major contribution to our safety and well-being.
Ontario coal plants emit arsenic and chromium (which cause cancer); sulphur dioxide (a component of acid rain); and mercury and lead (brain poisons). They are also, of course, major greenhouse gas (GHG) sources: at their height they produced as much air pollution as some 6 million automobiles. In 2010 they caused over 300 deaths and 158,000 illnesses.
The coal phase-out is a huge step forward but it is not enough. It must be coupled with a reduction in natural gas and nuclear generation along with a far more ambitious roll-out of renewables.
Natural gas is cleaner than coal but it, too, contributes to climate change and, to some extent, smog. Nuclear energy is a significant source of GHGs. A recent Scientific American study found that, "Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered."
Why are renewables so important? In a word, because they're far safer than conventional power. Solar and wind generation do not contribute to climate change, respiratory illness, brain damage, or cancer; they do not leave a legacy of radioactive waste and acidified lakes.
As well, study after study suggests renewables' health impacts, if any, are minimal.
Consider the science on wind mills. Research done by the Australian Government in 2009 concluded that, "there was no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects." A scientific review conducted by Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health in 2010 concluded that the "sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects, although some people may find it annoying." A 2012 study prepared for the Massachusetts Departments of Public Health and Environmental Protection found there is "no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines, that could be characterized as a 'Wind Turbine Syndrome."
Doctors urge the province to use the current Long-Term Energy review to reduce our reliance on nuclear power and natural gas and substantially increase renewables' share of the electricity grid. Doing so will help us meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets and curb toxic emissions - with obvious benefits for the environment and human health.
Gideon Forman is Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Dr. David Colby is Medical Officer of Health for Chatham-Kent. Dr. Rosana Pellizzari is Medical Officer of Health for Peterborough County-City.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Very little NG required for back up
Squirreled away beneath a recent Telegraph report on the subtleties of badger-culling in the UK was this intriguing morsel of wind energy news, which would seem to challenge the idea that intermittent energy sources such as wind play havoc with grid management. For the 23,700 gigawatt-hours of electrical energy generated by wind in the UK between April 2011 and September 2012, only 22 GWh of electrical energy from fossil fuels "was needed to fill the gaps when the wind didn't blow," it reports. Gizmag contacted the UK National Grid to find out the details.
The Telegraph's figures come from National Grid Head of Energy Strategy and Policy, Richard Smith, speaking at the Hay Festival between May 23 and Jun 2. Gizmag has learned that he was drawing from a National Grid document sent to the Scottish Parliament in response to its own report of Nov 23 2012, entitled Report on the achievability of the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets.
Table 1 of the National Grid's document states that, according to its figures, wind farms generated 23,707 GWh of electricity over the 18 months in question.
Meanwhile, Table 2 of the report shows the energy provided by the National Grid's Short Term Operating Reserve, and how much of that was due to wind energy output being lower than forecast. Of the 246 GWh provided by the Reserve for the same period, 22 GWh are thought to be due to the wind not blowing as forecast.
In other words, for every 1,000 GWh of wind energy generated in that 18-month period, less than 1 GWh was required to meet shortfalls due to the wind not blowing as expected. "As expected" may be the crucial words missing from the Telegraph's summary. What about the energy required when the wind isn't blowing, when you know it isn't going to blow, you may well ask? But, similar to the classic falling tree scenario, is a GWh of energy truly "lost" if you weren't expecting to generate it in the first place? At the very least, the National Grid's figures would seem to challenge the notion that wind energy throws the grid into significant disarray.
Further, because of the carbon implications of these figures, the data simultaneously challenge another knock-on concern about wind energy – one raised in paragraph 121 of the Scottish Parliament's report. It specifically calls on the National Grid and the UK Government to clarify "whether 'reducing the carbon intensity' of the grid takes account of electricity which is generated from thermal [i.e. fossil fuel] plant but, due to despatch decisions, does not make it as far as the grid, whether this is expected to be a continuing issue and, if so, for how long."
In other words, the Scottish Parliament's specific question is whether wind energy can actually waste energy. If, say, Walney 1 suddenly spins into action, is this reducing the efficiency of fossil fuel power stations because they've produced energy which is suddenly surplus to requirements? Could such inefficiencies wholly or partly wipe out carbon emission reductions made by having wind turbines in the first place?
Though the reductions in carbon emissions due to wind energy generation (and increases due to the wind not blowing as forecast) are only estimated in the National Grid report, the figures are striking, if not unexpected given what we've already learned. Over the 18-month period, the 23,707 GWh of wind energy generated resulted in an estimated reduction in CO2 emissions of 10.9 million tonnes. Meanwhile the "intermittency impact" of the wind not blowing as expected was an additional 8,800 tonnes of CO2. "The report concludes that this effect causes only a small effect on the carbon intensity of thermal plant generation which is less than 1 percent of the benefit of carbon reductions from wind farms," it says, somewhat conservatively. The National Grid's own figures suggest that the effect on carbon emissions of wind intermittency is actually less than a tenth of a percent of the overall benefit of wind power.
The reports in question are available on the Scottish Parliament website: Report on the achievability of the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (PDF); National Grid evidence (PDF).
The Telegraph's figures come from National Grid Head of Energy Strategy and Policy, Richard Smith, speaking at the Hay Festival between May 23 and Jun 2. Gizmag has learned that he was drawing from a National Grid document sent to the Scottish Parliament in response to its own report of Nov 23 2012, entitled Report on the achievability of the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets.
In other words, for every 1,000 GWh of wind energy generated in that 18-month period, less than 1 GWh was required to meet shortfalls due to the wind not blowing as expected. "As expected" may be the crucial words missing from the Telegraph's summary. What about the energy required when the wind isn't blowing, when you know it isn't going to blow, you may well ask? But, similar to the classic falling tree scenario, is a GWh of energy truly "lost" if you weren't expecting to generate it in the first place? At the very least, the National Grid's figures would seem to challenge the notion that wind energy throws the grid into significant disarray.
Further, because of the carbon implications of these figures, the data simultaneously challenge another knock-on concern about wind energy – one raised in paragraph 121 of the Scottish Parliament's report. It specifically calls on the National Grid and the UK Government to clarify "whether 'reducing the carbon intensity' of the grid takes account of electricity which is generated from thermal [i.e. fossil fuel] plant but, due to despatch decisions, does not make it as far as the grid, whether this is expected to be a continuing issue and, if so, for how long."
In other words, the Scottish Parliament's specific question is whether wind energy can actually waste energy. If, say, Walney 1 suddenly spins into action, is this reducing the efficiency of fossil fuel power stations because they've produced energy which is suddenly surplus to requirements? Could such inefficiencies wholly or partly wipe out carbon emission reductions made by having wind turbines in the first place?
Though the reductions in carbon emissions due to wind energy generation (and increases due to the wind not blowing as forecast) are only estimated in the National Grid report, the figures are striking, if not unexpected given what we've already learned. Over the 18-month period, the 23,707 GWh of wind energy generated resulted in an estimated reduction in CO2 emissions of 10.9 million tonnes. Meanwhile the "intermittency impact" of the wind not blowing as expected was an additional 8,800 tonnes of CO2. "The report concludes that this effect causes only a small effect on the carbon intensity of thermal plant generation which is less than 1 percent of the benefit of carbon reductions from wind farms," it says, somewhat conservatively. The National Grid's own figures suggest that the effect on carbon emissions of wind intermittency is actually less than a tenth of a percent of the overall benefit of wind power.
The reports in question are available on the Scottish Parliament website: Report on the achievability of the Scottish Government's renewable energy targets (PDF); National Grid evidence (PDF).
Nuclear power hearing two days, vs wind power hearing unlimited
There is a two-day public hearing underway on Ontario's Pickering nuclear power plant licence extension. Meanwhile, the public hearing on a proposed wind farm in Prince Edward County has been going for weeks and could last much longer. Ontario’s social, economic and political process is out of balance with this glaring contrast.
The Pickering nuclear licence extension, part of a massive nuclear fleet overhaul is high risk and,altogether can cost as much as $80 billion of taxpayer funds, whereas the wind farm is both economical and environmentally friendly and involves no capital costs from the public.
On its own, the risk of granting Pickering’s licence extension is huge and indeterminate as historically all Ontario nuclear facilities have grossly exceed budgeted costs and government guarantees are required for adequate operating insurance. Millions more are required to cover the hazardous disposal of nuclear waste. Quebec has assessed the social and financial threats of nuclear power and decided not to take the risk.
Wind turbines are economical and risk free with over 200,000 operating around the world as the developer carries all the financial risk and is only paid when the project delivers electricity. Any wind health issues have not been substantiated as nobody involved continuously with turbines has a problem such as farmer leaseholders and wind technicians working on the projects.
It appears that Ontario’s energy discussion has fallen into the hands of unwary politicians and a powerful few vested interests who have little public concern for the potentially catastrophic economic and health consequence of nuclear energy.
This nuclear power related matter should be reviewed and assessed with similar or even more scrutiny than currently used for wind power decisions.
Doctors urge province to ramp-up renewable energy
Solar and wind generation do not contribute to climate change, respiratory illness, brain damage or cancer.
The Ontario government’s recent announcement that it will add 900 megawatts of new renewable energy to the provincial grid is welcome news indeed. Projected to come online starting in 2014, the new electricity will be sufficient to power over 125,000 homes every year and create over 6,000 jobs. It shows Queen’s Park is committed to building up renewables and is to be applauded.
But if the government really wants to develop this sector in the long-run — and the health of every Ontarian depends on it — it must also boost the renewable targets contained in its Long-Term Energy Plan. That document — released in 2010 and currently being reviewed by the Ministry of Energy — says by 2030 wind power will supply just 10 per cent of electricity generation and solar will provide a measly 1.5 per cent. Nearly half the grid will be hogged by nuclear — effectively blocking renewables’ expansion.
To its enormous credit, Ontario is getting out of the business of coal-fired power. It has promised to close the province’s last coal plant in 2014 and this will be a major contribution to our safety and well-being.
Ontario coal plants emit arsenic and chromium (which cause cancer); sulphur dioxide (a component of acid rain); and mercury and lead (brain poisons). They are also, of course, major greenhouse gas (GHG) sources: at their height they produced as much air pollution as some 6 million automobiles. In 2010 they caused over 300 deaths and 158,000 illnesses.
The coal phase-out is a huge step forward but it is not enough. It must be coupled with a reduction in natural gas and nuclear generation along with a far more ambitious rollout of renewables.
Natural gas is cleaner than coal but it, too, contributes to climate change and, to some extent, smog. Nuclear energy is a significant source of GHGs. A recent Scientific American study found that, “Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered.”
Why are renewables so important? In a word, because they’re far safer than conventional power. Solar and wind generation do not contribute to climate change, respiratory illness, brain damage or cancer; they do not leave a legacy of radioactive waste and acidified lakes.
As well, study after study suggests renewables’ health impacts, if any, are minimal.
Consider the science on wind mills. Research done by the Australian government in 2009 concluded that “there was no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects.”
A scientific review conducted by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health in 2010 concluded that the “sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects, although some people may find it annoying.”
A 2012 study prepared for the Massachusetts Departments of Public Health and Environmental Protection found there is “no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines, that could be characterized as a ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome.’
A scientific review conducted by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health in 2010 concluded that the “sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects, although some people may find it annoying.”
A 2012 study prepared for the Massachusetts Departments of Public Health and Environmental Protection found there is “no evidence for a set of health effects, from exposure to wind turbines, that could be characterized as a ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome.’
Doctors urge the province to use the current long-term energy review to reduce our reliance on nuclear power and natural gas and substantially increase renewables’ share of the electricity grid. Doing so will help us meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets and curb toxic emissions — with obvious benefits for the environment and human health.
Gideon Forman is executive director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Dr. David Colby is Medical Officer of Health for Chatham-Kent. Dr. Rosana Pellizzari is Medical Officer of Health for Peterborough County-City.
Another Health Unit says wind turbines okay
BRIGHTON - There remains insufficient evidence that there are adverse health effects related to wind turbines, says Dr. Lynn Noseworthy, Medical Officer of Health for the Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit.
She told the board of health Thursday that there is considerable controversy regarding wind turbines, but the largest issue is the siting of them, not health issues.
But City of Kawartha Lakes Councillor Heather Stauble disagrees.
She told the board that there are hundreds of reports of adverse health effects that have been submitted to the Ministry of the Environment.
“We know there are problems,” she said. “There are already health issues.
Stauble did agree that siting was critical.
She said there was one original project in CoKL that would have to comply with larger setbacks, so the company broke it down into three smaller projects in order to comply with the regulations for smaller projects - and she wants increased setbacks ”that apply to the cumulative number of turbines in a proposed area.”
Her fellow councillor, Doug Elmslie, said that the Green Energy Act aside, “what we’re dealing with is unknown as it relates to health.”
“Setbacks and low frequency noise are an unknown, but we’re here to look at what is best for our residents,” Elmslie said. “We’re not asking for these to be stopped forever and ever, amen - we just want the province and the feds to look into this.
”Wind turbines are here to stay,” said Cobourg Mayor Gil Brocanier, adding that wind turbines themselves aren’t the issue, it’s where they’re sited.
He said that citing health concerns to the ministry isn’t gaining any traction - but municipalities wanting control of where the projects are sited is.
“Municipalities want to have control of where they’re sited,” he said.
And that’s the issue because currently the Green Energy Act trumps the Planning Act, Brocanier said.
Renewable energy projects get the go-ahead where municipal bylaws would not allow, he said.
Provincial appointee Sandra Jack said she thought two proposed motions had a lot of merit, and proposed a blending of the motions.
“Dr. Noseworthy’s motion addresses the process, not just the project,” Jack said. “But there should be some mention of health.”
She identified the health reports as “self-reported health concerns.”
“In order to reduce community stress and anxiety, they should allow input from residents in the area,” she said.
The meeting adjourned while a new motion was written up, a motion that Dr. Noseworthy said she fully backed.
“It’s a really good place to be and it will carry a lot more weight,” she said. “This should be very well received provincially.”
The board members were unanimous in supporting the motion which included the province revising the small feed-in-tariff program rules for projects between 10 and 500 kW to give priority to projects partnered or led by municipalities, working with municipalities to determine a property tax rate for wind turbine towers, and providing funding to help small- and medium-sized municipalities develop municipal energy plans which will focus on increasing conservation and help identify the best energy infrastructure options for a community, as well as health issues, increasing setbacks for cumulative wind turbine projects, and allowing an opportunity for community members to provide input.
joyce.cassin@sunmedia.ca
She told the board of health Thursday that there is considerable controversy regarding wind turbines, but the largest issue is the siting of them, not health issues.
But City of Kawartha Lakes Councillor Heather Stauble disagrees.
She told the board that there are hundreds of reports of adverse health effects that have been submitted to the Ministry of the Environment.
“We know there are problems,” she said. “There are already health issues.
Stauble did agree that siting was critical.
She said there was one original project in CoKL that would have to comply with larger setbacks, so the company broke it down into three smaller projects in order to comply with the regulations for smaller projects - and she wants increased setbacks ”that apply to the cumulative number of turbines in a proposed area.”
Her fellow councillor, Doug Elmslie, said that the Green Energy Act aside, “what we’re dealing with is unknown as it relates to health.”
“Setbacks and low frequency noise are an unknown, but we’re here to look at what is best for our residents,” Elmslie said. “We’re not asking for these to be stopped forever and ever, amen - we just want the province and the feds to look into this.
”Wind turbines are here to stay,” said Cobourg Mayor Gil Brocanier, adding that wind turbines themselves aren’t the issue, it’s where they’re sited.
He said that citing health concerns to the ministry isn’t gaining any traction - but municipalities wanting control of where the projects are sited is.
“Municipalities want to have control of where they’re sited,” he said.
And that’s the issue because currently the Green Energy Act trumps the Planning Act, Brocanier said.
Renewable energy projects get the go-ahead where municipal bylaws would not allow, he said.
Provincial appointee Sandra Jack said she thought two proposed motions had a lot of merit, and proposed a blending of the motions.
“Dr. Noseworthy’s motion addresses the process, not just the project,” Jack said. “But there should be some mention of health.”
She identified the health reports as “self-reported health concerns.”
“In order to reduce community stress and anxiety, they should allow input from residents in the area,” she said.
The meeting adjourned while a new motion was written up, a motion that Dr. Noseworthy said she fully backed.
“It’s a really good place to be and it will carry a lot more weight,” she said. “This should be very well received provincially.”
The board members were unanimous in supporting the motion which included the province revising the small feed-in-tariff program rules for projects between 10 and 500 kW to give priority to projects partnered or led by municipalities, working with municipalities to determine a property tax rate for wind turbine towers, and providing funding to help small- and medium-sized municipalities develop municipal energy plans which will focus on increasing conservation and help identify the best energy infrastructure options for a community, as well as health issues, increasing setbacks for cumulative wind turbine projects, and allowing an opportunity for community members to provide input.
joyce.cassin@sunmedia.ca
The real cost of renewable power in Ontario
If the electricity grid were a car, then we could describe it this way: during the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, we were paying the lease on our brand new car. It worked well, needed little maintenance, and was seen as a reasonable expense.
After we paid the lease off, we still had a relatively new car that was very inexpensive to own, and required little maintenance. But, like all cars, it eventually either needs maintenance or will need to be replaced, and we’ll end up paying to fix it or to replace it.
In Ontario we’ve put off properly maintaining this “car”, and our electrical system is now going to be very expensive to fix.
The most recent Liberal government began those fixes (that’s part of why utility rates have increased in recent years), but previous governments of all stripes (Conservative and Liberal) had their share in neglecting the grid until it came to the relatively poor condition it’s in now.
No matter what we build or repair over the next decades, whether coal or nuclear or wind or solar, we will have new grid infrastructure worked into our electricity prices, and we will either pay for it on our electricity bill as $/kWh, or it will be subsidized by the government, and we’ll end up paying for it somehow through taxes.
It is rumored that the Green Energy Act is responsible for rising electricity bills. This is simply not true.
The average Ontarian pays $0.13/kWh for their electricity, and most of the recent increases are due to upgrades for our aging transmission system, the largest portion of which is earmarked to help the privately managed Bruce Nuclear Plant (ie: our public tax dollars are paying to help this private corporation make more money off of us all).
In fact, the Ontario Energy Board recently reported that only 6% of the increase in Ontario’s average price of electricity is due to renewables: 45% is from nuclear, and the remainder is spread across gas/coal/large hydro and system improvements. Of the $0.13/kWh paid by the average consumer, $0.002 was enough to cover all the renewable energy currently connected to our grid system: only 1.5% of the bill! That includes wind, solar, and everything else, at only 1.5% of our electricity bill.
Wind and solar are not causing our electricity rates to rise: nuclear rebuilds and transmission upgrades are.
After we paid the lease off, we still had a relatively new car that was very inexpensive to own, and required little maintenance. But, like all cars, it eventually either needs maintenance or will need to be replaced, and we’ll end up paying to fix it or to replace it.
In Ontario we’ve put off properly maintaining this “car”, and our electrical system is now going to be very expensive to fix.
The most recent Liberal government began those fixes (that’s part of why utility rates have increased in recent years), but previous governments of all stripes (Conservative and Liberal) had their share in neglecting the grid until it came to the relatively poor condition it’s in now.
No matter what we build or repair over the next decades, whether coal or nuclear or wind or solar, we will have new grid infrastructure worked into our electricity prices, and we will either pay for it on our electricity bill as $/kWh, or it will be subsidized by the government, and we’ll end up paying for it somehow through taxes.
Scapegoat
It is rumored that the Green Energy Act is responsible for rising electricity bills. This is simply not true. The average Ontarian pays $0.13/kWh for their electricity, and most of the recent increases are due to upgrades for our aging transmission system, the largest portion of which is earmarked to help the privately managed Bruce Nuclear Plant (ie: our public tax dollars are paying to help this private corporation make more money off of us all).
In fact, the Ontario Energy Board recently reported that only 6% of the increase in Ontario’s average price of electricity is due to renewables: 45% is from nuclear, and the remainder is spread across gas/coal/large hydro and system improvements. Of the $0.13/kWh paid by the average consumer, $0.002 was enough to cover all the renewable energy currently connected to our grid system: only 1.5% of the bill! That includes wind, solar, and everything else, at only 1.5% of our electricity bill.
Wind and solar are not causing our electricity rates to rise: nuclear rebuilds and transmission upgrades are.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Anti wind protesters, how far will they go?
Cumbria turbine plan farmer faced ‘reign of terror’
Published at 16:59, Tuesday, 18 June 2013
A FARMER claims he has been subjected to a 13-month “reign of terror” over plans for a wind turbine on his farm.
He said they had waged a campaign against him, his wife, Julie, and three young children, including damage to his property, verbal abuse, allowing his animals to stray onto public roads and even death threats.
“Its been a nightmare and we are alarmed at the lengths people have been prepared to go to,” said 46-year-old Mr Shepherd.
“I had a death threat made against me to a third party. This was extremely frightening for me and my family.
“On another occasion someone let some of my bullocks out of a field and they strayed onto the road. The police said the incident could have caused a nasty accident.”
Mr Shepherd’s application in May last year for an 80m turbine on land near his home in Drigg Moorside Farm at Holmrook, sparked an outcry.
Local residents said the turbine would spoil what was voted Britain’s favourite view of the western fells.
Villagers who live in the Drigg, Seascale, Ravenglass and Holmrook area fear the turbine would adversely impact on the views of Scafell, Great Gable and Yewbarrow.
The application was turned down by Copeland planners, and again on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, and, on Friday, was turned down again in a test case at London’s High Court.
In the meantime, Mr Shepherd applied a second time for a 45.5m turbine.
In May that application was passed by a single vote by Copeland councillors, but opposition to the move led to the government’s National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU) taking over the application.
Just days ago Mr Shepherd heard that the second application for the smaller wind turbine had been given the go-ahead.
“We kept our heads down when the larger wind turbine was going through planning, but decided to go to Drigg parish council and defend ourselves during the second application. We told councillors what had been going on, but nothing was done or said.”
The Shepherd family have farmed at Drigg for the past 100 years.
He said he wanted to put up the wind turbine to offset huge electricity bills.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
More on VAD
Two scientists, Simon Chapman and Alexis St. George, recently performed a database analysis on studies researching the condition known as vibroacoustic disease, or what is commonly known as wind turbine syndrome. Their paper, which was published in the peer reviewed Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, found that there is only one lone case study supporting the existence of vibroacoustic disease – and even this paper is of questionable methodological quality. From these findings, the authors concluded that there is no real scientific recognition of vibroacoustic disease.
Consequently, claims by anti-turbine interest groups of the dangers of wind turbine syndrome are merely propagating a “factoid” and should be met with extreme skepticism.
Their paper, titled “How the factoid of wind turbines causing ‘vibroacoustic disease’ came to be ‘irrefutably demonstrated’”, looked at research spanning major scientific and medical journals. With a self-citation rate of 74%, a Libson research group headed by Alves-Pereira seems to be largely responsible for the 35 studies studying vibroacoustic disease. For context, the average self-citation rate for most researchers is between 7-35%, and is frowned upon because it can artificially increase the apparent scientific impact of a researcher’s work. Since no new scientific studies have been published in the past 5 years by Alves-Pereira, and since no other scientist has taken up the mantle of defending vibroacoustic disease, it is safe to say that there is no scientific recognition of wind turbine syndrome.
Chapman and St. George’s papers found that the subjects of these 35 papers were “mostly aviation workers” who were regularly exposed to “loud industrial aircraft noise, including sub-audible infrasound”. As well, it seems that the major link between vibroacoustic disease and wind turbine proximity – that is, the first real scientific suggestion of the existence of wind turbine syndrome – was backed by two unpublished case studies. What this implies is that there is no real correlation between virboacoustic disease and wind turbine syndrome, despite the fact that many activists use the terms interchangeably. The first is a condition that occurs by industrial-level low frequency noise, and the other is a mere “factoid” stemming from two studies that were never peer reviewed.
Interestingly, the two unpublished studies were never even scientifically rigorous. The case studies had no control groups, which means that many natural and artificial sources of infrasound other than wind turbines could have caused the symptoms. Indeed, the subjects were chosen precisely because they filed health complaints, violating the rule of researcher blindness integrity. For unbiased research, there should be a blind, random selection of subjects. Most importantly, Alves-Perreira failed to consider any other causes of the symptoms. The consequence of the Lisbon research group’s mistake is that many activists are now attributing “common symptoms and diagnoses common in any community” and attributing them to “memorable, quasi-scientific entities”.
If we want to advance renewable energy, we must do so intelligently and scientifically. It is only fair that claims criticizing renewable energy should also be under scientific scrutiny.
Who is Sarah Laurie? Ask SourceWatch.
SourceWatch
To quote from Dave Clark's authoritative website on wind farms in Australia:
- “she is well-meaning and honest but mistaken; and has allowed her concerns to push her into making more and more extreme claims."
A review of 17 studies has found no correlation between wind turbines and ill-health.
Sarah Laurie specialises in collecting anecdotes which confirm her biases against wind energy. She ignores any countering evidence, does not attempt any blinded studies, is unqualified in any areas relating to sound or physics and cites only those sources and non-peer-reviewed studies from other wind energy opponents which support her preconceptions.
While she claims not to oppose wind energy, none of her writings or public statements make any allowance for the possibility that her ideas are mistaken or based on faulty claims or information. She does not acknowledge her opinions are extremely biased and unscientific.
She recommends there should be a minimum 10 km buffer between wind turbines and houses even though she lacks any supporting data for this position. She demonstrates her ignorance of physics by ignoring the inverse square law, claiming sound emanating from turbines can be stronger/louder kilometres from the source.
Sarah Laurie denies her public statements are causing unnecessary concern among some people in some communities, running counter to the Hippocratic oath: “First, do no harm."
Sarah Laurie ignores the nocebo effect in which people feel ill because they believe something is causing them to be ill, the opposite of the placebo effect. She ignores the possibility of psychosomatic causes completely unrelated to wind turbines. She also ignores the well demonstrated evidence of adverse health effects from burning fossil fuels and does not recommend against their use.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Annual Greenhouse Gas Progress Report 2013
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario – Annual Greenhouse Gas Progress Report 2013
Introduction
As required by the Environmental
Bill of Rights, 1993, (EBR)
the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) reports annually to
the Ontario Legislature on the progress of activities in the province
to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of this reporting
requirement, the ECO is to review any annual report on GHG reductions
or climate change published by the government during the year. This
report constitutes the ECO’s 2013 annual report as required by the
EBR.
It includes a brief discussion of the government’s 2012 Climate
Change Action Plan (CCAP) progress report Climate Vision released in
November 2012; too late in the ECO’s review cycle to be included in
our December 2012 annual report.
The ECO has been constantly
challenged in reviewing progress on this file in the context of a
government whose approach is characterized by delayed reporting dates
and lack of content. In addition, the government does not produce its
own data on GHG emission reductions but relies on Environment
Canada’s National Inventory Report (NIR) which is released 16
months after the year of reporting.1
Accordingly, the ECO has
chosen to release this report now, to provide the Legislature with
the most current analysis of the status of Ontario’s GHG emissions
situation. Our next progress report is scheduled for the spring of
2014 and will include a review of any CCAP progress report that is
released this year.
This year’s report is
brief for two reasons. First, our last report, A Question of
Commitment, released in December 2012, provided a comprehensive,
sector-specific overview of the major GHG reduction initiatives
undertaken by the government over the 2011-2012 period. Second, since
the release of that report, there has been limited provincial action
on the climate change policy file and, accordingly, little progress
upon which to report. In part, the lack of provincial government
activity may be due to the prorogation of the Legislature that was
triggered in October 2012 and lasted until January 2013. It is the
ECO’s full expectation that the government will give renewed
attention to this file now that the legislative calendar has resumed.
1 For
example, the most recent National Inventory Report, released in April
2013, includes 2011 data.
In 2007, the provincial government
established three GHG reduction targets:
• 6 per cent below 1990
levels by 2014 (to approximately 166 megatonnes or Mt)2;
• 15 per cent below 1990
levels by 2020 (to approximately 150 Mt); and
• 80 per cent below 1990
levels by 2050 (to approximately 35 Mt).
Review of Climate Vision
Climate Vision provides a broad
overview of government activities in all areas of the economy to
reduce emissions, but provides very little information on the actual
reductions achieved. This information is contained within the
companion technical appendix, which also includes the status of
measures undertaken to adapt to future climate change. The technical
appendix indicates that current efforts are projected to achieve 91
per cent of the reductions necessary to meet the 2014 target. Looking
forward six years, however, projections are less than encouraging, as
the government estimates that all current initiatives (both
provincial and federal) will only achieve 60 per cent of the
reductions required to meet the 2020 target.
Furthermore, Climate
Vision fails to outline a strategy to either close this gap or, for
that matter, to even bend the projected emissions curve downwards.
Instead, with all of the policies and initiatives currently in place,
overall emissions are projected to continue to
rise and, by 2030, to
reach approximately 190 Mt. While the rate of increase is lower than
it would otherwise have been in the absence of any policies, the
trajectory is still upward. This is not the direction in which we
should be heading.
2 The
166 Mt target for 2014 represents a 6 per cent reduction from 177 Mt,
the most recent data for 1990 emissions from Environment Canada’s
2013 National Inventory Report (NIR). Due to Environment
Canada’s
restatement of emissions in its most recent NIR, the 1990 emissions
value of 177 Mt is 1 Mt higher than the 176 Mt value reported in
Environment Canada’s 2012 NIR.
Total Emissions in 2011
In conjunction with the global
recession of 2008-2009, Ontario’s emissions dropped significantly
in 2009 to 166 Mt, the lowest level since 1990. According to the most
recent data, Ontario’s emissions over the past two years have
rebounded and reached 171 Mt in 2011 (see Figure 1). This rebound is
unsurprising, given that the economy has seen modest growth over the
same period, as measured by growth in real gross domestic product
(GDP). Following the same pattern as global trends, Ontario’s real
GDP growth dropped 3.2 per cent in 2009. Since then, it has trended
upwards, and grew by 3 per cent in 2010 and 2.1 per cent in 2011.
In Ontario, increased
manufacturing output and international exports in the automotive,
machinery and metal sectors have contributed to these economic
increases. Continued moderate economic growth is predicted over the
next three years (1.9 per cent in 2013, 2.3 per cent in 2014 and 2.4
per cent in 2015). Given the current linkage between economic growth
and GHG emissions, a growing economy will result in increased future
emissions. However, the rate of emissions growth will likely be lower
as the economy decarbonizes; over the past five years, the delinking
of economic growth and GHG emissions has reduced Ontario’s GHG
emissions per dollar of GDP from 0.334 Mt/billion dollars of GDP in
2007 to 0.283 Mt/billion dollars of GDP in 2011.
Source:
Environment Canada. (2013) National
Inventory Report – Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada 1990-
2011. Targets
are from Go
Green: Ontario’s Action Plan on Climate Change, August
2007.
A
Note on the Numbers
It is important to note that this
report uses the most up-to-date data as calculated by Environment
Canada. In conducting these calculations, Environment Canada adjusts
yearly emission totals as improvements to inventory methodologies and
updates are developed. For example, according to the 2013 NIR, the
restated total for Ontario’s 2010 emissions is 174 Mt, 3 Mt higher
than was reported in the 2012 NIR. While the ECO accepts that these
restatements are important “to avoid confounding a methodological
change with an actual change in GHG emissions or removals”3,
it nevertheless makes it challenging for the reader to determine the
extent to which government action to influence GHGs is having an
impact.
Greenhouse gas emissions are reported
on a sectoral basis. Figure 2 illustrates the breakdown of emissions
from these six sectors: transportation, industry, buildings,
electricity, agriculture and waste.
3 Environment
Canada, 2013. National
Inventory Report 1990-2011, Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in
Canada, The
Canadian Government’s Submission to the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change,
Transportation – 58
Mt
At 58 Mt, the transportation sector
continues to be responsible for the largest amount of GHG emissions
in Ontario. Of this amount, more than 45 Mt was from road
transportation alone. Not surprisingly, passenger vehicles remain the
greatest contributor to GHG emissions in the road transportation
sector, even despite recent federal regulatory initiatives to reduce
GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles. The first regulation
established GHG emission standards for 2011 – 2016 model year
light-duty vehicles (i.e., cars, vans and pick-up trucks). In
December 2012, the federal government proposed standards to further
reduce emissions from 2017 – 2025 model year vehicles. The federal
government projects that the average fuel efficiency of new passenger
vehicles will increase by 57 per cent as a function of these
regulations, and these improvements in fuel efficiency will reduce
overall GHG emissions compared to business-as-usual projections.
However, given that the new regulations only took effect in 2011, and
vehicle stocks turn over every 10 – 15 years, the impact of these
regulations will only gradually be reflected in Ontario’s passenger
transportation emission totals over
the next decade or so and
with the added proviso that the fleet size doesn’t expand
substantially.
Freight vehicles represent
a growing segment of transportation-related GHG emissions. To address
this trend, a new federal regulation was issued in February 2013 that
establishes GHG emission standards for new on-road heavy-duty
vehicles for the 2014 – 2018 model years. As with passenger
vehicles, the emissions reduction impact of this regulation will not
be realized for many years to come and is dependent on fleet size.
Along with the fuel
efficiency measures being undertaken by the federal government, a key
tool to reduce passenger vehicle emissions is the expansion of public
transportation options to promote a modal shift from automobiles to
transit. Over the past several years, there has been a growing
concern, driven by severe traffic congestion problems, regarding the
need to move forward with enhanced public transit, particularly in
the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. One barrier to progress on
this file has been funding constraints. At the time of writing,
various organizations, such as the Toronto Region Board of Trade and
Civic Action, were devoting significant time and energy to assessing
various funding alternatives.
As well, Metrolinx was
engaged in a consultation process to assist with the development of
its investment strategy – a document scheduled for release by June
2013 that is to propose “revenue generation tools that may be used
by the province or the municipalities”4
to implement Metrolinx’s
regional transportation plan. Much discussion has occurred regarding
the need for bold leadership on this file and the ECO reiterates
these calls. Hard decisions will need to be made, but continuation of
the status quo is no longer an option.
Industry –
49.6 Mt
As shown in Figure 2,
following a nearly 11 Mt drop in industrial emissions between 2008
and 2009 brought on by the recession, GHG emissions from the
industrial sector rebounded nearly 3 Mt by 2011. Despite these
fluctuations, the industrial sector remains
the second largest source
of GHG emission in the province. Therefore, it is extremely important
that the government put in place an emissions reduction policy and
program to address this sector.
In January 2013, the
Ministry of the Environment posted a policy proposal on the
Environmental Registry seeking stakeholder input on a discussion
paper related to the design and development of an industrial GHG
reduction strategy, with a proposed reduction target of five per cent
over five years. This paper joins two earlier discussion papers
(posted as proposal notices on the Registry in December 2008 and May
2009) focused on developing a cap-and-trade system for Ontario.
4 Section
32.1, Metrolinx Act, 2006.
Buildings
– 31.7 Mt
Buildings represent the third largest
source of GHGs after transportation and industry. In 2010, Ontario
added 60,433 dwelling units to its housing stock and, in 2011,
another 67,821 units. Despite a growth in dwelling units that has
averaged 62,000 units per year over the 2009 to 2011 period,
emissions from the sector have remained relatively constant.
Efficiency improvements made during the 2006 Ontario Building Code
(OBC) review cycle no doubt contributed to keeping emissions
associated with the use of natural gas for space and water heating
constant while the number of dwelling units increased.
The ECO has previously
noted that Ontario’s microFIT program has created a perverse
incentive that represents a key barrier to reducing GHGs from
buildings. The program provides financial incentives for solar
photovoltaic (PV) electricity generation to the exclusion of solar
thermal systems for heating water. As the overwhelming majority of
buildings in Ontario rely on natural gas for water heating, the
opportunity to reduce these emissions is being lost. The ECO has
recommended that the government address this shortcoming by amending
the solar PV tariff so as not to compete with the financial and GHG
reduction benefits of installing solar thermal systems.
In November 2012, the OBC
was amended to make the consideration of GHG emissions an explicit
objective of the OBC. This has contributed to making the OBC one of
the more progressive building and construction codes in North
America. The ECO applauds
this development and,
given the direct link between natural gas consumption and the release
of GHGs noted above, reiterates our position that the OBC needs to be
reviewed more frequently than the current five-year cycle; a shorter
review period would help to ensure that improvements in building
technology, assembly, and heating, ventilation and air conditioning
equipment – as well as renewables – can be accommodated in the
Code to accelerate the adoption of energy efficiency improvements and
reduce GHG emissions.
Electricity
– 14.8 Mt
Emissions from electricity generation
decreased from almost 20 Mt in 2010 to just under 15 Mt in 2011.
However, these amounts (sourced from the 2013 NIR) do not represent
all emissions from electricity generation in the province. As the ECO
has previously noted, electricity sector emissions, as reported in
the NIR, only include emissions from utility electricity generation
and do not include emissions resulting from non-utility (industrial)
generators (NUGs) that rely primarily on natural gas.
One troubling aspect of
the non-utility generation in Ontario is that much of the electricity
is generated during periods when it is not needed. The power purchase
agreements of many of these generators allow them to sell to the grid
at their discretion. So, during periods of surplus baseload
generation we are often unnecessarily producing about 1,000 MW of
non-utility gas-fired generation with the ensuing GHG emissions.
In the past, Environment
Canada has not provided electricity GHG emissions broken down by fuel
type in its NIR reports. The ECO is pleased to see, therefore, that
this information was provided in this year’s report. Between 2010
and 2011, emissions
associated with coal use
dropped by nearly two-thirds (from 12.1 Mt to 4.1 Mt). The recent
announcement that Ontario will stop burning coal at two of its
largest coal-fired electricity generating stations – in Nanticoke
and Lambton – by the end of December 2013 (a year ahead of
schedule) means that only a smaller coal-fired plant in Thunder Bay
will remain in operation, scheduled to stop burning coal by the end
of 2014.
The phase out of
coal-fired generation puts the electricity sector on track to achieve
the emissions reductions envisaged in Ontario’s Long-Term Energy
Plan (LTEP) over the short term. However, the most recent NIR data
show that emissions from burning natural gas for utility electricity
generation have increased by nearly 44 per cent (from 7.4 Mt to 10.6
Mt) between 2010 and 2011. According to the Ontario Power Authority
(OPA), gas generation will serve as a swing resource going forward
and will play a large role in maintaining the balance between supply
and demand, especially during the period of nuclear plant
refurbishment expected around 2020/21.
The role that natural gas
is projected to play, and the contribution it will make towards
Ontario’s electricity GHG emissions profile, is illustrated in
three different emissions trajectories developed by the OPA and
released this year. As shown in the projections in Figure 3, GHGs
emitted in 2030 could range from as low as 4 Mt to as high as 16 Mt,
depending on the amount of electricity generated through the use of
natural gas.
By contrast, the LTEP,
developed by the Ministry of Energy (ENG) in 2010, projected that GHG
emissions from the electricity sector will be on the low end of this
range – around 5 Mt by 2030.
The OPA data is three
years more recent than the LTEP and this may explain the greater
ranges noted by the OPA. In this context, the ECO is encouraged that
ENG plans to update the LTEP which should close this discrepancy.
However, the government must do everything in its power to ensure
that the future restructuring of the electricity sector is undertaken
in such a way to prevent the high usage of natural gas implicit in
the OPA’s upper emissions scenario. Much of this will depend on the
timing and extent of the refurbishment of Ontario’s nuclear
facilities.
Nevertheless, this
situation argues strongly for better alignment and planning between
the OPA and ENG on the one hand, as well as closer co-ordination
between power system planning and the development and roll-out of a
revised and comprehensive GHG reduction plan. The recently announced
intention by the government to update the LTEP presents a perfect
opportunity for this much needed co-ordination and alignment on
energy planning and climate change mitigation.
Agriculture
– 9.6 Mt
Similar to other years,
emissions from the agricultural sector continued to remain relatively
constant, with a slight drop to 9.6 Mt. As the ECO indicated in our
2012 Greenhouse Gas Progress Report, the current voluntary approach
employed by the government is likely to be insufficient to drive the
changes necessary to reduce emissions from this sector.
Waste –
6.8 Mt
With just a 0.8 Mt increase from 1990
to 2011, emissions from the waste sector over the past 20 years have
remained essentially flat. Nevertheless, almost 90 per cent of waste
emissions are due to methane releases from landfill sites and this
continues to be an area of major concern for the ECO. As discussed in
our 2012 Greenhouse Gas Progress Report, given concerns related to
the accuracy of estimated methane capture rates and the
implications of a higher
warming potential for methane, the ECO questions whether landfills
may actually be emitting twice the amount of emissions than are being
reported. In light of this concern, the ECO is currently reviewing
the emissions data records from the 31 landfill sites that are
subject to the landfill gas reporting requirements of O. Reg. 347 –
General Waste Management, made under the Environmental
Protection Act. The ECO will
comment on our findings in a future report.
ECO
Comment
Over the past several years there has
been a lack of bold leadership on climate change mitigation policy in
Ontario. In light of this, the ECO is pleased to see a renewed effort
to engage industrial stakeholders in the development of an emissions
reduction program and was encouraged to see MOE release a discussion
paper on the development of an industrial GHG reduction strategy.
However, the proposed reduction target in this strategy of five per
cent over five years amounts to only about 2.5 Mt. This is only a
small contribution to the 21 Mt of GHG reductions needed to achieve
the 2020 target. With less than seven years to reach 150 Mt, the ECO
believes that a much more aggressive effort to reduce the growth in
industrial emissions is required. As the ECO has indicated
repeatedly, this effort must include a market mechanism that puts a
clear and transparent price on carbon emissions to help support the
transition to a low-carbon economy.
As mentioned above,
according to the government, while growth in emissions is easing,
they are still projected to increase to 190 Mt by 2030. This is due
in part to an increased reliance on natural gas-fired generation in
the electricity sector as nuclear plants undergo refurbishment. While
not a complete solution to this challenge, the ECO would encourage
the Ministry of Energy to work with the Ministry of the Environment
to assess the ability of pricing signals, demand response, energy
storage, and combined heat and power systems to shift electricity
usage away from carbon-intensive peaking generation, and estimate the
contribution this could make to meeting Ontario’s GHG targets.
Ontario’s continued predicted growth in GHG emissions is hard to
reconcile with the government’s goal to reduce emissions to 150 Mt
by 2020 and to 35 Mt by 2050. Much more needs to be done to close
this gap. In the absence of a renewed effort, the government is
failing our future. The window of opportunity to meet a 450 parts-per
million world and to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more
than 2°C is closing rapidly. Ontario needs to get out ahead of these
developments. In particular, Ontario’s electricity sector has been
significantly decarbonized, representing an excellent source of
low-carbon electricity to reduce emissions in other sectors such as
transportation.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Ontarios wind energy and GHG emissions
GreenView: Ontario's Long-Term Energy Plan Must Support Efforts to Address Climate Change: Environmental Commissioner
Wind energy well positioned to play a greater role in helping to address Ontario's greenhouse gas emissions
OTTAWA, June 5, 2013 /CNW/ - Wind energy has helped Ontario make real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector, according to a progress report released today by the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario that reviews Ontario's progress in reducing GHG emissions. But that progress is threatened over time by significant increases in the use of natural gas to generate electricity, according to "Failing our Future", Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller's 2013 annual report on the progress made in working towards GHG reduction targets outlined in the government's Climate Change Action Plan. Wind energy has played an important role in reducing GHG gas emissions in Ontario by helping to facilitate the phase out of coal-fired generation in the province. As a non-GHG emitting source of electricity, wind energy has the potential to play an important role in further reducing Ontario's GHG emissions going forward. The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) will be an active participant in upcoming consultations to review and update Ontario's long-term energy plan and will advocate for further growth of wind energy in the province. Wind energy has not only been helping the province on the environmental front, it has delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits to local communities, provided new opportunities for the manufacturing sector, and created good jobs for graduates of post-secondary renewable energy programs.
"Ontario's long-term energy plan will need to continue to make GHG emission reductions a priority and wind energy is well positioned to make a significant and cost-effective contribution to climate change mitigation efforts," says Robert Hornung, CanWEA President.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Still no support for VAD
Science paper dismisses medical evidence behind 'wind turbine syndrome'
ELEANOR HALL: The wind-farm industry received another boost today with a peer reviewed science paper debunking claims that living near wind turbines can make you sick.
The paper is published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health and it examines the evidence behind the claims.
Its lead author says the movement is based on a single case of a child with learning difficulties, and that there's no medical evidence to back the existence of any new disease.
This report from environment reporter Sarah Clarke.
SARAH CLARKE: It's been a big 12 months for the renewable energy industry.
Earlier this year, the millionth solar power system was installed and last year wind energy powered the equivalent of one million homes for the first time.
Now the latest figures show that in 2012, clean energy delivered 13.5 per cent of the electricity market.
Russell Marsh is from the Clean Energy Council.
RUSSELL MARSH: Most of our renewable energy still comes from hydro but we are now starting to see quite a large contribution from wind, about 26 per cent of our renewable energy comes from wind. But I think the big growth area has obviously been solar PV in particular households solar where we are now seeing something like 8 per cent of our renewable energy generation coming from solar PV on people's roofs.
SARAH CLARKE: The council puts the growth down to the renewable energy target, which requires 20 per cent of the electricity market to be clean energy by 2020.
That combined with it becoming more cost competitive with coal and gas means renewables are increasing their share.
RUSSELL MARSH: Research put out by the Federal Government - the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics - has shown that right now renewable energy is one of the cheapest forms of electricity generation and that's going to continue to fall over the coming decades and soon will be the cheapest form of electricity generation available to Australia.
SARAH CLARKE: The figures come as another paper published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health dismisses claims that wind farms can make you sick.
The research examined the evidence for the condition known as vibro-acoustic disease or what's also referred to as wind turbine syndrome.
Professor Simon Chapman is from the University of Sydney.
SIMON CHAPMAN: Claims which have been made by anti-wind turbine groups that vibro-acoustic disease is caused by wind turbines mysteriously turn out to not even have a single research paper looking at that connection.
The connection has been made from a conference presentation made in Europe some years ago and based on the study of just one person, a young boy whose only symptom was having difficulties at school.
SARAH CLARKE: That conference presentation, according to Professor Simon Chapman, was authored by a group of Portuguese authors who initially wrote the report.
And since then, he says the condition has received virtually no scientific recognition.
SIMON CHAPMAN: I think it's a highly interesting example of motivated science that has simply got out there as a factoid off the leash and is now being repeated by interest groups who are opposed to wind turbines.
SARAH CLARKE: The Clean Energy Council welcomes the published research.
Russell Marsh is the policy director.
RUSSELL MARSH: You know we've seen something like 18 international studies that have been done that have looked in detail at the evidence for wind turbine syndrome if you like. And they've all concluded that as far as they're concerned there is no direct link between anything that wind turbines produce and people feeling sick.
SARAH CLARKE: But there are still a number of groups who are convinced there is a link between illness and wind farms.
The symptoms they complain of are nausea, insomnia, and headaches.
A senate inquiry report in 2011 recommended more studies be done on the noise impacts of turbines.
Gary Goland from the group Noise Watch Australia says that research now needs to be done.
GARY GOLAND: I'm a medical researcher involved with physiology for the last 30 years and basically it's a complex area. You need to look at the elements that do make the connection and a direct connection and one that is measurable to get a better understanding of what biological effects are happening.
To say that there are no health effects of low frequency noise or other noise doesn't line up with the many publications that are in many journals for a long time indicating that there are health effects.
ELEANOR HALL: That's Gary Goland from Noise Watch Australia ending that report from environment reporter Sarah Clarke.
ELEANOR HALL: The wind-farm industry received another boost today with a peer reviewed science paper debunking claims that living near wind turbines can make you sick.
The paper is published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health and it examines the evidence behind the claims.
Its lead author says the movement is based on a single case of a child with learning difficulties, and that there's no medical evidence to back the existence of any new disease.
This report from environment reporter Sarah Clarke.
SARAH CLARKE: It's been a big 12 months for the renewable energy industry.
Earlier this year, the millionth solar power system was installed and last year wind energy powered the equivalent of one million homes for the first time.
Now the latest figures show that in 2012, clean energy delivered 13.5 per cent of the electricity market.
Russell Marsh is from the Clean Energy Council.
RUSSELL MARSH: Most of our renewable energy still comes from hydro but we are now starting to see quite a large contribution from wind, about 26 per cent of our renewable energy comes from wind. But I think the big growth area has obviously been solar PV in particular households solar where we are now seeing something like 8 per cent of our renewable energy generation coming from solar PV on people's roofs.
SARAH CLARKE: The council puts the growth down to the renewable energy target, which requires 20 per cent of the electricity market to be clean energy by 2020.
That combined with it becoming more cost competitive with coal and gas means renewables are increasing their share.
RUSSELL MARSH: Research put out by the Federal Government - the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics - has shown that right now renewable energy is one of the cheapest forms of electricity generation and that's going to continue to fall over the coming decades and soon will be the cheapest form of electricity generation available to Australia.
SARAH CLARKE: The figures come as another paper published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health dismisses claims that wind farms can make you sick.
The research examined the evidence for the condition known as vibro-acoustic disease or what's also referred to as wind turbine syndrome.
Professor Simon Chapman is from the University of Sydney.
SIMON CHAPMAN: Claims which have been made by anti-wind turbine groups that vibro-acoustic disease is caused by wind turbines mysteriously turn out to not even have a single research paper looking at that connection.
The connection has been made from a conference presentation made in Europe some years ago and based on the study of just one person, a young boy whose only symptom was having difficulties at school.
SARAH CLARKE: That conference presentation, according to Professor Simon Chapman, was authored by a group of Portuguese authors who initially wrote the report.
And since then, he says the condition has received virtually no scientific recognition.
SIMON CHAPMAN: I think it's a highly interesting example of motivated science that has simply got out there as a factoid off the leash and is now being repeated by interest groups who are opposed to wind turbines.
SARAH CLARKE: The Clean Energy Council welcomes the published research.
Russell Marsh is the policy director.
RUSSELL MARSH: You know we've seen something like 18 international studies that have been done that have looked in detail at the evidence for wind turbine syndrome if you like. And they've all concluded that as far as they're concerned there is no direct link between anything that wind turbines produce and people feeling sick.
SARAH CLARKE: But there are still a number of groups who are convinced there is a link between illness and wind farms.
The symptoms they complain of are nausea, insomnia, and headaches.
A senate inquiry report in 2011 recommended more studies be done on the noise impacts of turbines.
Gary Goland from the group Noise Watch Australia says that research now needs to be done.
GARY GOLAND: I'm a medical researcher involved with physiology for the last 30 years and basically it's a complex area. You need to look at the elements that do make the connection and a direct connection and one that is measurable to get a better understanding of what biological effects are happening.
To say that there are no health effects of low frequency noise or other noise doesn't line up with the many publications that are in many journals for a long time indicating that there are health effects.
ELEANOR HALL: That's Gary Goland from Noise Watch Australia ending that report from environment reporter Sarah Clarke.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Wind farm factoids: the VAD non-disease
Many wind farm opponents link the presence of wind farms with a range of diseases and symptoms presented by nearby residents. But when the evidence and research behind these diseases is examined, the anti-wind farm arguments become more than a little shaky, writes Simon Chapman.
On June 18, radio announcer Alan Jones who thinks global warming is "witchcraft" will MC a rally in Canberra of people who don't like wind farms and want their progress stopped.
Many of those attending are utterly convinced that wind farms cause illness in those who live near them.
One of the diseases that is frequently listed in what is now an Old Testament-style list of plagues and pestilences numbering 216 different problems, is "vibroacoustic disease" or VAD.
Like two other weighty-sounding diseases that wind farm opponents bandy about (Wind Turbine Syndrome and Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance), VAD is not recognised by any serious global health agency and is not included in the International Classification of Diseases.
But if you go hunting in cyberspace for VAD, you will find plenty of spooky material. When we were researching our paper, Google returned 24,700 hits for 'VAD and wind turbines'.
In a research paper of mine published today, I investigated the extent to which VAD and its alleged association with wind turbine exposure has received scientific attention, the quality of that association and how the alleged association gained traction among wind farm opponents. Our extensive search of the scientific literature located 35 research papers on VAD, with precisely - wait for it - none reporting any association between VAD and wind turbines.
Of the 35 papers, 34 had a first author from a single Portuguese research group. Seventy four per cent of citations to these papers were self-citations (where the members of the research team re-cited their own work over and over again). Citing one's own work is acceptable and often important and unavoidable in science. But average self-citation rates in science are around 7 per cent. The "disease" of VAD has received virtually no scientific recognition beyond the group who coined and promoted the concept.
With none of the papers containing any reference to wind turbines, we set out to hunt down the origins of the claim. We found it had been first asserted in a May 2007 press release by the same Lisbon group about a conference paper they were to give three months later in Lyon, France. So what was the evidence they produced?
The Lisbon researchers wrote about a 12-year-old boy who lived (along with many others) near a wind farm. The boy had "memory and attention skill" problems in school and "tiredness" during physical education activities, both common problems in school children. The measured infrasound levels in his house were said to be high. The authors concluded unequivocally that the boy's family "will also develop VAD should they continue to remain in their home."
Their press release stated that their findings "irrefutably demonstrate that wind turbines in the proximity of residential areas produce acoustical environments that can lead to the development of VAD in nearby home-dwellers."
It is impossible to understate the abject quality of this unpublished "study" delivered at a conference. No control group, just one "sick" subject, no apparent medical examination of the boy reported, no consideration given to any other possible cause of his tiredness.
Factoids are questionable or spurious statements presented as facts, but which have no veracity. With some 24,700 mentions in cyberspace, the connection between VAD and wind turbines has gone "viral" and is now commonly included in submissions to governments by anti-wind farms activists. The term "vibroacoustic disease" resonates with a portentousness that may foment nocebo effects among those hearing about it and assuming it to be an established disease classification, acknowledged in medicine.
The cyberspace-megaphoned relationship between VAD and wind turbine exposure is a classic example of a contemporary health factoid, which was here unleashed by a press release containing the claim that on the basis of one uncontrolled case study, the association was "irrefutably demonstrated".
Vibroacoustic disease should be considered a candidate for the archives of "non-diseases". However in this case, this factoid is contributing to a regulatory environment which is severely limiting the siting of wind turbines in Australia and thus lessening the contribution of wind energy to greenhouse gas reductions.
By naming and frequently publicising VAD and a plethora of other questionable "diseases" said to be caused by wind turbines, those concerned to oppose their proliferation have sought to pull what are often extremely common symptoms and diagnoses found in any community such as fatigue, inattention, sleeping problems (some 33 per cent of Australians report insomnia), high blood pressure and mental health problems into memorable, quasi-scientific sounding entities.
Wind turbines have the potential to make further major contributions to renewable energy generation, and thereby to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Health concerns are being used by wind energy opponents to thwart new projects.
Regulatory authorities should take care to critically examine the quality of evidence for claims that wind turbines harm health.
Simon Chapman is Professor in Public Health at the University of Sydney. View his full profile here.
Neither Simon Chapman, nor anyone acting for him, has ever sought or received any research funding, "unrestricted educational grants", hospitality, or shares or any other consideration from any wind energy company or agent acting for them.
On June 18, radio announcer Alan Jones who thinks global warming is "witchcraft" will MC a rally in Canberra of people who don't like wind farms and want their progress stopped.
Many of those attending are utterly convinced that wind farms cause illness in those who live near them.
One of the diseases that is frequently listed in what is now an Old Testament-style list of plagues and pestilences numbering 216 different problems, is "vibroacoustic disease" or VAD.
Like two other weighty-sounding diseases that wind farm opponents bandy about (Wind Turbine Syndrome and Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance), VAD is not recognised by any serious global health agency and is not included in the International Classification of Diseases.
But if you go hunting in cyberspace for VAD, you will find plenty of spooky material. When we were researching our paper, Google returned 24,700 hits for 'VAD and wind turbines'.
In a research paper of mine published today, I investigated the extent to which VAD and its alleged association with wind turbine exposure has received scientific attention, the quality of that association and how the alleged association gained traction among wind farm opponents. Our extensive search of the scientific literature located 35 research papers on VAD, with precisely - wait for it - none reporting any association between VAD and wind turbines.
Of the 35 papers, 34 had a first author from a single Portuguese research group. Seventy four per cent of citations to these papers were self-citations (where the members of the research team re-cited their own work over and over again). Citing one's own work is acceptable and often important and unavoidable in science. But average self-citation rates in science are around 7 per cent. The "disease" of VAD has received virtually no scientific recognition beyond the group who coined and promoted the concept.
With none of the papers containing any reference to wind turbines, we set out to hunt down the origins of the claim. We found it had been first asserted in a May 2007 press release by the same Lisbon group about a conference paper they were to give three months later in Lyon, France. So what was the evidence they produced?
The Lisbon researchers wrote about a 12-year-old boy who lived (along with many others) near a wind farm. The boy had "memory and attention skill" problems in school and "tiredness" during physical education activities, both common problems in school children. The measured infrasound levels in his house were said to be high. The authors concluded unequivocally that the boy's family "will also develop VAD should they continue to remain in their home."
Their press release stated that their findings "irrefutably demonstrate that wind turbines in the proximity of residential areas produce acoustical environments that can lead to the development of VAD in nearby home-dwellers."
It is impossible to understate the abject quality of this unpublished "study" delivered at a conference. No control group, just one "sick" subject, no apparent medical examination of the boy reported, no consideration given to any other possible cause of his tiredness.
Factoids are questionable or spurious statements presented as facts, but which have no veracity. With some 24,700 mentions in cyberspace, the connection between VAD and wind turbines has gone "viral" and is now commonly included in submissions to governments by anti-wind farms activists. The term "vibroacoustic disease" resonates with a portentousness that may foment nocebo effects among those hearing about it and assuming it to be an established disease classification, acknowledged in medicine.
The cyberspace-megaphoned relationship between VAD and wind turbine exposure is a classic example of a contemporary health factoid, which was here unleashed by a press release containing the claim that on the basis of one uncontrolled case study, the association was "irrefutably demonstrated".
Vibroacoustic disease should be considered a candidate for the archives of "non-diseases". However in this case, this factoid is contributing to a regulatory environment which is severely limiting the siting of wind turbines in Australia and thus lessening the contribution of wind energy to greenhouse gas reductions.
By naming and frequently publicising VAD and a plethora of other questionable "diseases" said to be caused by wind turbines, those concerned to oppose their proliferation have sought to pull what are often extremely common symptoms and diagnoses found in any community such as fatigue, inattention, sleeping problems (some 33 per cent of Australians report insomnia), high blood pressure and mental health problems into memorable, quasi-scientific sounding entities.
Wind turbines have the potential to make further major contributions to renewable energy generation, and thereby to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Health concerns are being used by wind energy opponents to thwart new projects.
Regulatory authorities should take care to critically examine the quality of evidence for claims that wind turbines harm health.
Simon Chapman is Professor in Public Health at the University of Sydney. View his full profile here.
Neither Simon Chapman, nor anyone acting for him, has ever sought or received any research funding, "unrestricted educational grants", hospitality, or shares or any other consideration from any wind energy company or agent acting for them.
Pickering nuclear, 40 years old and counting
Aging Pickering nuclear plant seeks five more years
Canada's oldest nuclear power plant is seeking to renew its operating license for five years. Critics say it should be closed
By:John Spears Business reporter, Wed May 29 2013
Ontario Power Generation is confident it can safely operate its 40-year-old Pickering nuclear generating station 18 per cent longer than originally planned, OPG officials told Canada’s nuclear regulator Wednesday.
But members of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission still peppered emergency planners with questions about what happens if a nuclear accident does occur at the station, located in Canada’s largest urban area.
Pickering’s operating license expires June 30, and original plans called for it to be wound down in the next few years.
But OPG now wants to keep it going until 2020 without a major overhaul, to help cover the power shortfall that may occur when the Darlington nuclear station has to throttle back for a major refit starting in 2016.
A key question in this scenario is the lifetime of the station’s pressure tubes – tubes in the reactor core that hold the uranium fuel bundles.
The designers assumed they’d last for 210,000 “effective full power hours.” OPG says they can go for 247,000 hours.
“We are confident pressure tube life can be safely extended,” Glenn Jager, senior vice president of OPG, told the commission at a hearing in Pickering on Wednesday.
If a leak should develop, the reactor can be quickly and safely shut down, he said.
But the commission says OPG still has to perform more tests before it will give that clearance. Until those test results are in, it has ordered OPG not to operate any reactor beyond the current limit.
The commission has also cocked a skeptical eye at emergency planning in the area, should a severe accident occur and spread radiation into the surrounding area.
Evacuation warning sirens have been installed within a 3 kilometre radius of the plant.
But the commission has asked for more effective measures to warn those in a 10 kilometre radius, should it have to be evacuated. That would involve moving about 260,000 people.
Dave Nodwell of Emergency Management Ontario, which would co-ordinate an evacuation, said consultants are looking at the issue, but couldn’t say how soon new measures might be implemented.
Kathleen Chung, a Toronto resident with five grandchildren in Pickering, questioned preparations to distribute potassium iodide pills if a radiation leak occurs. The pills protect against some effects of radiation exposure, but must be taken as soon as possible.
Their effectiveness drops to 50 per cent protection if they’re taken 4 to 6 hours after exposure.
Chung said only four pharmacies in Pickering distribute the pills, which are free. One Pickering pharmacy she went to – not one of the designated stores – had no idea about the pills when she inquired, Chung said.
Some Toronto hospitals and pharmacies, which might expect an influx of radiation victims, were also ill-informed.
Chung said information about accident preparedness has been kept low-key:
“They’re afraid if they give people information, they’ll panic.”
But Pickering Mayor Dave Ryan told the hearing that people who live near the plant are confident about its safety, noting the population of the city has grown to 95,000 from 18,000 since it started up.
“We all moved here with the full knowledge the plant was open and operating.”
While OPG insists the plant is good for another five years, some intervenors at the hearing are taking aim at its age and record.
Arnold Gunderson, a U.S. nuclear consultant retained by Durham Nuclear Awareness, said Pickering’s age – dating from the early 1970s – counts against it.
“There’s no plant out there that’s much older than Pickering,” said Gunderson at a Queen’s Park new conference on Tuesday. He’s due to testify at the hearings on Thursday.
The lack of comparable plants means safety and accident statistics for the industry are based on much newer plants, he said. As a result, he said, it’s questionable whether they should be used to predict events at Pickering.
Gunderson also said that Pickering’s vacuum building, which is designed to suck in radioactive steam and air in case of an accident, can handle only one reactor failure. Pickering has six operating reactors.
But the accident at Fukushima damaged three side-by-side reactors simultaneously, he said.
“There are events that can knock out more than one, in which case the Pickering design is fatally flawed,” Gunderson said.
He also noted that OPG hasn’t yet completed updating risk assessments on two of its operating reactors.
Theresa McClenaghan of the Canadian Environmental Law Association criticized the lack of planning for a full-scale emergency at Pickering.
McCleneghan told the same news conference that plans are in place only for limited scale emergencies that would affect a 10 kilometre radius.
Even so, she said sirens and warning systems aren’t fully in place, nor have potassium iodide pills been distributed to people in the area. Potassium iodide pills reduce the damage from high doses of radiation.
“It’s time for Ontario to plan for catastrophic nuclear emergencies, and for Ontarians to be fully informed about nuclear emergency planning and how they as residents surrounding the plant would be expected to react in that unfortunate circumstance,” she said.
A Japanese expert told a conference in Ottawa recently that Japan had failed to take the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear accident seriously prior to Fukushima.
“This is exactly the situation we have in Ontario and it must not continue,” she said.
Greenpeace also presented a detailed brief criticizing nuclear emergency planning.
The three groups all asked the nuclear safety commission not to renew Pickering’s license. They also called for a “full public review” of nuclear emergency plans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
A key player in anti-wind activism is the 'Waubra Foundation', an organisation that exists primarily to spread the notion that low-frequency noise from wind farms causes headaches, nausea, embryonic chicken mutations, and more than 200 other symptoms jointly known as ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’. Ex-General Practitioner Sarah Laurie leads the charge as CEO (and sole employee) of the Waubra Foundation.
Temperatures this summer have broken several records - extremes that will become significantly more likely as the planet's atmosphere warms. With the onset of summer comes bushfire season, a threat that is sadly well-known in Australia.
This is accurate. The Country Fire Authority have the following to say regarding visibility:
"Fire suppression aircraft operate under “Visual Flight Rules”. As such, fire suppression aircraft only operate in areas where there is no smoke and during daylight hours.”
The presence of wind turbines has, in fact, no impact on their fire suppression capabilities during times of low visibility. She continues, unabashed:
Laurie’s claim, of widespread ignorance and denial in fire-fighting organisations, is odd. It is analogous to her claim that the entire medical profession is suffering from 'mass ignorance'. As with most purveyors of pseudoscience, Laurie is convinced a widespread conspiracy exists to suppress her notions.
"Also of great concern is the fact that some pilots working for state fire services have privately said they have been gagged from speaking out about this problem."
The probability that these organisations are engaging in a conspiracy to silence their staff and suppress criticism of wind energy is, presumably, quite low. I suspect these organisations had more pressing issues this summer.
Humphrey Price-Jones is the head of the NSW Landscape Guardians - a key player in NSW's anti-wind establishment. He employs the same tactic in an article in the Goulbourn Post, on January 11th.
“Importantly, if [a fire] broke out in an area where there were turbines, aerial support would be out of the question because you can’t water bomb turbines. No pilot would fly near them,”
This statement has an odd implication. One would expect, if his logic holds, that the fire fighting authorities would be utterly confounded by transmission lines, buildings and other tall infrastructure. Price-Jones also implies that wind turbines may be the cause of bushfires (Laurie states the same in her commentary).
Of the approximate 5,000 years of total operational time logged by 1,182 wind turbines on the National Electricity Market since early 2004, there have been three nacelle fires, all of which were contained safely. ‘PT100’ sensors either de-rate or shut down when the temperature exceeds a set value.