Responses to the CAIRE FAQ's

The Frequently Asked Question section of CAIRE's whywind.org web site proposes 26 questions that anyone interested in learning about wind power might ask. Of course, given the motives, the questions are easily answered with responses that are favorable to the developers. I've looked through the questions and answers carefully and have added my comments about the honesty and relevance of each one. In the interest of space, I've omitted the entire questions, instead providing the topic they "ask" about.

1. Property value reductions. "There is no evidence ..." is classic weasel wording. They mention a 2003 study that found no reductions, even finding increases. What is left unsaid is the nature of the land use before the project. If the land was relatively unpopulated and underdeveloped then a project would certainly be a positive asset to the community. Unfortunately, Amherst Island is not unpopulated nor underdeveloped. We have already witnessed a lessening of demand for AI properties as a result of just the proposal. Wolfe Island would provide some honest answers, but would the CAIRE members agree to wait to see what those answers are?

2. More on property values. Any decline seen is the result of the sub-prime meltdown. This is quite an assertion, offered with no evidence whatever. This is a typical smokescreen type of statement.

3. Ground water tables. "...studies are a requirement..." Studies are fine, as long as they are done completely and competently by someone who does not have an interest in the project, and the promoters stand ready to completely mitigate any problems they cause. Unfortunately there is no assurance of that and historically mitigation has been incomplete.

4. Four red flashing lights. This sort of statement is known as a strawman, where you raise an objection that nobody has ever voiced, and then you respond to the imaginary objection. The imaginary question only exists to give the industry a means to bring up one of their selling points. They use this technique quite frequently, as you will see as we go through these items. The actual requirement is one red light on pretty much each tower around the periphery, all of them flashing in sync. These towers would be the ones closest to the shoreline, certainly visible all night long from most homes. Star gazing would become a thing of the past, and perhaps in some cases blinds will have to be drawn.

5. Noise. "akin to agricultural machinery." Except that ag machines don't run all night 365 days a year. "No threat to human health." In the short term, probably not. But there's been too many stories of problems encountered by people close to these projects to just dismiss the issue. Many things have been declared safe, only to be found later to be not entirely so. If a health issue is found, will the project operators and the government agree to shut the project down? "Does not exceed any legislated noise limits..." More weasel wording. The politicians responsible for those limits have their own interests that very often do not include protecting nearby residents, but rather lean towards trying to appear "green."

6. a - Dismantling cost. Note that the developer isn't mentioned as having responsibility for taking the towers down when their useful life is over. Salvagers are the fallback.

   b - Disappearing government subsidies. Here we have the real reason these projects are done. They all require government subsidies, but what happens if the political winds change and they go away? Lots of words, no real answer. In case of bankruptcy - which must be a real concern if the subsidies do go away - to "appoint someone to step in the shoes of the [operators]" does not seem like a promising answer.

   c - technology changes. "....[the turbine's] operation is immune to any turbine technology changes, since electrons generated remain the same." This is disingenuous, even non-sensical. What about other technologies?

7. Birds and wildlife. Lots of words, doesn't even try to answer the question. Which, for Amherst Island, is an important question.

8. Bird kills. It is true that turbines kill many less birds than buildings or cars or cats. What is not mentioned is that turbines are a larger threat to raptors, which happen to be the main attraction on the Island, especially at the Owl Woods. Nor is the impact of turbines on birds near shorelines mentioned. Nor is the impact upon bats, which seems to be significant. Bird migration studies are mentioned, but the studies we've seen of Wolfe Island's birds are jokes.

9. Throw ice. Some people worry about this one, most don't. But if ice damages something, or worse yet hurts someone, will the operator be held liable? Their "proof", the turbine in downtown Toronto, was in operation for a short time but was having some problems and may or may not be in opeeration currently.

10. Dr. Pierpont. "...not clinically proven..." "...based on interviews..." But if there's any indication that there might be health problems, wouldn't the prudent thing be to do the studies? Before committing to the project? What interest would these people have in faking the symptoms, if the turbines are as benign as claimed?

11. Subsidies. It is true that all energy sources are subsidized in some way. Their answer mentions low operational subsidies (where there's not much expense to subsidize), but omits to mention the significant development subsidies (which would be Mr. Sharma's interest). Generally along with the subsidies come regulations, while the wind industry gets the best of both worlds - subsidies that go straight to private non-regulated developers.

12. Oil leaks. A minor concern for most people, I assume they can keep the oil safely in the nacelle.

13. Stuff a landmass. A true strawman, even more so than #12 above. Of course they have to be spread apart. That is not necessarily a desirable feature.

14. Tree cover. No guarantees, just unenforceable words of assurance. The roads have to go somewhere, and trees could interfere with the wind, in which case they would be at risk.

15. No laws. Another strawman. Of course there's regulations that the developers have to follow. The problem is that these regulations were written with lots of input from the wind industry and very little from any citizen groups. Our experience so far with the "public input" to the government has not been encouraging.

16. Economical size. Another strawman. Just boilerplate.

17. Starting in a year. True, the project cannot start in a year. But once the decision gets made it is very difficult to stop what may be a very flawed and disruptive project. That decision could easily happen within a year.

18. Can wind farms idle a fossil fuel plant? Lots of words try to hide it, but if you read carefully enough, the answer is no.

19. Inexperienced local councils. They couldn't be, because "after all, we did collectively elect them." This got a laugh. Another strawman.

20. Catch fire. Another strawman.

21. 84% support. They all live in Toronto, where they don't have to live with them.

22. Other places halting them. "...has been growing at a breath taking pace." This is cleverly worded to avoid answering the question, and avoids mentioning what the current policies in other countries are.

23. Rumours on the Internet. If you can't kill the message, attack the messenger. Sure there's lots of trash on the Internet. I'm not sure which way the trash is blowing, however. Everyone should do their own research from disinterested parties and see where the evidence leads.

24. Extra services. Another strawman.

25. Only 20% efficient. Their answer is correct in that high efficiency isn't necessarily a good criterion for economy. But they let slip that for a project to be economically viable, it has to be at least 30% efficient. I took the power output curves as published by one of the major turbine manufacturers for their 2mw turbines, and calculated the efficiency of that turbine given the wind speeds over the center of Amherst Island as provided by the Province of Ontario. The answer I got was 25.86%, somewhat short of 30%. The wind people have installed wind recording towers which would provide some better answers, but they of course won't release those numbers.

26. Not a question at all, just a long screed.