Wind energy no panacea 

Doug Fyfe’s letter to the editor, Wind Energy the Way of the Future, on April 23, contained many misconceptions. Perhaps Mr. Fyfe should do some research on his statements.

As a community member, I am opposing a wind project, proposed to be built within one kilometre of the village of St. Columban, where over 300 people will live within 1,200 metres of a turbine. Mr. Fyfe refers to the economic potential of turbines for a rural community. The Municipality of Prince Edward County commissioned an Economic Development Report in 2009 on a 100-200 turbine project (Google “Sept. 2009 Economic Development Report Prince Edward County”). The report states the project income will be $1 million- $2 million based on taxes and $8,000 per turbine to the lease owner. However, the losses to tourism, culture and heritage and property values tallied losses of $2.5 million to $40 million. The report states “1% to 10% change …, with the figure likely closer to 10%, or possibly greater”. Does that seem like good economic county progress?

Mr. Fyfe speaks of job creation. Dr. Gabriel Alvarez, professor of economics of King Juan Carlos University in Spain, found that with jobs created through “green energy,” Spain lost 2.2 jobs due to high costs and “the cost could be greater if the amount of lost industry that moves out due to increased energy bills is taken into account” (Google Dr. Gabriel Alvarez King Juan Carlos University, Effect on Employment). Another study, Worth the Candle by Verso Economics, a United Kingdom government research company, states that “policy to promote the renewable electricity sector in both Scotland and the U.K. is economically damaging. Government should not see this as an economic opportunity….” Verso Economics concurs with the Spanish job loss.

The healthy jobs “just like in Europe” that Mr. Fyfe refers to, has changed. The Netherlands has withdrawn from its Economic Union (EU) targeted agreement to produce 20% of its energy from energy renewables as wind, due to excess cost. Denmark’s state-owned energy company has stopped all on-land construction of wind turbines due to noise complaints.

Mr. Fyfe mentions that doctors and nurses support green energy. He must remember that in the 1950s, some doctors recommended Camel cigarettes. Times do change and discoveries do happen. Thus, over 50 municipalities have asked for a moratorium on wind turbines until health studies are completed. Furthermore, at the World Turbine Noise Conference of April 14, 2011, presenters “admit that wind turbines cause sleep disturbances and stress related illness” ( www.windturbinenoise2011.org).Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, a Maine, U.S.A. doctor, whose specialty includes the effects of sound on human tissue, says 10% of people in his research, living in close proximity to wind turbines become ill.

As well, the manufacturing U.S. Midwest causes 96% of Ontario’s air pollution. Coal-burning plants contribute 4%. To my knowledge, in countries that have installed turbines, no country has eliminated one coal-fired electrical plant. A reliable backup source of electricity is needed for unreliable and inconsistent wind-produced energy.

Find out more truth about wind turbines at www.windconcernsontario.com.Mr. Fyfe needs facts for his statements, not coffee shop talk. But, more importantly, we, the taxpayer should ask: “How can our household afford to pay 15 cents a kilowatt for electricity, the amount our government is paying wind companies?” And we need to ask, “Why does this government continue this flawed and expensive Green Energy Act?

TOM MELADY RR 2 DUBLIN