Tag Archives: NIMBY

Community discussions marred by NIMBY insults in Ottawa

05 Tuesday Dec 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Ottawa’s rural residents were concerned about proposals for huge battery storage installations. They didn’t get answers to their questions about risks and impacts—for that, they got called NIMBY [Photo: D. Larsen]

December 5, 2023

During the discussions about proposals for Battery Energy Storage Systems or BESS last week, it was disappointing to see the “NIMBY” insult being employed, especially by so-called environmentalists and community leaders.

One is a “Director of Emotional Health” for a community association, who thought it was perfectly healthy and supportive to brand her fellow West Carleton residents as “NIMBYs” just for expressing concern about the environment, health and the safety of cropland.

The NIMBY epithet was so prevalent in presentations to Ottawa’s Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) that ARAC chair George Darouze said “We are not NIMBYs” and then went on with an elegant and important discussion of how rural residents are concerned about environmental impact for not just rural communities but for all of Ottawa.

He said rural residents were especially “sensitive” to environmental issues, which is why they had questions about the battery proposals.

Using the NIMBY insult says a lot about you

The term NIMBY is not just an insult to those who are concerned about a particular type of development, it also speaks volumes about the people who use it.

Environmental lawyer McRoberts:

To urban-based environmentalists, resistance to wind and solar farms is often seen as nothing more than Not in My Backyard attitudes (NIMBYism), and turbine opponent concerns are trivialised. … [M]any communities opposed to these projects have genuine concerns about impacts on environmental integrity, viewscapes, food production, and social fabric. … Moreover, the supposed “NIMBY syndrome” has been criticised by environmental justice scholars and others as an oversimplification of opposition that more accurately is based on a complex mix of factors including perceptions about a lack of procedural and distributive justice in approval processes. (McRobert, D., Tennent-Riddell, J. and Walker, C. (2016) Ontario’s Green Economy and Green Energy Act: Why a Well-Intentioned Law Is Mired in Controversy and Opposed by Rural Communities. Renewable Energy Law and Policy, 7, 99.)

So what were people who live in Ottawa’s rural wards worried about? Mainly environmental concerns, specifically from the risk of fire in a battery storage unit, and pollution from chemicals and water. They were also worried about noise and light pollution, and they had concerns about the proposed locations The battery storage installations would be an industrial land use, yet in many of the proposals were to be located near homes.

The risk of fire was not addressed satisfactorily by the proponents at the public meetings which, people felt, were rushed and held without wider notice.

The technology is new and there simply was not enough time to learn about it, or to get answers to very important questions about the risk of fire. At the ARAC meeting November 30, the leaders of 

Ottawa Fire Services said that the fire risk is a concern for fire services across Ontario. The Ontario Fire Marshal will release a report but it is not available yet — nevertheless, residents and municipal governments were expected to grant support in spite of questions about that risk.

Battery storage: myth or solution?

What are the battery installations supposed to do, anyway?

Shirley Dolan, appearing at ARAC as a Director with the Ontario Landowners Association, said that there had been no cost-benefit analysis presented for any battery storage proposal. In short, she said, there was no rationale for the installations, no explanation of costs or other impacts, no details beyond basic claims that the batteries would provide power during outages, and no reasons given for the locations proposed.

The claim that the batteries are needed for power outages warrants examination.

If we lose power as the result of a storm, the usual cause is damage to electricity infrastructure such as downed power lines. That was confirmed by Hydro One’s CEO earlier this year. So, if we have power lines or other features such as transformers damaged and not functional, the power (maximum of FOUR HOURS, by the way, not days) still cannot reach our homes.

So, again: what is the benefit? Where is the cost-benefit analysis to support these proposals?

NIMBY? or objection to a flawed process?

People in communities where battery storage was proposed said they were interested in the concept of the technology, but were concerned about the process created by the IESO. There was little opportunity for public input, as the comments and questions from the public at the proponent meetings don’t go anywhere and are not recorded—no response is necessary from the proponent. As Mr. Darouze pointed out, the process was rushed and provided very little information to both the public and the municipal government, which was expected to evaluate the proposals and grant support.

He said, correctly, that the city’s own assessment process is far more rigorous for any type of development than is required by the IESO. That is not acceptable, many thought.

As McRoberts wrote, what might be branded as NIMBYism is a concern about justice in procedural and approval processes. Much has been written about the public engagement process for energy development in Ontario, and the conclusion is that it has been seriously flawed. Two Auditors General in Ontario said that any energy proposal ought to have a cost-benefit analysis done: this has never happened, and is still not being done.

In his paper, “NIMBYs are not the problem”, Ottawa professor Stewart Fast wrote:

“If conflict is to be minimized and decisions given greater legitimacy, the public must be involved in the process. Unfortunately, Ontario’s approach to building wind generators and other renewable energy projects has ignored this tenet. Instead of more public participation, there has been less. … The approach was designed in the conviction that Ontario’s citizens were not to be trusted, and that anyone opposing wind energy was simply in the grip of NIMBYism. … Policy-makers must realize that not all citizens are selfish NIMBYs.” (Stewart Fast, Policy Options, IRPP.org, 2017)

The way forward in my view is to provide the public and our elected representatives with all the facts we all need to make a responsible, informed decision. One Rideau Lakes resident told Ottawa Wind Concerns, “Last week, I never even heard of BESS. This week, I’m going to meetings and writing letters!” (The project there has been withdrawn in the face of public opposition.)

Battery storage technology on grid-scale is relatively new and already there have been problems. A worldwide database documenting battery fires and failures lists more than 80 events so far. Battery storage developers say there is low risk, but not no risk.

Ottawa Fire Services told ARAC that there is no option but to let a battery fire burn while working to keep other equipment cool and to keep the fire from spreading.

Meanwhile, the emissions from battery fires include carbon monoxide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and corrosive nitrogen dioxide. But to the “environmentalists”, their citizen neighbours and fellow rural residents who are concerned about these emissions are NIMBYs?

We ask, if the people and organizations who claim to want to help with climate change and protect the environment do NOT support protection of health, safety, and sanctity of the ecosystem, what IS their agenda?

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

 

Big Wind: losing the PR battle

15 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thanks to an Alert Reader in North Gower for sending this to us.

Big Wind: losing the PR battle

This excellent commentary details how Big Wind has sought to drive all discussion toward it as the answer for everything from air pollution to energy independence and economic prosperity and, now, climate change.

This commentary is by Mark Whitworth, who is the executive director of Energize Vermont.

Big Wind has a big public relations problem. A new WCAX poll shows public support for wind plummeting from 66 percent in 2013 to 50 percent now.

Wind developers may search for clues about this reversal of fortune in a UVM honors undergraduate thesis written by Neil Brandt. Mr. Brandt says that media coverage of ridgeline wind in Vermont dropped in favorability from 47 percent in 2003 to a measly 26 percent in 2012.

One of Gov. Shumlin’s aides didn’t need a university study to see this: “We are losing the water cooler debate about wind.” This may be why the governor’s talk of renewable energy now emphasizes solar, not wind.

(Of course, if Mr. Brandt were to conduct a similar study of solar, he’d find that poor siting choices are creating a backlash against solar that’s reflected in the state’s media. How long before that shows up in statewide polls?)

In carrying out his ridgeline wind study, Brandt collected 10 years’ worth of relevant news stories from the Caledonian Record, Burlington Free Press and the Associated Press’ Vermont bureau. He broke each of the stories down into individual statements and classified each statement in a variety of ways: who made the statement, what issue it addressed, and did it support or oppose wind.

He identified trends in Big Wind’s media messaging as well as trends in public attitudes.

For example, between 2003 and 2012, Big Wind stopped emphasizing energy independence. The argument must not have been working. Were Vermonters skeptical of the claim that small amounts of electricity produced at random times would make them independent? Was it David Blittersdorf’s pronouncement that he needed 200 miles of ridgeline wind in Vermont?

Brandt says that local economic gain was once the dominant pro-wind theme. Not anymore. Now we know that the wind jobs were temporary. And the good ones went to out-of-state specialists. Heck, even the driver that tipped over his tractor-trailer on his way to Lowell was a specialist from Texas. Any of my neighbors could have driven that truck off the road. I would have been proud to do it myself.

Brandt analyzed coverage of aesthetics. For years, Big Wind has tried to ridicule opponents by calling them NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard) who selfishly imperil the planet in order to preserve scenery. Brandt dismisses the NIMBY characterization: “…local opposition to renewable energy development is multi-faceted and based on more than a knee-jerk NIMBY reaction.” Brandt says that aesthetics arguments were prevalent in 2003, but in 2012, only 12 percent of anti-wind statements related to aesthetics.

While aesthetics arguments were falling, human health arguments were rising. By 2012, 33 percent of anti-wind statements involved human health impacts. Interestingly, he found no statements about health impacts from state government. This is not surprising—both the governor and the Department of Health have been missing in action on wind’s health impacts. The department has met with neither turbine neighbors nor the doctors who treat them. But, that hasn’t deterred the department from announcing that negative health impacts result from bad attitudes and are thus the fault of the sufferers themselves.

Big Wind knows that their turbines create ill health because the U.S. Department of Energy told them so. A study conducted for the DoE from 1979 to 1985 investigated complaints of families living near a single 200-foot tall wind turbine. (Picture this pathetic little turbine amidst Lowell’s 459-footers.) The cause of the complaints was found to be infrasound.

Vermont turbines are not monitored for infrasound; only audible noise is monitored. And it’s not monitored continuously. Turbine operators can choose who does the monitoring; they only hire firms that will swear everything is ok. In Vermont, this is easy because the standards are so lax.

Big Wind uses audible noise as a red herring to divert attention away from infrasound. They compare turbine noise to rustling leaves. But neighbors describe turbine effects that cut right through rustling leaves — concussive, more felt than heard. That’s how it is with infrasound.

Brandt found that Big Wind has latched on to climate change in a big way and it now dominates their sales pitch.

Brandt found that Big Wind has latched on to climate change in a big way and it now dominates their sales pitch. It’s used in conjunction with a technique called “the fallacy of the excluded middle” – the oldest advertising gimmick in the book: Chew Clorets and have lots of fabulous lovers. Don’t chew Clorets and watch Gilligan’s Island — alone.

It’s the same technique that Texas Gov. Rick Perry uses to talk about immigration, terrorism, and Ebola.

Here’s how it goes: If we don’t convert our ridgelines into wind power plants, we’re going to get wiped out by another tropical storm Irene.

Whoa. This proposition excludes more than the middle:

1. We cannot reverse climate change just by reducing our carbon emissions.

2. Climate change or not, next big storm will come; industrializing our ridgelines will only worsen storm damage.

3. Healthy ridgelines are crucial for enabling climate adaptation and survival for a wide range of species. Our best response to climate change is to preserve essential wildlife habitat.

4. If we’re serious about reducing carbon emissions, we should first focus our limited resources on weatherization: bigger payoff, less cost, no environmental destruction, no disasters. No big money for Big Wind.

Do industrial wind turbines reduce carbon emissions? Can they even erase their own carbon footprints? During the last legislative session, one Senate committee entertained a bill that would have required developers to account for carbon emissions over the life of a wind project—from manufacture to decommissioning. Vermont’s leading faux-environmental group opposed the bill, calling it “anti-renewable.” I guess it wouldn’t serve the public interest to question industry propaganda.

Big Wind probably won’t just pack its bags and leave—there’s too much money to be made off Vermonters. The energy independence and economic growth arguments haven’t worked, so Big Wind will make its last stand in Vermont by turning up the heat on climate change.

Be on the lookout for the excluded middle — that’s where Big Wind hides its inconvenient truths.

Citizen opposition to wind farms results in ratepayer savings

25 Monday Aug 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Here is a comment from Ottawa economist Robert Lyman, who is reflecting on a recent post by energy blogger Scott Luft.

Luft believes that citizen opposition to giant wind power projects has resulted in substantial savings for Ontario.

I thought I might extract a few of the more salient points that would be of interest to Wind Concerns Ontario.
The article is intended as a status report on industrial wind in Ontario, measured three years after the last batch of feed-in tariff contracts were awarded.  Three years ago, the contracted capacity from wind generators increased from around 4000 MW to around 5800 MW, according to the Ontario Power Authority (OPA). The OPA showed 1958 MW “in service” in 2011.
The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), in contrast, currently reports that “installed generation capacity” for wind is 1824 MW, well below the OPA’s figure for 30 months ago. The discrepancy between the two agencies is unexplained. Scott Luft’s interpretation is that actual generation from wind sites has been only about 12.5 % of the grid-connected wind sites. He also estimates, based on OPA data, that Ontario currently has about 2800 MW of generation capacity from industrial wind turbine generators. This is less than half the capacity that was contracted for three years ago.
He believes that the delays in construction of the contracted capacity is clearly the result of “rural NIMBYism”; in other words, the strong efforts of rural communities to push back against wind developers.
How much has this saved Ontario ratepayers?
The feed-in tariff contracts were to pay $135 per MWh. At 2850 MW, a delay of one year in construction pushes back about $1 billion in contract payments. However, the savings to be realized from wind opposition go further. Contracting, which was planned to go to about 8000 MW of capacity, was curtailed below 6000 MW three years ago, and the 2013 Long Term Energy Plan rolled back wind plans by an additional 1200 MW. The deferral on contracting 2000 MW of wind for three years is worth about $2.5 billion, and cancelling 1200 MW altogether could be worth another $8.5 billion over the 20 years of the contract term.