Readers might be interested in this contrarian article that questions the assumption that a large-scale investment in wind energy benefits the environment or reduces CO2. I'm suspicious of the author's claim that there are serious negative health effects from the turbines (noise), and I think that nuclear power would cancel the rise in CO2 from building fossil fuel power plants (for more reserve power). But the inefficiency of wind is worth thinking about.

Ontario, don't be seduced by wind's breezy glamour
Province should seek an objective appraisal of wind turbines' generating potential

Toronto Star
March 24, 2009
Michael Trebilcock
Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law

I am not anti-green.

We do need to invest in technologies that reduce our reliance on fossil fuels that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

But I believe we must do so with intelligence and not be seduced by vague or reckless promises that clearly do not stand up to scrutiny. Nor should we proceed with enormous public expenditures without appropriate due diligence and reasonable care, especially when it comes to the health and welfare of our fellow citizens and the future of our children.

I chose to live in a rural area that was once one of the scenic treasures of Ontario and that is now being populated by wind turbines. According to the premier of our province, I am a NIMBY. But NIMBY talk comes cheap from those who will never live anywhere near these incessantly noisy, 35-story behemoths that cause documented health and environmental risks as well as dramatically lowering property values and impacting one's quality of life. And all for what purpose when we have alternative approaches that are proven to be less costly and vastly more effective?

While the intent is understandable, the Green Energy Act is seriously flawed – particularly in those aspects pertaining to wind energy and lack of due process.

If the provincial government of the day is so certain that the risks are negligible, then why does the act not contain protections such as indemnifying property owners for losses incurred or those who will suffer severe negative health consequences?

Wouldn't a prudent government undertake independent epidemiological and environmental studies prior to giving developers huge financial incentives to go down a path that is largely irreversible? Proceeding without such knowledge, while other pressing social priorities take a back seat, is a classic example of "Fire. Ready. Aim."

Let's examine some of the facts.

Is wind power really a viable economical alternative to other renewable energy options? The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19 per cent of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel power plant. It requires 50 per cent more coal-generated electricity to cover wind's failings; pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36 per cent in 2006 alone); and its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to Ontario's current rate of about 6 cents).

The Danish Federation of Industries says: "Windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense." The head of Denmark's largest energy utility tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions." The chair of energy policy in the Danish parliament calls it "a terribly expensive disaster."

The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that "Germany's CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram" and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery. These people do not seem like NIMBYs nor does this sound like a green Utopia.

Given these circumstances, The Wall Street Journal advises that "wind is more a nuisance than a source of power" and that "wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners. The idea that it can replace coal or natural gas in electrical generation is a fantasy." Worldwide, wind energy contributes less than 1 per cent to the reduction of greenhouse gasses.

I am disappointed that our government seems so willing to accept the advice of the wind industry, as many of its claims parrot their views. The Advertising Standards Authority in the U.K. recently forced the industry to cut by half its false claim regarding the amount of harmful carbon dioxide emissions that would be eliminated by using wind turbines.

Isn't it time we insisted on an objective, scientific examination of all the facts rather than simply accepting the industry lobbyists' assertions at face value?

The government advises that wind power will cost us 13.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (more than twice current electricity costs) but has yet to publicly identify all the additional costs. Its enthusiasm for green is countered by its silence on how this flawed policy – one that relies so heavily on unpredictable, heavily subsidized, premium-priced wind energy – will require backup from even more publicly funded, standby generation facilities.

As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a staggering increase in energy costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the promise of 55,000 new jobs from green energy is a cruel delusion.

The people most negatively affected by this act are rural residents. By taking planning responsibilities away from local municipalities and leaving key decisions to subsequent ministerial regulations, the new decision-making regime gives them no say in matters that will dramatically affect their lives. Rural residents are not major contributors to Ontario's carbon footprint but are being conscripted as a major part of its solution.

There is a simple solution to the impact on rural residents. Ensure that setbacks from residences conform to international standards as endorsed by renowned medical and scientific bodies that have closely examined the health and environmental risks. The French Academy of Medicine recommends 1.5 kilometres, pending further research on health effects of persistent exposure to low intensity noise.

Alternatively, the government could concentrate wind farms in more remote areas, as has been done in Quebec and much of Europe. But that would likely cost more and this government seems bent on sacrificing the welfare of rural residents rather than incurring more expense.

I have spent my professional life committed to the principle that reasoned and informed debate best serves the public interest. It may cost us all dearly that the present government evinces so little commitment to the same principle.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 1:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For anyone who missed this the first time, I found this article on BPA in soft drink cans interesting.

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Thursday's Globe and Mail, March 4, 2009

The estrogen-mimicking chemical BPA, already banished from baby bottles and frowned upon in water jugs, has now shown up in significant levels in soft drinks.

Tests by Health Canada scientists revealed the highest levels were in energy drinks, the often caffeine-loaded beverages that have become popular with teenagers seeking a buzz and athletes chasing a quick pick-me-up. But the study also found the controversial compound in a wide variety of ginger ales, diet colas, root beers and citrus-flavoured sodas.

Bisphenol A was detected in 96 per cent of soft drinks tested, in quantities below regulatory limits. But a growing body of science suggests the chemical may have harmful effects at levels far below those limits.

Health Canada did not disclose the brand names of the beverages it evaluated, but estimated that the survey covered at least 84 per cent of canned soft drinks sold in Canada.

Testing by Health Canada highlighted BPA's presence in pop and energy drinks packaged in cans

The testing is considered the most sophisticated conducted anywhere in the world on BPA in pop, a subject about which little has been known up to now. The report outlining the results appeared last month in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, a relatively obscure scientific publication, and Health Canada also posted its data on its website, with little publicity.

Soft-drink cans are treated with a BPA-containing liner to prevent drinks from coming into contact with metal.

Although independent scientists and environmentalists warn that all exposures to the artificial sex hormone should be avoided, both Health Canada and the soft-drink industry played down the study's findings, saying the amounts detected were well below regulatory limits.

"It really confirms the safety of the packaging," said Justin Sherwood, president of Refreshments Canada, an industry trade group. He said the higher levels in several energy drinks may be statistical flukes.

Since prior testing hasn't usually detected residues, the soft-drink industry has long told consumers that its canned product doesn't expose drinkers to BPA. Pop companies have consequently avoided some of the controversy surrounding polycarbonate plastic water bottles, baby bottles and canned foods, where testing has often found the compound.

Health Canada contends there is no risk because a single serving of pop with the highest amount detected — 4.5 parts per billion — would give drinkers a dose well below its safety limit.

The levels are "extremely low," said Samuel Godefroy, director of the health agency's Bureau of Chemical Safety. He said children would not be at risk from consuming pop, and an adult would have to drink 900 cans a day to exceed the government's safety level.

Still, many scientists are worried about ingestion of the minute amounts of BPA found leaching from food and beverage packaging. The chemical is a synthetic compound able to fool cells into viewing it as estrogen, providing what amounts to an extra dollop of the female hormone.

"We are constantly getting exposed to this chemical," said Frederick vom Saal, a biologist at the University of Missouri and an authority on BPA. "People drink a lot of soda and this needs to be looked at as one of a very large number of sources of exposure to this chemical." BPA is also used in dental sealants, plastic water pipes and even carbonless cash-register receipts.

Although levels vary, natural estrogen circulates in people at extremely minute concentrations, around a part per trillion. The test results indicated that an average soft drink has concentrations of BPA around half a part per billion, or 500 times more than the level of the female hormone in people.

Dr. vom Saal says there is also a growing body of scientific literature, based on animal experiments, that has found harmful effects due to BPA at concentrations up to 1,000 times below Health Canada's safety limit. These conditions include such hormonally linked illnesses as breast cancer, and Dr. vom Saal called the government's assurances of no harm "simple-minded."

The Health Canada testing found BPA in 69 of the 72 cans evaluated. It didn't detect the chemical in two cans of tonic water, but the researchers said a bittering agent in them may have gummed up the tests; they could not explain why one can of energy drink didn't show any bisphenol A.

Nor is it clear why, overall, the highest BPA levels were found in energy drinks, but the results might be a surprise to some of the consumers of these products. "It would be interesting to do a survey in the weight rooms to see how many tough guys are aware of the estrogen levels in their drinks," said Aaron Freeman, a spokesman for Environmental Defence, a group that is lobbying Health Canada to eliminate BPA from food and beverage packaging.

RESPONSES TO BPA

The safety of bisphenol A levels in several products has been questioned.

Polycarbonate baby bottles: Health Canada is drafting rules to ban their import, sale and advertising. Retailers have pulled them from shelves in advance of the ban.

Polycarbonate water bottles: Most retailers have removed them, and bottle makers are switching to BPA-free alternatives.

Canned formula: Health Canada is working to develop a code of practice to reduce BPA leaching from infant formula cans to the lowest possible levels.

Canned foods: BPA is found in most canned foods, but Health Canada says the amounts pose no risk to adults, pregnant women or children older than 18 months.

Toxic substances list: Canada is adding BPA to the dangerous chemical list, based on worries that infants could be overexposed and that it is a possible hazard to wildlife.

Pop cans: A new Health Canada survey has found BPA in nearly all cans, but it says residues are too low to be a risk.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 3:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought readers might enjoy these two recent articles from the Toronto Star that suggest there's a big shortage of composting and organics processing capacity in Ontario, at the same time as organics collection is increasing. The overall theme is correct, although I warn there are a few inaccuracies, including the reporter's wrong explanation of a "typical" composting process, which describes the very a-typical in-vessel digestion process used at Toronto's Dufferin plant. I think if someone were to build a new composting plant near the GTA that works and doesn't stink, they'd make a ton of money. Anway, here are the two articles.

Not so green bins

March 03, 2009

Green bin programs are supposed to move organic waste "from curb to compost," but some inefficient Ontario municipalities have opted for another route: curb to combustion.

Thousands of tonnes of organic material, including bones, meat and other kitchen scraps, household plants, paper towels and soiled paper food packaging, have been sent to the United States to be burned rather than being composted here in Ontario.

In a weekend report, the Star's Moira Welsh found that York Region sent almost 12,000 tonnes of green bin waste to a Niagara Falls, N.Y., incinerator between March and August last year. The City of Guelph has been trucking about 10,000 tonnes to the same facility each year. In addition, in 2007, Peel Region sent about 50 truckloads of partly composted kitchen waste to a Barrie topsoil company that did not have environment ministry approval to accept such material.

Obviously, some municipalities have fumbled the recycling ball. There is a market for green bin compost, mainly in gardening rather than in large-scale agriculture. But cities must balance the volume of material they collect with the capacity of facilities to process it. It is no easy task, especially if a processor unexpectedly shuts down, or if residents opposed to a composting plant succeed in derailing a project.

Still, some municipalities have successfully managed to expand their green bin program, increase processing and find good markets for finished compost. Toronto, for example, handles about 40,000 tonnes of green bin material at a city-owned plant and ships another 70,000 tonnes to public and private processing facilities around Ontario.

"We have been able to juggle things and make sure all our material does move to composting markets," Geoff Rathbone, general manager of solid waste, said in an interview yesterday. To ensure that Toronto stays ahead, it is building two more publicly owned processing plants.

There's a lesson here for other municipalities.

Green bin waste trucked to N.Y.

Ontario municipalities 'scrambling' to cope with surge in kitchen refuse and plant closings

March 01, 2009

MOIRA WELSH
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

Ontario facilities that compost kitchen waste are in such short supply that thousands of tonnes have been sent to the United States for incineration and at least one municipality has improperly dumped truckloads within the province.

Severe odour problems are the main reason for the closing of facilities, including Peel Region's compost-curing location in Caledon and two plants in Quebec that took thousands of tonnes from Toronto and York region.

At the same time, new facilities in Ontario can barely meet the surging demand from municipal green bin programs that recycle food waste into high-grade compost.

"If somebody goes out of business then we've got a real problem – there is no extra capacity in the system," said Durham Region's Cliff Curtis, chair of Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario.

"In many ways, we are victims of our own success. There have been more (organics) collected than expected, and we are scrambling."

Pushed by the Ontario government to recycle organics, municipalities collected 251,368 tonnes of kitchen scraps in green bins in 2007 – a jump of nearly 30 per cent over 2006. Those numbers will only go higher. Toronto is expanding its green bin program into apartments, increasing organic collections from about 115,000 tonnes a year to 170,000 tonnes within the next 16 months.

The green bin program has grown so fast that it has outstripped the ability of municipalities to process the organics locally, creating a new carbon footprint since the material is trucked to facilities hundreds of kilometres away.

The program collects mountains of leftover steak, hamburgers, vegetables and (depending on the municipality) diapers and pet waste, diverting them from the landfills into compost. It is the meat products that tend to cause the odours.

The vast popularity of organic recycling has placed cities in a vulnerable position. When a facility shuts down, city managers need backup plans because excess rotting food cannot be stored in warehouses.

Despite pressuring municipalities to recycle organics, the Ontario government has not created a comprehensive plan to help them do so, although ministry sources say the current review of the Waste Diversion Act will bring change. Some cities, like Toronto, have decided to get into the processing business, with long-term plans to own facilities that will provide two-thirds of the processing capacity.

"We've been shuffling since our program started in 2002," said Toronto's Geoff Rathbone, general manager of solid waste. "It has been a challenge every day to find sufficient capacity for organics ... they have to flow every day."

Among recent contingency plans:

• York Region trucked 11,864 tonnes of kitchen waste to Covanta Energy, an incinerator in Niagara Falls, N.Y., between March and August 2008 when its Quebec processor was shut down.
•
• The City of Guelph ships 10,000 tonnes of kitchen waste every year to Covanta Energy. During the mid-1990s, the city was considered a composting pioneer but closed its facility in 2006 due to odours and structural weakness caused by ammonia.
•
• Peel Region shipped 50 truckloads of partially composted kitchen waste to Barrie topsoil company Cornerstone Landscaping in 2007. The company did not have environment ministry approval to accept "unfinished" compost, which contains inorganic material, an environment ministry spokesperson said. Mounds of the compost – including tattered plastic bags – remain on the site.
•
Ministry of environment spokesperson Kate Jordan said investigators responded to an odour complaint about Cornerstone in late 2007 but did not issue an order against the company because it co-operated in the cleanup. Jordan said plastic bags included in the compost defined it as "unfinished." Cornerstone and Peel are now working under the oversight of the province to remove thousands of tattered plastic bags that held the organics, Jordan said.

Cornerstone's owner, Rick Sova, said his company did not need ministry approvals to take the organics, saying the compost was already finished when it arrived on site.

"We took the material, we screened it, we processed it into a good organic medium for growing results, the Region of Peel is taking back the plastic and they're processing it," Sova said.

Larry Conrad is the acting director of waste management for Peel Region. He said Peel sent the material to Cornerstone because odour problems forced the region to close its outdoor curing facility in Caledon. He said they also believed it was a finished product. The region is seeking approvals to build a new composting facility in Caledon.

"Composting is a tough industry," Conrad said. "It is an industry that has a lot of odour problems. We operated our composting plant in Caledon for many years with no odour issues, but obviously we weren't immune to it."

Every municipality collects different items and uses a slightly different composting process, but the system generally works like this:

Bags of kitchen waste are picked up from neighbourhood curbs and taken to processing facilities, where the food is dumped into enormous vats and separated from the plastic bags and errant shampoo bottles.

It continues through the system, sometimes taking weeks, until the organics have turned into a thick, dark material with a heavy ammonia-like odour. It is then trucked to a composting facility, which turns it into the compost that is given to residents or sold in stores to be spread on gardens and lawns.

The juggling act to keep composting – and diverting from overflowing landfills – has forced cities to look further afield for their processors. Toronto, for example, had shipped roughly 1,000 truckloads of organic waste a year to Quebec. That arrangement ended last November when the Quebec environment ministry limited the company's intake due to odour problems.

In that case, Toronto quickly ramped up their contracts with two new Ontario facilities, Orgaworld, a Dutch-owned company that opened a facility near London, and Universal Resource in Welland.

The city also has plans to build two processing facilities, at the Disco Transfer Station in north Etobicoke and the Dufferin Waste Management Facility in North York.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 4:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)