Broader outlook needs to be considered

Editor:

I respond to John Wiggins’ letter of May 6. Most objections to wind turbines emanate from imagined or estimated land value losses. Understandable, but a broader outlook needs to be considered without imagined issues to cloud the reasoning behind the Green Energy Act 2009. John Wiggins (on cost) suggesting a Nuclear Power Station be approved instead of wind turbines, whether it be near Collingwood or elsewhere in Ontario. That would be a definite non-starter by local residents. Based on cost, most renewable technologies generate electricity for less than nuclear power output, that is expected to show between 2017-2019.

Myths abound about wind turbines: They fall down!  They cause human illness and brain problems. They kill cattle or stop milk production … etc, etc.

The future of energy has to be addressed, and all renewable sources considered. Wind energy is now more cost competitive than coal, hydro and nuclear power. Also when a wind turbine ‘farm’ is constructed, the price of electricity produced remains the same at that level for the life of the ‘farm’. Construction is rapid, thus producing benefit as quickly as possible. At the end of a turbine’s life it can be demolished without any harm done to our planet. Compare fossil fuels?

Can we honestly believe that any wind turbine plan, having gone through multiple committees, would cause death to pilots because they are in the flight path of airport runways?

Ray Jackson,

Mulmur.