Sometimes the view is the entire point.
Iâll bet if there were First Nations people complaining this thread would be all about the âbig American company ruining the pristine night view for profitââŚbut because itâs people who can afford vacation homes, itâs all âfake complaints from oil company minions.â
Encroachment on dark sites starts with âthis one project wonât be a problemâ and ends with âthere are other sites a couple of hours away anywayâ.
I think there is a way to do this responsibly (making sure the lights are planned very carefully, that roads are not permanently lit, etc), but just hollering that âthe other side is full of fake BS because they hate alternative energyâ doesnât get us there.
2 Likes
You are correct, if First Nations were saying that the project encroached on their treaty land theyâd get way more sympathy (here) than itinerant cottagers complaining about a facility adjacent to their rental income/vacation properties.
The dark site encroachment argument is a complete red herring. Aside from the lumens just not being there to threaten the view, the site itself is/was/will remain little more than an economic policy and a failed one at that. North Frontenac didnât -do- anything except ask the RASC for a site designation based on existing light levels, then built a primitive viewing facility (concrete slab, bathrooms, electrical hookupâŚright next door to a helipad that stays brightly lit 24/7).
Oh and advertise it, in hopes of drawing more cottagers & more development. Thankfully, for people like myself who find the number of people surrounding each lake to be sufficient, no one is biting.
Personally, if the RASC thought that the site was threatened, I think theyâd say something. Itâs kind of their thing. But those guys with their science and being able to measure such thingsâŚremain mum.
The greatest threat to the dark site is the very development that the township hoped to draw with itâs creation. It was always about the coffers, and theyâve been upfront about that from the beginning.
Thatâs the primary reason that the nimbyism stinks in this instance, same as it ever was, facts or shut-up. So when they lead with deliberate misinformation (-Only- dark site in Ontario, False, -First- dark site in Canada, False) and try to get the most traction by using this big red fish that they didnât approve of to begin with (Yes, the nimbyism against the dark site was Strong) you have to wonder if the rest of their complaints are suspect or meaningful enough to derail large* provincial energy infra.
Itâs a freaking dark site because itâs low development i.e. low population. Yet it is centred between major urban centres and tests well for wind. Given that wind stirs up opponents (both legit and not) anywhere it goes you can see why plopping it down somewhere where people are not or at least fewest is a good policy.
There is a way to do it responsibly, like some of the things you mention, but theyâre not interested in that, theyâve had the sort of misinformation theyâre spreading blown up their butts by a concerted campaign that is well funded in Ontario. Thatâs not conspiracy, itâs a fact of energy policy here.
*not as large as they claim. The estimated number of turbines is 50, not 75. One third of 150 is 50, despite what the complainants find with their oily math.
1 Like
itinerant cottagers who were attracted to the area for its observing properties. Put up a few bright lights, and suddenly the area just isnât that special anymore. It takes some effort to preserve dark skies, and all that will be for naught because some utility just doesnât care.
You find that people were drawn here because astronomy? I havenât found one yet.
The effort canât be found either. The township is pro-development.
Also, the bright lights are here for the most part. Existing towers for communications that sport the same sorts of lights are visible anywhere within 75k of any township in this area, just like most of populated Ontario between the GTHA & Ottawa/Gatineau.
And @jansob1 made a good point regarding the âthere are other sites a couple of hours awayâ but not quite.
The actual dark is located just north beginning about 45 minutes to 1 hour away. Reference the brightmap you posted. It gets even better as you go, much bigger, much wider, doesnât need a designation because itâs dark, a ring of tourist lights surround Algonquin, but then youâre shortly back to real freaking dark if you go past it. Lots of dark here. Itâs a marketing thing Frontenac Township has, nothing more.
My own cottage is 25k-ish south from the proposed site as the crow flies, probably twice that by road, itâs dark. My house is in the blue about 35k-ish west of our cottage, still damn dark but the cottage is a hairs breadth darker thanks to a lack of neighbours & further from the highway.
Less stargazers flocking here would preserve the dark, if there were any doing so. One less marketing tool to draw people here is a-okay by me even if it is a particularly inefficient one.
edit- In case I wasnât clear, if a wind farm makes this area less attractive to development, Iâm all for it. Clean energy and a manageable number of tourists? GREAT. But fact is no one will leave or stop coming here because of a windfarm and certainly not for itâs light
4 Likes
But they built houses there for âbad rich peopleâ reasons, like vacationing and income, so if the dark skies are impacted, âheh heh heh, fuck those guysââŚmany people here would probably put up light towers with no windmills just to spite them. Dark skies are part of nature, and Iâm rather shocked that so few here see thatâŚjust because people who have vacation homes like them. There is also impact on wildlife from the loss of dark skies, but never mind, itâs more important to spite the right people.
The big thing to remember is that once dark skies vanish, they donât come back.
http://www.darksky.org/for-the-public/downloadable-brochures
2 Likes
it might also be that pretty much the only post that supports your contention that we feel that way got a dozen plus likes because it was funny and had a grain of truth in it.
I have a cottage there, I do want wind power in this province and also know that some of the sentiment youâre railing against is justified. This is largely a money game between different sets of investors & speculators. Astronomers and people that care about dark skies are called âpropsâ in this game. They arenât real, to the issues being fought over⌠Hell, the dark site is barely real and it was as real as it is now before designation as such.
Property values, speculations about same, prospective development in supporting townships, revenue revenue revenue. Thatâs the issue. Itâs also the issue that created the dark site to begin with.
edit - thatâs not to say that I want anything threatening the dark skies, I just donât see the evidence that the windfarm will do that & the evidence put forth by opponents of the farm is specious from the first line (and even BBâs title for the post)
4 Likes
And coal burning, too. The coal-fired power stations there even had a folk-punk band named after them (well, named after a train that was named after them).
I used to regularly commute through another enormous wind farm in the Northeast- it was, as you say, virtually silent. The small wind generators that some of the farms have round there are actually rather noisier than the huge turbines.
3 Likes
Eeeeh, fuck Iâd forgotten about Blyth Power. Seen them a few times.
Genuine question, as I have no idea myself: Could wind turbines generate a significant increase in atmospheric turbulence?
Do you, though? Thereâs no need for warning beacons on large natural landscape features because those are tracked through other means; couldnât a turbine farm be documented and tracked the same way?
1 Like
Turbines are famous for interfering with radar, so they would be easy to spot that way. Additionally, warning lights could be made to emit a specific wavelength of light. You could even build them with lasers, and astrophotography could be done with filters which exclude that wavelength. Even in the best dark sky zones, people are going to be driving cars around with their lights on.
2 Likes
Darn you, astronomy is made even more awesome with a windfarm, at least in that photograph.
3 Likes
You gotta have a foreground these days. Otherwise youâre just pointing a camera at a sky.
7 Likes
This post is to express just how much I donât appreciate BB broadcasting misinformation about my neck of the woods, even when that misinformation is provided by property owners from my neck of the woods.
No. Factually incorrect. You are being deliberately misled. https://www.rasc.ca/dark-sky-site-designations It was 1999 that the RASC created Canadaâs first Dark Sky Preserve.
Also there is no nature preserve present at the site or adjacent to it.
There are many sources of information in the world. Choosing to roll with the Toronto Sun without further research/fact-checking is a bad choice that rarely pays for anyone but whoever paid for the article. Iâm sure itâs true the energy company is tax-dodging & profit hiding, but only because Iâve yet to see one that isnât.
<----See my Avatar? The Toronto Sun and itâs masters were a big part of getting him elected. Worked out real well too. Hereâs a defunct blog that for a time collected the best of the worst of their nonsense style. http://torontosuncoverreviews.blogspot.ca/ You like laughing at the Daily Mail? Youâll feel comfortable laughing at the Sun. They have similar editorial standards.
As for your friend Chris Albinson, Yes, we do count itinerant residents as residents & value their presence. Even from San Francisco. Love those American Dolla-dollas & people that appreciate Canadian lakes and wilderness. That he would act to protect the area is commendable. But the information in his letter is factually incorrect, from the prospective effect of the windfarm, to the size of the windfarm, to the tax revenue estimations, to the mention of endangered species being put at risk, totally unsubstantiated, itâs just something you write in these things, right? Good of him to try and wedge in a bit of the olâ Canada vs the US, but we donât actually hate/disike Americans that visit Frontenac/Ontario, at least I donât. I like them mostly, gotta lotta family there in the US too. This area isnât exactly a bastion of liberal-minded elitists with a hate-on for US policy. Quite the opposite most days.
The only problem I could have with the Albinsons is with the content of their letter.
The criticism that this BB post is repeating fossil fuel supported anti-renewable propaganda talking points is spot on. Itâs in black and white, right there.
The headline/post title is probably the most incorrect BB title in BB history. Especially that âfirstâ, which is just silly.
Whether or not there ought be a windfarm there is an open question.
Whether or not misinformation is the way to settle the matter is not an open question⌠is it?
12 Likes
I am very disappointed that Boing Boing would take this editorial tack.
Having stood in the middle of largest wind farm on the Indian subcontinent, I can state with confidence that it is not all that loud. Maybe if you happen to have a house at the base of one of these things you may notice a mechanical hum, but more than 100 feet out, and you donât notice much noise at all.
(Did I make the list, btw?)
6 Likes
Dear Sirs,
I note that I can only like this once. How can this be? My love for this cannot be constrained.
Regards,
SPB
4 Likes
Having stood in the middle of largest wind farm on the Indian subcontinent, I can state with confidence that it is not all that loud.
How would you describe the wind conditions? Gale? âFull Galeâ, Cyclone?
I canât tell if you are being sarcastic, but it was a moderately breezy day.
Typically wind turbines will shut down if there is too much wind, so I wouldnât expect to see a wind farm operating in a cyclone.
2 Likes
Maybe it would be possible to design a red warning light that only lights up when thereâs a plane in the vicinity, minimizing the impact of the light pollution. In other words call their bluff. If itâs really about the effect on (amateur) astronomy (which, to be frank, is something most people in society donât care about, this should suffice. If itâs ill-defined NIMBYism, well, thatâs a different story.
Various bits of propaganda for the wind industry have noted things such as
Also in 2013, a meta-analysis by Lossa and others in the journal Biological Conservation found that the likely mean number of birds killed annually in the U.S by wind turbines was 234,000. The authors acknowledged the larger number reported by Smallwood, but noted that Smallwoodâs meta-analysis did not distinguish between types of wind turbine towers; older wind turbines were more often on lattice towers, which attract birds. The monopole towers used almost exclusively for new wind installations appear to result in fewer bird deaths.[62][63]
so it is possible to identify specific problems and engineer around them. If light pollution is a specific problem, it should be possible to engineer around that.
