The proposal for the stupid goddamn windmill at Saskatoon’s landfill got a face full of reality today when it was announced that the estimated costs were far more than city councilors (though not a few residents) were expecting.
Despite the opposition from Montgomery residents on the potential health effects of the proposed wind turbine, the biggest issue was always economics. Only $500,000 was blown on this ridiculous venture (so far), so we should count ourselves lucky it wasn’t worse.
As I had pointed out a little while back, the SRC report on the local wind resources was a shoddy attempt to show that some background feasibility work had been completed. And the report still came back as showing that the landfill would have been a sub-optimal location for power generation. Yet the RFP still went out.
City of Saskatoon “sustainable electricity manager” Kevin Hudson is “disappointed” at this outcome and blamed “stringent” “safety expectations” on the lack of bids on the project by snake-oil salesmen wind turbine suppliers.
The city’s utility services general manager, Jeff Jorgenson, feels that “although the cash flow for the proposed wind turbine would still be positive for the City, the project is no longer considered to be a good financial investment.” Hey Einstein, cash flow (such it would have been) isn’t the same thing as economic viability. It was never a good financial investment because if it were, the project feasibility report would have been made public.
(Keep in mind, Jorgenson also oversees the city’s atrocious public transit system, so his viewpoint on the value of public utilities in this town may be considerably divergent than that of the average citizen.)
But our surprisingly still-employed enviro-zealots at City Hall aren’t done yet:
Considerable consultation and research was utilized in planning this component of the Green Energy Park. It will remain useful information as City engineers gained valuable knowledge in alternative energy generation as they continue to look for safe ways to profit and save the environment at the same time.
Question: Did “considerable consultation” include consulting the community located right beside the “Green Energy Park” before a half a million dollars was squandered? Follow-up question: Why is it the city’s job to turn a profit? Follow-up follow-up question: Why is it the city’s job to “save the environment”?
In other words, quit trying to be a hero at your kids’ schools’ show-and-tell events with my money.