Category Archives: Ottawa

What the Health Canada noise study means for North Gower

29 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Health Canada study results show North Gower wind farm would have made more than 100 people sick

Many people were disappointed in the results contained in the summary of the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health study, which was released in a hurry on November 6th.

While the mainstream media picked up on the message as being “there is no association between wind turbine noise and health effects” what Health Canada actually said in its news release was this:

No evidence was found to support a link between exposure to wind turbine noise and any of the self-reported or measured health endpoints examined. However, the study did demonstrate a relationship between increasing levels of wind turbine noise and annoyance towards several features (including noise, vibration, shadow flicker, and the aircraft warning lights on top of the turbines) associated with wind turbines.

In fact, the study found that an average of 16.5% of people within 2 km of wind turbines, or a wind turbine (whether multiples were considered is not clear), had severe distress or “annoyance”. The closer people lived, the worse that result was: 25% of people at 550 meters or less (some people waived the setback as part of their contract with the wind power developers) had adverse health effects related to the distress or annoyance, annoyance being a medical term.

The adverse health effects from the annoyance listed by Health Canada were:migraine, tinnitus (chronic ringing in the ears), dizziness, sleep disturbance or disorder, and cardiovascular effects such as elevated blood pressure.

So, what would that mean for North Gower, if the wind power generation project proposed by Prowind in 2008 gone ahead (remember, it got as close as one could to a Feed In Tariff contract, before the government paused the subsidy program in the spring of 2013–it is NOT true that it would never have been approved, it was virtually there).

Thanks to volunteers who have mapped the area, using a schematic of the turbine locations which was leaked to us, we know this:

Number of homes within 800 meters of a turbine: 43

Number of homes within 1.6 km of a turbine: 234

TOTAL number of homes that would be most affected: 277

At an average of 2.5 people/home, that would be 692 people, and at an average of 16.5% affected by distress/annoyance, that would be 114 people.

This is considered to be a conservative figure as Health Canada did not do any follow up on the significant number of houses it discovered vacant or demolished in the study. These were “mature” turbine projects and as we know from the experience of people living in areas like Chatham-Kent, Clear Creek, Ripley and Kincardine, the people most affected leave within six months to a year.

114 people.

At least some of them children.

And yet the Ontario government continues to approve these power projects, despite evidence of harm to health, and the fact that Ontario does not need the power. And the wind power lobby group, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) persists in the mythology that wind power is clean and good for the environment.

Health Canada is taking no action, despite these results, and has no intention of studying wind turbine noise further*. The people of North Gower have a right to expect more from the federal government, and from Health Canada, which is supposed to used sound science principles to protect citizens.

Our Member of Parliament is Pierre Poilievre at pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca if you have any comments on what the Health Canada study means to you and our community.

Ottawa Wind Concerns

PO Box 3, North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

*As per a personal meeting with the study team representatives, Ottawa, November 7.

Health Canada needs to take action on wind farms: noise study “too little, too late”

29 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

November 28, 2014 Canadian Medical Association Journal blog

Carmen Krogh, BScPharm (retired), is a peer reviewed IWT health researcher and formerDirector of Publications and Editor-in-Chief of the CPS.

R Y McMurtry is Professor Emeritus (Surgery) of Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario). Dr. McMurtry was also anADM at Health Canada 2000-02

Industrial wind turbines (IWTs) are being erected at rapid pace around the world. Coinciding with the introduction of IWTs, some individuals living in proximity to IWTs report adverse health effects including annoyance, sleep disturbance, stress-related health impacts and reduced quality of life. [i],[ii],[iii],[iv],[v],[vi],[vii],[viii],[ix],[x],[xi],[xii] In some cases Canadian families reporting adverse health effects have abandoned their homes, been billeted away from their homes or hired legal counsel to successfully reach a financial agreement with the wind energy developer.[xiii]

To help address public concern over these health effects Health Canada (HC) announced the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study (HC Study) 2 years ago and brought forth preliminary results November 6, 2014.

Here we briefly comment on the HC Study results and provide some historical context.

Acknowledgement of IWT adverse health effects is not new. The term “annoyance” frequently appears when discussing IWT health effects.

In a 2009 letter the Honourable Rona Ambrose, disclosed:

“Health Canada provides advice on the health effect of noise and low-frequency electric and magnetic fields from proposed wind turbine projects…To date, their examination of the scientific literature on wind turbine noise is that the only health effect conclusively demonstrated from exposure to wind turbine noise is an increase of self-reported general annoyance and complaints (i.e., headaches, nausea, tinnitus, vertigo).” [xiv]

In 2009, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) sponsored a literature review which acknowledges the reported symptoms such as headaches, nausea, tinnitus, vertigo and state they “… are not new and have been published previously in the context of “annoyance”…” and are the “… well-known stress effects of exposure to noise …”[xv]

In 2011, a health survey of people exposed to IWTs in Ontario reported altered quality of life, sleep disturbance, excessive tiredness, headaches, stress and distress. [xvi]

In the same year, CanWEA posted a media release which advised those impacted by wind turbine annoyance stating “The association has always acknowledged that a small percentage of people can be annoyed by wind turbines in their vicinity. … When annoyance has a significant impact on an individual’s quality of life, it is important that they consult their doctor.”[xvii]

It turns out it’s not a small percentage of people annoyed by wind turbines. An Ontario Government report concluded a non-trivial percentage of persons are expected to be highly annoyed.

The December 2011 report prepared by a member of CanWEA for the Ontario Ministry of Environment states in the conclusions:

“The audible sound from wind turbines, at the levels experienced at typical receptor distances in Ontario, is nonetheless expected to result in a non-trivial percentage of persons being highly annoyed. As with sounds from many sources, research has shown that annoyance associated with sound from wind turbines can be expected to contribute to stress related health impacts in some persons.”[xviii]

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges noise induced annoyance to be a health effect [xix] and the results of WHO research “…confirmed, on an epidemiological level, an increased health risk from chronic noise annoyance…”[xx]

HC also acknowledges noise induced annoyance to be an adverse health effect. [xxi],[xxii] The Principal Investigator of the recent HC Study also states “noise-induced annoyance is an adverse health effect”. [xxiii]

Canadian Government sponsored research has found statistically significant relationships from IWT noise exposure.

A 2014 review article in the Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine reports:

“In 2013, research funded by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment indicated a statistically significant relation between residents’ distance from the turbine and the symptoms of disturbed sleep, vertigo and tinnitus, and recommended that future research focus on the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep disturbance and symptoms of inner ear problems.” [xxiv]

Recently on November 6, 2014, HC posted on its website preliminary results of its HC Study[xxv]. Wind turbine noise “…. annoyance was found to be statistically related to several self-reporting health effects including, but not limited to, blood pressure, migraines, tinnitus, dizziness, scores on the PSQI, and perceived stress” as well as related to “measured hair cortisol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure.”

These troubling results come as no surprise. Since at least 2007 HC employees including the Principal Investigator of the HC Study recommended wind turbine noise criteria which they predict will result in adverse health effects. (i.e. result in an increase percentage highly annoyed).[xxvi],[xxvii],[xxviii]

Then turbines were built and HC spent 2.1 million dollars to find out it appears to have under predicted the impact of IWT noise. HC’s IWT noise criteria does not use a dose response based on IWT noise but rather road noise. But of course IWTs are not cars and peer-reviewed studies consistently document that IWTs produce sound that is perceived to be more annoying than transportation or industrial noise at comparable sound pressure levels. [xxix],[xxx]

IWT noise annoyance starts at dBA sound pressure levels in the low 30s and rises sharply at 35 dBA as compared to road noise which starts at 55 dBA. These findings are further supported by the HC Study’s preliminary results.[xxxi]

IWT noise characteristics that are identified as plausible causes for reported health effects include amplitude modulation, audible low- frequency noise (LFN), infrasound, tonal noise, impulse noise and night-time noise. [xxxii]

The logical solution would be to develop IWT noise criteria which will protect human health but that would present a barrier to wind energy development. Noise limits impacts IWT siting, cost of energy produced [xxxiii] and by extension corporate profits. The wind energy industry has actively lobbied governments to be granted IWT noise exposure limits which benefit their industry.

Canadians trying to understand this should be mindful the Government of Canada has invested and distributed significant amounts of public money to attract and support the wind energy industry. [xxxiv],[xxxv],[xxxvi],[xxxvii],[xxxviii],[xxxix],[xl],[xli] In addition to providing funding, the Government of Canada in collaboration with wind industry stakeholders has developed the Wind Technology Road Map (Wind TRM) [xlii] which Natural Resources Canada defined to be an “…industry-led, government supported initiative that has developed a long-term vision for the Canadian wind energy industry …”.[xliii]

Canada’s Wind TRM states “Members of the Steering Committee, government and our industry will be using this roadmap to direct the actions that are necessary for Canada to develop its vast wind resources.”[xliv] HC is a member of the Interdepartmental Wind Technology Road Map Committee [xlv] which was created to assist in the implementation of Canada’s Wind TRM. [xlvi] One of the “key action items” detailed in the Wind TRM calls for Government and Industry collaboration to develop and maintain government documents that address concerns raised about wind energy projects including that of noise, infrasound and other. [xlvii]

Some jurisdictions are trying to take action to protect their residents. For example, several municipalities in Ontario are trying to establish bylaws that protect from IWT noise. In Wisconsin, on October 14, 2014 the Brown County Board of Health unanimously approved a motion to declare the IWTs at a local project a Human Health Hazard. [xlviii]

It would appear HC’s research effort is too little too late. A non-trivial percentage of Canadians continue to experience adverse health effects. HC now has additional scientific evidence of the “conclusively demonstrated” effects from exposure to IWT noise. It is time for HC to take action to help Canadians maintain and improve their health.

Read the full posting here.

New bill proposes return of local land-use planning powers

27 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

MPP Jim Wilson, also the interim leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, put forward a bill to amend the Planning Act, to return the local land-use planning powers that were removed by the Green Energy Act in 2009.

The Green Energy Act actually superceded 21 pieces of legislation in Ontario, in order to ease the way for large wind and solar power generation projects, but mostly wind.

You may recall that, following a petition by residents in the North Gower-Richmond area to the City of Ottawa last year, Ottawa City Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting the residents’ declaration that the  community was Not A Willing Host to large-scale wind power projects, and asked the province to return local land-use planning powers.

Rideau-Goulbourn councillor Scott Moffatt responded to the news in an email to Ottawa Wind Concerns with this comment:

I am aware that this bill was introduced by MPP Wilson in 2013 and am pleased to see him re-introduce it today at Queen’s Park.  It certainly echoes the motion that was carried at Council last November.

Scott Moffatt

It is extremely disappointing that while the Ontario government, including Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli, has said communities could play a larger role in the siting of power projects and that community approval would be important, the newly released procurement process guidelines indicate that communities can still not say NO.

See the video clip of MPP Wilson here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKzbxexVqcA&feature=youtu.be

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Donations welcome to help us with expenses and to maintain our retainer for legal services: PO Box 3, North Gower ON  K0A 2T0

Health Canada summary audit: no authority, not accurate

11 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Health Canada: disappointing, perhaps unprofessional, performance?

This commentary is still in draft form, prepared by a member of the Association to Protect Amherst Island (APAI), but it is an excellent commentary on the summary released by Health Canada last week. The summary, that is, of the results of its $2.1 MM study on wind turbine noise and health, which was released in breakneck speed last Thursday, and which the media picked up as “no health effects seen.”

This is false, of course—our question right now is, WHY is Health Canada putting these results out there as “gospel” when the neither the results or the summary have been properly peer-reviewed, and there is in fact NO actual report…just this summary? One might also ask why a government department is touting its results summary–again, not reviewed or published–as “the most comprehensive” study in the world? Perhaps the PR budget might have been applied to the actual research.

Plenty of people in Ottawa are disappointed at the lack of professionalism demonstrated by Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety at Health Canada.

Here is the audit report on the summary: HC IWT Noise study comments V1.0._Preliminary draft_Denise Wolfe

Just for interest, you may wish to read the testimony of the principal investigator, Dr David Michaud, at a wind power project appeal. In his testimony, Dr Michaud allows that there is research indicating an association between wind turbine noise and health effects, and he acknowledges that there are large studies ongoing throughout the world. Read the testimony summary here: http://www.falconers.ca/documents/SummaryofMichaudEvidence.pdf 

Health Canada study results summary released today

06 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Health Canada has released a summary report of its results from the Wind Turbine Noise Study, available here: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/noise-bruit/turbine-eoliennes/summary-resume-eng.php

Note that the full study results will NOT be available; Health Canada plans to release reports with detailed analysis over the coming months.

At first glance the results are extremely disappointing, and difficult to reconcile with the experiences in Ontario communities.

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

 

Ontario’s $1B electricity month: wind surplus significant

05 Wednesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Print

October 2014 Breaks Record for Ontario Electricity Costs and Losses

Cost to consumers of government energy policies for one month reaches $1 billion

TORONTO, Nov. 5, 2014 /CNW/ – The Ontario government’s policy of pursuing “renewable” sources of power at a premium and selling off surplus at a loss has resulted in a record-breaking month of expenses and losses for Ontario’spower consumers.

In a document prepared by former bank vice-president and Wind Concerns Ontario executive Parker Gallant and energy analyst Scott Luft, figures from the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) show that the Global Adjustment for Ontario power customers hit $1 billion.

The Global Adjustment is the difference between market rates for electricity, and what the government pays power generators. In the case of wind power, which has first right to the grid in Ontario, Ontario is buying high and selling low, says Gallant. “In the spring and fall every year, demand for power is low, but wind production is at a high—that is the problem with wind power: it is produced out-of-phase with demand. Because of the contracts the government has with the developers, we  pay top dollar for the power and when we don’t need it, sell for bargain-basement prices.  We pay about 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour for wind, and sell it off far below that; in October it was below 0.7 cents.

“This is economic disaster for Ontario,” Gallant adds.

Consumer power bills rose again on November 1st, and the government will also launch its new procurement process for wind and solar this month.

Wind Concerns Ontario has been opposed to the development of large-scale wind power in Ontario’s communities in part because it is an expensive yet unreliable source of power. The record-breaking October  figures should spur the government to halt its wind power program, says president Jane Wilson. “Any decision to approve one more wind farm, or to launch the new procurement process  for more contracts this month as planned, is completely unsupportable,” she says.  “Wind power doesn’t work, and Ontario can’t afford this experiment any longer.”

Ontario has contracts for 43 wind power projects not currently operational, which will cost consumers $16 billion over the next 20 years.

http://www.windconcernsontario.ca/october-2014-breaking-ontarios-record-for-electricity-costs/

SOURCE Wind Concerns Ontario

Canada News Wire November 5, 2014, 1:21 PM

Developer of North Gower wind farm fails to qualify

04 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

The Ontario Power Authority released its list of Qualified Applicants for Large Renewable power projects today. The deadline for applicants to apply for qualification was one month ago, on September 4th.

The Government of Ontario will now proceed to contract for more wind and solar power, despite the fact Ontario has a surplus of power and has been selling off power to neighbouring jurisdictions throughout October at a loss of millions of ratepayer dollars.

The company that had proposed a wind power project in North Gower, Prowind of Germany (incorporated as Prowind Canada here) is NOT on the list of qualified applicants.

The chair of Ottawa Wind Concerns Jane Wilson says the community is cautiously optimistic: “The citizens of North Gower, Richmond and Kars demonstrated solid opposition to the project via a plebescite last year, which resulted in a supportive motion unanimously passed at Ottawa City Council. We think any other company looking at coming here will get the message that a huge wind power project close to over 1,000 homes and our school is not appropriate. We continue to stand ready to take every means available to fight another proposal.”

Join our email list at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com
LRP I RFQ Qualified Applicants List PostedThe LRP I RFQ submission deadline was September 4, 2014, at 3:00 p.m. Seventy Qualification Submissions were received by the deadline. Following two months of review for completeness and eligibility, the OPA has now completed its evaluation of all Qualification Submissions and has determined the final list of Qualified Applicants. These entities would be eligible to submit proposals under any future LRP I RFP.

Those RFQ Applicants that are not listed on the LRP I RFQ Qualified Applicant List are reminded that they would not be eligible to submit a proposal under any future LRP I RFP but may qualify to participate in any future round of LRP procurement.

More information and the LRP I RFQ Qualified Applicant List are available on the LRP Website.

Next Steps in the LRP Process

The OPA is working to finalize the draft versions of the LRP I RFP and LRP I Contract and anticipates they will be posted in November. Once the documents have been posted, municipalities, communities, stakeholders and other interested parties will be invited to review them and provide feedback. A webinar will also be scheduled to discuss the draft documents – details on the timing of the webinar will be posted with the draft documents.

Interested parties should subscribe to the LRP subscriber list to ensure they are kept aware of any updates relating to the LRP.

Ontario Power Authority

Ottawa councillor invites rural wards to leave

18 Saturday Oct 2014

Posted by in Health, Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

In an interview with the CBC for a news story on Ottawa’s rural ward 20/Osgoode, sitting councillor Diane Holmes said that she has “no sympathy” for the rural councillors, and that perhaps they should just leave.

In fact, Homes said, if there was a vote to let the rural wards go, she would be “first” to vote.

The story may be seen at cbc.ca/m/news/Canada/Ottawa

The report covered comments by Ottawa’s rural residents to the effect that they felt excluded from City plans and projects, and were not sure they are getting value for their tax dollars. Retiring Osgoode councillor Doug Thompson said that there has been a rural-urban divide, but that the situation was improving.

Commenting on Twitter, Ward 21 incumbent councillor Scott Moffatt said Holmes’ remarks were “ignorant.” Candidate for Ward 21 Dan Scharf offered Diane Holmes a tour of Rideau-Goulbourn.

In 2009, Holmes voted against a motion by then-councillor for Rideau-Goulbourn Glenn Brooks, who had proposed a motion to Council asking for a moratorium on a proposed wind power project in North Gower, pending health studies on the effects of the noise and infrasound produced by wind turbines.

How much does it cost to demolish a wind turbine?

14 Tuesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario; note the information on the Brinston wind power project.

How much to take down a wind turbine?

Bonanza in scrap, or millions to demolish?
Bonanza in scrap, or millions to demolish?

Tom Collins, Farmers Forum, October 2014

Scaremongers say it will cost millions

Brinston–While some critics of wind turbines howl that the cost of the eventual teardown of a turbine is astronomical, the actual cost today would be $30,000 to $100,000, per turbine.

The bigger issue is, who is going to pay for it.

Municipalities are on the hook to ensure companies tear down or, in industry jargon, decommission a turbine, unless they’ve got a binding agreement with the wind power company. Some municipalities demand from wind turbine companies ongoing payments into protected (or escrow) accounts or bonds to set money aside annually to pay for decommissioning.

Some municipalities require a letter of intent from wind turbine companies to ensure they will be responsible for decommissioning. Some municipalities have no agreement at all, including Wolfe Island, said its mayor, Denis Doyle. TransAlta communications manager Stacey Hatcher said the decommissioning plans are between the company and the landowner and because of that, the info is confidential. [See editor’s note #1]

The 86 turbines on Wolfe Island, on the St. Lawrence River at Kingston, were built by Canadian Hydro Developers, later purchased by Trans Alta and there is no bond or escrow account in place. The company does, however, reimburse the island about $100,000 per year for hosting the project. Based on current decommissioning projects around the world, it can cost $30,000 to $10,000 [sic] to dispose of a turbine. If it were to cost $50,000 to remove each turbine on Wolfe Island, it would cost $4.3 million to remove them all. Of course, that price goes up over time. [See Editor’s note #2] Hatcher said the company plans to repower or recontract when they [sic] current contracts are up.

There are 10 three-megawatt wind turbines at Brinston, between Kemptville and Winchester, and the power company ProWind [see Editor’s note #3] pays $1,000 per megawatt per year over the next 20 years into an escrow account that will rack up $600,000 to pay for decommissioning. [Editor’s note #4]

Windlectric Inc. wants to build 36 turbines on Amherst Island where Statec Consulting said that decommissioning costs are up to Windlectric. Typically, decommissioning will not remove all of the concrete base, but that’s only the first few feet of concrete that went into the ground. [We’re done adding editor’s notes at this point.]

One of the most infamous decomissionings involved 37 decrepit turbines in Hawaii that stood unused for six years before they were taken down in 2012. Tawhiri Power estimated that the take-down cost $30,000 per turbine. [OK, one more; see Editor’s note #5]

The seven-turbine community-owned Black Oak Wind Farm in New York State will start construction in late 2014. The decommissioning plan would currently cost about $55,883 per turbine, although the project expects to generate at least $50,000 per turbine by selling it as scrap metal. The municipality agreement means the power company must pay $140,000 per turbine in escrow but also means the payment can be reviewed and changed if decommissioning estimates change.….

WCO Editor’s notes:

1. Many landowners were told that it was to their benefit to decommission the turbines themselves as there is so much scrap value in the turbines; this is untrue due to the quality of metal being used, and also the other costs of decommissioning such as crane rental, and disposal of the toxic components.

2. So, that would be the millions then…

3. ProWind, properly “Prowind,” does not own the Brinston project, and hasn’t for several years. It is now owned by EDP Renewables.

4. In the original negotiations with Prowind, the developer wanted the landowners and the municipality to be responsible for decommissioning costs. It was the local community group that brought these costs to the attention of the municipality, and played a significant role in the agreement now in place.

5. US dollars? Canadian dollars? Also, the size of the turbines and the machinery involved is a factor. The turbines erected in Hawaii over a decade again, and the turbines at Wolfe Island are now miniscule compared with the 500-foot-plus, 3 -MW behemoths being built and proposed.

Write to Farmers Forum at editor@farmersforum.com

Parker Gallant in Ottawa September 30

25 Thursday Sep 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Many people in Ottawa are followers of Parker Gallant’s Ontario’s Power Trip columns in The Financial Post. He is, of course, the “retired banker who took a good look at his hydro bills and didn’t like what he saw.”

He has plenty to say about not only our (rising) electricity bills, but the role of renewables in Ontario’s electricity costs, and the resulting effect on Ontario’s business competitiveness.

Parker Gallant will be speaking at a breakfast-time event in Manotick, Tuesday September 30th at 7:45 a.m., at the Hard Stones Grill on Manotick Main Street.

The event has been organized by the campaign for Dan Scharf for council in Rideau-Goulbourn. Seating is limited: RSVP to dan4rideau.goulbourn@gmail.com  

Donations to the campaign are welcome at this event.

Here is Parker’s latest, re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario; he is vice-president of the coalition of community groups opposed to large-scale wind power projects located too close to Ontario communities.

Clean air day for Ontario means cleaned out wallets for ratepayers

Ontario’s cleanest day: too bad it cost you

The heading on Cold Air energy blogger Scott Luft‘s article read:  “September 20th: Ontario electricity’s cleanest day in my lifetime.”   He was talking about the fact that emissions from the electricity sector in Ontario produced almost no emissions last Saturday.  Why? Low demand meant clean nuclear, clean hydro and clean wind produced more than enough power to satisfy the 13,593 MW average Ontario demand for electricity, as reported by IESO in their Daily Market Summary.

Here are the details: on September 20th, nuclear produced about 270,000 MWh, hydro 82,000 MWh and wind over 40,000 MWh.  Taken together, they produced about 81,000 excess MWh of power which Ontario simply exported.  Ontario was also busy steaming off Bruce nuclear power, and probably spilling hydro and paying those gas plants for sitting idle.   It’s obvious Ontario didn’t need that 40,000 MW of wind but with the “first to the grid” rights of wind and solar, IESO was obliged to accept it.

As it turned out the hourly Ontario electricity price or HOEP performed badly on September 20th and averaged .82 cents per MWh or .00082 cents per kWh.  So, Ontario’s ratepayers were paying wind generators $135.00 per MWh while IESO were busy selling it off to our neighbours in NY and Michigan for .82 cents meaning (without counting in the steamed-off Bruce nuclear, the gas plants $500 per MW of capacity for idling, non-utility generators or NUG-contracted utilities for curtailment, solar generators, etc.) we were losing $134.18 for every MWh of power that those wind turbines produced.

What that means to you is, the 81,000 MWh we sold to our neighbours cost each of Ontario’s 4.5 million ratepayers as our Energy Minister, Bob Chiarelli, might say, a large “Timmies” coffee and a donut!  Please don’t stop your conservation efforts, however, as the Ontario Liberal government would like us to do this more often!

Ontario: truly a great neighbour!

©Parker Gallant

September 23, 2014

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.