Category Archives: Wind power

Wind farms expensive, unreliable, inefficient: UK science research

28 Tuesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Wolfe Island: destruction of a pretty place and for what?

Wolfe Island: destruction of a pretty place and for what?

Donna Rachel Edmunds, Breitbart News, October 27, 2014

Wind power is too variable and too unpredictable to provide a serious alternative to fossil fuels, a new study by the Scientific Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute has confirmed. The researchers concluded that, although it is true that the wind is always blowing somewhere, the base line is only around 2 percent of capacity, assuming a network capacity of 10GW.

The majority of the time, wind will only deliver 8 percent of total capacity in the system, whilst the chances of the wind network running at full capacity is “vanishingly small”. As a consequence, fossil fuel plants capable of delivering the same amount of energy will always be required as backup.

The report was undertaken by the Scientific Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute. Using data on wind speed and direction gathered hourly from 22 sites around the UK over the last nine years, the researchers were able to build a comprehensive picture of how much the wind blows in the UK, where it blows, and how variable it is.

They found that, contrary to popular opinion, variability was a significant factor as “swings of around 10 percent are normal” across the whole system within 30 – 90 minute timeframes. “This observation contradicts the claim that a widespread wind fleet installation will smooth variability,” the authors write.

Likewise, and again contrary to popular assumptions, wind does not follow daily or even seasonal outputs. There were long periods in which the wind was not blowing even in winter, making it difficult to match generation of wind power to demand. The report concludes that covering these low periods would either need 15 storage plants the size of Dinorwig (a pumped storage hydroelectric power station in Wales with a 1.7GW capacity), or preserving and renewing our fossil plants as a reserve.

Most significantly, it found that the system would be only running at 90 percent of capacity or higher for 17 hours a year, and at 80 percent or higher for less than one week a year; conversely, total output was at less than 20 percent of capacity for 20 weeks of the year, and below 10 percent during nine weeks a year. “The most common power output of this 10GW model wind fleet is approximately 800MW. The probability that the wind fleet will produce full output is vanishingly small,” the authors note. The consequence is that many more wind turbines will have to be built than is often assumed, as the capacity of the fleet can’t be assumed to be synonymous with actual output.

The findings will deliver a body blow to governmental claims that their current target of generating 27 percent of energy from renewable sources – mostly wind and solar – by 2030 is credible.

“If there were no arbitrary renewable energy target, governments would be free to focus on what most voters expect: providing a framework in which a secure and affordable energy supply can be delivered,” commented Martin Livermore, director of the Scientific Alliance.

“If emissions are also to be reduced, the most effective measures currently would be a move from coal to gas and a programme of nuclear new build. In the meantime, the renewables industry continues to grow on a diet of subsidies, and we all pick up the tab. Getting out of this hole is not going to be easy, but it’s time the government started the process rather than continuing to dig deeper.”

According to the 2013 Renewable Energy Roadmap (the most recent to date), offshore wind capacity reached 3.5GW by June 2013, and onshore capacity reached 7GW in the same month. Governmental modelling suggests that offshore wind capacity will hit 16GW by 2020, and 39GW by 2030.

In the introduction to the Roadmap, the ministerial team headed by Ed Davey, secretary of state for energy and climate change wrote “The Government’s commitment to cost effective renewable energy as part of a diverse, low-carbon and secure energy mix, is as strong as ever. Alongside gas and low-carbon transport fuels, nuclear power and carbon capture and storage, renewable energy provides energy security, helps us meet our decarbonisation objectives and brings green growth to all parts of the UK.”

Read the full report here.

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.

Ontario’s expensive electricity week: $44 million lost as extra power sold cheap

15 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Ontario’s expensive electricity week: what could $44M have bought?

What the lost $44 million could have bought: 293 family docs, 580 nurse practitioners
What the lost $44 million could have bought: 293 family docs, 580 nurse practitioners

Blowing Ontario’s ratepayer dollars

Money lost in just one week could have paid for 580 nurses

So far this October, Ontario’s electricity sector has been blowing our money away at an awesome pace.

Scott Luft, whom I admire for his ability to assimilate comprehensible data, posted on Tumblr some disturbing information about the first 10 days of electricity production (and curtailed production) in Ontario.  Because the fall means low demand for electricity, our current surplus energy supply (principally, wind, solar and gas) was curtailed to the extent that it cost ratepayers $20 million, while the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) generated only $8.2 million.  That $20 million of curtailment cost will find its way to the Global Adjustment (GA) pot and onto ratepayers’ bills.

I took a different route and looked at the cost of Ontario’s exports for the week of October 3rd to October 9th —those numbers are also disturbing.  During those seven days, Ontario exported 399,048 MWh (megawatt hours) which was 15.7% of total Ontario demand.   Wind turbines generated and delivered 184,204 MWh, which was surplus to our needs and probably exported.  The money generated via the HOEP from all of the export sales was $56,300 or 14 cents a MWh.  Wind turbines produced just $15,164 and we sold that production for just 8 cents a MWh.

To put this in perspective, the exported production’s cost all-in (contract value per MWh + regulatory + transmission + debt retirement charge) averaged $110/MWh, according to the latest monthly IESO Market Summary August 2014 report’s findings.  Using $110/MWh the 399,000 MWh exported in those seven days hit Ontario’s ratepayers with about $44 million (less the $56,300) via allocation to the GA—that will show up on the electricity line on our bills.

Wind generation alone at the contracted rate of $135/MWh cost ratepayers $24,900,000 plus another $5 to $6 million for their curtailed production, according to Scott Luft.  That $30 to $31 million plus the cost of steaming off Bruce Nuclear, paying idling gas plants, etc., and the additional cost of solar generation, would confirm the $44 million is a reasonable estimate.

What has Ontario missed out on by having ratepayers subsidizing those exports by $44 million for those seven days?

  •  the annual salary of 293 family physicians, or
  • 580 nurse practitioners, or
  • repairing all the Toronto District School Board’s school roofs, or
  • one and a half days of interest on Ontario’s public debt, or
  •  all of Ontario’s 301 MPP salaries for a full year, or
  • 40 MRI machines, or
  • 100 months of mortgage payments on the empty MaRS Phase 2 building, or
  • increasing funding for autistic children by 30% over current levels.

Just a few examples of how the wasted subsidy money that cost each Ontario ratepayer $10 for just one week could have been used!

© Parker Gallant

October 13, 2014

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

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

Wind power an issue in municipal election

06 Monday Oct 2014

Posted by in Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

ballot

Opposition to wind “farms” in Ontario is shaping up to be a key election issue with candidates expressing support for anti-wind farm community groups; in several cases, community leaders who have actively opposed wind farms or wind farm proposals locally are running for office.

The Wellington Times newspaper in Prince Edward County has published responses from local candidates on key issues, including this question: What is your position on wind energy projects in the County?

Of the 35 candidates for the office of Mayor and councilors in 10 wards, half the candidates responded that they would either “discourage wind developers but accept existing provincial rules” or “fight local wind projects along with local anti-turbine groups.” All three candidates for Mayor responded that they would actively fight the two proposed wind power projects (Prince Edward County has declared itself to be Not A Willing Host to large-scale wind power generation projects).

Six candidates for councilor said it was a provincial issue, and that the municipality had no control, while two said they would actively support wind power in Prince Edward County, because it would help with “climate change” and/or result on local benefits in terms of tax revenue and vibrancy funds.

The full comments and candidate profiles may be seen on The Wellington Times website atwww.pec2014acs.wordpress.com

In other areas, Shawn Drennan is running for Reeve in Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh; Louise Hall of Southgate Community Against Turbines is running for Council in Southgate; and incumbent councillors Heather Stauble(Kawartha Lakes) and Betty Konc (Wainfleet) have been outspoken in their support of their communities fighting wind power projects.

Who else is standing up for their communities vs Big Wind? Let us know: email windconcerns@gmail.com

Reposted from Wind Concerns Ontario

Ontario electricity policies hamper economic growth: Fraser Institute

06 Monday Oct 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Here a commentary from Ottawa-based energy economist, Robert Lyman:

In May 2014, the Fraser Institute, based in British Columbia, published a report authored by Professor Ross McKitrick and PhD candidate Elmira Aliakbari of the University of Guelph. The report, Energy Abundance and Economic Growth, endeavoured to answer an important question in economic research: does economic growth cause an increase in energy consumption or does an increase in energy availability cause an increase in economic activity, or both?

The question has important implications for government policy. Suppose GDP (i.e., national income) growth causes increased energy consumption, but is not dependent on it. In this view, energy consumption is like a luxury good (like jewelry), the consumption of which arises from increased wealth. If policy makers wanted to, they could restrict energy consumption without impinging on future economic and employment growth. The alternative view is that energy is a limiting factor (or essential input) to growth. In that framework, if energy consumption is constrained by policy, future growth will also be constrained, raising the economic costs of such policies. If both directions of causality exist (i.e., if economic growth causes increases in energy consumption and increases in the availability, and use of energy causes economic growth), it still implies that restrictions on energy availability or increases in energy prices will have negative effects on future growth.

The main contribution of the report, in terms of economic theory, is that it shows how new statistical methods have been developed that allow for investigation of whether the relationships between economic growth and growth in energy use are simply correlated or are causal in nature. The theoretical and methodological discussion in the report is quite complex, even for a trained economist, which is probably why the report received very little public attention. The clear conclusion of the analysis, however, is that growth and energy either jointly influence each other, or that the influence is one-way from energy to GDP. Further, of all the OECD countries studied, Canada shows the most consistent evidence on this, in that studies under a variety of methods and time periods have regularly found evidence that energy is a limiting factor in Canadian economic growth.

In other words, real per-capita income in Canada is definitely constrained by policies that restrict energy availability and/or increase energy costs, and growth in energy abundance leads to growth in Canadian GDP per capita.

The report concludes with a reference to Ontario’s electricity policies.

“These considerations are important to keep in mind as policymakers consider initiatives (especially related to renewable energy mandates, biofuels requirements, and so forth) that explicitly limit energy availability. Jurisdictions such as Ontario have argued that such policies are consistent with their overall strategy to promote economic growth. In other words, they assert that forcing investment in wind and solar generation systems – while making electricity more expensive overall – will contribute to macro-economic growth. The evidence points in the opposite direction. Policies that engineer energy scarcity are likely to lead to negative effects on future GDP growth.”

One can read the entire Fraser Institute report at:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/energy-abundance-and-economic-growth.pdf

Robert Lyman

Ottawa

New research: wind farm infrasound can cause hearing damage

01 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Living close to wind farms could cause hearing damage

New research published by the Royal Society warns of the possible danger posed by low frequency noise like that emitted by wind turbines

Camilla Turner, The Telegraph, October 1, 2014

Living close to wind farms may lead to severe hearing damage or even deafness, according to new research which warns of the possible danger posed by low frequency noise.

The physical composition of inner ear was “drastically” altered following exposure to low frequency noise, like that emitted by wind turbines, a study has found.

The research will delight critics of wind farms, who have long complained of their detrimental effects on the health of those who live nearby.

Published today by the Royal Society in their new journal Open Science, the research was carried out by a team of scientists from the University of Munich.

It relies on a study of 21 healthy men and women aged between 18 and 28 years. After being exposed to low frequency sound, scientists detected changes in the type of sound being emitted from the inner ear of 17 out of the 21 participants.

The changes were detected in a part of the ear called the cochlear, a spiral shaped cavity which essential for hearing and balance.

“We explored a very curious phenomenon of the human ear: the faint sounds which a healthy human ear constantly emits,” said Dr Marcus Drexl, one of the authors of the report.

“These are like a very faint constant whistling that comes out of your ear as a by-product of the hearing process. We used these as an indication of how processes in the inner ear change.”

Dr Drexl and his team measured these naturally emitted sounds before and after exposure to 90 seconds of low frequency sound.

“Usually the sound emitted from the ear stays at the same frequency,” he said. “But the interesting thing was that after exposure, these sounds changed very drastically.

“They started to oscillate slowly over a couple of minutes. This can be interpreted as a change of the mechanisms in the inner ear, produced by the low frequency sounds.

“This could be a first indication that damage might be done to the inner ear.

“We don’t know what happens if you are exposed for longer periods of time, [for example] if you live next to a wind turbine and listen to these sounds for months of years.”

Wind turbines emit a spectrum of frequencies of noise, which include the low frequency that was used in the research, Dr Drexl explained.

He said the study “might help to explain some of the symptoms that people who live near wind turbines report, such as sleep disturbance, hearing problems and high blood pressure”.

Dr Drexl explained how the low frequency noise is not perceived as being “intense or disturbing” simply because most of the time humans cannot hear it.

“The lower the frequency the you less you can hear it, and if it is very low you can’t hear it at all.

“People think if you can’t hear it then it is not a problem. But it is entering your inner ear even though it is not entering your consciousness.”

Read the full article and comments here.

Read the full paper published by the Royal Society KugleretalInfrasound2014.

The collected wisdom of Energy Minister Chiarelli

29 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Minister Chiarelli: words of wisdom

Ummm...uhhhh...er... [The musings of Bob Chiarelli]
Ummm…uhhhh…er… [The musings of Bob Chiarelli]

In the approximately one and a half years that Bob Chiarelli has been Energy Minister, he has made many observations about the electricity sector in Ontario. I thought it might be amusing to see a collection of them, altogether.

  • When Minster Chiarelli announced the end of the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (January 1, 2015) he said: “The provincial government is trying to rejig hydro bills to ensure that customers aren’t hit with a sharp increase when the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit is phased out.”  And, “The plan was to also eliminate the debt retirement charge on hydro bills at the same time.”  The announcement of those simultaneous actions raised the average ratepayer bill by $100 annually but in Mr. Chiarelli’s wisdom that wasn’t a “sharp increase”!
  • Minister Chiarelli announced that “wind turbine developers” would be “paid to not produce power” and bragged it would save ratepayers $200 million annually!  He didn’t promise that rates would fall as a result of the savings, however, and he also failed to note that the money paid “to not produce power” would raise the per kWh cost of the actual power produced!
  • The Minister announced that the Samsung contract had been revised and would “save ratepayers money,”  $3.7 billion over the 20-year term.   Once again, no promise of rates falling, just that they wouldn’t increase as much as previously anticipated.
  • Minister Chiarelli told us that “over the next 20 years, rates would increase 3.4 % per year” (after the Samsung announcement) but this writer’s bill increased 9.1% in only one year, as have most ratepayers bills.  We are all looking forward to the 3.4% increase after 10 years of 10% increases.
  • Minister Chiarelli holds the record of the nine Liberal Ministers of Energy for issuing 22 “directives” to the OPA, surpassing Brad Duguid, the previous record holder at 19.  Apparently Liberal Energy Ministers know more than the “experts” running the electricity system!
  • The first directive issued by Minister Chiarelli on June 23, 2023 instructed the OPA to expand FIT and MicroFIT contracts; that was superseded by his most recent directive of August 29, 2014 telling them to scale back, even though they hadn’t achieved his original target.
  • Minister Chiarelli has been consistent in telling all Ontario ratepayers to “conserve” but he recently issued a new directive instructing the OPA to create a new program so large industrial companies would “consume more” at rates at a third of what the rest of us pay.
  • Minister Chiarelli referred to the cost of the gas plant move from Oakville as the “price of a Timmie’s coffee” and uses that analogy often when talking about increasing electricity rates.   Is this a new currency he plans on bringing in if he is appointed Finance Minister for the Province?
  • Minister Chiarelli in his “Minister’s Message” in his long-term energy plan, “Achieving Balance” says, “Ontario has adopted a policy of Conservation First,” and a chart in the plan “Forecast Energy Production (TWh) 2032” claims it willcontribute 30 TWh of energy efficiency by then.   I presume he noticed that 30 TWh of nothing won’t toast your bread!
  • The same Minister’s Message also says, “We will work with our agencies and the province’s local distribution companies to ensure they operate more efficiently and produce savings that will benefit Ontario’s ratepayers.”  Meanwhile, the largest and most costly large distributor in the province, Hydro One (owned by the province)is being investigated by Ontario’s Ombudsman for a billing system causing havoc for its 1.1 million ratepayers.  Ironically, the recent budget from Minister of Finance, Charles Sousa, talks about maximizing profits from it to increase revenues to help reduce the budget deficit.  That puts Minister Chiarelli in conflict with Minister Sousa!  Wonder who will win?
  • Minister Chiarelli wants us all to conserve but his “Achieving Balance” plan comes up short as it will actually increase emissions according to the Power Workers Union and the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers.  The Power Workers,  “the plan is short-sighted in its thinking, will leave the province vulnerable to supply shortages and willreverse the decline in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributed to the successful restart of units 1 and 2 at Bruce Power by relying significantly more on natural gas generation when the Pickering Nuclear Station closes.”
  • Minister Chiarelli in an interview had this to say about engagement with municipalities:  “Our government wants to ensure that future renewable energy projects will be built in the right place at the right time.”  So, municipalities can have their “say,” they just can’t say “no.”
  • Minister Chiarelli in the same interview was asked a question about the possibility of a moratorium on wind projects until the federal health study was complete. He said, “Dr. Arlene King [former Chief Medical Officer of Health] undertook a review of the potential health effects of wind turbines. Her 2010 report stated that there is no scientific evidence to date to support claims that wind turbine noise cause adverse health effects.”   We know Dr. King’s report was nothing more than a “literature review,” is contentious and outdated, but our Energy Minister pretends it is the last word.

This is a quick review of Minister Chiarelli’s management of the Ontario electricity sector, highlighting his contradictory views, his conflicts, his approach to the addition of wind turbines to Ontario’s energy sector and  their mediocre potential to contribute to Ontario’s electricity needs.   A deeper review of Chiarelli’s performance and that of his predecessors would have turn up more results and more of egregious statements.

What stands out is that the Ontario Liberal government has contrived to make Ontario the most expensive market for electricity in North America, a major factor in Ontario’s mediocre economic performance.

©Parker Gallant

September 29, 2014

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

Re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario

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.

 

Farmers Forum editorial on wind: I don’t want a turbine

15 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Apparently, everyone is tickety-boo with Wolfe Island being turned into a factory--or are they?

Apparently, everyone is tickety-boo with Wolfe Island being turned into a factory–or are they?

Wind turbine woes

September 2014, Farmers Forum

Farmers Forum surveyed a big chunk of Wolfe Island residents and found that 75 per cent approve of or are indifferent toward the 86 wind turbines they’ve been living with for five years.

There are only two wind turbine projects in Eastern Ontario–one in Wolfe Island and one near Brinston, south of Ottawa. But Wolfe Island, surrounded by the St. Lawrence River at one end and Lake Ontario at the other, is a captive crowd. We easily surveyed 200 of the 1,400 residents lining up for the Kingston ferry or working in the hamlet of Marysville.

With such a high proportion of residents surveyed–one in seven–we captured a fairly good picture of how people feel about those gigantic white gosal posts with their three imposing blades. Of course, having a visual of a turbine makes a huge difference. On many properties on the 29-kilometer long island, you can’t even see the turbines.* From other vantage points, you can see more than 10.

We found that money makes a difference. Those landowners (many of them farmers) hosting one or more turbines, are delighted with the $10,000 to $14,000 they earn each year per turbine just to look at them. The wind turbine company hands over another $100,000 to the island annually. Improvements to the local outdoor rink are one of the many benefits. It’s like getting paid twice for having the good luck of living at the right place on the right island at the right time.

Not surprisingly, wind power companies in other areas of the province are now offering “hush” money to Ontarians living near a proposed wind turbine project. As I’ve said before, if a company wants to pay me $14,000 a year to put a wind turbine on my property, I’d move the garage in order to accommodate them. Change their mind and offer the turbine to my neighbour and suddenly that turbine doesn’t look so good. It’s kind of an eyesore and doesn’t it affect bird migration? Could this be the health issues that we hear about or am I just sick at the thought that I just lost $280,000 of free money over 20 years? I think I know the answer. But when you offer to cut me in on the monetary benefits of my neighbour’s turbine, I’m suddenly all sunshine and happy thoughts.

This is not to say there aren’t honest-to-goodness health risks. Farmers Forum has no reason to disbelieve those survey respondents who complain of low-level noise when the wind changes direction.

We’re losing $24,000 an hour on wind

This brings me to my only real beef against wind power. As happy as I thought I would be to have a turbine, I don’t want  one.

They are the biggest money losers in the history of the province. Not for Wolfe Islanders or anyone else who gets a wind turbine contract. But for everyone else forced to pay an electricity bill. Electricity costs have already risen 12.5 per cent each year for the past five years. There are more than 1,000 operating wind turbines and another more than 4,000 to go up in the province. Ontario’s auditor general says we can expect another 40 per cent price hike over the next few years in our electricity bills. By 2018, every Ontario family will be paying an extra $636 per year to go green. And why? So the province can claim to be the first green province or state in North America? Big deal.

Wind turbines are incredibly inefficient. In a major report last year, the Fraser Institute noted that 80 per cent of the power generated by wind turbines occur when Ontario doesn’t need the power. So, while the province pays 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour, it often resells is for 2.5 cents south of the border. The report, Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario’s Green Energy Act, observed that data from the Independent Electricity System Operator show Ontario loses, on average, $24,000 per operating hour on wind power sales. Numerous companies, including Kelloggs and Heinz, have closed plants because Ontario companies pay more for power than any other jurisdiction in North America.

Not “green”

To make matters worse, a wind turbine can contain more than 200 tonnes of steel and Chinese factories need the mining of even more tonnes of coal and iron to make them. Writes David Hughes in his book Carbon Shift, “A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.”

So, you can’t even call wind turbines green energy. It’s appalling that farmers have been lied to about the benefits. We’re wasting billions on a phoney cause.

Patrick Meagher is editor of Farmers Forum and can be reached at editor@farmersforum.com

Re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario

WCO editor’s note: Although Farmers Forum was clear on the limitations of their survey they missed several key points: one, by surveying only people at the ferry dock and in a coffee shop, they may have missed people who stay on the island all day, but more important, as the Island has turbines on one half and none on the other, it would have been absolutely critical to define where the survey respondents actually live. They didn’t. Another key factor in any survey of community residents living with turbines is the fact that many turbine contracts force landowners to sign a non-disclosure agreement—in other words, if they have anything negative to say about the turbines, they can’t talk.