Tag Archives: wind power

Wind farm areas forced “industrial zones,” says scientist

21 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

A “boutique solution to a mega-mall problem”

This is from this week’s edition of Inside Ottawa Valley, in the Kemptville Advance,written by retired scientist David G. Stephenson. Part 2 appears next week.

An excerpt pertaining to wind power generation follows:

Across the province advancing wind turbines are changing the wind swept countryside into a scene from H.G Well’s “War of the Worlds”. Wind power is clean and cost competitive, but the turbines are very large, unsightly, noisy industrial installations. A wind turbine will immediately zone everywhere within eyeshot as industrial, and people prefer not to live or conduct their recreational pursuits in an industrial zone. Consequently large wind farms are now being built over water.

A wind farm filling all of this country’s portion of the great lakes might just, when the wind was blowing, generate enough power to replace our use of fossil fuels.

But the output of wind farms is unpredictable and only available a quarter of the time. Wind power, like geothermal and tidal power is a boutique solution to a Mega-mall sized problem. Their contributions can only be useful supplements to a robust anchoring source of non-polluting energy.

Does conserving power in Ontario save us money? (No.)

16 Friday Jan 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Here is a precis of an analysis of the Ontario government’s conservation efforts prepared by local economist Robert Lyman, based on research by Parker Gallant.

Here are the numbers.

In 2009, local electricity distribution companies in Ontario provided 124,206,032 megawatt-hours (MWh) for 4,748,577 households, a monthly average of 2,180 kilowatt hours (kWh).

In 2013, they provided 125,306,563 MWh for 4,944,488 households, a monthly average of 2,112 kWh. Average consumption fell by 3.3%, or 875 kilowatts annually between 2009 and 2013. For the average home, that is a monthly reduction from 800 kWh to 774 kWh (317 kWh per year).

In 2009, the cost of a kWh of electricity delivered averaged 6.15 cents and the “commodity” cost (just the electricity portion) for the full year was $590. By reducing annual consumption by 317 kWh, the savings should have been $19.50.

In 2013, the commodity cost had risen to 9.2 cents per kWh, or $854 per year. Not only did the $19.50 savings disappear, but also, the average household paid an additional $264 annually. That represents an additional cost to all ratepayers in the province of $1.2 billion annually. That does not include the $2 billion cost of installing smart meters.

The average household would have had to reduce its annual consumption by 33%, or 3,200 kWh, in order to have simply matched its cost for electricity consumption in 2009.

The Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO) is required to maintain an operating reserve of generating capacity of between 1,300 and 1,600 MW for contingencies. Since 2009 the available surplus has been between 4,000 MW and 5,900 MW. The IESO expects these surpluses will continue until at least the later part of this decade. Thus, while the official rationale for smart meters, time-of-use pricing and “conservation” programs is to avoid the addition of expensive new generation capacity, the province has continued to add that capacity even in the face of a substantial surplus.

What’s next? Current Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli has set new targets for both reductions in peak demand and “conservation” in his long-term energy plan. The target set for reducing peak demand is 10% (2,400 MW by 2025) and for “conservation” is 16% (30 TWh) by 2032. These will be combined with continuing large additions in industrial wind turbine and solar power generators at substantial premiums above most current generation. As a result, despite the lower consumption, ratepayers will be expected to dig deeper into their pockets.

Ontario’s $16-million Christmas power giveaway

31 Wednesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Ontario’s $16-million Christmas power giveaway

Wind power half of surplus power sold off cheap

Ontario's energy policy: gifts for somebody---just not you

Christmas was great day for Michigan and New York, courtesy of Santa Claus Ontario and wind power: Ontario exported 16.5 % (about 66,000 MWh) of our total demand for power on Christmas Day, and those two neighbours got $500,000 in cash along with the 56,000 MWh of power we gave them.  Power generated from wind energy was 36,000 MWh or 51% of total exports—if the curtailed wind production was included that would be 77% of the surplus power exported, so the wind power developers must be happy with their Christmas presents from Ontario, too.

In fact, Ontario’s electricity ratepayers picked up the cost of the cash payments to Michigan and New York, along with the actual cost of the production which was $7 million.  And, we paid about $2 million for “curtailed” wind (17,000 MWh), close to $3 million for “steamed off” nuclear (49,000 MWh) and more than $3 million to the gas plant generators for their “net revenue requirement” while the gas power plants idled.  That’s $16 million… and it doesn’t include the cost of Christmas Day “hydro spillage” as the Independent Electricity Systems Operator or IESO doesn’t report on it.

Total demand for power in Ontario Christmas Day was only 325,000 MWh, perhaps due to mild weather or maybe everyone barbecued their turkeys.  The hourly Ontario energy price (HOEP) value of the total demand of 390,000 MWh was negative (-$2,900,000) based on the average negative price of $7.45/MWh, but Ontario ratepayers still paid the $40 million needed to produce that power.

So our Premier and her chief Elf in the Energy portfolio, Bob Chiarelli, rewarded Ontario’s ratepayers with lumps of coal on Christmas day while doling out goodies to our neighbours!

©Parker Gallant

December 26, 2014

Contact Wind Concerns Ontario at 1-855-517-0446 or

windconcerns@gmail.com

Reprinted from Wind Concerns Ontario

You may also listen to a 45-minute podcast of Parker Gallant on the Dale Goldhawk radio show here.

Legal actions against wind farms continue

18 Thursday Dec 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

This is a heavy duty week as Ontario communities fight back against the unwanted incursion of huge wind power generation facilities. As you know, the Green Energy Act removed local land-use planning powers for renewable power projects, so the environmental appeal process and ultimately the courts, along with a noise nuisance bylaw, is the only way communities can act to protect their residents.

(The new procurement process for large-scale renewable power projects still does not allow for a return of municipal planning powers; communities can have a say, as long as it’s not “no” and in fact, the regional energy plans are pre-designed by the province—in other words, if the province decides you’re getting a wind “farm” then you are. But we digress…)

This week:

Manvers/Pontypool: last few days of the appeal of the Sumac Ridge wind power project, part of which is on the Oak Ridges Moraine, a fragile and (formerly) protected environment. The Green Energy Act over-rode the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act, along with 20 other pieces of legislation.) The City of Kawartha Lakes is involved.

Plympton-Wyoming: again, the municipality is involved with the appeal of the Suncor Cedar Point wind power generation project. Today, the Environmental Review Tribunal hears a motion for a stay of proceedings, until experts can review the raw data from the Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health study. (No report or article has yet been published from this study; there is only a brief summary and PowerPoint presentation.) The Health Canada study showed that 16.5% of people living within 2 km of a wind turbine were experiencing distress.

Niagara Region: Mothers Against Wind Turbines is a appealing the 77, 3-megawatt turbine Niagara Region wind power project, which will affect over 4,000 homes. Preliminary hearing is tomorrow in Wellandport.

Other appeals have been filed and several judicial reviews are in various stages, as well as private legal actions on property value loss and nuisance. Decisions are expected on the Ostrander Point appeal (lawyer Eric Gillespie), and the Drennan/Dixon appeal (the Constitutional challenge, lawyer Julian Falconer).

Ottawa Wind Concerns has retained a legal firm and is prepared to enact legal actions should another proposal come forward for a wind power project.

Contact us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com Donations welcome at PO Box 3, North Gower K0A 2T0

MPP MacLeod: return local land-use planning control

02 Tuesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

LISA MACLEOD MPP-NEPEAN-CARLETON
NEWS RELEASE
December 2, 2014
END THE RURAL-URBAN DIVIDE, RESTORE LOCAL DECISION MAKING: MACLEOD
(Queen’s Park)- Nepean- Carleton PC MPP Lisa MacLeod brought the fight against wind turbine developments once again to Queen’s Park today.
“One of the big challenges the government has is credibility in rural and remote communities across the province because of the Green Energy Act.  The government should restore local decision making to municipalities in an effort to signal they respect those communities”, said MacLeod
The Green Energy Act overrides 21 different pieces of legislation, including the Heritage Act and the Planning Act, so wind turbine developers can build projects without any push back from municipalities or their residents.
“The rural-urban divide in Ontario is very real as a result of disastrous policies like the Green Energy Act.  It is never too late for the Liberal Government to admit it is wrong and make wind turbine developers go through the same processes any other developer would have to in the Province of Ontario”, concluded MacLeod.
-30-
For More Information Contact Jordan Milks
1-416-352-6351

 

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.

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

Green energy fleecing Ontario consumers

30 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Green energy and wind farms fleecing Ontario consumers

New study explains why Ontario has gone from affordable electricity rates to among the highest in N America. Photo: Bloomberg
New study explains why Ontario has gone from affordable electricity rates to among the highest in N America. Photo: Bloomberg

Ross McKitrick and Tom Adams, The Financial Post, October 30, 2014

Adding renewable generating capacity triggers changes throughout the system that multiply costs for consumers

Ontario’s green energy transformation – initiated a decade ago under then-Premier Dalton McGuinty – is now hitting consumers. The Nov 1 increase for households is the next twist of that screw. As Ontario consumers know all too well, the province has gone from having affordable electricity to having some of the highest and fastest-increasing rates in Canada.

Last year, in a report for the Fraser Institute called “Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario’s Green Energy Act,” one of us (McKitrick) explained how the Green Energy Act, passed in 2009, yielded at best tiny environmental benefits that cost at least ten times more than conventional pollution control methods, and was directly harming growth by driving down rates of return in key sectors like manufacturing.

But complex financial structures and a lack of official disclosure around large embedded costs have let supporters of the green energy act deny that green power is responsible for the price hikes. Green industry advocates, including the consulting firm Power Advisory and advocacy group Environmental Defense, have added up the direct payments to new renewable generators, and concluded that since those costs are relatively small, the impact of renewables on the total cost of power is likewise small.

However, such analyses ignore the indirect costs that arise from the way renewables interact with the rest of the power system. Adding renewable generating capacity triggers changes throughout the system that multiply costs for consumers through a mechanism called the Global Adjustment. Our new study, released Wednesday by the Fraser Institute, quantifies the impacts of different types of new generators on the Global Adjustment. The analysis pinpoints what causes the raw deal for consumers.

Here’s how it works: over the last decade, Ontario closed its coal-fired power plants and built a rapidly expanding portfolio of contracts with other generators including renewable energy companies producing power from hydro, wind, solar and biomass. These companies charge the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) higher-than-market-value prices for energy. To make up the difference, the OPA slaps an extra charge – called the Global Adjustment – on the electricity bills of Ontarians.

The Global Adjustment adds to the commodity portion of rates, which combined with charges for delivery, debt recovery, and regulatory factors constitute the overall rate. Elements of the Global Adjustment that are not disclosed include payments to generators to not generate, rates paid to historic non-utility generators, and costs for new hydro-electric developments.

Since 2007, the Global Adjustment has risen six cents per kilowatt-hour in inflation-adjusted terms, pushing up the commodity portion of bills by 50%. Not long ago, Ontario’s total industrial rate was less than six cents per kilowatt-hour. The rising Global Adjustment is by far the biggest driver of the resulting 21% increase in the overall average cost of power in the province over the period 2007-2013. The Global Adjustment’s upward path is a direct consequence of government intervention in the electricity market. Our analysis unpacking the costs of different types of generation shows that the consumer impact of new renewables substantially exceeds the direct payments to those generators by as much as 3 to 1. And renewables are a big part of the problem: Wind and solar systems provided less than 4% of Ontario’s power in 2013 but accounted for 20% of the commodity cost paid by Ontarians.

Getting to the bottom of the rate implications of adding renewables gained new urgency when Premier Wynne declared last month that the 2013 fleet of wind and solar will almost triple by 2021. This is an incredibly reckless decision. In his National Post column recently on the 2014 Ontario Economic Summit, co-chair Kevin Lynch, Vice-Chair of BMO Financial Group, stated bluntly “That Ontario has a serious growth problem is rather difficult to deny, or debate.”

What’s the solution? If the Province wants to contain electricity rate increases it needs to halt new hydroelectric, wind and solar projects. In order to reverse rate increases, the province should seek opportunities to terminate existing contracts between renewable energy companies and the OPA. Alas, as the Premier has indicated, that’s not where they’re headed.

Alternatives to costly new renewables include using some imported electricity from Quebec while Ontario refurbishes its nuclear power plants and maintaining 4 of 12 coal-fired power units at Lambton and Nanticoke that had been outfitted with advanced air pollution control equipment just prior to their closure, making them effectively as clean to operate as natural gas plants. Costly conservation programs encouraging consumers to use less electricity make particularly little sense these days in Ontario. Right now, Ontario is exporting vast amounts of electricity at prices that yield only pennies on the dollar, and also paying vast but undisclosed sums to generators to not generate.

Many European countries made costly commitments to renewable energy but are now winding them back. Germany is investing in new smog-free coal power generation. Environmentalists often suggested that following Europe is the way to go. Perhaps Ontario should consider following them now.

Ross McKitrick is a Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph and Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute. Tom Adams is an independent energy consultant and advisor.

Wind farms: another $20 million gone in a weekend

28 Tuesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Ontario: wind farms contribute to $20-million power sell-off

Another $20-million autumn weekend with Ontario power sold off cheap to neighbouring states and province

Another October weekend has come and gone along—and so has at least another $20 million of Ontario ratepayer dollars, due to selling off surplus Ontario power cheap.

This past weekend of October 24-26 saw Ontario sell off another 189,000 megawatt hours (MWh)  of electricity to our neighbours in Michigan, New York and Quebec.   Those MWh went for a song generating, $4.31 each and earning about $820K. The flip side is, ratepayers paid over $110 per MWh for that power generation.  We lost $106 for each MWh (10.6 cents per kilowatt hour); that means the subsidized cost of those megawatt hours  was over $20 million, or a one-time hit of about $4.50 for each of Ontario’s average electricity ratepayer.  The trouble of course is that it is not a one-time hit, as this situation occurs frequently during spring and fall when demand for power is low.

Included in that $20 million we paid to export our surplus is the cost for the spasmodic production of electricity from thousands of industrial wind turbines throughout the province and, presumably, some solar production.   Wind turbines produced over 52,000 MWh Octover 24-26, and wind power producers were paid for not producing another 17,000 MWh.   That 69,000 MWh cost Ontario’s ratepayers half of the $20 million. It doesn’t  include what Ontario Power Generation spilled in hydro, what gas generators were paid to idle, or what Bruce Nuclear was paid to steam off nuclear power.

What this past weekend and others before it should be telling the Ontario Liberal government and the Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli is that Ontario’s ratepayers are consuming less of this expensive commodity.  Premier Wynne’s  “Conservation First” initiative, as Tom Adams notes in a recent post titled “Crock of Conservation,” has driven demand down but the energy ministry keeps adding more inefficient renewables to Ontario’s grid.

During the past weekend, Ontario exported 20% of its average electricity demand.   If each Ministry of the Ontario government wasted 20% of their budget, the main stream media might pay attention but it seems that the Minister of Energy is allowed to waste ratepayer dollars without any serious oversight because the money is simply extracted, without effect on the Ontario deficit.

We can only hope for the day when it is recognized that ratepayers are also taxpayers, and that their money is being wasted with regularity due to Ontario’s energy policy.

©Parker Gallant,

October 27, 2014

Re-posted from Windconcernsontario.ca

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.