Tag Archives: wind power

Rural Ontario heartbreak: wind power invasion was all for nothing

13 Wednesday Jun 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Turbines near Strathroy — the environmental impact, the noise, the high hydro bills. It was all for nothing. [Photo London Free Press]

June 13, 2018

Many analysts and commentators are now looking over the ruins of the Ontario government from the election last week, and pointing to the McGuinty-Wynne government’s disastrous handling of the electricity sector, particularly the ideology-driven push for renewables, as a factor.

Two Auditors General said Ontario had never done a cost-benefit analysis for its aggressive support of industrial-scale wind power and that we were paying too much — far too much — for the power. Which was intermittent and unreliable to boot, so it could never do what they said it would.

Now, Ottawa-based energy insider Steve Aplin says, not only was large-scale wind expensive it was also a waste of time: wind power has never been shown to reduce CO2 or carbon emissions.

Never.

Wind did not replace the power produced by Ontario’s shuttered coal plants, gas and nuclear did.

Read Mr Aplin’s excellent analysis here, but remember, a 100-megawatt power project was just approved for North Stormont, just south of Ottawa, and an approval is pending for another project east, in The Nation.

Neither community wants the power projects, there are significant environmental concerns, and Ontario doesn’t need the intermittent power produced out-of-phase with demand.

For a list of other comments on the election and the role of Ontario’s renewable power program, please go to http://www.windconcernsontario.ca

 

A tale of two wind ‘farms’: betrayal and discrimination

04 Monday Jun 2018

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

June 4, 2018

Prior to the suspension*of Ontario’s “Large Renewable Procurement I” or LRP I, the government program to procure contracts for renewable power from solar and wind energy, five contracts were awarded in 2016 for new wind power projects.

Two of those were in the Ottawa area: the “Eastern Fields” project proposed by RES Canada in La Nation, the Township of Champlain and the United Counties of Prescott Russell, and “Nation Rise” proposed by Portugal-based EDPR.

Those projects are all now in the process toward approval and ultimate construction, in spite of the fact that the contracting authority, the Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO, says now that Ontario has surplus power for the forseeable future, and the fact that the communities do not unanimously support these power projects.

Let’s catch up with where the projects are right now.

Nation Rise, North Stormont

Concerned Citizens of North Stormont leader Margaret Benke : power not needed, plenty of environmental dangers ahead

This project was granted a Renewable Energy Approval or REA a few weeks ago, just days before the writ for the 2018 provincial election was drawn up. (The government is not allowed to make any major decisions after the writ.) The announcement came at 5 PM on a Friday; the community had 15 days to decide whether to appeal the REA, five days of those were on weekends, which restricts the ability of community members to consult with lawyers and subject matter experts.

The Concerned Citizens of North Stormont has decided to appeal, and a first appearance before the Environment Review Tribunal will be June 25 in Finch (to be confirmed).

There are a number of environmental concerns, principally the fact that the project will be located on what is designated a “highly vulnerable aquifer” — the Raisin-South Nation Protection Area serves 10,000 water wells. After the reports of disturbed and failed wells in Chatham-Kent during and following construction of a wind power project there, citizens in North Stormont are very worried about what could happen to their wells.

The other issue is noise: many residents will be exposed to the noise emissions coming from the more than 30 industrial-scale wind turbines planned for the area. Here’s the kicker: Ontario knew its noise assessment protocol for wind turbines was flawed so it revised the guidelines, and released a new document in April 2017. But, the five newest wind power projects don’t have to abide by them, instead using a “transitional” process, in spite of the fact their wind turbines are not yet purchased or built. A legal action on behalf of four community groups, North Stormont among them, is in process.

The wind power project will “have a huge impact on our communities,” said Concerned Citizens spokesperson Margaret Benke in a recent news release. North Stormont feels particularly betrayed because the current Premier told Ontario rural residents that wind power projects would not be put in areas that didn’t want them — a contract was awarded anyway, and last week the Premier, on a whirlwind election campaign tour that included North Stormont, was asked about that. She said “We had no choice.”

Listen to Wind Concerns Ontario president Jane Wilson here, in an interview with Bell Media’s Evan Solomon on the project.

This community group has started a GoFundMe effort to raise funds to defend the community, and they need help. Go to the GoFundMe link here: https://ca.gofundme.com/stop-wind-turbines-in-northstormont

Eastern Fields

Save The Nation protester: the MOECC and RES Canada don’t understand “Non”

This power project was in the mandated comment period which ended June 2nd, Saturday. The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) says that consultation with the public is very important to the renewable energy process and that the comments from the public are welcome and valued.

That’s why all the documents were available in English only, in communities that are at least 60-percent francophone.

When pressed by residents and the community group Sauvons La Nation, the power developer RES Canada — which stands to make about $7 million a year–  said it would cost too much to translate the documents.

Apparently now, the MOECC says that francophone residents should have responded by the June 2nd deadline to say they need the French documentation and to request an extension to the deadline. Why wasn’t the information provided in the appropriate language in the first place, instead of discriminating against the francophone community?

There are environmental concerns with this power project as well, as it is close to the Alfred Bog, a site for migratory birds and other wildlife (Hint: migratory birds don’t count in Ontario — the wind power legislation, crafted by the industry, says that a species has to be on the edge of extinction before a wind power project could be denied).

There are concerns about water in the area as well, as it is rife with waterways, and also features areas of Leda clay or “quick” clay (as does North Stormont).

Noise will also be an issue for residents. Meanwhile, RES Canada, which also operates the Talbot wind power project, has had hundreds of complaints of excessive noise from the wind turbines, with no action taken by the MOECC.

Betrayal? Again, the Ontario government promised it would not inflict power projects on unwilling communities but again, it has. In this case, the gigantic turbines are all planned to be on land owned by members of a single family, involved in agriculture.

 

*The LRP/wind power program was suspended, which means, if the current government returns to power, or another is elected that also supports wind power, it could be revived and continue.

Ottawa area community groups petition Queen’s Park today

30 Monday Apr 2018

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Concerned Citizens of North Stormont leader Margaret Benke, Same rules for everybody.

April 30, 2018

The Ontario government realized there were inadequacies in their protocols for wind turbine noise and the assessment procedures needed in the approval process for new wind power projects, so they changed them.

And then gave the five newest wind power projects the option not to use the new rules.

As a result, the powerful power generators in projects that received contracts in 2016 but which are not yet built — in fact four don’t have Renewable Energy Approval yet — will be out of compliance with the new regulations the minute they start operating.

Four Ontario community groups think that’s not right.

They’re heading to Queen’s Park today as three MPPs present thousands of signatures on a Petition, asking the government to follow its own rules.

Representatives of Ottawa-area Concerned Citizens of North Stormont and Save The Nation will join their colleagues from Dutton Dunwich Opponents of Wind Turbines (DDOWT) and Wallaceburg Area Wind Concerns as the Petition is presented in the Legislature.

The Petition is related to the creation of “Transition Provisions” by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) in the Renewable Energy Approval process, which allows wind power developers to ignore new noise modelling guidelines, even for the newest unapproved power projects.

“The MOECC recognized that the previous requirements for turbine noise modelling were inadequate and they revised them,” says Bonnie Rowe, spokesperson for Dutton Dunwich Opponents of Wind Turbines (DDOWT), whose citizen group has applied for a Judicial Review of the Transition. “The noise modelling requirements are important to protect health and safety for people living near the turbines but now, the government has allowed the developers for the new projects to use the old ones — we think that’s wrong.

“If the government sets rules, especially for health, then everyone should have to follow them, no exceptions.”

Wind turbine noise has been linked to sleep disturbance, which in turn leads to other, serious health problems. According to Wind Concerns Ontario, documents received from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change #MOECC show that thousands of reports of excessive noise remain unresolved, and not responded to in Ontario.

MPPs presenting the petitions Monday are: Jeff Yurek, from Elgin-Middlesex-London where the Strong Breeze Wind Power Project is proposed for Dutton Dunwich; Monte McNaughton, from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex where the Otter Creek Wind Farm is proposed for the Wallaceburg area; and Jim McDonell, MPP for Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry, who will be delivering petitions on behalf of the North Stormont area where the Nation Rise Wind Farm is proposed, and also the Municipality of The Nation, where the Eastern Fields Wind Power Project is proposed.

Concerned Citizens of North Stormont: Margaret Benke  macbenke@aol.com

Ottawa Wind Concerns: ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Ottawa area citizen groups to sue Ontario over wind turbine noise

28 Sunday Jan 2018

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

CBC.ca

Citizens sue province over proposed industrial wind turbine projects

Groups allege 5 wind power projects are allowed to defy safe noise limits

By Amanda Pfeffer, CBC News Posted: Jan 28, 2018 6:20 AM ETLast Updated: Jan 28, 2018 6:20 AM ET

Citizens living near five proposed wind turbine parks in Ontario have launched a lawsuit alleging the provincial government is allowing the companies behind the projects to defy safe noise limits.

The province approved the wind park projects in 2016. They are scattered around rural Ontario, and two are within an hour’s drive from Ottawa.

The projects are now going through a “technical review” as part of the final approval process by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.

In 2016, the Ontario government also introduced new and more accurate standards for how companies model the noise impact of turbines before they’re built.

Map of wind turbine impact, Eastern Fields Wind Power Project

Map depicting range of impacts of wind turbines for Eastern Fields project near St Bernardin and St Isidore, east of Ottawa [Photo: Radio-Canada]

Suit alleges standards out of date

The lawsuit, however, alleges the proponents behind the five projects have been using old modelling standards.

“It appears that the majority of proposed turbine sites are out of compliance with the [new] requirements,” states the suit, which has been filed with the Ontario Divisional Court.

If the projects were forced to adhere to the new standards, three quarters of the more than 200 proposed turbines in the province would be breaking the rules, according to Eric Gillespie, the Toronto lawyer who filed the suit on behalf of concerned citizens.

If the companies used the new guidelines for modelling, Gillespie said, those rule-breaking turbines “will have to be relocated or removed.”

Citizens concerned about impact on health

The suit doesn’t ask for monetary damages, said Gillespie, but is about ensuring “that anyone living near an industrial wind turbine project is safe.”

“There’s well-documented research that you don’t want to go above the legislated level,” said Gillespie, adding that the noise associated with the loud, rhythmic drumbeat of the turbines can affect sleep, heart health, and general well-being.

“Unfortunately, it appears almost all these projects and most of the turbines in them are going to [break the guidelines] if they’re allowed to proceed.”

The lawsuit includes affidavits from experts on noise pollution, as well as from residents affected by the projects.

Gary Wheeler, a spokesperson with the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, wrote in an email that the ministry is working with the companies behind the wind turbine projects to make sure they meet “our stringent noise standards.”

“We will be determining the appropriate next steps,” said Wheeler, who declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Margaret Benke

Margaret Benke, right, lives near the proposed Nation Rise Wind Farm located in the Township of North Stormont. She met Saturday with other residents to discuss the lawsuit. [Photo: Radio-Canada]

Residents plan strategy

The five proposed projects include two in eastern Ontario:

  • Eastern Fields Wind Power Project, in the Municipality of The Nation.
  • Nation Rise Wind Farm, in the Township of North Stormont,

Some of the residents living close to those projects met Saturday to discuss the suit and their next steps.

“We’re asking the government to consider the sentence they’re imposing on the people of rural Ontario,” said Margaret Benke, who lives near the proposed Nation Rise Wind Farm, about 60 kilometres southwest of Ottawa.

Benke said she’s concerned that almost three quarters of the turbines proposed in her community would break the current noise standard.

“I can move out,” she said, “but there are many people without that option. Even if their health is affected.”

The three other projects are all in southern Ontario:

  • Otter Creek Wind Farm, north of Wallaceburg, Ont., in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.
  • Romney Wind Energy Centre, in Lakeshore, Ont.
  • Strong Breeze Wind Power Project in the Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich.

###

Wind Concerns Ontario obtained records of noise complaints and government response in two batches, 2006-2014 and 2015-2016, under Freedom of Information legislation. There are thousands of unresolved citizen complaints about wind turbine noise and vibration; yet, the government is in the process of approving more industrial wind power projects. Read the WCO report here. NoiseResponseReport-FINAL-May9

NOTE: these power projects are NOT “parks.”

No answers on Ontario government push for wind power

19 Sunday Nov 2017

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

November 19, 2017

Turbines near Strathroy — reports of noise ignored [Photo London Free Press]

After more than six years of working with communities facing wind power projects, the president of Wind Concerns Ontario still can’t find a rationale for Ontario’s wind power push

TORONTO SUN

By Jane Wilson, Guest Columnist

Every time I am interviewed by the media, or speak at a public meeting, I am asked: Why is Ontario continuing to push ahead with its program of industrial-scale wind turbines and wind power, when all the facts seem to argue against it?

I don’t know.

I don’t understand why Ontario’s Liberal government never did a cost-benefit analysis, or why it has ignored the admonitions of two auditors general about impacts and costs, or why it seems unable, or unwilling, to look at the real-world experience of its wind power experiment.

I don’t know why the government signed contracts in 2016 for 600 megawatts of wind power when we already have a power surplus.

In 2016, Ontario paid $2.7 billion for generators of electricity from nuclear, gas and hydro not to produce power, because we were forced to accept wind power (when it shows up) to the grid. 

In September, a new 100-megawatt wind power facility started commercial operation, but that same month, 42% of wind power in Ontario’s west region was curtailed (surplus, not added to the grid).

Ontario’s electricity customers paid for that power, anyway.

I don’t know why the government keeps adding more new power, which adds costs to people’s electricity bills, so much so that “energy poverty” is a new, sad phrase in Ontario. 

The government claims to have reduced electricity bills by 25%, but it has done nothing to cut costs by cancelling contracts for unneeded power.

I don’t know why we are adding more “green” power  when Ontario is already “green” by most standards.

 Ontario’s engineers point out that more intermittent wind power means more natural gas back-up, which means more fossil fuel use, not less.

I don’t know why the government persists in saying wind power is good for the environment when its effect on the natural environment and wildlife is well known. 

Last month, Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner pointed out that no request to “kill, harm or harass” wildlife had been refused for four years – she cited wind power projects where development actually took precedence over environmental balance.

Finally, I don’t know why the government is ignoring the thousands of reports of negative impacts from the huge, noise-producing turbines.

Between 2006 and 2014, the government received well over 3,100 formal reports of excessive noise and vibration, according to documents provided to Wind Concerns Ontario.

When the Green Energy Act was passed in 2009, the government already knew there were problems, but it pushed ahead anyway, going so far as to remove local land use planning power from municipalities seeking to protect their residents.

Of those thousands of reports, more than 50% received no response from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. Only 1% resulted in a priority response.

On the formal Pollution Incident Reports kept by the government, there is space to name the “client”.

Who might that be, for the ministry whose pledge it is to protect the environment and human health?

Not the people of Ontario. …

Read the full article here: http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-why-is-ontario-addicted-to-wind-power

Wind power developer documents found lacking: engineers’ report

09 Wednesday Aug 2017

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

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

Power developer project documents are missing key details, engineering firm tells Municipality of North Stormont

Concerned Citizens of North Stormont leader Margaret Benke, in Finch, Ontario: MOECC has poor track record in meeting its responsibilities

August 9, 2017

Last week, Portugal-based EDP Renewables filed documents with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) as part of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process, to get final approval for its “Nation Rise” wind power project in North Stormont, just south of Ottawa.

Using every tool they have to act responsibly on behalf of citizens, North Stormont had engaged Ottawa engineering firm Morrison Hershfield to conduct a review of the documents presented earlier.

The firm found that key information was missing from the project documents in critical areas such as the impact of the project on groundwater, and on bird and bat populations, to name two. An excerpt from the Morrison Hershfield report, tabled at a late June Council meeting, follows.

  • No review has been completed for potential impacts of the project on potable water sources. While potential impacts to groundwater resources have been reviewed from a biophysical perspective, no review has been completed to assess the potential impacts to groundwater resources from a potable water quantity and quality perspective.

• No review has been completed for potential impacts of the project on prime agricultural lands (Class 1-3 agricultural soils)

• Confirmation letter from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport regarding completeness of archaeological and cultural heritage assessments has not been received for the project as described in clauses 22 (a) and 23 (3) (a) of Ontario Regulation 359/09;

• Confirmation letter from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry regarding completeness of natural heritage assessment and birds and bats EEMP has not been received for the project as described in clauses 28 (3) (b) and (c) of Ontario Regulation 359/09;

• Significant details are missing on the project description (e.g. location and type of permanent meteorological towers & location of the 2-3 proposed staging areas of 2-7 hectares each); and

• No detailed review has been completed to assess potential effects of the project construction on municipal infrastructure.

The consulting firm recommended to Council that North Stormont ask for these reports to be provided, including an assessment of impact on groundwater and municipal infrastructure such as roads.

Read the engineering firm report here.

There is no information on whether EDP complied with the request from North Stormont before filing project documents to be screened for “completeness” by the MOECC.

Citizens in the area are very concerned about the power project. Margaret Benke, a leader with Concerned Citizens of North Stormont, told Ottawa Wind Concerns “You can imagine that with 825 homes within 2km of one and up to 10 proposed turbines, and both Crysler and Finch villages within 3km of multiple turbines, we are bracing for the worst.

The group is especially concerned following release of a report by Wind Concerns Ontario in June, showing that the MOECC has failed to respond to thousands of reports of excessive noise from wind turbines.

“We have many apprehensive citizens,” Benke said. “Unless the MOECC changes its approach, we expect that we could be treated with the same lack of respect and consideration as the 3,200 other residents of Ontario who were largely ignored.  We will continue our fight to protect our rural citizens, who deserve equal respect as citizens.”

EDP also operates the South Branch wind power project in Brinston; it took over a year to file its required acoustic audit to demonstrate compliance with provincial noise regulations for wind turbines, but there is no report posted on the company’s website.

The Nation Rise project will be 100-megawatt capacity using 30-35 industrial-scale wind turbines; Ontario currently has a surplus of electrical power and is regularly selling off extra at below-market prices, and paying wind power generators not to produce in times of low demand and high supply.

A report published by the Council for Safe a& Reliable Energy noted that 70 percent of Ontario’s wind power is wasted. (Ontario’s High-Cost Millstone, June, 2017)

Honesty required for new Environment Minister

01 Tuesday Aug 2017

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

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

EDP wind turbine and home at South Branch project, Brinston, Ontario. Problems unresolved. [Photo by Ray Pilon, Ottawa]

With more wind power projects queued up for environmental approvals to produce intermittent electrical power Ontario doesn’t need, Ontario’s new Minister of the Environment and Climate Change needs a fresh approach.

The previous Minister left thousands of complaints about noise and vibration unresolved, and did not follow through on promises to help people affected by the huge wind turbine installations.

Right now, in the Ottawa area, two projects are planned: the “Eastern Fields” in The Nation and “Nation Rise” in North Stormont. Both are opposed by their communities, both projects will come with negative environmental and social impacts, and neither will produce power that’s needed.

Wind Concerns Ontario has sent a letter to the new Minister with a “To Do” list for his immediate attention.

Here it is:

To the Honourable Chris Ballard

Minister of the Environment and Climate Change

Queen’s Park, Toronto

Welcome to your new position as Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Unfortunately, Minister Glen Murray has left you an extensive list of action items requiring your immediate follow-up. We highlight the key issues for you in the following list, related to Ontario’s energy policy and wind power projects.

White Pines – Withdraw the Renewable Energy Approval for this project as developer wpd cannot meet the terms of their contract. There are significant environmental concerns with this project that remain, even after a successful appeal by citizens before the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Amherst Island – Rescind Renewable Energy Approval for this project which is planned for the tiny island heritage community. Significant environmental risks are present including the serious impact on migrating birds that congregate in this area; Ontario does not need the power from this project.

Saugeen Shores – The single wind turbine at the Unifor educational facility has been fraught with problems and engendered hundreds of complaints about excessive noise. This turbine would not be allowed under present regulations. You can immediately address the failure to meet a June 30 deadline for submission of a compliance audit report.

K2 Wind – This is another wind power project, a large one, with many problems in its relatively short history. You can deliver on Minister Glen Murray’s mid-May commitment to Black family, and others, to provide a solution to wind turbines that MOECC testing indicated were not compliant with Ontario regulations to protect the environment and health.

Address Concerns Raised at Request of Minister Murray – Many people across Ontario took Minister Murray at his word when he said that there were no complaints reaching his office and that he would ensure his officials responded quickly to address the issues. They wrote to him and are still waiting for action on their issues.

Complaint Tracking Process – Complaint records released to WCO in response to an FOI request indicate that the MOECC does not respond to most complaints about wind turbine noise. These complaints should be a source of learning for the Ministry rather than being ignored as currently appears to be the case. A full revision of the process is needed to ensure that complaints are actually resolved with procedures that allow the Minister’s office to track resolution. MOECC records indicate little or no resolution of more than 3,100 formal Pollution Reports made by Ontario citizens between 2006 and 2014.

REA Approval Process – Increase setbacks from residences to reflect learning from MOECC complaint records that include staff reports that confirm that current regulations are not sufficient to protect health of residents living in wind projects. Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada set out standards for consultations with communities which are substantially more rigorous than the standards used for Ontario Renewable Energy Projects.

MOECC Noise Modeling Procedures – implement new noise modeling procedures based on MOECC internal testing that demonstrates wind turbines routinely exceed predicted levels.

Otter Creek – Retract decision to deem this application “complete” for the Renewable Energy Approval process. The proponent is unable to provide noise emission data for the turbine equipment proposed. The noise report submitted with the application for a REA is not grounded in fact but rather is estimates based estimates. Also, a full MOECC investigation of the impact on well water is required.

LRP I Contracts – suspend REA process for remaining LRP I projects until full review of requirements based on internal complaint records is completed.

Noise Compliance Audit Protocol – Expand the wind speeds covered under the protocol to include wind speeds below 4 metres/second which are the source of a substantial portion of complaints about excessive noise. Even MOECC testing shows these wind speeds are the source of noise levels exceeding 40 dB(A), which completely undercuts the credibility of this audit process.

REA Enforcement – REA terms make the project operator responsible for addressing the concerns raised in each complaint to ensure that it does not recur. The MOECC needs to follow up on all operating with projects to ensure compliance with these terms and take action where it is not occurring.

Shadow Flicker – The flickering shadows produced when a turbine is positioned between the rising or setting sun is a major irritant for residents. It is not considered in the REA approvals and is easy to address by turning off the turbine for the times when it is casting moving shadows on a house.  In some projects, these changes have been implemented by the wind company but in other MOECC staff is telling residents no action is required, even though the REA requires the wind company to address complaints like these.

Infrasound – Expand MOECC testing to include the full range of noise emissions from wind turbines as independent testing shows the presence of elevated levels of infrasound in homes where residents have had to leave to protect their health.

Health Studies – The Ministry has been telling residents that its policy is based on the “best science” available since the first turbine projects were built. MOECC records clearly show that this is not correct, but the Ministry continues to be willfully blind to input from both residents and its own staff, quoting dated and selective literature reviews in a field where the science is rapidly evolving.  The need for noise studies and other investigation has been highlighted in numerous reports but never undertaken.  It is time for some serious field studies of the problems being caused by wind turbine projects in rural communities across Ontario. This was an information gap identified in 2010 by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health.

 

Last, it is important that as you prepare for this major portfolio, you understand that industrial-scale wind power generation does NOT benefit the environment.

Wind power generation on this scale is a high-impact development for little benefit, if any. Two Auditors General for Ontario recommended that Ontario undertake a cost-benefit and/or impact analysis — that has never been done.

We ask you to approach this issue with honesty and honour, and respect the wishes of the citizens of rural Ontario.

Sincerely,

Jane Wilson

President

Wind Concerns Ontario

Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of community groups, individuals and families concerned about the impact of industrial-scale wind power development on Ontario’s economy, the natural environment, and human health.

*Ottawa Wind Concerns is a community group member of Wind Concerns Ontario

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Wind turbines not clean, not green

22 Monday May 2017

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

“The phrase ‘clean energy’ is a sick joke,” says Matt Ridley of the U.K. Here’s why.

The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.

You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.

Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.

Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.

Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.

Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.

As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

Forgive me if you have heard this before, but I have a commercial interest in coal. Now it appears that the black stuff also gives me a commercial interest in ‘clean’, green wind power.

The point of running through these numbers is to demonstrate that it is utterly futile, on a priori grounds, even to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone to emissions reductions, without ruining the planet. As the late David MacKay pointed out years back, the arithmetic is against such unreliable renewables.

The truth is, if you want to power civilisation with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, then you should focus on shifting power generation, heat and transport to natural gas, the economically recoverable reserves of which — thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — are much more abundant than we dreamed they ever could be. It is also the lowest-emitting of the fossil fuels, so the emissions intensity of our wealth creation can actually fall while our wealth continues to increase. Good.

And let’s put some of that burgeoning wealth in nuclear, fission and fusion, so that it can take over from gas in the second half of this century. That is an engineerable, clean future. Everything else is a political displacement activity, one that is actually counterproductive as a climate policy and, worst of all, shamefully robs the poor to make the rich even richer.

Spectator.co.uk/podcast
Matt Ridley discusses wind power

Read the whole article here

Ontario consumers paid millions for wasted power in April, stats show

08 Monday May 2017

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

While the Canadian Wind Energy Association, the trade association for the wind power industry and vested interests, continues to maintain that wind power cannot be contributing to Ontario’s rising and unsustainable electricity bills, the facts indicate otherwise. The figures for April 2017 show wind power produced out-of-phase with demand, causing power from other, clean sources to be wasted, and wind power producers paid not to add power to the Ontario grid.

Here is Parker Gallant’s analysis.

The Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO’s 18 month outlook report uses their “Methodology to Perform Long Term Assessments” to forecast what industrial wind turbines (IWT) are likely to generate as a percentage of their rated capacity.

The Methodology description follows.

“Monthly Wind Capacity Contribution (WCC) values are used to forecast the contribution from wind generators. WCC values in percentage of installed capacity are determined from actual historic median wind generator contribution over the last 10 years at the top 5 contiguous demand hours of the day for each winter and summer season, or shoulder period month. The top 5 contiguous demand hours are determined by the frequency of demand peak occurrences over the last 12 months.”

 The most recent 18-month outlook forecast wind production at an average (capacity 4,000 MW growing to 4,500 MW) over 12 months at 22.2%, which is well under the assumed 29-30 % capacity claimed by wind developers. For the month of April, IESO forecast wind generation at 33.2% of capacity.

April 2017 has now passed; my friend Scott Luft has posted the actual generation and estimated the curtailed generation produced by Ontario’s contracted IWT.   For April, IESO reported grid- and distribution-connected IWT generated almost 703,000 megawatt hours (MWh), or approximately 24% of their generation capacity. Scott also estimated they curtailed 521,000 MWh or 18 % of generation capacity.

So, actual generation could have been 42% of rated capacity as a result of Ontario’s very windy month of April 2017, but Ontario’s demand for power wasn’t sufficient to absorb it! April is typically a “shoulder” month with low demand, but at the same time it is a high generation month for wind turbines.

How badly did Ontario’s ratepayers get hit? In April, they paid the costs to pay wind developers – that doesn’t include the cost of back-up from gas plants or spilled or steamed off emissions-free hydro and nuclear or losses on exported surpluses.

Wind cost=22.9 cents per kWh

For the 703,000 MWh, the cost* of grid accepted generation at $140/MWh was $98.4 million and the cost of the “curtailed” generation at $120/MWh was $62.5 million making the total cost of wind for the month of April $160.9 million.   That translates to a cost per MWh of grid accepted wind of $229.50 or 22.9 cents per kWh.

Despite clear evidence that wind turbines fail to provide competitively priced electricity when it is actually needed, the Premier Wynne-led government continues to allow more capacity to be added instead of killing the Green Energy Act and cancelling contracts that have not commenced installation.

…

* Most wind contracts are priced at 13.5 cents/kilowatt (kWh) and the contracts include a cost of living (COL) annual increase to a maximum of 20% so the current cost is expected to be in the range of $140/MWh or 14cents/kWh.

Re-posted from Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives

CanWEA comments on wind power cost ‘incorrect and cannot stand’ says university professor

04 Thursday May 2017

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

“Assertions are complete nonsense … only wilful blindness would suggest that wind and solar are low cost”

UWaterloo Prof Natin Jathwani, Executive Director Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy: Big Wind guilty of wilful blindness on energy costs?

Recently, energy analyst and occasional columnist for The Financial Post Parker Gallant wrote that the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) was hitting back at allegations that wind power was contributing to Ontario’s rising electricity bills.

Ontario representative Brandy Gianetta said wind power was a low-cost energy source, and she referred to University of Waterloo professor Jatin Nathwani for support.

Trouble is, she was wrong.

Professor Nathwani took the time to correct CanWEA’s statements in an email to Parker Gallant, published on his Energy Perspectives blog today.

Here is Professor Nathwani’s email:

Dear Mr Gallant:

In your Blog, you have cited Ms. Giannetta’s post on CanWEA’s website on April 24, 2017 as quoted below:

Her article points to two articles that purportedly support the “myth” she is “busting,” but both require closer examination. She cites Waterloo professor Natin Nathwani’s, (PhD in chemical engineering and a 2016 “Sunshine list” salary of $184,550) article of March 6, 2017, posted on the TVO website, which supports Premier Wynne’s dubious claims of “a massive investment, on the order of $50 billion, for the renewal of Ontario’s aging electricity infrastructure.” Professor Nathwani offers no breakdown of the investment which suggests he simply took Premier Wynne’s assertion from her “Fair Hydro Plan” statement as a fact! It would be easy to tear apart Professor Nathwani’s math calculations — for example, “The total electricity bill for Ontario consumers has increased at 3.2 per cent per year on average” — but anyone reading that blatant claim knows his math is flawed!

First and foremost, the record needs to be corrected since Ms Giannetta’s assertions are simply incorrect and should not be allowed to stand.

If she has better information on the $50 billion investment provided in the Ministry of Energy’s Technical Briefing, she should make that available.

 The breakdown of the investment pattern in generation for the period 2008-2014 is as follows:

Wind Energy $6 Billion (Installed Capacity 2600 MW)

Solar Energy $5.8 Billion (Installed Capacity 1400 MW)

Bio-energy $1.3 Billion (Installed 325MW)

Natural Gas $5.8 Billion

Water Power $5 Billion (installed Capacity 1980 MW)

Nuclear $5.2 Billion

Total Installed Capacity Added to the Ontario Grid from 2008-2014 was 12,731 MW of which Renewable Power Capacity was 6298MW at a cost of $18.2 Billion.

For the complete investment pattern from 2005 to 2015, please see data available at the IESO Website.

In sum, generation additions (plus removal of coal costs) are in the order of $35 billion and additional investments relate to transmission and distribution assets.

I take strong exception to her last statement suggesting that the 3.2 percent per year (on average) increase in total electricity cost from 2006 to 2015 in real 2016$. The source for this information is a matter of public record and is available at the IESO website.

Ms Giannetta’s assertion is complete nonsense because she does not understand the difference between electricity bill and generation cost. Let Ms Gianetta identify the “blatant flaw.”

As for the electricity bill that the consumer sees, there is a wide variation across Ontario and this is primarily related to Distribution.

The Ontario Energy Board report on Electricity Rates in different cities provides a view across Ontario:

For example, the average bill for a for a typical 750kWh home Ontario comes is $130 per month.

In Toronto it is $142, Waterloo at $130 and Cornwall at $106. On the high side is Hydro One networks is $182 and this is primarily related to cost of service for low density, rural areas.

Your Table 2 Total Electricity Supply Cost is helpful and correctly highlights the cost differences of different generation supply.

Only wilful blindness on Ms Giannetta’s part would suggest that wind and solar are coming in at a low cost.

Warmest regards

Jatin Nathwani, PhD, P.Eng

Professor and Ontario Research Chair in Public Policy for Sustainable Energy

Executive Director, Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy (WISE)

Faculty of Engineering and Faculty of Environment Fellow, Balsillie School of International Affairs (BSIA)

University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON