Thursday, November 30, 2006
"Wind talk turns out to be hot air"
by Eric Reguly
Globe and Mail
Canada
Wind power, and lots of it, is any government's energy fantasy. It is clean and renewable, and diversifies the energy supply. The green factor buys votes. There is even a stark architectural elegance to wind turbines, with their white blades lazily sweeping the horizon. What's not to like?
Plenty, it turns out. In May, the Alberta government effectively put wind development on hold because the province's transmission grid could not handle wind power's rising megawatts. This week, it was Ontario's turn. Ontario has the greatest amount of wind energy in the country. It wanted a lot more. Those plans died when the Liberals put a freeze on the development of wind farms in lakes, the industry's greatest potential growth area.
The surprise announcement put Trillium Power's effort to install up to 142 turbines in Lake Ontario, south of Belleville, on hold. The project would have been the largest single wind development on the continent and the first offshore one of any size. In theory, it would have supplied enough electricity for 200,000 homes. The government cited "environmental" concerns, but was otherwise vague. Presumably that meant it had concerns about the turbines' effect on bird migrations, aquatic species, noise levels and navigation.
At the same time, local residents blocked Enbridge's plans to erect 110 turbines on the shore of Lake Huron. The project awaits hearings at the Ontario Municipal Board.
With Alberta and Ontario taking a leap backward on the wind power front, Canada's renewable energy plans have taken a big blow. Governments and private wind power developers can share the blame. This was one industry whose potential was hyped to absurd levels.
Take Ontario. When Dalton McGuinty and his crew took office three years ago, they promised to scrap the coal-burning generating plants and replace them with . . . well, with something. One of those somethings was wind power.
To encourage development, the government offered a fat subsidy in the form of high electricity prices. It would pay just under 8 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity generated by big wind farms, and 11 cents for power from small farms, compared with the mere 3.3 cents received by Ontario Power Generation. The gold rush was on. If the government had any serious concerns about the political, financial and environmental correctness of wind farms, ranging from the NIMBY factor to the cost of building or rebuilding transmission lines to accommodate the power, it sure kept them to itself.
Meanwhile, the wind industry, backed by brand-name greenies like David Suzuki, promoted the idea of virtually limitless, round-the-clock, Kyoto-friendly power, and cleaner air too. The landscape would be dotted with wind turbines, not smokestacks. The technology would create scads of jobs. Canada would become an alternative energy development centre. Denmark was the inspiration. There, wind power provides about 20 per cent of the electricity. The figure should reach 25 per cent by 2008.
If it all sounded too good to be true, it's because it was.
Lost in the hype was the fact that wind turbines are a notoriously unreliable source of power for the simple reason that the wind is highly erratic and unpredictable. A new report by Tom Adams of Energy Probe reveals some of the shortcomings. He studied wind data between May and October from three fairly large commercial Ontario wind farms. Their average "capacity factor," he found, was only 22.3 per cent.
The capacity factor is a crude but important measure of efficiency. A generating plant (whether coal, gas, nuclear or hydro) running at a 100-per-cent capacity factor means it's pumping out the juice 24/7 with no down time to fix technical glitches, and no transmission problems. Running flat out all the time is impossible. But the wind farms -- running at about a fifth of their theoretical capacity, at least in the Energy Probe analysis -- are at the low end of the scale among generators. A wind farm in Quebec, called Le Nordais, had a capacity factor of only 18 per cent in its first five years of operation. Ontario's coal plants generally run at a 70- to 80-per-cent capacity factor, the nuclear plants somewhat higher.
Energy Probe also found that wind generation tends to fall in the morning, when people are getting out of bed and electricity demand rises, and in the hot summer months, when electricity output is needed most to keep the air conditioners humming. In other words, the wind turbines' production is out of sync with peak demand. Other regions may produce better results, of course. Southern Ontario is not the windiest place in the country.
The green revolution, if it's coming at all, will be delayed in Canada. The Alberta and Ontario governments have admitted as much by throwing the wind industry into limbo. Time for Plan B, if there is one. Nukes anyone?
Globe and Mail
Canada
Wind power, and lots of it, is any government's energy fantasy. It is clean and renewable, and diversifies the energy supply. The green factor buys votes. There is even a stark architectural elegance to wind turbines, with their white blades lazily sweeping the horizon. What's not to like?
Plenty, it turns out. In May, the Alberta government effectively put wind development on hold because the province's transmission grid could not handle wind power's rising megawatts. This week, it was Ontario's turn. Ontario has the greatest amount of wind energy in the country. It wanted a lot more. Those plans died when the Liberals put a freeze on the development of wind farms in lakes, the industry's greatest potential growth area.
The surprise announcement put Trillium Power's effort to install up to 142 turbines in Lake Ontario, south of Belleville, on hold. The project would have been the largest single wind development on the continent and the first offshore one of any size. In theory, it would have supplied enough electricity for 200,000 homes. The government cited "environmental" concerns, but was otherwise vague. Presumably that meant it had concerns about the turbines' effect on bird migrations, aquatic species, noise levels and navigation.
At the same time, local residents blocked Enbridge's plans to erect 110 turbines on the shore of Lake Huron. The project awaits hearings at the Ontario Municipal Board.
With Alberta and Ontario taking a leap backward on the wind power front, Canada's renewable energy plans have taken a big blow. Governments and private wind power developers can share the blame. This was one industry whose potential was hyped to absurd levels.
Take Ontario. When Dalton McGuinty and his crew took office three years ago, they promised to scrap the coal-burning generating plants and replace them with . . . well, with something. One of those somethings was wind power.
To encourage development, the government offered a fat subsidy in the form of high electricity prices. It would pay just under 8 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity generated by big wind farms, and 11 cents for power from small farms, compared with the mere 3.3 cents received by Ontario Power Generation. The gold rush was on. If the government had any serious concerns about the political, financial and environmental correctness of wind farms, ranging from the NIMBY factor to the cost of building or rebuilding transmission lines to accommodate the power, it sure kept them to itself.
Meanwhile, the wind industry, backed by brand-name greenies like David Suzuki, promoted the idea of virtually limitless, round-the-clock, Kyoto-friendly power, and cleaner air too. The landscape would be dotted with wind turbines, not smokestacks. The technology would create scads of jobs. Canada would become an alternative energy development centre. Denmark was the inspiration. There, wind power provides about 20 per cent of the electricity. The figure should reach 25 per cent by 2008.
If it all sounded too good to be true, it's because it was.
Lost in the hype was the fact that wind turbines are a notoriously unreliable source of power for the simple reason that the wind is highly erratic and unpredictable. A new report by Tom Adams of Energy Probe reveals some of the shortcomings. He studied wind data between May and October from three fairly large commercial Ontario wind farms. Their average "capacity factor," he found, was only 22.3 per cent.
The capacity factor is a crude but important measure of efficiency. A generating plant (whether coal, gas, nuclear or hydro) running at a 100-per-cent capacity factor means it's pumping out the juice 24/7 with no down time to fix technical glitches, and no transmission problems. Running flat out all the time is impossible. But the wind farms -- running at about a fifth of their theoretical capacity, at least in the Energy Probe analysis -- are at the low end of the scale among generators. A wind farm in Quebec, called Le Nordais, had a capacity factor of only 18 per cent in its first five years of operation. Ontario's coal plants generally run at a 70- to 80-per-cent capacity factor, the nuclear plants somewhat higher.
Energy Probe also found that wind generation tends to fall in the morning, when people are getting out of bed and electricity demand rises, and in the hot summer months, when electricity output is needed most to keep the air conditioners humming. In other words, the wind turbines' production is out of sync with peak demand. Other regions may produce better results, of course. Southern Ontario is not the windiest place in the country.
The green revolution, if it's coming at all, will be delayed in Canada. The Alberta and Ontario governments have admitted as much by throwing the wind industry into limbo. Time for Plan B, if there is one. Nukes anyone?
Saturday, November 25, 2006
"We Have Been Sold a Lie About Wind Power"
Letters to the Editor, November 25 2006
The Herald
Glasgow, Scotland
"Further to your article, Battle of the blades (November 24), no matter how many turbines are built, not one fossil-fuelled power station will close. The Scottish people have been sold a lie; wind energy just doesn't do what we are being told it will do. Owing to the very fickle nature of wind and the fact that it will only produce electricity when winds blow between roughly 5-50mph, we still need our base-load power stations to click in, when required. Wind turbines will only work up to about 30% of the time, yet our base-load stations will still have to run continuously, but at an inefficient level, to support wind power."
"This inefficiency is thus responsible for producing more CO2. You just cannot have wind generation without a support base. You could cover the whole of Scotland with turbines and we would still need our fossil-fuelled base stations or more hydro stations, if nuclear is not acceptable, to provide the back-up. Without such a provision, there will be days when the lights will go out or won't come on."
"For proof, see E.ON Netz's "Wind Report 2005", which states that "wind energy cannot replace conventional power stations to any significant degree". As one of Germany's biggest grid operators, with a responsibility for the integration of 7000MW of wind power, nearly half of Germany's total, it should know."
"In Scotland, most wind turbines will be placed on our high moorlands, which we all associate with peat and bog, yet this type of countryside is also one of nature's very own ways of absorbing CO2. So, we are going to destroy this fragile environment, to replace it with something that actually produces CO2."
"In comparing CO2 factors, it is necessary to consider all elements of construction for all types of power generation. One must take the manufacture of all component parts, their transportation, installation, manufacture of concrete and subsequent decommissioning into consideration. When you do this, wind energy compares very unfavourably with other forms of power."
"The only people who will benefit from wind energy will be the development companies, their financiers and the landowners, on whose land the turbines will be built, due to the marketing of renewable obligation certificates, which drives the cost of wind electricity higher than it needs to be. Because of this scam, supported and condoned by the government, we, the consumers, are paying more for our wind power than we should be. Isn't it about time that the whole power industry was brought into focus, with all the facts presented to the public and not the half-truth which we get at present? Your article has no comments from qualified engineers, knowledgeable about the technical implications of wind power."
"There is possibly a small place for wind turbines, but not at the cost of destroying our beautiful country. I am concerned about the escalating problem of fuel shortage and increased carbon emissions, but let's look at the cause of this and effect cures rather than trying to treat the symptoms. We need to change our own lives and reduce our dependence on all forms of power. Why must all our city-centre shops be lit up like Christmas trees, when they are shut? Why do we need so much lighting on our motorways? Low-energy bulbs should be the only type sold and none of our electronic gadgets should be capable of being left on stand-by. Better insulation on all new builds will also reduce our power consumption and help reduce carbon emission. Our standard of living will not fall, but our way of life might change. We will still have our countryside to enjoy and appreciate."
John A Douglas, North Kaim, Lochwinnoch
Thursday, November 02, 2006
The Higher [than expected] Cost of Wind Power
Confidential Records show Long Island power customers would be hit hard if plans to put wind turbines off Jones Beach succeed.
A Powerful Price
BY MARK HARRINGTON
Newsday Staff Writer
November 1, 2006
Energy from the proposed South Shore wind farm will cost Long Island ratepayers as much as double the wholesale cost of energy from other sources, according to previously confidential bidding documents obtained by Newsday.
The wholesale cost that the Long Island Power Authority would have to pay for power from the wind farm would be $94.97 a megawatt hour, well above the $20 to $60 that LIPA, the project's sponsor, now pays for power from other sources, including existing KeySpan plants. The $94.97 cost would increase to more than $150/mwh over the 20-year life of the project because of a stipulated 2.75 percent annual increase.
The winning bid to build the 40-turbine wind farm in waters off the South Shore had an initial price tag of $356 million, a cost that has since increased to an undisclosed amount, according to the documents, and will be borne by the bidder. In addition, LIPA will pay about $100 million to build an interconnecting cable and offshore substation.
The cost, obtained by Newsday through Freedom of Information Law filings with LIPA starting earlier this year, puts the controversial project roughly in line with previous, unconfirmed estimates that it would cost upwards of $500 million. The winning bidder, FPL Energy, a division of Florida Power & Light, amended its bid at a meeting with LIPA March 1, 2005, but the amount of the new bid and corresponding energy cost increases have not been disclosed, and LIPA declined to provide them. LIPA and FPL Energy are still negotiating a final contract, even as federal regulators prepare a draft environmental impact statement to study its impact on the region. While the documents provided to Newsday redact the estimated average power the wind farm will produce, LIPA officials said yesterday the average annual generation of the plant is likely to be around 49 megawatts, well below the peak capacity of 140 megawatts.
While opponents of the wind farm said the costs confirmed their worst-case scenario, a wind industry analyst said they are in line given the scope of the project and rising energy costs. "One or two years ago, I would have said it was on the pricey side, but now I'd say it's in the ballpark," said Bruce Biewald, president of Synapse Energy Economics Inc., a Boston-based consulting firm.
However, Babylon supervisor Steve Bellone countered, "This is an extraordinarily expensive project that's going to be borne by LIPA ratepayers, who are already paying the highest rates in the nation." He and others say alternatives such as upgrading existing plants are more viable. LIPA chairman Richard Kessel acknowledged "there's a huge cost" for such projects, but said given the prospect of rising fuel costs, the price is worth it. "In the end, on a cost basis, this wind project will be competitive with any other new project you have to build," he said, noting, "Wind is free."
Matthew Cordaro, dean of Long Island University's College of Management and a former utility executive, said the costs are off the chart. Pointing to the proportionate cost and the estimated 49-megawatt average capacity, he said, "That's many times what a nuclear plant would cost."
The documents mention the nature of wind and its possible impact on LIPA's operating agreements. "Due to the intermittent nature of a wind resource, the project will be unable to generate on-demand to meet specific schedules between LIPA and the New York Independent System Operator," said one memo.
LIPA Wholesale Power Prices
$20-$40/MWH Nonpeak Off-LI Sources
$50-$60/MWH Existing local power plants
$70-$90/MWH Proposed combined cycle plant
$94.97-$150/MWH Initial Wind-Farm Bid
Source: LIPA
