WAR ON COAL: Ontario will shut down all of its coal-fired power plants. Pictured: Lambton generating station in Ontario.
Image: Flickr/Toban B.
By the end of the year, Ontario will become the first jurisdiction in North America to shut down almost its entire coal fleet.
Yesterday, the province announced that its last two large coal units will close before 2014, making more than 99 percent of the province's electricity generated from non-coal sources. It is a major shift for Ontario, which fired 25 percent of its grid from coal a decade ago.
"Today, all Ontarians can breathe a little easier," said Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty in a statement.
The two units slated for shutdown by the end of the year are the Lambton Generating Station and the Nanticoke Generating Station, which at its peak capacity of near 4,000 megawatts was one of the largest coal facilities in the world.
The closings are a result of a McGuinty plan to fight smog and pollution via coal plant closures launched in 2003, the year of his election. With yesterday's announcement, 17 of 19 original coal-fired units will have been shut down, the government said.
The only remaining plant is a small backup generator, said Tim Weis, an analyst at the Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank. It will close in 2014, he said.
Several dynamics made the efficient phaseout of coal possible, he said. The province owns its coal generating units, giving it significant power to determine the power mix, he explained.
Wind, natural gas filling the gap
To prepare for the coal phaseout, McGuinty introduced an aggressive energy law in 2009 establishing energy efficiency programs and a feed-in tariff providing generous financial benefits to renewable developers. Those efficiency programs have helped make Ontario one of the few jurisdictions in the world where energy demand is declining, rather than increasing, Weis said.
"This shows it is possible to do this in a jurisdiction with big electricity consumption," he said.
The 2009 law has not been without controversy -- and was recently challenged before the World Trade Organization -- but it has boosted the ability of renewable power to step in for coal, according to Weis.
Wind power has grown from 400 MW of provincial power six years ago to more than 2,000 MW now. By 2030, it is projected to provide roughly 10 percent of the province's electricity supply, despite having been a non-player in 2003.
Additionally, new natural gas plants are supplying much of the power formerly provided from coal generation, Weis said.
According to the Pembina Institute, the greenhouse gas emissions from Ontario's electricity sector have fallen from 40 million tons to 10 million tons over the past decade because of the coal plant closings.
The coal ban runs a risk of eventually raising electricity prices, said Dave Butler, executive director of the Canadian Clean Power Coalition, which represents electricity producers. It also could have an immediate effect on jobs, considering that several hundred workers are employed at Nanticoke and Lambert, he said.
U.S. impact minimal
It likely would not affect the U.S. coal industry, even though much of Ontario's former coal supply came from south of the border, he said.
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentSo the truth is that due to fracking, natural gas has become less expensive and that is why Canada made the change. It made economic sense for Canada
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnbelievable. The propaganda machine in full force. No use whatsoever of "the N Word" when Nuclear supplies 1/2 of Ontario's power generation. Wind HAS NOT reduced Ontario's Coal consumption - that is an established fact. As-a-matter-of-fact, the Wind is mostly exported, while Ontarians pay 14 cents a kwh for the Wind they export it at an avg return of 1 cent per kwh. And what isn't exported just causes Nuclear Power to be dumped and Hydro to be spilled with zero cost savings and zero CO2 savings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE REAL TRUTH is that Ontario has replaced its Coal Generation with Nuclear refurbs at Bruce and Pickering. Just amazing how McGoofy and his Green Energy cronies can hold a straight face while perpetuating despicable lies about their nutty Wind Energy Scam.
And Ontarians are paying 17 cents a kwh for their NG power generation vs 5-6 cents for the private Bruce power Nuclear generation & 3 cents for the OPG public owned Nuclear generation.
Did you see the part where Ontario also ramped up wind power generation and actually DECREASED its electricity consumption through efficiency? I agree that falling natural gas prices have a hand in hastening coal power's demise, but you have to look at the WHOLE picture! Otherwise, you're only looking at what you want to see and you'll miss out on the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd just to head off what I know you or somebody else will surely post in response to me...WIND POWER DOES REDUCE CO2 POLLUTION:
"The assertion that wind turbines don't reduce carbon emissions is a myth, according to conclusive statistical data obtained from National Grid and analysed here in the Guardian for the first time. With a new wind generation record of 4,131 megawatts set on 14 September, the question of how far the UK's wind generation fleet can help in meeting our climate targets is increasingly controversial. Now it can be shown that the sceptics who lobby against wind simply have their facts wrong."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/26/myth-wind-turbines-carbon-emissions
Utilities are already used to dealing with variable loads and wind power just looks like a negative load to utilities. Spreading wind farms out over a larger geographical area means that temporary lulls in wind affect a smaller percentage of wind generation. New natural gas plants are coming on line that mesh well with variable renewable energy sources too.
Now if we can just repeal the specific exemptions from the Clean Air Act and the Clean Drinking Water Act that fracking enjoys, then we can be sure that EVERYBODY is playing by the same rules and we aren't putting ourselves at risk of spreading contamination to get all that shale gas. Don't want the government "picking winners" through preferental regulatory treatment, now do we?
Please provide some evidence to back up these accusations. Electricity export data and sales rates would be great. How do we know you aren't just making this stuff up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear power is only cheap because it has been allowed to offload the mountain of debt piled up during plant construction onto the taxpayers:
"As a result of the cost overruns and the poor performance of its nuclear reactors, Ontario Hydro was broken up into five companies in 1999. All of its generation assets were transferred to Ontario Power Generation (OPG). However, in order to keep OPG solvent, $19.4 billion of Ontario Hydro’s debt or unfunded liabilities associated with electricity generation facilities was transferred to the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (an agency of the Government of Ontario) as “stranded debt” or “unfunded liability”.2 More than three-quarters of the stranded debt was with respect to Ontario Hydro’s financially unsustainable nuclear liabilities.3
Ontario’s electricity consumers and taxpayers are required to pay-off the defunct Ontario Hydro’s stranded debt because all of its borrowings were guaranteed by the Government of Ontario. As a consequence, the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC) collects revenues from the following sources to help pay off the stranded debt.
A debt retirement charge of 0.7 cents per kWh, which is levied on all Ontario electricity consumers.
All of the provincial income tax payments from OPG, Hydro One and Ontario’s municipal electric utilities (e.g., Toronto Hydro).
All of the dividend payments from OPG and Hydro One to their sole shareholder, the Government of Ontario."
Oh, one other tidbit from Ontario's nuclear power experience makes it seem like these debt-laden reactors are really built to pile up returns for bondholders instead of actually generating electricity!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Between April 1, 1999 and March 31, 2010, Ontario’s electricity consumers and taxpayers have made annual payments totaling $19.603 billion to service and pay down the stranded debt. In other words, the total debt payments made by Ontario’s consumers and taxpayers since 1999 have now exceeded the original value of the stranded debt ($19.433 billion) — and we still owe $14.81 billion."
As long as the nuclear industry is more cosy with the governments that call the shots on these plants than the public that has to pay for them, we'll see the same cost overruns, defaults, restructurings, bailouts, etc. that we saw in the 70s and 80s.
Man, I just keep finding all this good info. Thanks for priming the pump, dwbd!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To-date, OPG has re-built two nuclear reactors,
namely Pickering A Unit 4 which was
returned to service in 2003 and Pickering A
Unit 1 which was returned to service in 2005.
The average annual capacity utilization rate
of Unit 4 during the last four years (2006 to
2009) was 59%.10 In 2004 the OPG Review
Committee, which was chaired by John
Manley, recommended that OPG continue
with the Pickering A Unit 1 Re-Start based on
the assumption that it would have an average
annual capacity utilization rate of 85%.11
However, its actual average annual capacity
utilization rate during the last four years has
been only 69%.12 Therefore the average annual
capacity utilization rate of the Pickering
A Units 1 & 4 nuclear reactors during the past
four years was only 64%.
To-date Bruce Power has re-built two of its
nuclear reactors, namely, Bruce A Units 3 and
4. Their average annual capacity utilization
rate during the last four years was 75%.13
According to OPG, assuming a 64% annual
average capacity utilization rate, the Darlington
Re-Build Proposal’s cost of electricity
would rise to 8 to 10 cents per kWh (2009$).14
While the current Darlington reactors have
performed better than the fleet average, the
established pattern is for a large drop off in
performance as CANDU units age and there
is no precedent for re-built reactors achieving
capacity factors of 82% or better."
http://www.cleanairalliance.org/files/active/0/darlington.pdf
@ sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissince you seem to be very well informed and with a lot of figures on hand could you please inform us,
a) how much is the cost of wind generated electricity per kwh? including the grid extensions, maintenance, and presuming a life span of 20 to 30 years?
b) If one had 1 megawatt of installed capacity, ( in Ontario) how much would be available on average, at best and at worst.
c) How much gas or hydro power backup do you need for those wind generators, and how will that affect the cost of the electricity generated?
d) What is the cost per kwh at Darlington?
e) what is the cost per kwh at Pickering?
I am genuinely interested and would like to get a better insight.
I always take these statements about energy efficiency with a pinch of salt. Of course many companies have invested in their electrical infrastructure, and with modern technology savings are made. But in many places, and I am sure this affects Ontario as well to an extent, power demand is dropping because heavy and dirty industries are leaving and going to places where environmental strictures are lax and wages low. So don't kid yourself, you might just be entering a post industrial society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisU.S. wind power is coming in at between 7 and 4 cents per kWh and the industry capacity factor ranges from 24% to over 40% with the average going north of 32% with improving technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEVERY new power plant or rebuild requires changes / improvements to the grid. A new or increased capacity nuclear reactor will require greater transmission from the plant to load centers far away, or will have had the transmission capacity already in-place, sitting idle for years until it is fully utilized. Wind power is disbursed and farther from loads to be sure, but the exact expense varies a great deal depending on the wind farm.
See my post #3 to see why the whole "wind power needs backup generation" canard is bogus.
The Darlington rebuild costs are estimated here:
"On average, the actual costs of Ontario’s nuclear
projects have been 2.5 times greater than
their original cost estimates. If the Darlington
Re-Build’s actual cost exceeds OPG’s original
cost estimate range by 2.5 times then its final
cost will be $21.25 to $35 billion. As a consequence,
it will produce electricity at a cost
of 19 to 27 cents per kWh (assuming an 82%
average annual capacity utilization rate) or 24
to 37 cents per kWh (assuming a 64% average
annual capacity utilization rate).18"
http://www.cleanairalliance.org/files/active/0/darlington.pdf
You could be generous and give the Darlington rebuild the benefit of the doubt. 10 cents a kWh is generous enough and still almost 50% HIGER than the high range for wind electricity.
Come on, are you telling me that better building insulation, CFL / LED lighting and more efficient applinces have ZERO effect on electricity consumption? Do you have figures on changes in Ontario's industrial activity in 2009 - 2012? I don't know what portion of the decreasing energy demand is due to energy efficiency, but I'm not the one claiming that it is negligible either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust for you Sault. Watch the Geothermal steam coming out of his ears. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100136093/the-best-article-on-wind-farms-you-will-ever-read/
The best article on wind farms you will ever read.
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books, including his most recent work Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future, also available in the US, and in Australia as Killing the Earth to Save It. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.
Can we all just agree that whatever else we think of the rest of the power-generating options, coal is the worst and should be phased out first? I think that Ontario deserves praise for this sensible move.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it is replaced with a reliable & economical alternative that does not cripple energy hungry industries, yes. Otherwise it simply costs jobs & exports industry instead of products. Wind is just a sop to the greens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault once again you resort to an atrocious commenting style which is unfair and unethical. The topic IS: "How has Ontario reduced Coal Generation"? Answer: NOT due to Wind, mostly due to new Nuclear Refurbs. So you IMMEDIATELY avoid the point and go far afield dumping reams of cut-and-paste notes from some rabid anti-nuclear website, info that you don't understand, don't set up properly with YOUR OWN words, YOUR OWN argument. I would call that the shotgun approach. A classic way to avoid a serious discussion of an issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly it is true that gradually comment threads tend to veer off into other issues, but you don't wait for that, you just dump a dozen off-topic issues out in one big cut-and-paste special, with no setup, and no rationale of your own.
How would you like it if in a debate with some AGW deniers, they just started dumping a book-load of cut-and-paste argument from some AGW denier website, with no setup, no rationale and covering every aspect of AGW from one end to the other? A sure way to ruin a discussion thread.
I would be quite happy to discuss the multitude of topics you brought up, as time permits:
1) The OPG stranded debt,
2) The economics of Nuclear Power in Ontario
3) The economics of Wind Power in Ontario
4) The economics of Wind in general
5) Whether Wind reduces emissions
6) The Darlington Nuclear power station in Ontario
7) Energy Efficiency in Ontario
8) Is Energy Efficiency in general cost effective?
9) Capacity factors of Ontario Nuclear generation
10) Fracking for Natural Gas
11) Effectiveness of Dispersion of Wind Farms
And a rational DISCUSSION of the above should be spread over at least several comment threads not dumped all at once, totally off-topic.
Getting back on topic, Wind IS NOT reducing Coal generation in Ontario. Coal has been replaced by Nuclear refurbs and new (and very expensive) NG generation, NOT wind:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismorecoldair.blogspot.ca/p/wind-is-not-replacing-coal.html
Conclusion: ".. Far from replacing coal, wind makes it requisite to have alternative generation to fill in the frequent, and often lengthy, lapses in output.
Natural gas is replacing coal. And if there was no natural gas ...Wind would be enabling coal..."
ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/chapter-4-11-2-wind-replacing-coal/
"..So the premise that coal is being replaced by wind seems to be incorrect. Beyond that, fundamentally wind cannot replace coal because coal is being used to ramp up in response to the daily cycle of demand. Wind cannot do this, no matter how many turbines are built..."
ontario-wind-resistance.org/2012/03/14/ontario-coal-has-been-replaced-by-natural-gas-nuclear-not-wind/
Shutting down Ontario's coal stations makes some economic sense, in-so-much as, they have no suitable natural reserves of coal, and had to import most from Pennsylvania. What they do have is a lot of is uranium, thorium, and hydroelectric (and a minute supply of NG).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is easy to shut down coal, however, the difficult part, is leaving them mothballed, as Germany is rapidly learning. They are presently engaged in a rapid expansion of coal generation, as are others, who are finding coal irreplaceable.
Ontario may too learn this lesson as time progresses, as short term peaking demand causes outages and brownouts. They cannot always depend on the US and Quebec making up their shortfalls, when demanded. The nukes mentioned cannot provide for peaking and load following, that the grid requires for stability. Wind power just doesn't respond to our demands period. Worse, it merely increases the demand for "spinning reserve".
I see no reason for the premier to suggest that Ontario "can breathe a little easier". GK
First, nobody is "right about everything". That you believe this guy 100% of the time means your a chump.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, James is a political hack writing right-wing nonsense for his day job. He is not a climate scientists or even an engineer. He has ZERO qualifications to make the sweeping and hostile statements he spouts off with impressive regularity.
Third, shilling for this "British Glenn Beck" character does wonders for your credibility, let me tell you!
So do you agree that Ontario's nuclear power plants have cost an average 2.5X what the original estimates were? Do you think the 19 - 29 cents per kWh for the Darlington refurb is too high? Do you think I quoted wind power prices too low?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, I know how this is going to go. You've already started quoting from "rabid" anti-wind sites. You are already convinced that nuclear power is the way to go, even though all those CANDU reactors in Ontario were massively expensive and require massively expensive refurbs after 20 years in operation. My sources link to the results of freedom of information act requests and analysis. You think BLOGS are proof that wind power doesn't work. "morecoldair" makes silly claims like "Wind averages under a 15% capacity factor in Ontario." even though his graphs and charts CLEARLY contradict that claim! The writer's logic is inane and the bias against wind power is clear.
Look, if wind power wasn't generating electricity at 4 - 7 cents a kWh, and nuclear refurbs weren't running at19 - 29 cents a kWh, I'd be a little skeptical. But they are and I'm for cheaper and cleaner electricity options for people. Clinging on to the hope that nuclear power is the best source of electricity, especially given the HUGE piles of money, debt (with interest) and delays inherent to Ontario and many other places around the globe, smacks of wishful thinking and willful ignorance of what happened in the past and what we can expect for the future.
"Ontario's wind projects are a complete and utter disaster."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you NEVER present ANY proof to back up your accusations? Where are you getting this stuff? I mean, you couldn't just be making it up, could you?
Not!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyour silly denialism aside, gas is still a massive air polluter killing hundreds of folks annually, and saves no GHG at all for us alarmist types. It's cost is three times the market price sustained by Big Oil dumping. With LNG export its about to get expensive - a lot more expensive.
Nuke is competitive with gas on economics even today. Soon it will be 30% the cost.
First off your source, theOntarioDirtyAirAlliance is an Wind & NG industry lobby group which is trying to shutdown their only serious competition in Ontario - Nuclear Power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd their incessant whining about the OPG Stranded Debt is a clear example that the group has ZERO credibility. If you know ANYTHING about power generation, cost is broken down into Capital Cost, O&M & Fuel. That is how you evaluate the economics of Power sources. Not some hyperbole about stranded debt. Governments borrow. Ontario borrows $billions every year. $14.4B 2012. A public utility MAY choose to pay its debt off with operating revenue or it may choose to just carry the debt & pay the interest. Usually they do the latter. The US Taxpayer is still paying for the cannons used in the Civil War. Ontario could easily have paid off the Debt for its Hydro, Transmission and Nuclear facilities, with revenue. If you are really interested in how the 0.7 cents/kwh Debt Retirement Charge works read that here, it is mostly political hype & BS:
morecoldair.blogspot.ca/2011/08/retire-debt-retirement-charge.html
The Wind is nothing other than greenwashing for the NG. It would be a lot cheaper & LOWER emissions to just go NG-CCGT and skip the Wind, but anything for political spin & disinformation. As well NG people know very well that Wind destroys baseload power turning it into a new form of Peaking Generation, a role traditionally supplied by NG. With 10GW of Wind planned in Ontario, and total demand often in the 11-15Gw range, baseload Hydro & Nuclear running 15GW, what happens when Wind blows in Spring, Fall, warm/cool weather & weekends when power demand is minimum. And Solar & Hydro is max in spring when demand is min. And Wind is given pride-of-place on the grid by political edict. So when the Wind blows Hydro must be spilled, Nuclear dumped or Wind exported at < 1 cent per kwh, often paying more than 10 cents per kwh for Ohio & Quebec to accept the Wind nobody wants. While Ontarians are paying 14 cents per kwh for the Wind. Zero CO2 savings & Zero cost savings for the Wind.
All Wind does do is make the economics of Hydro, Nuclear, Coal & CCGT bad. High capital cost plants like Hydro, Coal, Nuclear & CCGT are not cost effective when they must be shutdown whenever the Wind happens to blow. So Wind destroys expensive Baseload Power economics and favors fuel guzzling OCGT NG power plants. And the NG lobby knows that VERY WELL. And the OCGT plants need to be payed well to compensate for the high cost of peaking Gas generation - they are getting 17 cents/kWh.
Your cost numbers are nothing short of ridiculous. If Wind is generating at 4-7 cents per kwh why are they being paid 14 cents a kwh (20 cents offshore)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe four Darlington Nuclear Reactors are 3512MW and 90% CF = 3160 MWavg. So the total grossly inflated Darlington cost, caused mostly by idiot & corrupt political meddling, [you want a link on that?] 1993$14.4B (2011$20.2B) - original cost estimate was $7.4B in 1993$, for 3160 MWavg output. Or $4.57k(2011$6.4k) per kwavg output. And that wasn't refurbs, that was a new build. And that's 90% Canadian jobs. And a 40-60yr lifespan. Zero CO2 output. Small land area.
The Point Lepreau CANDU refurb: 25-30 yr extended lifespan - $1.8B for 680MWpk, 600 MWavg or $3k per kwavg – 3.3 million tonnes CO2 saved per yr – 90% Canadian Jobs -- less than 0.1% of land area of the Wind Turbines.
Quebec’s latest Hydro project – La Romaine River: $7.3k per kwavg – 100x the land area of Pt. Lepreau – water consumption 10X higher than Lepreau – construction time 12yrs vs Lepreau 3 yrs.
Latest Canada Hydro project - Muskrat Falls is 825 MWpk, minimum $7.4B, 4.9 TWh/yr or CF so that's 560 Mwavg. So a minimum cost of $7.4B for 825 MWpk, 560 MWavg or $13.2k per kw avg output. That is comparable to the cost of Wind, but of course a much higher value source of energy than Wind and much longer lifespan than the Wind Turbines.
BC’s latest Site C Hydro Project on Peace River, 900MW, 4600 GWh, 58% CF, 93 sqkm, $6.6B,$12.7k/kwavg.
Wind Turbines: 10-20 yr lifespan -- $10k per kwavg -- Zero CO2 savings -- 80% foreign jobs – large land areas destroyed.
Record Hill Wind Farm, Maine, 50.6 MW, 96GW/yr, 11MWavg, 22% CF, Cost $130M total, $2.6k/kwpk, $11.8k/kwavg
Granite Reliable, Wind Farm, NH, 99MWpk, 224GWh/yr, 26%CF, $275M, $2.78k/kwpk, $10.7k/kwavg
New Wales Wind Farm, Latest & Biggest onshore in UK, 1600MWpk, 20% CF, $3.1B plus $620M for transmission is $10.3k/kwavg or $12.4k/kwavg incl transmission.
Caithness Shepherds Flat in east Oregon, 845 MW, 1797 GWh/yr, 205 MWavg, 24% CF, $9.6k/kwavg not incl transmission.
Kahuku Wind Farm in Hawaii, Wind Cost, $3.9k/kwpk, 30 MW, 71 GWh p yr, 27% CF, $14.4k/kwavg
Kibby Mountain, Maine, 132 MW, capital cost $320 million, CF was 22.5%, $2.42k/kwpk, $10.8k/kwavg
Hempstead, NY, 100 kw Wind Turbine, 180MWh/yr or 20.5% CF, $6.15k/kwpk, $30k/kwavg
University of Maine, 600 kw Wind Turbine, est. capital cost $2M actual 12%, $2M/.6k = $3.3k/kwpk, $27.5k/kwavg
So clearly Darlington new CANDU & the Refurbs are FAR lower cost than Hydro & Wind(worthless power).
Sault claims: ".."morecoldair" makes silly claims like "Wind averages under a 15% capacity factor in Ontario.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you bothered to read the details he was referring to the CF in July, when power demand peaks, and Hydro is getting low. So what he is saying is typically Wind is low when demand is high, and doesn't complement Hydro worth a damn.
Notice that pro-Wind/NG sites are WELL FUNDED, like your OntarioDirtyAirAlliance, whereas pro-Nuclear, anti-Wind sites are run with ZERO FUNDING, entirely due to the self-sacrifice of humanitarians like Scott Luft at the ColdAir blogspot.
And interesting facts are that actual Wind Capacity Factors are usually 5-10% less than industry claims. And a steady decline in CF to the point that they are no longer economical to run by 10-15 yrs lifespan, not the 20-25yrs claimed by wealthy Wind lobbyists:
ref.org.uk/attachments/article/281/ref%20pr%2019%2012%2012.pdf
And also interesting how Capacity Factors for Wind are almost always much lower than initially claimed, including the values I used in most of the Wind cost figures previously:
jmt.org/assets/report_analysis%20uk%20wind_syoung.pdf
"...The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government rep:...
1. "Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year."
2. "The wind is always blowing somewhere."
3. "Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent."
4. "The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight."
5. "Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods."
This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:
1. Average output from wind was 27.18% of capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% November 2008 to December 2010
2. There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).
3. The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
4. At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%,5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
5. The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.."..."
I would just like to point out that they highlighted the great gains in wind energy up to 2000MW which is the same amount of power Brunswick Nuclear Station in NC produces. The kicker is that wind farms take up hundreds of more square miles and cost just as much if not more. Already having experience in nuclear technology they may have been better off building one nuclear plant instead of who knows how many wind turbines. The context that would be needed to redeem bragging about that little amount of wind is if the wind power is being used primarily to power smaller more isolated towns as opposed to large cities like Toronto or Ottawa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this25. engineer238
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this12:42 AM 1/14/13 writes....
.. The context that would be needed to redeem bragging about that little amount of wind is if the wind power is being used primarily to power smaller more isolated towns as opposed to large cities like Toronto or Ottawa.....
You raise an excellent point. The ultimate test of the reliability and economic value of wind power is its suitability to power small remote towns. No one seriously suggests that a town could rely on wind power for its electricity. It _has_ to have an alternative available when needed. No small town would accept having to pay the high cost of such electricity arrangements. In Ontario wind power is fed into the main distribution system with the cost absorbed by all users.
Evidence of that is can be seen in Ontario where the only way to get wind power in place was to suspend cherished private property rights for owners of land targeted for wind farms, as well as removing the ability of local governments to have any say of any kind on wind power operations in their jurisdictions.
Ontario's power policies have resulted in some of the highest electricity rates in North America. That has resulted in a reduction of electricity consumption because Ontario's economy is shrinking resulting in high unemployment and skyrocketing government debt. Other Canadian provinces with conventional power programs are booming.
At last I can agree with northernguy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow is this statement "making the Canadian province the first coal-free jurisdiction in North America" correct when there are at least 3 other Canadian provinces which have no coal fired power plants right now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust more typical BS & Hype about McGoofy's failed & despisec Green Energy program.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural gas supplies the peaking capacity required by wind farms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet they want to sent the tarsands across the most vulnerable of our watersheds...oh, that's not Ontario? Still a horrible Canadian Plan. Ask the people who died from the Enbridge spill in Marshall Michigan. Oh right, you can't because they're already dead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease identify the people who died from any North American oil spill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this