Energy
Is all of this really needed or are we substituting one environmental problem for another?
Here are the REAL FACTS
1. The Power Is Not For Northwestern Ontario (NWO)
- We have 1535 megawatts (MW) of power available right now in NWO
- Minus Coal generating plants in Atikokan(227 MW) and Thunder Bay’s 2 units (326 MW)
- Therefore, we have approximately 1000 MW left without coal in NWO.
- NWO’s normal daily load (power used) is between 580 and 650 MW
- Even in the past, with all the papermills running, we used between 900 and 1100 MW.
2. NWO Has Too Much Power and Can’t Ship It
- New projects about to be added to the grid in NWO will add 480 MW’s
3.Thunder Bay‘s forcasted Peak Load (amount needed) in 2012 will be 455 MW
4. The Government WILL subsidize Wind Companies
5. The Government WILL NOT make a ‘MADE IN NORTHERN ONTARIO ENERGY POLICY’
- We in NWO produce power at less than 4 cents per KW
- We pay 8 cents per KW (no different than Southern Ontario)
- Government willing to pay 11.5 cents per KW to Wind Companies
6. In the past 18 months, the coal plants have run approx. 6 weeks
7. By 2014 NWO coal plants that are open will be converted to wood (carbon-neutral)
I did a comparitive calculation (Manitoba vs Ont) for a normal sized bungalow, non R2000, about 1300 sq ft all electric heat which should use approx 1200 kwh per month average. In Ontario total bundled cost for this would be 12.6 cents per kwh and in Manitoba they’d pay 5.6 kwh. Manitoba is predominantly hydroelectric as is NWO. The potential for hydroelectric in NWO is huge and at 1.5 to 2 cents production costs wouldn’t our pulp industry love that but the powers that be wouldn’t let us tap into the production cost of the kwh. The very heart of our Ontario cost of power problems is that the kwh is a commodity; you can’t box it bag it or save it; but it gets traded based on which generators are running at any given time and other perceived risks such as our transmission connection risks. Thunder Bay’s base power is the Nipigon River not the coal plant; follow the tower lines down 11/17 toward Nipigon; all those lines aren’t for Nipigon. The Thunder Bay coal plant was usually a peaking station not base load for obvious reasons; greater costs more polution etc. I could write more but wish you good luck; these things shouldn’t be anywhere near people. Good Luck
By: Ray B on November 3, 2009
at 1:28 am
According to the link below taken from the OPG website detailing all generating facilities, the actual generation capacity of NWO is 1199 MW’s.
http://www.opg.com/power/OPGmap0309.pdf
If you subtract the coal generation plants from that, you are left with 682 MW’s, which, if we are to attract more industry back to the region, is not enough power to sustain them, as this is close to the peak level stated on this website for daily energy use without the mills running. The coal plants are to be shut down/converted by 2014, so unless we want to be in NEED of energy, we have to find suitable alternatives.
This website states that the coal plants are to be converted to wood, which is a carbon neutral alternative as stated. However, this website also states a major complaint against the wind farm is the fact that it will “destroy pristine northern forests.” So, how is 4 acres per turbine even remotely comparable to the massive amount of wood needed to power the coal plants? Just to give an idea of how much wood will be needed to replace coal use, coal (a fossil fuel) is about 10,000 times more energy intensive than wood, meaning you will need to burn 10,000 times the amount of wood to output the same amount of energy as coal. THAT’S destroying pristine forest.
Suddenly, these wind turbines look like a pretty tasty idea!
By: Fitjarald on November 12, 2009
at 5:06 pm
Fitjarald
At first glance one may agree with you. It is suggested you read up on how industrial wind turbines work or don’t work. Industrial wind development does not replace any reliable energy source. For a brief overview of which you should check up in more detail elsewhere:
Industrial wind turbines production is variable and random. A best guess estimated production rate would be 30% of capacity over time. That estimate would decline with the age of the turbine. No one can predict exactly what amount of electricity will be produced or not be produced by an industrial wind development at any future point in time.
Wind is not a reliable source of energy. Industrial wind at best may give sporadic bursts and pulses of electricity or none at all. Sort of like a kid playing with the throttle of a gas powered generator at the cottage trying to aggravate their parents. Up, down, turn it off, turn it on. How long would a parent stand for that? How would someone match the up and downs to keep the lights on? Grid managers must do that to keep the transmission grid stable.
Shadowing from a reliable generating source of equal capacity to the industrial wind capacity is required to maintain a stable grid. This is an inefficient way for a thermal generating station to run and increases the cost of maintenance due to wear and tear on the traditional stations. It also means a duplication of capacity in the system. The erratic wind source has to be matched by an equal amount from a reliable source.
Wind turbines use electricity and even more electricity is required to maintain extra transmission lines. Industrial wind turbines cannot power themselves.
I think the insult is we will pay more for electricity to pay for the erratic producing industrial wind turbines and transmission lines to support them.
Industrial wind turbines will not stop the burning of the wood.
By: Ralph on November 12, 2009
at 11:47 pm
Hi Ralph, thank you for your well thought out, and well researched response! I have researched and read up on much of what you stated, and it is true that the single largest barrier to using wind turbines as a reliable, constant power source is large scale storage capacity. Which is why they are normally employed as a supplementary generating facility, and not used as a primary source of energy. Hydro electric power generation is a constant supply, and coupled with the addition of the wind energy, however erratic, it will help meet the current and future electricity needs of northwestern ontario.
My comment regarding the wood burning was more to point out the irregularities that this website makes in it’s arguments than to refute using wood as an energy source. I, for one, agree with using wood fired plants to supplement renewable energy sources when, for instance, the wind isn’t blowing as hard, as it is a carbon neutral process, and wood is a renewable resource. However, I think if you’re arguing to protect the forests, and then state that we can just burn them for energy, both arguments are discredited due to the lack of complete knowledge and understanding of the situation, and this website makes just that argument.
While I love analogies, and use them quite frequently while teaching, your analogy of a wind farm to a kid, while relevant, eludes to issues completely unrelated to wind power. Parents get frustrated with kids, yes, but the person who is hired and paid to accommodate the fluctuating power generation, and who understands their job position going in (and indeed is thankful for the job) is quite different from a frustrated parent. Again, too often we use emotions as arguments, when fact is what is needed.
I agree with you that wind is not, and can never be the main source of power, but successful applications around the world stand true testament to the successes and strengths of this type of renewable energy generation. Wind power is one of the oldest methods of generating energy, and it’s long, successful track record needs to be realized and given credit, especially by those on this site.
By: Fitjarald on November 13, 2009
at 4:25 am
Fitjarald: Thanks for the response and interest. I am confused as to how it is felt that hydro and wind could be a good match in NWO. Hydro dams in NWO are managed by water management plans to efficiently manage water flows to improve safety and reduce environmental impacts. Reducing the efficiencies of existing hydro dams to incorporate industrial wind developments creates significant problems with little gains.
The past limited successful applications of wind are not necessarily proof of success to all applications of wind. Industrial wind turbines with all the expense, hype, pressure and promotions provide only the illusion of success.
Regardless of the number of industrial wind turbines built, reliable generating stations will be required to supply capacity and peak power for NWO. Industrial wind turbines will not replace reliable energy sources nor stop the requirements for more to be built if more power is required. They will not reduce energy prices. They cannot be relied on to reduce carbon emissions. Putting industrial wind turbines into the mix mainly results in more to maintain and higher energy prices.
By: Ralph on November 14, 2009
at 7:49 pm
Hi Ralph,
As hydro is a stable source of power, we can use the 682 MW’s of production that they cause here in the north as our baseline (give or take). Now, add to that the proposed generation capacity of the windfarm, and we can eradicate the use of the coal plant altogether (as we must, by 2014), while still being able to attract further industrial development to the region. However, we are then left with the issue that you had initially pointed out: wind is not a stable source of power.
Enter in bio-mass. As the coal plant is to be converted by 2014, we will then have a carbon neutral source of controllable, sustainable power generation. Now, as the generation from the wind farm dies off, then the power from the biomass generator kicks in to supplement the wind power.
As an added bonus, this promotes community forest management plans, as it will require the harvesting and production of biomass pellets for the plant here in town. Look at that, a win-win-win! Environment, social energy needs, and economic gain! Consequently, those happen to be the three pillars of sustainability…
By: Fitjarald on November 16, 2009
at 9:03 pm
Oh, and FYI, i am working on finalizing a report for a company that is integrating renewable energy and biomass energy into its energy needs, and can actually show you the hard numbers on how much this reduces our anthropogenic ghg emissions, while being able to maintain constant power, so I know it can be done! All we need now is the will! Be part of the will, Ralph!
By: Fitjarald on November 16, 2009
at 9:06 pm
Check WCO for article written by Kent Hawkins. Wind Integration: Incremental Emissions from Back-up Generation Cycling (Part 1: A framework and calculator).
By: Ralph on November 15, 2009
at 7:09 pm
Hello Ralph,
Thank you for the link! Unfortunately, it is discussing the CO2 output of natural gas fired turbines as a back up for discrepancies in power generation when the wind falters, which does not apply to our situation here in northern Ontario. Also, the article is not an article stating how wind farms result in the same amount of CO2 production, but rather more of a guideline to put wind production facilities through in order to determine the actual amount of CO2 offset that is caused.
I have yet to read part II. Perhaps it is more to your intended topic?
By: Fitjarald on November 16, 2009
at 8:58 pm
Fitj
The wood they will be burning is waste wood
Get the facts first!
Your numbers for available generation in Northwestern Ont dont include pivateley owned water and gas facilities, OPG aren’t the only producers here.
Next time you call Thunder Bat Hydro and ask what percentage of our power is coal, Isuggest you speak to the manager, Rob Mace, he will set you staight.
By: Denis on November 23, 2009
at 2:39 am
Hi Denis,
I’m not sure what your comment about waste wood is about? Perhaps in response to what I said about the bio-mass burner? If they do convert the coal plant to a biomass facility, then they will need a heck of a lot of waste wood to allow for any further development in the north. Roughly speaking, biomass has 1/3rd the energy density as coal, meaning for the same amount of power, we’ll need to burn about 3 times more wood than we do coal. Unless we get a mass collection system of downed wood throughout northwestern Ontario, we’ll need to harvest parts of the forest to convert to wood pellets in order to keep the plant running, not just rely on waste wood.
I have checked a number of other sources, and, no matter how you chew it, when you remove the coal plants from the picture, we’re using about 80% of our potential energy generation, which leaves little to no room for further industrial/residential/commercial development. Short and skinny – we need more power, as the coal plants are to be decommissioned by 2014.
Also, Denis, I’m sure Rob Mace could “set me straight,” however, as the manager, shouldn’t Rob worry about setting his employees straight, and having them know the proper facts for customer inquiries? Rob needs to do his job, so that when people like me call to get the facts so I can have an intelligent conversation with people like you, we don’t have to trip over who’s going to set who straight.
By: Fitjarald on November 24, 2009
at 2:02 pm
Fitj
My mistake – trees will be harvested but not “industrial” (wood, spruce,pine,fir), but other under utilised species. It will be expensive.
I dont know where your numbers come from but right now without coal we have a surplus of over 300 M/W in the Northwest, with water and gas in the mix. That is fact.
I called Thunder Bay Hydro yesterday, spoke to their PR person who told me all their power comes from Hydro One. You claim they say 85% of our power here comes from coal? Please clarify
By: Denis on November 25, 2009
at 2:45 am
Hi Denis,
For the last time, yes, I spoke with a Thunder Bay Hydro employee that said that our mix is about 85% coal generation, as previously stated, and yes, as previously stated, he was obviously misinformed, and as a result, so was I.
I spoke with IESO (you should see there website) however, who stated that it’s impossible to say where our power is generated, as we share power with the south. During the day, we are shipping power down south, and in the evenings, power is shipped back up to us in order to give our hydro-electric dam’s an opportunity to recharge. So, in fact, it seems all Thunder Bay Hydro employees are a little off their rockers, and it’s best to speak with the people who actually control and monitor the flow of power, and can more accurately paint a proper picture for us.
By: Fitjarald on November 27, 2009
at 1:51 pm
I applaud both you gentlemen on your courteous, informative posts, first of all.
Can I add two points, which you may incorporate or reply to in your own future posts? It is my understanding that NWO is NOT connected to the south by hydro transmission lines. We generate and use our own power is my understanding. Hydro recently introduced a plan to build a transmission line from the North to the South. Imagine the increased cost to our rates to pay for this, just so we can supply power to S. Ont. Second, does this “biomass” concept not mean just cutting down our trees to make pellets to burn? Seems like not a very good use of our forest resource. Originally, it sounded like just “waste wood” would be burned, i.e. the bark, etc. but seeing the quantities required, that seems unlikely. Do we want to start burning our forests to provide power for S. Ontario? Forest companies already pay huge costs for their supply of wood fibre from ever increasing distances; this plan would further challenge our paper industry.
By: Patty on January 12, 2010
at 3:02 pm
Fitjarald
Industrial wind energy cannot be considered capacity, which it seems you acknowledge then imply later that industrial wind is a source of energy to meet company/residential needs. That would be capacity or peaking of which industrial wind is neither. Industrial wind energy is not even a good supplementary source of energy as wind is not predictable. Wind is a random event. The kinetic energy of wind various to the cube of the wind velocity so a gust here and there impacts energy output up and down regardless if the energy is needed or not. What use is 1 MW of energy when there is 0 MW the next minute? This is what happens when at higher wind speeds the turbine shuts down due to structure limitations. Wind blows in a range of velocities, therefore the output, if not using another energy source to smooth, will be variable. Peaks and valleys of energy do not make for a stable transmission distribution. Shadowing to stabilize transmission lines requires another energy source of equal MW from a reliable source which will have to surge up and down. Not efficient and costly. The alternative is to dump electricity. Again, not efficient and costly. I feel you know all this but wishful thinking may make you ignore the facts.
All industrial wind energy developments will do is to create higher electricity prices for the consumer with virtually no gains. Demand for electricity is predicted and electricity from a reliable source is purchased to meet the predicted demand. Wind can never provide a predictable amount of energy so can never be pre-purchased to meet demand. If wind blows and its variable energy is put onto the transmission line (which it has to be due to our laws) the pre-purchased power will not be used or dumped. This means we pay a high price for the bits and pieces of industrial wind energy as well as the pre-purchased reliable energy. Paying double. Wind energy cannot be depended to meet demand. Higher electricity prices are an insult considering the subsidies given to industrial wind companies to build toxic pieces of junk on the landscape. Don’t start down the path of how more turbines help smooth out energy output. A bunch of random events are still random. Graphs showing energy output of one turbine or a bunch do not look too much different except the scale of the ups and downs of energy output. That is one reason it has been estimated that 20% saturation of energy from wind on to the grid is considered to be a limit. Why then are turbines being built? It is the hype and misinformation that one turbine will serve 300 homes when in fact one industrial turbine cannot serve one home. It is hard to believe so check the facts beyond the promotional material. It is not easy and not a pretty picture.
By: Ralph on November 25, 2009
at 12:32 am
Hi Ralph,
I understand what you are saying, however I want to raise a further point: Energy demand is not a stable, level requirement of power, but is also made up of peaks and valleys, and, just like when the wind blows, we cannot predict when power will be needed or not needed, so, I would suggest that our electrical infrastructure is made to handle peaks and valleys of power. Now, just like wind, we can look at the history of energy use, and predict a certain level of demand, but we cannot know for sure.
I understand that the amount of electricity output that the wind farm would be projected to produce would need to have at least that amount available by a more stable supply of energy in order to supplement the wind power, should the wind not blow. I cannot agree, however, that the energy generated by the wind farm wouldn’t mitigate harmful emissions caused by other forms of energy generation, on which we already rely, and I say this due to the overwhelming number of successful installations and operations of wind farms throughout the world.
You state in your comment that it appears my arguments, though informed (and I appreciate the acknowledgment, and have certainly enjoyed our conversation thus far, and am in fact learning lots from you), are made of “wishful thinking.” This is a correct assumption, I assure you, as that is how innovation and the future is built! I understand that we cannot utilize wind power in the most efficient way, due to barriers caused by our lifestyles and the unknowns, but I recognize the need to invest in renewable technologies, and wind is the most efficient form of renewable technology available everywhere. There are always risks and flaws when planning and building for the future, no matter what you look at, but the point is that we are building towards a better future than we know today, and that is all wishful thinking.
Now, I do agree that the hype around the benefits of wind turbines are blown out of proportion, words are twisted, and the science can be misrepresented. This is the same marketing we see in all areas of life. However, my true issues arise with the misrepresentation of the same type of information on this website, and in fact, my conversation with you has been well informed and well argued, but the ideas you are putting forth (the well informed ones) are not even discussed on this site. Instead, they, like Horizon, are misrepresenting facts just to “sell” an idea to the public.
By: Fitjarald on November 27, 2009
at 2:07 pm
Fitjarald:
I have nothing to sell. I believe we are not as far apart as it may appear. Wind is not the argument, but the IWTs that are being pushed with statements they have been successful somewhere else. The difficulty becomes in proving what they are successful at. “The people of Denmark have not allowed a new turbine to be erected in years, and the only thing compelling the government to keep trying is the need to support turbine manufacturer Vestas, Denmark’s second largest company (after Lego). Construction has also dramatically slowed in Germany. Spain and The Netherlands recently halted subsidies to big wind. Australia is starting to balk at continuing support. Because opposition only grows in their own countries as the useless and wasteful destruction becomes ever more clear, overseas companies have moved into the U.S. market — they hope we’ll ignore Europe’s mistakes just as much as we ignore their successes.” Taken from : Exploitation and destruction: some things to know about industrial wind power by Eric Rosenbloom, October 31, 2006 [revised August 8, 2007] . Better technology will make IWTs the dinosaurs of energy production. They are costly to operate, costly to decommission, but too dangerous to leave. The blades are a fibreglass composite destined for landfills. This is not a future we should support.
By: Ralph on December 20, 2009
at 5:32 am
Re Fitjarald comment about the energy capacity in NWO being 1199 MW (not 1535 MW as website claims)
Please note that OPG is only one of the energy producers in NWO – albeit the largest. There are many others.
Some others that come to mind are Valery Falls GS, Norman GS, Kenora GS, plus stations on the Winnipeg system above Lake of the Woods, the natural gas power station north of Nipigon, and various non utility generators that supply power to the grid. Add in projects approved/ in the works such as Dorion WInd, McGraw Falls, Little Jackfish, plus, plus….
I would expect that the energy capacity in NWO is easily greater than 1500 MW.
By: shiho on June 13, 2010
at 5:02 pm
Has this committee explored ways and means of ensuring that NWOnt generated energy has a positive impact on our region?
By: WaYnE on June 19, 2010
at 7:31 am
Please clarify what you mean by a “positive” impact.
By: norwesterescarpment on June 21, 2010
at 4:02 pm
Just got on this site and its a great discussion people!
Simply put, i think that if the save the escarpment people got down to what matters to people ie: cost of their hydro bill. That and ONLY that and pushed this point, many residents would not be too happy about the turbines.
The general population percieves the opponents of horizon as NIBYers, and rich whiners and even anti-green or ” living in the past” type people.
I work in a large workplace and have been asking around and have seen one or more of these perceptions amongst the majority of those who I have “polled”.
When they are in support, they support what they percieve is “green energy” and feel good about it.
Wind energy as we know is a double edged sword, the problem is , without sounding to folksy, is it not cutting for us but for the most part against us.
By: jeff e on August 20, 2010
at 2:33 pm