Wind power: not there when you need it, says letter-writer

Not only not there when you need it, there when you don't leading to extra casts, says writer Santo Giorno
Wind power: Not only not there when you need it, there when you don’t leading to extra costs, says writer Santo Giorno

October 10, 2015
Wind Power: a source not available when needed is of little value.
Sarnia Observer, October 10, 2015
Regarding the letter “Wind power among the lowest for emissions” (Sarnia Observer, Oct. 6 [Editor’s note: by Gary Zavitz of CanWEA-sponsored Friends of Wind]), the author repeats a number of misconceptions about wind turbines.
The author’s assertions that a doubling of C02 emissions from 2016 – 2032 are “spurious accusations” and are based on “one weekend’s extreme imbalance of supply and demand” are incorrect.
Based on an hour-by-hour analysis of the generation and demand in 2011, the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) predicted that the displacement of nuclear by wind, solar and natural gas would dramatically increase C02 emissions. In 2012, the OSPE requested that the Ministry of Energy undertake an independent analysis to confirm their findings. The doubling of emissions from Ontario’s electricity sector from 2016 to 2032 was the finding by the Ministry of Energy and published as an appendix in their December 2013 Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP).
Regarding the World Nuclear Association assertion that wind and hydro have the lowest green-house gas emissions:
The WNA data is correct but taken out of context by the author who has ignored the main point in my earlier letter; wind turbines are not operated in isolation and must be evaluated as part of our electrical grid. Because wind is not dependable, it requires a backup source from natural gas with its carbon emissions. Therefore wind with natural gas backup, given preferential access to the grid, has a much greater carbon footprint when it displaces nuclear or hydro for base load demand.
The author’s assertions that wind is “predictable and functions effectively as a base load source of power” and that wind is a “distributed” source that doesn’t act as a “single 900 MW” wind turbine are incorrect.
According to data from Natural Resources Canada, wind occurs in large wind fronts that typically cross Ontario within two-hour windows. When there is lots of wind, it is everywhere in Ontario, when there is no wind, there is none anywhere in Ontario. This effectively means Ontario’s entire wind fleet of distributed wind turbines can be considered to be one single large wind turbine of 7,500 MW capacity (by 2022). In 2011 when OSPE did its analysis, wind production across the entire wind fleet dropped below 10 per cent design capacity 20 times that year for more than 24 hours. On one occasion wind generation dropped below 10 per cent of its design capacity for more than 72 hours. Typically on the hottest summer days, when demand peaks, wind contributes less than 15 per cent of its design capacity.
The Independent Electricity System Operator’s (IESO) recent 18-month outlook, published in September 2015, confirms the OSPE analysis. The IESO estimates that the installed wind capacity of 3209 MW, (as of Aug. 14, 2015), will produce only 404 MW during peak periods. So, during the next 18 months, about 12.6 per cent of the installed wind capacity will be available during peak load periods.
Because wind is not dependable, it is not an effective base load source of power, it is a “displacement energy source” – it displaces the backup source, typically natural gas, hydroelectric and flexible nuclear capacity. Its greatest value, in terms of C02 reduction, would occur if it displaced coal. When Ontario got rid of coal generators, it also got rid of the best reason to deploy wind turbines.
The author’s assertion that energy storage systems “are developing quickly and continue to reduce the issue of intermittency” is premature. Storage costs are dropping but are still far too prohibitive to be deployed at grid scale.
The author’s assertion that for wind-generated electricity “the costs are what you see and what you pay for is the power generated” is simply not true. For example eight per cent of wind generation (0.4 TWh), was curtailed (shut off) in 2014. The costs of curtailment include: payment to the wind developers to not produce electricity that is not needed; plus costs to curtail nuclear and spill hydro on windy days when demand was low and wind production received preferential access to the grid.   All of these additional costs for wind were included in the global adjustment charge rather than in their contract per kWh rate. Transparent? Hardly.
The author’s assertion that “no one has any reliable idea what it will cost to refurbish or dismantle them (nuclear reactors)” is incorrect. In Canada, we have completely refurbished five nuclear units at three stations (Pickering, Pt. Lepreau and Bruce) for a 20 to 30-year life extension and six units at two stations (Pickering and Bruce) for a partial life extension. Those costs are known exactly. Also, there have been several nuclear facilities decommissioned and dismantled in other parts of the world and have provided data that can be used to estimate a complete decommissioning of a large nuclear unit here in Canada.
The author also states: “Maybe nuclear reactors will be more flexible in the future, able to deliver electricity when needed and the price of the electricity they generate will be reasonably close to wind.”
The Bruce nuclear reactors already have flexible capacity; in the 12 months ending on Sept. 30, 2015, the reactors were de-rated, nominally 300 MW each time, a total of 563 times, to give wind turbines their preferential access to the grid.
To imply that nuclear-sourced electricity has a higher cost than wind sources is disingenuous. According to the Ontario Energy Board, the cost of electricity from existing facilities, in cents/kWh, including curtailment for the period May – November 2015 was 5.6 for hydro, 6.6 for nuclear, and 12.5 for wind.
To imply that nuclear does not produce electricity when needed, in the face of wind’s inability to supply any more than 12.6 per cent of its capacity during peak hours, and nuclear’s ability to supply 100 per cent of its capacity whenever needed, is especially disingenuous.
A source that is not available when needed is of little value. A source that is frequently available when not needed, and that increases the overall C02 emissions, is even worse, it’s a liability.
I wish to thank Paul Acchione, past president of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, and one of the key authors of the OSPE report, for providing me with invaluable assistance with interpreting the technical details of the OSPE’s analysis and report.
Santo Giorno
Editor’s note: The author also wishes to thank Parker Gallant for his assistance in preparing the letter

What's your reaction?


  • wL
    Posted October 10, 2015 11:01 pm 0Likes

    Wind ,, “not there when you need it”
    This is what can happen when the Liberals supply Ontario with wind power .

  • John Vincent
    Posted October 11, 2015 3:46 am 0Likes

    Excellent write up. A must read for any one promoting wind/solar power.

  • Sommer
    Posted October 11, 2015 9:27 am 0Likes

    After reading this excellent explanation, I wonder what Minister Chiarelli finds so “complex” about the energy issues in Ontario? Isn’t that the word he used as he tried to invalidate the last Auditor General’s report?
    These are hard cold facts.
    Thank you to the rare people who have the minds that can handle such complexity!
    I maintain that the energy portfolio needs to be handled by a team of experts from the various relevant fields- people who have the ability to work together to make sound assessments on behalf of all residents of this province.

    • Barbara
      Posted October 11, 2015 12:14 pm 0Likes

      There are different renewable energy programs such as wind, solar, biomass, and small hydro with different regulations. Then contracts at different dates. Then the individual contracts can vary under the same general set of regulations.
      Makes it so that each renewable contract has to be looked at to determine the terms of that contract.
      Who knows the details of the Samsung contract? And how much different is it from other wind and solar contracts?
      Talk about the government making things complex/complicated!

  • Sommer
    Posted October 11, 2015 9:38 am 0Likes
  • Barbara
    Posted October 15, 2015 3:17 pm 0Likes

    Wall Street Journal, Oct.13, 2015
    ‘New England looks north for power boost’
    “New England’s most populous states are looking to Canadian dams and rivers for more of their electricity, a change that officials say will help cut greenhouse- gas emissions and keep some of the nation’s highest power prices in check.”
    A subscription is required to read this article but there are internet links to the full story.
    Is there a hidden agenda in the Ontario government’s energy program?
    Make electricity un-affordable in Canada/Ontario and then sell the excess power to the U.S.
    There is such a thing as malfeasance in office.

Add Comment

© Copyright 2022 | WCO | Wind Concerns Ontario

to top