Archive for the ‘Ontario Power Generation’ Category

Is the govt. being honest about wind energy

December 10, 2008

poll results

wind turbines towering over farm

Is the govt. being honest about wind energy

Yes (198)
No (840)
Don’t Know (83)

Total votes: 1121

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Before You Sign a Wind Turbine Contract

Advertisements

Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?

November 7, 2008

Editor: I believe there’s a saying – new trends start in California. Lets hope this trend spreads far and wide and fast.

Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?

By Noel Sheppard

Californians by very wide margins defeated two green initiatives that anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts in the media and in legislative houses across the fruited plain should take heed…but will they?

To begin with, Proposition 7 would have required utilities to generate 40 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025.

Proposition 10 would have created $5 billion in general obligation bonds to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.

Much to the likely chagrin of Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his global warming sycophants in the media, these measures went down, and went down in flames:

Proposition 7 Renewable Energy Generation
Yes 3,294,158 35.1%
No 6,102,907 64.9%

Proposition 10 Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Yes 3,742,997 40.1%
No 5,581,303 59.9%

Will global warming-obsessed media share this news with the citizenry? Shouldn’t this be HUGE news given President-elect Obama’s green sympathies and his desire to enact a carbon cap and trade scheme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? We’ll see.

ICECAP

WCO (Wind Concerns Ontario)

October 30, 2008

Wind Concerns Ontario Is  a coalition of 22 small rural groups opposing projects in their own municipalities.

Suncor wind farm Ripley

Suncor wind farm Ripley

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Enbridge wind farm Kincardine Ontario

Wind Concerns Ontario

Green, not dumb – The Reality of Wind Energy

September 29, 2008

Editor:

It is quite unfortunate that a man like Mr. Carr, former CEO of the Ontario Power Authority, who has known for a long time, the problems with wind energy, declined to step forward until now.

Many families in the province have had their lives ruined while he and his colleagues remained silent.

That said, maybe his words will encourage others to step forward.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who refused, to shut up, lay down or go away. Be proud of the fight you have, and continue to wage. Truth and justice are always worth the effort.

May other citizens learn from your example.

Jan Carr, former OPA CEO, will now tell you exactly what we have been saying for years.

Thanks for coming forward Mr. Carr, and welcome aboard the truth train.

Mr. Carr’s letter to the Globe and Mail.

.

Green, not dumb

Toronto — My wife suggested Murray Campbell’s use of “old” in “dumb old utility guys” should be my basis for a complaint to a human rights tribunal (‘Dougs’ Take Warning: Curious George Is Keen On Green – Sept. 25), as the former CEO of the Ontario Power Authority.

Let the facts speak for themselves. The OECD’s International Energy Agency and the websites of the European utilities themselves say it all. In spite of hype about their innovation in renewable energy, both Germany and Denmark derive half of their electricity from coal-fired stations. As its nuclear generating stations reach the end of their design-lives, Germany will have to decide between building new coal-fired generation (it already has 10 times the amount that Ontario has) and abandoning its no-new-nuclear policy. With a quarter of its supply coming from renewables and more on the way, Ontario’s electricity is already considerably greener than Germany’s and soon will take league leadership from Denmark.

Then check electricity prices. Germans pay double and Danes triple what Ontarians do.

From the Globe and Mail

Today at noon, Ontario’s 672MW’s of wind were producing 32MW’s

BLACKOUT BRITAIN WARNING – A Warning for Canada and the USA

September 10, 2008

IF you live in North America you better pay attention! The renewable industry is a sham. It is designed to wreak havoc on you and the economy. This is not by mistake – it was planned and now the plan is in full swing. Without reliable energy, you and the economy are screwed.

Unless you want to move to China or India.

Read the

Green Agenda

Daily Express

BLACKOUT BRITAIN WARNING

Story Image

Power cuts ‘could spark disorder’

Sunday September 7,2008

By Jason Groves

Britain is “quite simply running out of power” and blackouts are almost inevitable within the next few years.

This is the stark warning from the head of an energy think-tank who believes power cuts could be serious enough to spark civil disorder.

Campbell Dunford of the respected Renewable Energy Foundation  said: “It’s almost too late to do anything about it. Nothing will stop us having to pay very high prices for power in future.

“If we pull our finger out now we can limit blackouts but it’s going to be pretty grim whatever happens.”

Gordon Brown pledged last week to end Britain’s reliance on the “dictatorship of oil” but Mr Dunford believes the Prime Minister’s new interest in the security of energy supplies may have come too late.

Only last Thursday, National Grid issued an urgent call for power after a series of power station breakdowns. Suppliers were asked to bring all their available generating capacity online, including costly oil-fired stations.

In May, hundreds of thousands of people in Cleveland, Cheshire, Lincolnshire and London suffered blackouts when seven power stations were closed.

The electricity industry estimates it needs to spend £100billion on new stations to ensure supplies.

It criticises ministers for focusing too heavily on such untried renewable energy sources as wind and tide power, rather than making sure that secure new power generation was put in place.

The report concludes: “A near fatal preoccupation with politically attractive but marginal forms of renewables seems to have caused a blindness towards the weakening of the UK’s power stations and a dangerous and helpless vulnerability to natural gas.”

The REF warns that as many as nine million people could be plunged into fuel poverty, defined as spending more than 10 per cent of their income on energy bills.

Ministers are already under massive pressure to do more to help people trapped in fuel poverty this winter because of soaring prices. Up to six million families are expected to face a stark choice between heating and eating following the series of massive energy price rises that have made a mockery of Labour’s target to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016.

Mr Dunford said worse was to come: “Certainly we’re going to be heading to eight or nine million in fuel poverty.

“There’s a very real chance that power, will not even be there when you need it. That’s when you start worrying about social disorder.”

Ministers have launched a belated plan to plug Britain’s energy gap, including the construction of a string of nuclear power stations. power stations take up to a decade to build though and many experts believe the Government’s move has come too late.

Full story at Daily Express

The Problems With On-Grid Wind Power

August 26, 2008

From Maxedoutmama

Here is a paper for dullards like me who didn’t understand the implications of trying to hook highly variable wind power into a power grid. The bottom line is that effective usage is low and that actual replacement effect is even lower:

A power station takes days to start producing electricity from a cold start. Time is needed to boil the water, to superheat the steam, to warm all the components of the power station, and to spin the turbogenerators up to operating speed.

Each power station is designed to provide an output of electricity. It can only provide very little more or very little less than this output (i.e., a power station has a “low turndown ratio”).

The problem of matching electricity supply to varying demand is overcome by operating power stations in three modes called “base load,” “generation,” and “spinning standby.”

Some power stations operate all the time providing electricity to the grid, and they are said to provide “base load.”

Other power stations also operate all the time but do not provide electricity all the time. They burn (or fission) their fuel to boil water and superheat the resulting steam which is fed to the steam turbines that are thus kept hot and spinning all the time. Of course, they emit all the emissions from use of their fuel all the time. But some of this time they dump heat from their cooling towers instead of generating electricity, and they are then said to be operating “spinning standby.”

One or more power stations can be instantly switched from spinning standby to provide electricity to match an increase to demand for electricity. It is said to be operating “generation” when it is providing electricity. Power stations are switched between spinning standby and generation as demand for electricity changes.

Thus the grid operator manages the system to match supply with demand for electricity by switching power stations between “generation” and “spinning standby.”

So if you are installing a bunch of new coal power plants to handle load, you will really be running them all the time with very little savings of fossil fuels. You can control some of the grid surge by diverting the power production away from the grid when your wind kicks in, but that of course doesn’t change fuel consumption very much.

Read the full report here. Maxedoutmama

Energy Price Shock -Two Energy Firms to Raise Prices

August 21, 2008

Editor:
If you live in North America take a close look at what is coming. The Greens want to destroy the economies of
the industrialized world, via political pressure and the blocking of opening oil reserves and new nuclear power.
Expect massive increases in your electric bill in the very near future. Watch as more and more manufacturing flees North America and heads to China and other Asian countries.
While China and others continue to build coal plants – we will rely on expensive intermittent wind and solar for our power.
Why?
Read the Green Agenda – after which you should be rightfully pissed at your elected officials.

Energy firms E.On and Scottish and Southern Energy are to raise gas and electricity prices by up to 29%.

E.On said it would up its gas prices by 26% and electricity bills by 16% on 22 August for domestic customers.

Gas rings

The move comes shortly after British Gas announced a record rise in bills

Scottish and Southern followed a few hours later by announcing a 29.2%
increase in gas bills, with electricity tariffs up by 19.2% on 25
August.

This is E.On’s second price rise for domestic customers this year. In
February it put up gas bills by 15% and electricity tariffs by 9.7%.


We
are extremely concerned that the one in three pensioner households
likely to be living in fuel poverty by the end of the year will feel
forced to cut back on essential food or fuel

Gordon Lishman, Age Concern

Complete Article

Wind power: is it a realistic option?

July 3, 2008

Wind power: is it a realistic option? – Money Week

Is wind power as green as it seems?

Denmark is the world’s most wind-intensive state with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. But this figure is misleading, says Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies. Not one conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed.

In fact, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.

Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is “expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green”, says Lodge.

Full Story-Money Week

'Windfarm output is never zero. Sometimes it's less'

July 3, 2008

Editor:This research should, once and for all, answer any questions about wind power.

All pain and no gain for the users of electricity and the environment.
Nothing but a massive con by govt., big business and the media.
Really, what is a wind turbine? A steel stick with a whirligig on top.
Not something I want to depend on for my electrical needs.

Not only is wind a poor way to produce the power required, the turbines are being placed
too close to homes and having a negative affect on people.

Pie in the sky ideas will never provide the power we require. We need real power and we need it now.

Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought

In a just-released article for the journal Energy Policy, titled Will British weather provide reliable electricity?, consulting engineer Jim Oswald and his co-authors model the output to be expected from a large, 25+ gigawatt UK windfarm collection of the type the government says it would like to see in service by 2020. Wind is generally seen as the renewable technology best suited to the UK climate, and so it forms the bulk of most renewables plans for Blighty.

One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at wind power is variability. That is, when the wind drops (or blows too hard) the windmills stop spinning and you get no power. To begin with, Oswald simulates the output rises and falls that might result from a lot of windfarms distributed around the UK by using Met Office archived data from different points up and down the land. Many wind advocates have argued that with enough windfarms, widely enough distributed, you would get more reliable power output as some windmills would always have wind.

Oswald’s analysis says this isn’t true, with calm conditions across pretty much all the UK being fairly regular events.

Analysis from 1996 to 2005 shows similar results: large, rapid, and frequent changes of power output being common occurrences … any national power system has to manage under the worst case conditions likely to occur … These are not extreme cases, whose frequency is so low as to render the events negligible. Rather, these are representative …

If the government succeeds in building its mighty 25 gigawatts of wind base by 2020, according to Oswald’s Met Office data-based model its output will dip to pretty much nothing fairly routinely.

The next line of defence for wind advocates is normally the idea of hooking up the UK’s grid with high-capacity links to those of other European nations, creating a “Supergrid” with wind so widely spread that output would be sure to even out. But Oswald has bad news for that idea, too. He compares his modelled UK big-wind output with that which has been produced in recent times by other European wind bases, particularly the substantial German/Danish one.

Modelled 25 GW British and actual continental EON wind load factors compared.

Ill winds blow nobody any good.

Not only does the large continental wind base exhibit nasty rollercoaster surges in aggregate output, these surges tend to match those to be expected in the UK. When the wind isn’t blowing across most of the UK, it isn’t blowing in Germany, Denmark etc. either. Worse still, this happens in the dead of winter when electricity demand is highest.

There is good agreement between the model and the [real-world European wind power output] data, which further supports the argument that wind output is controlled by the arrival and dispersal of large low-pressure systems moving over the coasts of Western Europe.

Being an engineer, Oswald examines the worst situations that occurred in his time frame – those that engineers would need to design the system to cope with. The nastiest situation that could happen would be early-evening flat calms in winter.

Read the full report

Decision to block Lewis turbines project – The Wind Industry, as Promoted, is a Fraud

April 23, 2008

Editor:

The wind industry, as promoted, is a fraud.

The McGuinty govt. is guilty of pushing the fraud and in the process, knowingly putting the health of individuals and their property at risk. This is a crime.

The McGuinty govt. is guilty of fraud – on a grandiose scale – against the citizens of Ontario. There really is no other way to say it. They have allowed the wind industry to run over the rights of the very citizens they are charged to protect. Read Agenda 21.

They have put the health of people at risk – allowing the placement of wind turbines too close to homes.

They have put the economy at risk – unnecessary increases to the cost of electricity.

They have put individual investment at risk – value of property.

They have lied to the public about wind energy – inferring wind will significantly cut CO2 emissions.

They have refused to put the scrubbers on the coal plants – unnecessarily putting peoples health at risk.

Mr.McGuinty cannot defend his decision to allow the bastardization of this province based on groundless propaganda.

Mr. McGuinty you are guilty of putting the economy of the Province at risk by, knowingly and unnecessarily, pushing up the cost of electricity.

Mr. McGuinty your are guilty of pushing biofuels, which increase C02 emissions and unnecessarily increase the cost of food – another part of the UN Agenda – depopulation. Read Agenda 21.

Mr. McGunity, you are guilty of allowing the brainwashing of the children in our schools, another part of the “Sustainability UN Agenda”. Read Agenda 21

Mr. McGuinty you are guilty of allowing the spraying of chemicals, known as Chemtrails, on the people and their property. Another UN initiative.

Mr. McGuinty, you are guilty of putting the wants of Maurice Strong and the UN Agenda ahead of the citizens of the Province of Ontario.

Mr McGuity, You are guilty of TREASON against the people and the Province of Ontario.

Mr. McGuinty, pull your head out of the ass of the UN  for a moment and make an  attempt to wrap your mind around the information below. Show the people of Ontario that you are more than a puppet of the UN and Agenda 21.

Mr. McGuinty it is time to explain yourself to the people of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. McGuinty, if you, or you govt. can prove any of the above statements are untrue, they will be corrected. Until then, these statements will stand.

.

WE, the people, await your response.

.

Decision to block Lewis turbines project has revealed the myth of wind power

Reaction to the Scottish Government’s refusal to construct one of Europe’s largest onshore wind farms, 181 turbines on Lewis in the Western Isles (your report, 22 April), has exposed the myth of wind power.

In response to Scottish industry’s concerns that its lights may go out, Britain’s power industry had to admit it would not make one iota of difference as wind power is too unstable to be included in any calculations of how much power is needed to satisfy the country’s needs – whether or not the wind is blowing our power stations will still burn the same amount of fossil fuel.

A spinning turbine’s only value, for the environmentalists, is as an icon of their power over the vulnerable and as an “at least we are doing something” comfort blanket for gullible politicians, plus, of course, an exponential currency generator for the wind industry.

BRIAN CHRISTLEY

Bryn Gwyn

Abergele, Conwy

————

With Scottish ministers having rejected Lewis Wind Power’s proposal to build a massive 181-turbine wind farm on the Isle of Lewis, the renewables industry can now be seen for what it truly is: not a saviour of the planet, but an environmental vandal driven by financial greed.

Lewis Wind Power and the few supporters it was able to persuade to come on side for this ill-conceived proposal, which included the Western Isles Council, will no doubt continue to see the Scottish Government’s decision as a “huge missed opportunity” for Scotland. However, I suspect the many thousands who objected will see the decision to reject in a far more sensible and less blinkered light.

NEIL McKINNON

Tulchan Garden

Glenalmond, Perthshire

————-

Perhaps PhD student Richard Crozier (Letters, 21 April) should read the Sustainable Development Commission’s Windpower in the UK, for it states that at wind farm installations of 20 per cent, fossil power station back-up of 80 per cent is required and that at greater proportions even more back-up is required. This sort of defeats the purpose doesn’t it?

Power stations cannot be adjusted to suit variable wind generation and without this back-up there would be no reliable supply of electricity.

Can you imagine running an electric train service on wind power? Tear up the timetables.

A R NELSON

Scarletmuir

Lanark

————-

The Scotsman

23 April 2008