Archive for the ‘Ontario Power Generation’ Category

Earth Hour 2008: a huge success?

March 29, 2008

Editor:
This my last post about Earth Hour, I promise.

The TV news propaganda machine was telling me how big a success Earth Hour was. They showed pictures of people sitting in their homes looking bored staring at candles. I use candles when the power goes out.

I came across this graph at A Dog Named Kyoto. It shows the power usage during Earth Hour. Take a look

Electricity, not candles, makes the world go round. Ask anyone that doesn’t have electricity if they would trade their candle for a wall switch. Beware the GREENIES, they want everyone to return to the middle ages.

How much energy was used and how many trees died to promote Earth Hour. The Toronto Star printed a twelve page section to promote 1 hour of darkness.

.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Earth Hour 2008: a huge success?

The above graph show the impact of tonight’s Earth Hour on Ontario’s electricity demand. Actual demand is shown in green, forecast is in blue. The red box highlights the hour between 20:00 to 21:00 hours, or 8:00 to 9:00 PM, a.k.a. “Earth Hour”.As you can see, “Earth Hour” had practically zero effect on the electricity demand in the Province of Ontario. While electricity use was barely below forecast, it was actually up slightly from the previous hour!

 Find out more about the WWF

Earth Hour Scam – World Wild Life Fund Scam?

 

Exploding VESTA Wind Turbine in Denmark

February 26, 2008

Editor:
Ontario can use this to attract tourists.
Hell, put up a map of the turbine locations and take bets on which turbine will blow up next.

Fun for the whole family!

A Fight Against Windmills In Denmark

February 18, 2008

Editor:
Wind farms are quiet and cause no problems. That’s what we were told. Yet, in Denmark  people don’t want wind turbines near them because of noise, flicker and other problems. Both the industry and the govt. continue to ignore any and all of the problems associated with the wind industry. Why?

Property values do go down once a wind farm is built near homes.

That’s a fact.  

Local politics could short-circuit a national plan to concentrate wind turbines in the country’s windiest areas

Local councils in the country’s 28 windiest towns are digging in their heels against a national plan that would cluster the next generation of high-efficiency wind turbines within their borders, Politiken newspaper reports.

In order to meet its goal of doubling wind power capacity by 2025 as inexpensively as possible, the government will need to place 90 percent of an estimated 1000 land-based windmills, each standing up to 150m, in the windiest areas.

Facing the prospect of asking their residents to accept an average of 35 giant wind turbines, local councillors are already warning national politicians that they are preparing to put up a fight.

‘I think that the 60,000 people that live here in our town would head straight to Copenhagen to protest,’ said John Christensen, chairman of the planning board of the Frederikshavn council in windy northern Jutland.

A number of other councils have already rejected plans to begin building new land-based turbines, many out of concern about problems related to noise and shadows created by the giant turbines.

‘There aren’t a lot of politicians out there saying, “We just have to have this, and we’re willing to risk our seats for it,” ‘ said Søren Hermansen, head of the Energy Academy on the island of Samsø, which this year marks 10 years of energy independence. ‘They don’t dare. If they force windmill projects on their constituents, they won’t be re-elected.’

Two other models for building new windmills, such as offshore windparks and an even distribution throughout the entire country have been looked at by the national Planning Committee for Land-based Wind Turbines.

Both, however, were found to be less cost-effective than concentrating new windmills in the windiest regions.

Source 

Biofuels emissions may be 'worse than petrol

February 7, 2008

 Biofuels emissions may be ‘worse than petrol’

Biofuels, once seen as a useful way of combating climate change, could actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, say two major new studies.

And it may take tens or hundreds of years to pay back the “carbon debt” accrued by growing biofuels in the first place, say researchers. The calculations join a growing list of studies questioning whether switching to biofuels really will help combat climate change.

Biofuel production has accelerated over the last 5 years, spurred in part by a US drive to produce corn-derived ethanol as an alternative to petrol.

The idea makes intuitive environmental sense – plants take up carbon dioxide as they grow, so biofuels should help reduce greenhouse gas emissions – but the full environmental cost of biofuels is only now becoming clear.

Extra emissions are created from the production of fertiliser needed to grow corn, for example, leading some researchers to predict that the energy released by burning ethanol is only 25% greater than that used to grow and process the fuel.

Carbon debt

The new studies examine a different part of biofuel equation, and both suggest that the emissions associated with the crops may be even worse than that.

One analysis looks at land that is switched to biofuel crop production. Carbon will be released when forests are felled or bush cleared, and longer-term emissions created by dead roots decaying.

This creates what Joseph Fargione of The Nature Conservancy and colleagues call a “carbon debt”. Emissions savings generated by the biofuels will help pay back this debt, but in some cases this can take centuries, suggests their analysis.

If 10,000 square metres of Brazilian rainforest is cleared to make way for soya beans – which are used to make biodiesel – over 700,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide is released.

The saving generated by the resulting biodiesel will not cancel that out for around 300 years, says Fargione. In the case of peat land rainforest in Indonesia, which is being cleared to grow palm oil, the debt will take over 400 years to repay, he says.

Missing corn

The carbon debts associated with US corn are measured in tens rather than hundreds of years. But the second study suggests that producing corn for fuel rather than food could have dramatic knock-on effects elsewhere.

Corn is used to feed cattle and demand for meat is high, so switching land to biofuel production is likely to prompt farmers in Brazil and elsewhere to clear forests and other lands to create new cropland to grow the missing corn.

When the carbon released by those clearances is taken into account, corn ethanol produces nearly twice as much carbon as petrol.

Green energy plan could wither in court: native bands

January 18, 2008

Two native bands are threatening to tie up the Ontario government’s long-range power plans using lengthy court delays.

In a submission to the Ontario Energy Board, people from the Saugeen Ojibway Nation Territories argued the province has not lived up to its legal requirement to consult with them on the plan’s impact.

The lawyer for the two communities, near Wiarton on the Bruce Peninsula, spoke earlier this week at board hearings into the Ontario Power Authority’s proposal for new energy sources.

Arthur Pape reminded board members of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that Queen’s Park has a legal duty to consult with First Nations on the impact the power plan will have on their lives.

“There’s no way the Saugeen Ojibway could participate meaningfully with government to ensure that this part of the plan could be implemented in a way that protects their rights,” Pape told the board.

Pape says there’s still time to negotiate compensation that may be owed to First Nations for the impact of new wind farms, hydro dams and transmission lines on their hunting and fishing rights and way of life.

But he warned that if the government fails to negotiate, it could mean lengthy delays in getting the plan approved.

“If the government won’t work with them to find a way to accommodate those things, they may find themselves applying to the courts, and asking for the courts to not let this plan be implemented,” he told CBC News.

Neither the government, nor the Ontario Power Authority, which drew up the plan, would comment on Pape’s submissions.

The OPA’s new plan, which calls for the provincial government to spend $26.5 billion on nuclear power plants, still requires regulatory approval.

The plan also proposes doubling the amount of renewable energy on the grid by 2025 and phasing out coal-fired generation by the end of 2014.

Several energy providers are considering building more wind farms on the Bruce Peninsula to bring power to the south of the province.

Much of that energy will require new transmission lines to be built.

Ontario Great Lakes wind power

January 15, 2008
Editor:
Letter I sent to Tyler Hamilton who wrote the article below
Tyler
I just read your piece in the Star.
Helimax is a member of CanWEA, they both have a vested interest in wind farm development. It would be reasonable to expect a qualifier in the story.
When people read “could generate up to 47,000 megawatts of clean electricity” they are unfortunately under the impression 47,000 MW will be produced, even though it is very improbable they will ever produce this amount. There is no mention of the natural gas plants that will have to be constructed in order to provide power when the wind is not blowing at capacity, which is most of the time.
The entire renewable energy program set out by the Ont. govt. is based almost entirely on assumptions and possibilities, not on sound engineering practices. It is also a product of Maurice Strong and the e8. In fact the entire Ont generation system is being orchestrated by the guidelines set out by the e8. Marie LeGrow, who is the head project coordinator for wind farms, at the Ministry of the Environment, wrote the manual for the e7 before it became the e8
This story should have been a press release from the govt and the wind industry. When you attach your name you legitimize the fraud that is being perpetrated on the people of Ont. That is unfortunate.
Please read what McGuinty has to say about wind,solar and natural gas.
premier-dalton-mcguinty-talks-about-renewable-energy

Thank you for your time
Ron Stephens
Editor
Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Wind Farms
Ontario to approve Great Lakes wind power

 

DAVID COOPER/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO
Melancthon wind farm west of village of Shelburne, Ont.

Email Story document.write(‘Email story’); Email story

Email the author Email the author

Several offshore projects are waiting in the wings

Jan 15, 2008 04:30 AM


Energy Reporter
Ontario is preparing to lift a controversial moratorium on the development of offshore wind projects in the Great Lakes that has been in place for nearly 14 months, the Toronto Star has learned.

A Ministry of Natural Resources official says the department is “getting ready” to make an announcement and that new minister Donna Cansfield is “anxious to demonstrate leadership in the area.”

Jamie Rilett, a spokesperson in Cansfield’s office, confirmed that the ministry is currently revisiting the moratorium. He said a decision would be made “shortly.”

Industry sources also confirmed the moratorium’s end is imminent.

Offshore wind energy, while typically associated with ocean projects, offers significant opportunities in the Great Lakes. According to one study by Helimax Energy Inc., the strong and consistent winds typically over the lakes could generate up to 47,000 megawatts of clean electricity – nearly double Ontario’s existing power capacity.

The ministry put a halt to all offshore development in November 2006 to give the government more time to study the potential environmental impact of such projects on bats, butterflies, aquatic species and bird migration routes.

But the moratorium caught some wind developers off guard, particularly those trying to raise money for their proposed projects.

The wisdom of halting development was also called into question when it was discovered that some U.S. states, such as Ohio, were actively moving forward with offshore projects in Lake Erie despite the Ontario policy.

The moratorium followed a protest against an offshore wind project near Leamington, Ont., in September 2006. Nearly 300 residents showed up to a council meeting to protest a 119-turbine project planned by developer Southpoint Wind Power. Council unanimously rejected Southpoint’s proposal and urged the ministry to come up with guidelines that would help small communities evaluate offshore projects.

“There were a number of serious concerns,” said deputy mayor Robert Schmidt, explaining that many residents saw negative impacts on lake navigation, bird and butterfly migration, recreational boating and fishing.

“The biggest issue to most residents was how it affected their view of the lake, which is really only the last natural view we have in our area.”

Schmidt said a number of offshore proposals still wait in the wings.

“The majority of people aren’t against the idea, as long as it’s located in an area where it doesn’t cause problems.”

Energy consultant Paul Bradley, manager of PJB Energy Solutions and former vice-president of generation at the Ontario Power Authority, said offshore projects hold great potential but are also a huge technical challenge.

“They’re all-or-nothing projects,” he said. “You’ve got to collect all that power from each turbine, aggregate it, and then bring it in efficiently through an underwater cable.”

The best wind resources tend to be far from where power is consumed.

One of the biggest challenges is to bring wind-generated energy to communities in southern Ontario without breaking the bank on building high voltage transmission lines, which cost about $3 million a kilometre to construct.

Toronto Hydro Corp. has considered an offshore wind project in Lake Ontario near the Scarborough Bluffs. That wind farm would have a capacity of up to 200 megawatts.

“In the general context of developing wind power in the province, (lifting the moratorium) would be a great step forward,” said Joyce McLean, chair of the Canadian Wind Energy Association and Toronto Hydro’s manager of green energy services.

A more ambitious project by Trillium Power Energy Corp. would involve 140 turbines erected along a shallow stretch of Lake Ontario, about 15 kilometres offshore from Prince Edward County. The wind farm would have a capacity of 710 megawatts, the largest in Ontario.

Wind energy is a major part of the McGuinty government’s plan to double by 2025 the amount of electricity that comes from renewable resources.

The Ministry of Energy announced last August it had directed the Ontario Power Authority to procure another 2,000 megawatts of renewable power, a large portion of which is expected to be generated from wind.

Toronto Star

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

January 14, 2008

Editor:
I would like to thank Lynne, for sending me the Hansard below. Just what is Premier, Dalton McGuinty up to.

pinn_mcguintyhr370.jpgAccording to our Premier, Dalton McGuinty
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“I think the member opposite knows that when it comes to natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming. Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable, because sometimes obviously the wind does not blow. When it comes to solar, those tend to be expensive as well.”

So Mr. Premiere, instead of building a cost effective reliable electrical system for Ont., you have decided to do the exact opposite. Why?

You say, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”.

Building thousands of megawatts of gas plants, will result in a significant, unnecessary cost, with little or no benefit to the environment. Installing the scrubbers on the coal plants would have brought down the emissions very close to that of the, to be built gas plants, at a fraction of the cost. In fact, by not installing the scrubbers on the coal plants you have put the health of the people of Ont. at risk.

You go on to say
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“But we’re not just sitting on our hands as we weigh these important issues before us. Let me tell you about some of the exciting news that we have by way of creating new wind farms in Ontario. We’ve announced three new wind farms in the last month alone. At Erie Shores, there’s a new wind farm with 66 turbines producing 99 megawatts of power for 25,000 homes. The first phase of a new wind farm outside Goderich is now up. That’s 22 turbines producing enough power for 12,000 homes. And the first phase of a new wind farm is now up outside Shelburne, Ontario: 45 turbines producing 67.5 megawatts. That’s enough to power 18,000 homes”.

Your statement above sounds good, but it’s not exactly honest. According to the Independent Electricity System Operator — “For capacity planning purposes, wind generation has a dependable capacity contribution of 10% of the listed figures.”
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday 10 April 2006

According to you, the wind farms listed above, produce enough energy to power 55,000 homes, but the IESO says they have a real capacity to power only 5,500 homes.

How long would a auto company get away with advertising “our car gets 60 mpg”, when in reality it only gets 6 mpg. Not long. So why is the govt. allowed to misrepresent in such an overt manner?
You call wind energy, “expensive and not reliable”. Why are you building them?

A new report predicts that energy costs could rise as much as 70 per cent if natural gas generation replaces the four coal plants. But McGuinty said that’s the cost of cleaner air.

“The single greatest contributor to greenhouse gases in the province of Ontario is coal-fired generation so we’re going to do something about that,” he said.

You also said, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”

I had the opportunity to talk with one of your energy advisors about a year ago. He says that the gas plants are more dangerous to health than coal plants with scrubbers installed. Apparently the particulate from the gas plants is much finer and harder for the body to deal with. I was also told gas plants are great emitters of ground level ozone, which is very hard on people with asthma or other breathing problems.

Our manufacturers in Ont. are losing jobs because of the high dollar, while at the same time, Mr. McGuinty, you are doing everything in your power to drive up the cost of electricity. Any significant rise in the cost of power will drive industry out of Ont., and they won’t likely return.

Mr. McGuinty, you recently went to Ottawa looking for Federal Govt. aid to help the manufacturing sector in Ont., while at the same time you are building an electrical system that is sure to drive industry out of the Province or into bankruptcy.

Who are you working for anyway? The people of Ont. or the Maurice Strong agenda. So far, it looks like Strong has your attention. You are obviously not listening to your own energy advisors.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Further reading material

T h e E 8 r e c o mm e n d a t i o n s

green-agrenda-quotes

Mr. McGuinty, you already know the devastating affect your “Green” polices are having on people and their property values, and you seem convinced, by your own words, that your energy polices are badly flawed, “expensive and unreliable”.

Yet, you continue down this path of destruction for the Ont. economy. Why?

County commissioners say no to wind farms

December 28, 2007

Editor:
Finally, wind farms are being turned down for reasons brought forward by those fighting the industry. Noise, loss of property value and loss of enjoyment of  property.

The court also acknowledged the efforts of members from the organization Save Our Scenic Hill Country who were on hand for the decision.
It’s refreshing to see the efforts of those working so hard to educate the public about the downside of Industrial Wind Farms being recognized. Most of the people fighting wind farms are “Greener ” than those promoting  their use.
We need to keep the pressure on and get other Govt. bodies to accept the findings of this and other similar decisions. Never forget. You elected these people to serve the people, not big business. What can they say at this point? They can’t plead ignorance any longer. The only defense they might have is that they are truly stupid. Stupid people should step aside. They have no right to be making decisions for you or anyone else.

County commissioners say no to wind farms

Applause filled the Gillespie County Commissioners’ Courtroom Thursday after commissioners passed a resolution opposing wind farms in Gillespie County.

Signed by Gillespie County Judge Mark Stroeher and all four commissioners, the document states the court’s opposition to “the construction and installation of industrial wind farms in Gillespie County and the surrounding Hill Country area.”

Stroeher said that the Llano City Council had recently passed a similar resolution to the one approved during the meeting, which had been moved up from its originally scheduled date on Christmas Eve.

The court’s action comes soon after a similar resolution of principle was adopted by the Fredericksburg City Council at their Dec. 3 meeting and the recent announcement by NRG Energy that they were no longer considering a wind turbine site in Gillespie County.

Commissioner Donnie Schuch said the decision must “consider private property rights of everyone” and take into account what was “best for the total, not for the few.”

A highlight of the resolution, read in open court by Stroeher, was the commissioners’ concern of the “negative impact” economically that the county would see if turbines were constructed in the area.

The document notes the belief of appraisers and realtors “that land values in the area in which industrial wind farms are situated will be substantially decreased.”

The two-page resolution also cites an Electric Reliability Council of Texas report that the area is ranked 20th out of 25 potential wind areas in the state.

In their findings, however, the commissioners did acknowledge “that potential income to participating property owners who sign options for leases for wind turbines to be located on their property could be beneficial to those landowners.”

Other concerns raised in the resolution include wind turbine construction negatively altering views from Enchanted Rock State Natural Area as well as wildlife and environmental impacts that the construction of wind farms would bring to the region.

The court also acknowledged the efforts of members from the organization Save Our Scenic Hill Country who were on hand for the decision.

“We do appreciate what you all are doing out there,” Stroeher said, emphasizing the group’s efforts to educate members of the community about the issue.

Senators cut renewable electricity rule from energy bill

December 11, 2007

From the Editor
This looks like what might turn out to be good news. Now the wind industry won’t be able to claim the 15% renewable requirement. I sure hope this passes.

Update: it Passed

Wind Companies tax credits dropped by H. JOSEF HEBERT AP

Tax breaks for a wide range of clean energy industries, including wind, solar, biomass and carbon capture from coal plants, were part of the tax package that was dropped. Senate Democrats earlier also abandoned a House-passed provision that would have required investor-owned utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other renewable sources.

(Click to read entire article)Democratic leaders in the Senate plan to bring an energy bill back to the floor on Thursday, after dropping a provision that would have required utilities to generate a portion of their electricity using renewable energy sources.

“We’re not going to be able to keep in the bill the renewable electricity standard,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today. “That’s too bad.”

Senate leaders were still working on the tax provisions for the bill this afternoon, but Reid said the bill would cost about $21 billion, about the same as the House version.

Last week, the House passed an energy bill that included the renewable electricity language as well as a tax package that would hit the oil and gas companies up for more than $13 billion in higher taxes.

The renewable electricity provision would have required utilities to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity using renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, although 4 percentage points could be made up through greater energy efficiency.

However, utilities in the South had warned they would not be able to meet that standard and would be forced to pass along higher costs to their consumers. And the White House had threatened to veto the bill over that issue.

The bill’s crown jewel — a requirement the nation’s fleet of cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans achieve an average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 — has broad, bipartisan support on Capitol Hill and particular enthusiasm in the Senate.

Proponents argue that requirement would save the nation 1.1 million barrels of oil a day in 2020, comparable to about half the oil the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.

The bill would propel development of technologies to tap sources of “cellulosic” ethanol made from switchgrass, cornstalks and other non-food crops by requiring the nation use 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022.

The legislation would set new energy efficiency standards for appliances such as dish washers and washing machines and phase out the current generation of energy-inefficient, incandescent light bulb.

By David Ivanovich

Houston Chronicle

Calculating The Real Cost of Industrial Wind Power

December 6, 2007

Friends of Arran Lake Wind Action Group Bruce County, Ontario

AN INFORMATION UPDATE FOR ONTARIO ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS

Compiled by
Keith Stelling, MA (McMaster), MNIMH, Dip. Phyt., MCPP (England)
November, 2007

INTRODUCTION

1.0 The history of human technological innovation is littered with projects that have had to be abandoned because they were based on a narrow theoretical view that failed to take into account the whole picture. The commercial exploitation of wind energy is fast showing signs of such failure.

The last ten years in Europe has provided ample opportunity to evaluate the real costs and claimed benefits of industrial wind turbines based on actual operating statistics.

· Studies by public electricity distributors now challenge the very assumption upon which the ecological value of commercial wind power is based: that it reduces carbon emissions.

· Energy experts report that industrial wind power is proving to be exceptionally expensive to consumers once required backup and additional infrastructure are factored in. The high cost is caused by
(a) the need to maintain backup generating reserve to cover times when the wind does not blow.
(b) The need to stabilize the grid when wind produces power that is not needed by current demand.
(c) Government subsidization and tax benefits for the wind industry.

· New studies show that the perceived benign environmental footprint of the industrial wind turbine does not correspond with the latest field studies of effects are being provoked by wind turbine installations.

In the United States, Senator Lamar Alexander put it bluntly when introducing his Envirnonmentally Responsible Wind Power Act of 2005:

“My studies suggest that at a time when America needs large amounts of low-cost reliable power, wind produces puny amounts of high-cost unreliable power. We need lower prices; wind power raises prices.”

In Ontario, – Tom Adams, formerly of Energy Probe, wrote in the National Post on 20 November, 2007:

“Without radical technological advances, wind power will only burden Ontario consumers.”

Read the full pdf report