Archive for the ‘wind capacity credit’ Category

Wind Power Problems in Japan

July 20, 2008
July 9, 2008 •
Japan


Nature stifling wind power in Japan; Poor weather, geography point industry toward ocean

About a 2 1/2-hour drive east of central Tokyo, on the edge of
the Kanto plain, stands one of the closest wind farms to the capital,
whirring away as it generates up to 25,500 kw of clean electricity.
Here in the fishing port of Choshi, Chiba Prefecture, warm and cold
currents meet offshore in the Pacific Ocean, creating strong winds that
feed about 30 of the 1,400 windmills erected nationwide.
Wind power is drawing increased attention as . . .

Complete story (plus email and print links) »


June 24, 2008 •
Japan


Japan wind farm building slows on tighter rules

Japan’s wind power industry installed only 185 megawatts (MW) of
capacity in the year ended in March, 2008, less than half of what it
installed in 2006/07, as tighter regulations delayed the contruction of
wind farms.
The stricter guidelines, which stipulate that wind turbines must clear
the same safety regulations that apply to tall buildings, were
introduced last summer following a scandal in 2005 over falsified
engineering data for apartment blocks. Critics say the new rules . . .

Complete story (plus email and print links) »



April 24, 2008 •
Japan


Japan’s wind-power problem

In the country that hosted the Kyoto Protocol and wrote the book
on solar policy, the wind-power industry has ground almost to a halt.
Among the culprits: policy, cost and technology challenges.

Complete story (plus email and print links) »


April 11, 2008 •
Japan


Windmills lose blades in high winds

The strong winds that buffeted the Tokai and Kanto regions
Tuesday apparently snapped the massive blades of two wind turbines in
Higashi-Izucho, Shizuoka Prefecture, officials of the company that
operates the turbines said.
The site hosts 10 windmills belonging to CEF Izuatagawa Wind Farm Co.,
a subsidiary of Nemuro, Hokkaido-based wind power generation company
Clean Energy Factory Co. Each windmill is 103.5 meters tall, and can
generate 1,500 kilowatts. Turbines No. 4 and No. 5 each . . .

Complete story (plus email and print links) »


April 2, 2008 •
Japan


Tighter quake-resistance standards hamper wind-power plans

Wind-power companies are complaining that tougher
quake-resistance requirements for buildings have made it difficult or
even impossible to construct facilities for the clean energy.
They also say that if wind turbines remain covered under the revised
Building Standards Law, it would hurt the government’s target for
wind-power generation capacity.
The law now requires windmills that are more than 60 meters tall to
clear the same quake-resistance screening as those for high-rise
buildings.
Of the 59 planned wind-power . . .

Complete story (plus email and print links) »

Advertisements

Wind Farms – Lake Huron Ontario – Video

May 31, 2008

Editor:

Tried to post a comment on this video by the Windsor Star but it wouldn’t accept comments so I had to bring it here.

These comments will make sense, or not, after you view the video.

The reporter in the video says the wind will power 440,00 homes. According to the ISO – for planning purposes they are rated at 10% of capacity or 44,00 homes. Big difference.

Ernie Marshall, in the blue coveralls, and his wife have moved. Ernie was suffering from health problems he didn’t have before the arrival of the turbines. Ernie says his health is slowly returning and his doctor is happy with his progress since he moved. Both Ernie and his wife say that after two years of living near the turbines,they are finally enjoying uninterrupted sleep. The neighbors Ernie said goodbye to are still suffering from noise, stray voltage and flicker, not to mention the flashing lights on top of the turbines every night.

The gentleman in the brown coveralls has moved as well. After the problems at the Epcor site he didn’t want to be around when the Enbridge site was completed. He is well aware of the problems created by wind turbines and feared he might not find a buyer after the turbines arrived.

Neither of these people wanted to move, but felt they had no choice.

Every wind farm in southern Ont. has impacted families in a negative way.

Bob Simpson, the gentleman from Enbridge says they will respond quickly to solve any problems. Unless Mr. Simpson plans on moving the turbines farther away from peoples homes there is nothing he or his company can do. For the next twenty years people will suffer the consequences of bad planning and greed.

Mr. Simpson mentions reducing emissions. Nowhere on the planet can I find any evidence of emission reductions from the use of wind turbines.

Germany has more wind turbines than anywhere else. They are in the process of building 20 plus coal plants. I would say their emissions are about to take a big jump. Wind doesn’t seem to have done Germany much good.

The number of fossil fuel plants closed as a direct use of wind energy – o – Zero – none – zip

Wind energy has doubled in Ont. Does that mean we are twice as stupid as we should be.

When the govt. the industry and the media are all saying how great wind energy is,it’s hard to accept the reality that is the wind industry – and that’s exactly what they are counting on.

A quote from a person living at the Suncor wind farm Ripley. When asked how it was living near the turbines. “I’ll tell you how it is, our life is shit since the wind farm came.”

Ripley has a 700 meter setback, The Enbridge and Epcor wind farms have a 450 meter setback.

A video of the Ripley wind farm can be found under videos at top of page.

Do some research on your own. Theres nothing on TV anyway.

.

Video by the Windsor Star

.

German experience with wind power

March 10, 2008

 

The Annual (2005) Wind Report for E.ON Netz
An account of the German experience with wind power.

Vital information for those interested to know where our money is being wasted,
or diverted into somebody else’s pocket….

The full document ENE_Wind Report 2005 is quite long, but summarised in Summary.pdf

to download, right-click on title, then “save as”… to view immediately in browser, just click on title

E.ON Netz, (the company which owns Powergen) is one of Germany’s largest electric grid operators. It serves a population of 20 million people living in 40 percent of Germany’s land area. It runs 32,500 kilometers of high voltage power lines, and is responsible for integrating 7,000 megawatts of wind power, nearly half of that installed in all Germany, which has more wind power installed than any other country, including the United States and Denmark.

One of E.ON Netz’s most notable conclusions is that wind energy cannot replace conventional power stations to any significant degree.
In the words of the report, “In order to guarantee reliable electricity supplies when wind farms produce little or no power, eg. during periods of calm or storm-related shutdowns, traditional power station capacities must be available as a reserve. This means that wind farms can only replace traditional power station capacities to a limited degree.” (page 9).
Furthermore, the report says that as more wind power is built, its capacity to replace conventional power sources, never more than 8 percent, actually declines. (page 9). In other words, E.ON’s experience shows conclusively that those who expect wind power to prevent a nuclear build up, or to reduce the need for gas and coal stations, have been seriously misled.
This is astounding! That company – perhaps the major player in the windfarm business – is openly declaring that wind power can not deliver the goods when it comes to reducing emissions or producing reliable electricity for our national needs!

Amongst the many questions that inevitably arise:

  • This huge windfarm company recognises that windfarms are essentially useless
    so where does that leave us?
  • Why is this country not learning something from the German experience?
  • Why do windfarm companies continue to force their useless product on to us?

The answer to the last question is obvious enough: quite simply “they do it for the subsidies and for the money”. And they get lots of that! But of course we’ve got lots of money to spare – haven’t we?
Perhaps the self-styled “green” fundamentalists would care to answer the other questions… if they can, or dare…

26 new coal plants in Germany

According to Der Spiegel, Mar. 21, 2007, Germany is planning 26 new coal-fired electricity plants. And according to the New York Times, June 20, 2006, 8 are on a fast track for completion by 2010 or so.

No breeze: the day the wind died in Texas

February 29, 2008

 Editor:
4,600 megawatts of wind power in Texas was producing only 1700 mw before the wind dropped and the 1700 mw became 300. In Ontario we have the same problem. It was cold today -10c and at 1pm the 472 megawatts of installed wind power was producing only 8 megawatts. If we had built a 472 mw nuclear plant we would have had 472 megawatts available. Regardless of how many wind turbines are installed there is no way to count on them to produce power when required. Wind turbines push up the cost of electricity without any real benefits. So, the question is, why are we building them?

Carbon credits and Tax Shelters

No breeze: the day the wind died in Texas

Texas, a model of wind power’s potential, now is a model of wind power’s pitfalls too.

Minders of the Lone Star State’s electricity grid had to cut power to some offices and factories Wednesday evening when the wind dropped—and with it, electricity produced from the state’s many wind farms. The green juice slowed from 1,700 megawatts to the trickle of 300 megawatts.

”A cold front moved through, and the wind died out,” said Dottie Roark, spokeswoman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which runs most of the state’s power grid. “That happens.”

Oh, well. Now that wind is big enough to be a real part of Texas’ electricity mix, the state is coming to grips with one of wind power’s biggest problems: the power flows only when the wind blows.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but this glitch for wind power occurred the night before the House voted on a renewable-energy bill — a vote in which the Texas delegation mostly voted against more renewable-energy subsidies.

Nuclear, coal- and gas-fired plants run almost all the time. As efficient as wind turbines have become in recent years, they still need the wind to work. And reliably predicting just when the wind will blow is still tough, despite plenty of fancy technological advances.

Wind usually falls off with rising temperatures. But a sudden gust of cool weather can do the same. The people running the electricity grid need to stay on their toes to throw other forms of power on line when wind falters.

“Renewables are a very intermittent source of electric supply,” says Larry Makovich, managing director at Cambridge Enegy Research Associates, a Boston-based energy consultancy that recently published a bullish report on the prospects for renewable energy. “What you saw in Texas is a very dramatic example as to why that is the case.”

This problem is only going to get bigger for Texas. The state has 4,600 megawatts of wind power. If wind blew all the time, that would be the equivalent of more than three nuclear plants. The state now is considering additional wind farms that could boost that figure ten-fold, say Texas’ grid operators. That is, when there’s a breeze.

Matthew Dalton
Dow Jones Newswires

Posted by Jeffrey Ball

Environmental Capital – WSJ.com

Wel’s windfarm critic has plenty of hits at hearing

February 28, 2008

 Editor:
Meet Sean Cox, a man with attitude. The right attitude. Forget about being polite. Get your message through to the dim witted politicians that are supposed to be looking out for the best interests of their constituents. Take no crap, they work for you. Make sure they understand this fact loud and clear. Call them at home, show up at their doors. Make their lives as miserable as they are attempting to makes yours.

WAKE THEM UP AND MAKE THEM LISTEN

Wel’s windfarm critic has plenty of hits at hearing

The more Wel Networks’ proposed Te Uku wind farm is investigated, the worse it looks, says one of the project’s most vociferous critics.

Aotea Harbour aerodynamicist Sean Cox the man most responsible for the project’s hearing still running returned to Ngaruawahia yesterday to take another crack at Wel’s application to build and operate a 28-turbine wind farm.

With a mix of pointy-headed science and gratuitous insults, he delivered a 212 hour dissertation on the problems with wind farms, Wel Networks, the Resource Management Act process, and new trends in the energy sector.

Earlier Wel Networks had painted him as an unreliable witness who lacked credibility, but Mr Cox scored plenty of hits in concluding the wind farm was “an economic and power supply disaster”.

“If it had been built a year ago it would not have earned enough in the last year at wholesale power rates to get close to covering its interest payments,” he said.

He believed Wel’s economic modelling took no account of damage from adverse weather, legal action from future realised health effects, obsolescence due to improved alternate technology, or reduced income through technological change or altered government policies.

“Wind power is now obsolete for the North Island,” he said, in tabling economic models for alternate power projects.

And there was an ominous warning for Wel if they did proceed. “Should these turbines be built, they will be the best monitored ones in the world. Every watt of power, every squeak of sound, every whiff of subsonics and every bird they kill will be recorded. Then we will see who was right.”

Mr Cox, a wind farm pioneer and designer of fighter aircraft for British Aerospace, refused to give his full qualifications to the hearing.

“Just call me Mr Cox. Far too much weight is given to qualifications and it disadvantages ordinary people. Take the evidence as I have presented it.

By Bruce Holloway

Waikato Times

Pushing against the wind

February 3, 2008

Editor:
Same crap different country.
The IESO in Ontario states that for planning purposes wind should only be counted on for 10% of it’s capacity rating. So, 1,000MW of wind is equivalent to 100MW of conventional power. The Govt., Media, and the Wind Industry continue to refer to the number of homes powered by wind, based on full capacity not the reality of 10%. At 7am today the 472MWs of wind power in Ont. were pumping out 18MWs, which is 3.82% of their plated capacity. 300 hones powered per MW for 18MW is 5400 homes. The govt. wind industry and the media would like you to believe that 141,600 are being powered by wind.

They should all be charged for false advertising. If they are not being truthful about the real capacity of wind, what else are they not telling us about our electrical system.

How does Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ont., feel about wind energy?

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.”

Pushing against the wind

The wind rush is on. Plans to erect sweeping wind farms are being unfurled at a rate of knots. But is this really clean green energy, or just another case of greedy corporates trashing our landscapes for profit? Anton Oliver argues it’s about time New Zealanders woke up to the dark side of wind power.

Forests of turbines spinning on distant hills: in these carbon-aware times, the glory of wind farms is being touted as the one-stop solution to all our energy ills. So aggressive has been the rush to build them that a week doesn’t seem to go by without a new application for an industrial-scale turbine site going before a local council for consideration under the Resource Management Act (RMA), with a mad green fervour.

You’d be forgiven, then, if it escaped your notice that wind power was part of the problem, not the solution, when the Electricity Commission last week announced that we’re teetering on the brink of yet another major electricity shortage.

The emergency button that is Whirinaki’s diesel-burning power plant (the official national standby) had been pushed, initiated by high wholesale electricity prices thanks to equipment failure at Taranaki’s combined-cycle plant, high water temperatures in the Waikato River forcing Huntly’s coal-burning plant to trim back production and becalmed summer skies over Manawatu meaning its plethora of wind turbines were as useful as wet paper toothpicks.

It may also have escaped your attention that as we rush to cover the country in wind farms (more precisely, as the energy oligarchs rush to gather the armfuls of carbon credits being dangled before them by government as a green bribe), in Europe far greater scrutiny is being applied to the imposition of these vast energy factories upon the environment.

Last week it was leaked that plans for the largest land-based wind farm in Britain, a 181-turbine development in the Scottish Hebrides, are to be vetoed by Scottish ministers due to likely negative impacts on wild birdlife. Likewise, a 27-turbine project in the rolling uplands of Cumbria, England an area with similar tourism and landscape values to Central Otago was deemed “a step too far” in the quest for green energy.

You won’t have read about it here because it’s not in the interests of this country’s major power players to tell you. The Labour-led government has its blinkers on trying to make up for its gross miscalculation of our Kyoto obligations come 2012 (which, rather than deliver us a profit as Labour initially declared, will, according to Business New Zealand projections, cost us as much as $3 billion), frantically searching for alternative revenue streams hence its renewed interest in carbon credits and emissions trading to pay for its incompetence.

Based on the evidence so far, its stated energy and climate change policy to be 90% renewable in our energy generation by the year 2025 should not be seen as green or carbon friendly, but a state-directed, revenue-motivated assault on New Zealand’s natural environment.

The least the government should have done is to come up with a sensible, national, overarching strategy for wind energy generation in New Zealand: instead energy generators including the government’s own SOE, Meridian Energy have seized upon the lack of guidelines in a frantic wind rush for the most cost-effective sites.

Hang on, isn’t the RMA supposed to safeguard us from the excesses of corporate developers?

While the RMA is touted as being a democratic process, the reality is that the success of an appellant’s case comes down to how much money they can raise; since most don’t have a spare $100,000-$500,000 in their coffers to pay a QC and their support staff.

An opponent as financially rotund as Meridian, meanwhile, has a team of lawyers and expensive experts and can afford a cartel of QCs to browbeat local councillors and other beleaguered individuals seriously out of their depth who tend to make up resource consent hearing panels.

Last week, the Crown, via the Ministry for the Environment, made a whole-of-government submission supporting Project Hayes (Meridian’s controversial 176 turbines, proposed for Central Otago, which is headed for the Environment Court).

It cited wind generation as being of national interest since it “ensures” security of energy supply by providing additional generation capacity and diversification of electricity production methods and, secondly, supposedly helps New Zealand address climate change issues.

Yet no one is asking the hard questions of a government desperate to sell itself to an increasingly green-aware public in election year.

As the fine print of the Energy Commission release indicated, wind energy is not reliable. No one knows when it will blow. At best, crude statistics are used to predict how much it will blow on average over very long time frames (months, years). Wind generation cannot be calculated with any security: will it blow tomorrow morning, Friday evening or next Wednesday at 6pm when Huntly’s going to be offline or the hydro lakes are low?

New Zealanders are sold on the concept that all wind is green, therefore large-scale wind is the panacea for all our woes. But wind farms like Project Hayes are attractive to the generator oligarchy only because of economics of scale and carbon credits: together they make industrial-sized wind not only financially viable, but exceedingly profitable.

Basing security of supply, meanwhile, on something that is as inherently unpredictable is somewhere south of foolish. Overseas experience has already shown that for every 1000 megawatts of wind generation installed less than 10% can be calculated as firm generating capacity, therefore increasing rather than decreasing traditional energy supply (often carbon-emitting) because of the fundamental problem: when the wind stops blowing, where does the power come from?

Meridian and other generators continue to regurgitate their standard spiel that this or that wind farm is “capable of producing enough electricity to power 100,000 homes”. Try supplying Wellington’s Courtenay Pl, Lambton Quay, the Beehive and ancillary government buildings with wind power only for a year and in December ask them how they got on.

Wind surges also cause massive voltage and frequency increases, threatening the integrity and stability of the grid (which, under Cook Strait, even last week had to be held at a paltry 400MW to stop the system from overloading). Of course, sudden decreases in wind have to be replaced by alternative, ready-to-go energy standbys such as Whirinaki. Not the kind of admission we tend to hear from energycoms as they try to push their wind schemes on to an unsuspecting public.

Leaving aside the belief that it will have unacceptable environmental and tourism impacts on an iconic slice of Otago, Meridian’s Project Hayes wind farm has yet to disclose any alternative methods for generating electricity when it isn’t blowing, nor how the grid will handle the load placed on it, nor even some basic science collected from the site to back up their claims that this is a good thing for the country as a whole.

Peak Oil New Zealand

Ex-AECL boss' firm could make Millions

December 28, 2007

Editor:
The original headline
“Ex-AECL boss’ firm landed $10M grant” was  from the Ottawa Citizen, the story was removed from their website.
Turns out that the Ottawa Citizen may have jumped the gun with the numbers.
According to Ray Castelli, president and CEO of NaiKun Wind Development Inc,

NaiKun Wind Energy Group is one of more than 100 companies that has registered under the federal government’s ecoEnergy for Renewable Power Program in order to be eligible for an incentive of one cent per kilowatt-hour for up to 10 years for eligible low-impact, renewable electricity projects constructed between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2011.

According to Ray Castelli, president and CEO of NaiKun Wind Development Inc, the company has not yet received funding under the ecoEnergy program, nor has it received any other government grant of a similar nature. Incorrect information appeared in a story and headline on page A3 of the Ottawa Citizen yesterday, Dec 22 2007

Ray Castelli says “the company has not yet received funding under the ecoEnergy program”, suggesting that they will receive funding. He goes on to say “nor has it received any other government grant of a similar nature”. He doesn’t say they won’t receive any grant money, so that door is left open for funding as well. How much funding could they receive? Could it be $10 million, I don’t know but this story needs to be followed. The word “grant” seems to be the problem, so it has been removed from the story.

Tory insider’s involvement in project ‘doesn’t pass the smell test’:

Ottawa Citizen Saturday, December 22, 2007

Michael Burns, the B.C. businessman and backroom Conservative who recently resigned as chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., is also chairman of a Vancouver wind power firm the federal government approved for up to $10 million in alternate energy funding while Mr. Burns was AECL chairman. The offshore wind power company, NaiKun Wind Energy Group, has two former assistants to Prime Minister Stephen Harper as senior officers and also has other well-connected Conservatives on its board of directors. NaiKun received approval for wind energy incentives — which could eventually be worth at least $1 million a year for electricity from its proposed offshore windmills at the north end of the Queen Charlotte Islands — after the Harper government announced the incentives in January 2007. The federal cabinet approved Mr. Burns’ appointment as chairman of AECL in October, 2006. The same month the government unveiled its Clean Air Act, which included first mention of new Conservative environmental initiatives to replace the previous Liberal government’s proposals. Mr. Burns, who resigned as AECL chairman only a few days before the Crown corporation had to shut down a medical isotope-producing nuclear reactor during a confrontation with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, plays down the significance of Conservative connections inside his company and on its governing board. NaiKun won approval for the government’s ecoEnergy wind power incentives from the natural resources department while Mr. Burns was answering to Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn as chairman of AECL. Mr. Lunn is also responsible for the Nuclear Safety Commission. Opposition politicians say the presence of several Conservatives in the company, including the two former assistants to Mr. Harper, raises questions about a level playing field in the alternate energy industry and also puts Mr. Harper’s allegations of political partisanship within the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in a different light. NaiKun’s president, Ray Castelli, is a former chief of staff to one-time Conservative prime minister Kim Campbell, who was once MP for Vancouver Centre. Tony Fogarassy, NaiKun’s director of corporate projects and general legal counsel, was a Conservative candidate in Vancouver Centre in the 2006 election, losing to Liberal Hedy Fry.
Read more at
TheNonConformer:

Michael Burns, the man who was running AECL is not a nuclear scientist, nor does he have more than a passing familiarity with the nuclear industry. He is a wind power expert and wonder of wonders, a former fundraiser for the Canadian Alliance. He was appointed by Harper himself, over the advice of a professional headhunter who had recommended a former chair of the AECL for the chief executive’s job. In spite of those connections, Burns claims that he resigned some time before the isotope crisis over operational issues, implying the government wouldn’t let him fix the problems.

That ought to be embarrassment enough, but no. Eight days before he launched his attack on Keen, Harper made one of his own appointments to the nuclear regulator. He didn’t choose a radiation expert or geologist as you might expect, but a medical doctor named Ronald Barriault, who just happens to be a failed provincial Conservative candidate in New Brunswick.

Randy Burton, The StarPhoenix

Dalton McGuinty and his Wind Farm Dream

May 13, 2007

Dalton McGuinty is a DISASTER

By not putting the scrubbers on the coal plants he has put the people of Ont. at risk. He said he would shut down the coal plants in 2007. I have yet to find a report saying that was possible. Options for coal plants

He said he got bad advice.

Now he wants to cover Ontario with wind farms.

More bad advice Dalton?

Leamington has joined the Town of Essex in approving a one-year ban on new wind and solar power projects until a county planning study is done to help put some controls in place.

Dalton forgot to put controls in place.

Probably got bad advice Again

When are you going to tell the people about the thousands of megawatts of gas plants in the works to back up your wind dream.

When are you going to tell the people about the massive increases they can expect in their electric bills.

You are either a FOOL or a LIAR. Either way you are not fit to be premier of this province.

I have sent my blog to every Liberal MPP in Ontario asking that they look it over and to get back to me if they find anything they question or disagree with. To date I have had no replies. Therefore it can be concluded that the information on my blog is factual and is accepted as factual by the Liberal Party of Ont.

Tell your Liberal MPP what you think.

If you have any questions please contact me.

Please read the excerpts from

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

Monday 10 April 2006

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North)

Before I wrap up here, I wanted to just spend a few moments on the blackout in 2003 and where we’re going, as a province, as a result of that. I’ll tell you, we have some very interesting data that’s coming towards us on our hydro supply and where we’re going with hydro in the province of Ontario.

It seems so amazing that we had the blackout just prior to the election. One of the election promises was that the new government, the Liberal Party, would close all coal-fired generation by the year 2007, which is now nine months away — the beginning of 2007.

I recall Dalton McGuinty on Steve Paikin’s show one night. Mr. Paikin was interviewing Mr. McGuinty, and he said, “Mr. McGuinty, would you close the coal-fired generation early in 2007 or later in the year?” He looked like a deer in the headlights when he answered the question. He said, “I’d close the coal-fired generation late in 2007.” That means sometime in November or December, 2007. That’s 6,416 megawatts that we’ll have to close down. As of today in the province of Ontario, the only coal-fired generation that has been closed down is Lakeview, and that’s the one that we had planned on closing down four years ago; Elizabeth Witmer made the announcement and was at the ceremony that actually closed it. The Progressive Conservative Party’s plan for coal-fired generation was that we would close the facilities down by 2015. That is still, today, the most realistic figure we can come up with, because we have to find a way to find 6,416 megawatts in the province of Ontario.

I was really interested today: It’s amazing that the minister’s comments on wind power came up the same day we’re debating Bill 56, we’re talking about blackouts and all that sort of thing. One of the things that really was amazing is that the government is counting on the total capacity of the wind power generation as fact. This all ties in to our need for power, so we don’t have another blackout, another natural disaster. To date: Melancthon Grey wind project, which is 67.5; the Kingsbridge wind project, 39.6 megawatts; Erie Shore’s wind farm, 99 megawatts; the Prince wind farm, 99 megawatts; and the Blue Highlands wind farm, 49.5. That’s a total of 354.6 megawatts. The minister keeps saying that’s how many megawatts she has coming on-stream.

1730

The reality is that in this book put out by the Independent Electricity System Operator — which I think is a government body, part of the old Ontario Hydro — it says, under an asterisk at the bottom, “For capacity planning purposes, wind generation has a dependable capacity contribution of 10% of the listed figures.” So of the 354.6 megawatts that Minister Cansfield talked about today, according to our own Independent Electricity System Operator, we really only have 35 megawatts, if you consider 10%.

The reason is that we can never shut down the other systems. We can’t shut down a nuclear reactor and use all 354 megawatts. We can’t shut down a power dam. We can’t shut down a natural-gas-fired system, because it takes too long to fire them up. Even if we bring all these wind turbines on stream, we still have to leave all the other ones in place. So not only do we have to replace 6,460 megawatts of coal-fired — we should even maintain that, or replace it with something other than wind, because the wind turbines certainly don’t have the ability to work all the time. If you have a hot summer day — 30 or 35 degrees Celsius outside — and there’s no wind, there’s no wind power. There’s no turbine going to operate that will feed our air conditioning systems across the province of Ontario.

The same thing applies to the ones that she has planned. The Wolfe Island wind project, the Leader wind project A, the Leader wind project B, Prince II wind power, Kingsbridge II, Ripley wind power project, the Kruger energy port and the Melancthon II wind project total 955 megawatts. The reality is that, under the Independent Electricity System Operator, they will only have a total capacity, probably, of around 130.9 megawatts, if you take into account the fact that this booklet says they’re only at 10% of capacity.

My concern is that we’re creating this illusion out there that we’re doing all these wonderful things in power. I’m very, very concerned that if they do close those coal-fired generators down in 2007, like they promised they would to the citizens of the province of Ontario, we won’t have nearly enough power to operate in the province and we will be in a serious blackout right here in Ontario.

Up our way, we’ve got a couple of projects, one by a company named Ventus Energy. They’re one of the companies that want to put wind power into Simcoe county; apparently there are a couple of proposals there. I understand now that a guy by the name of David Peterson is one of the members of the board of directors. I hope that’s not the David Peterson that was the Premier here. In my opinion, his ties to the Liberal Party would make this very, very uncomfortable if we go towards awarding contracts to this company. I believe that the contracts will be awarded for a 20-year period at 8.5 cents or nine cents a kilowatt-hour. My understanding, talking to people who have a lot more knowledge about wind turbines than I do myself, is that they stand to make a fortune out of this over the next 20 years, because the first 10 years will pay off the cost of the turbines.

If there’s anything we can do around electricity, because it has such an impact on emergency planning in the province of Ontario, if there’s anything we can do whatsoever, it’s to make sure we tell the people in the province, our citizens, that wind power may be wonderful — everybody wants to have their energy come from green, if it possibly can — but let’s not put them under an illusion that there’s something seriously wrong here, and we’re spending millions and millions of dollars for only 10% of the capacity they actually perform at. That scares me, particularly if someone is foolish enough to actually close down that coal-fired generation in 2007, as Dalton McGuinty promised in his Liberal platform. That is a scary thought.

I understand that they’re going to put one on hold — I think it’s Atikokan, or maybe Nanticoke — but the reality is, if we close the other three, we’re still in a serious problem. If we thought we had a blackout and emergency planning was required in the summer of 2003, God only knows what we’ll need if we shut that coal-fired generation down without a proper, adequate supply of electricity for the future.

1740

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It’s my pleasure to add some comments on the debate this afternoon on Bill 56, An Act to amend the Emergency Management Act, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

We just had our leadoff speech from the hard-working member from Simcoe North, who spoke for an hour on this bill. Toward the end of his speech, one of the points he brought up was the emergency that is being created in this province by this government, by its irresponsible plan to shut down coal-fired generation in the province before it has an adequate supply of electricity to replace that coal-fired generation. I can tell you that there’s an emergency being created in northern Ontario. Every week there’s another paper mill, another forestry company announcing layoffs or slowdowns.

When they talk about some of the recent announcements to do with electricity and solar power at a cost of 42 cents a kilowatt hour or wind power at a cost of 12 cents a kilowatt hour, I can tell you that will not sustain the economy of the province.

Originally, their plan was to shut down coal-fired generation in 2007; that was the first announcement. That has now been backed up to 2009, and I hear rumours of maybe 2011. Of course, that’s well beyond the next election, so this will be another broken promise, thank goodness, that this government will not be able to keep.

Kincardine-Coldest day of the year

January 25, 2007

7pm temp in Kincardine Ontario is -15, windchill is -22 and we have 413 mw of wind capacity.

The wind farms, which are causing many problems for families living near them, are producing at 7pm, a grand total of 43 mw or 10.5% of their rated capacity.

Let us bow our heads and pray we never have to depend on the wind to keep us warm.

Reliability of wind power

January 22, 2007

Today is one of the coldest days of the year.

Ontario has 413mw of installed wind energy.

At 1pm today the four working wind farms in Ontario are producing a grand total of 14mw.

That is a whooping 3.39% of their rated capacity.

Now, if we needed that 413mw we would be screwed.

413mw of base power gives you 413mw that can be called upon when needed. That is real power

Wind gives you 0 to a possible 413mw but not when you want or need it.

That is a major flaw.

You still have to build and pay for the base power.

Can wind even be considered power?

If it can’t be relied upon when needed what good is it?

I think it’s just bad politics.

What do you think?