Was a record set for wind power curtailment in Ontario?
Was a record set for wind power curtailment in Ontario?
Cheaper than wind
We recently drove from London to St. Louis, Mo. On our drive to Windsor we saw many wind turbines. After crossing the border and driving through Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Missouri, we saw no wind turbines.
I guess they do not need any, since we sell our electricity to them cheaper than it costs us to produce it.
Written by: C Mitchell
The blowout of wind and solar in the Ontario Electricity System is revealed by production levels that are well below the rated installed capacity.
Ontario can produce power from nuclear, natural gas, hydro, wind, solar and biofuel energy generators. The results are recorded in many ways but the three used here are (A) the total installed capacity of each generator type (what was installed), (B) the forecast capability at outlook peak (what can be produced) and finally the (C) generator output by fuel type for 2017 (production).
According to the IESO report – 18 Month Outlook: An Assessment of the Reliability and Operability of the Ontario Electricity System from October 2017 to March 2019 – (http://www.ieso.ca/en/sector-participants/planning-and-forecasting/18-month-outlook ) Page 17 – Table 4.1 provides (A) total installed capacity and the (B) forecast capability @ outlook peak
Existing Generation Capacity (MW/hr) / Capability @ Peak / Output
|Fuel Type||A Total Installed
|B Forecast Capability @Peak
Jan – Aug 31
|Nuclear||13,009 MW||11,537 MW||7,548.17 MW||65% of capability|
|Hydro||8,480||5,786||3,207.07||55.4% of capability|
|Natural Gas||10,277||8,371||416.66||4.9% of capability|
of installed capacity *
of installed capacity *
of installed capacity *
|Total||36,853 MW/hr||26,704 MW/hr|| 12,022.7
It is neither possible nor desirable to run the electricity system flat out and some redundancy needs to be built into the system for maintenance and emergencies. The total installed capacity of all fuel types reported is 36,853 MW, but at peak demand the system is capable of producing 26,704 MW of power each hour. The total production that IESO counts on at peak demand is 26,704 / 36,853 = 72% of the energy system potential.
The second column provides the Forecast Capability at Outlook Peak and takes into account deratings, planned outages and “allowances for capability levels below rated installed capacity”. When you compare the installed nameplate capacity for wind and solar with the actual production there is an 80 to 90 % drop in production over nameplate capacity!
The total output for all fuel types (column C) for Jan – Aug 31, 2017 is available on the IESO website – ‘Generator Output by Fuel Type Monthly Report 2017’. The total output from Jan – Aug was 12,023 MW of power produced each hour. According to the IESO the forecast capability of the existing generator stations at outlook peak is 26,704 MW of power each hour. The production from the electricity system was 12,023/26,704 = 45% of the capability. So why did we agree to purchase power from Quebec?
The renewables – wind and solar are intermittent power sources and require back-up power. Natural gas was the choice made for Ontario. Natural gas is a responsive base load fuel that can be ramped up or down quickly. Nineteen natural gas plants have been commissioned in Ontario since 2003. According to the IESO they are capable of producing 8,371 MW of power each hour, yet the natural gas plants only produced 416.7 MW of power each hour from Jan – Aug. We have gas plants operating at 4.9 % of their potential!! This means that they are being under utilized and sit idle the majority of the time. The private for profit corporate owners are not running a charity so the Ontario ratepayers are paying millions of dollars each month to gas plants paid not to produce power.
Wind and solar on the other hand blew out. They were only able to produce 13.2 to 18% of their nameplate capacity. The production from wind for Jan – Aug 31 was 764 MW per hour from a name plate capacity of 4,213 MW. A dismal performance with 18% production from the installed nameplate capacity. According to the IESO the forecast capability for wind at peak demand is 533 MW or 12.7% of the installed capacity. The difference is explained as an “allowance for capability levels below rated installed capacity.” No kidding – considerable distortion exists in the presentation of material when a product has an 80% drop in production over the stated manufacturer nameplate capacity. This is like telling me that my new car is capable of 1000 km on a tank of gasoline and instead it goes 200 km!
According to the IESO the monthly wind capacity contribution values range from 12.6% to 37.8% of the installed capacity (18 – Month Outlook p.19). So the nameplate capacity of an industrial wind turbine is somewhat arbitrary.
To understand the limits of wind power, Glen Schleede explains it best. “Wind turbines have little or no ‘capacity value’ because they are unlikely to be producing electricity at the time of peak electricity demand. Therefore, wind turbines cannot substitute for conventional generating capacity responsible for providing reliable electricity to customers.
Second, a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity from wind has less value than a kWh of electricity from a reliable (dispatchable) generating unit providing base load power – nuclear, natural gas or hydro which can produce electricity whenever the electricity is needed.
These issues are important because “wind farm” developers and lobbyists have misled the public, media and government officials by making false claims and by using terms intended to confuse their listeners
The true capacity value of a wind turbine or ‘wind farm’ is generally less than 10% of nameplate capacity and often 0% or slightly above — simply because, at the time of peak electricity demand, the wind isn’t blowing at a speed that will permit the turbine to produce any or much electricity. Claims of wind turbine capacity value have been exaggerated by wind industry officials and lobbyists, by regulatory agencies”, and as we are finding out in Ontario industrial wind turbines generate a minimal amount of electricity.
The IESO hourly wind generator output 2006 – the present provides data on every industrial wind facility in Ontario. If we use the West Lincoln NRWF industrial wind facility as an example we find that the facility is rated at 230 MW nameplated capacities. On average the facility produced less than 27 MW per hour during July, Aug and Sept of 2017, when electricity is generally at its greatest demand. The production was 11.7% of the name plated capacity! It never once reached its nameplate capacity of 230 MW and it only went above 200 MW for 20 hours in the last three months.
Hydro – a baseload renewable energy source – produced 3242 MW of power per hour from Jan – July from a potential of 5,786 MW. So we are only using 56% of the potential production from our cleanest, greenest, cheapest energy source. The sad reality for the ratepayers of Ontario is that the hydro plants could easily have been ramped up an additional 850 MW per hour to cover the contribution of wind and solar. Instead we ran the water over the dam.
Using nameplate capacity creates a false sense of the ability of renewables – wind and solar – to provide power. Wind and solar are both intermittent so we can not ramp them up or even depend on them for power because they only produce power when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.
Consumers know they want the lights kept on, the refrigerator running and the industry rolling. But it is difficult for consumers to make informed decisions about the success or failure of a program when information is presented in such a convoluted manner. The renewable energy initiative in Ontario was a political decision. According to several reports from the Auditor General the Ontario government did not conduct a cost benefit analysis. To continue installing a power system that can not provide power on demand to cover up a bad decision will eventually lead to failure of the total electricity system and will be considered an act of betrayal by the ratepayers that are responsible for the bill.
To accommodate the wind industry, we are paying for hydro power generators to run inefficiently; we are paying for power generators not to produce; we are entering into contracts to purchase power when we are awash with over production and with the “Fair Hydro Plan” we are downloading $20 to $40 billion of debt onto our children and grandchildren.
To The Editor:
Not many things bring together a community like an Industrial Wind Energy Installation. In Illinois, the Concerned Citizens for the Future of Clinton and DeKalb Counties have banned together to fight Industrial Wind. Their lawyers took NextEra and the wind industry’s parade of “experts” to task in sworn testimony.
In Michigan’s Thumb, their “Wind Capital” has their own group of citizens calling themselves the Interstate Informed Citizen’s Coalition who helped to discover that townships could call for a referendum vote on whether or not they wanted any more wind energy. 12 townships, 12 votes, 12 times the answer was a resounding NO.
Vermont is working on enacting a much stricter IWT noise ordinance as well as setbacks 10x the height of the turbine. Minnesota has a similar bill in the works.
Oklahoma ended its wind subsidies early because of the overwhelming cost of Industrial Wind. Their former Governor Frank Keating released a statement saying that he regrets his part in funding Industrial Wind.
There are over 300 groups that have been formed for the singular reason of opposing Industrial Wind in North America alone. Europe and Australia have many groups of their own. They are people who may have thought that Industrial Wind was good or at least benign until they educated themselves, or where educated by their close proximity to turbines. There is well over a decade of testimonials, documentation, expert witness accounts and research into the negative impacts of Industrial Wind. The wind industry also has come up with its own testimonials, documentation, expert witness accounts and research that seeks to reframe or refute all the opposition’s evidence just as tobacco companies have done. Why are these negative impacts still listed within their contracts if there are not major problems?
People like to say that landowners can do whatever they want to on their own land but you know that is not true. If what you are doing (or not doing) negatively impacts your neighbor whether it be the length of your grass or the number of vehicles in your yard, it is not allowed. In our townships where the wind development is being proposed only a few people were willing to sign over land where they actually live. 4-5 people alone were responsible for signing over of the land for the proposed installation. That leaves 100s of people directly impacted but left with no choice to opt out.
Lastly people equate turbines with CAFOs. If they are allowed to annoy neighbors then Industrial Wind should get the same right is how the thinking goes. Our Planning and Zoning Board asked for mile setbacks for IWT, same as CAFOs but the wind companies said that they would leave. Our Supervisors shortened the setback to bring in revenue. Their first consideration needed to be people impacted, not the money to be made. Though industry supported with tax money is like cutting off the top foot of a blanket and sewing to the bottom to make it longer.
(signed) Janna Swanson
Published June 15, 2017 Emmetsburg News
Bats are being killed at a rate by wind power plants that have experts raising the alarm about sustaining population levels (in blunt terms for some bat species- extinction level threat). In Ontario 3 of our 8 species of bats are considered critically endangered and are facing possible extinction. Kills by wind turbines add to existing pressures for their survival. Evidence mounts daily and it has the wind industry on the defensive. It is more than convenient that a recently study of a woodlot being steward by an Ontario landowner was reported not to have any bats detected. Bats which are so numerous that Theo Heuvelmans has had to hang a bamboo curtain over his home’s entrance to stop them from flying into his home. What other industry is allowed to kill, harm and harass endangered species? Wind power is allowed to not only self evaluated risks but once the projects are built they employ the clean- up crews to collect any found bodies and self report the deaths. Time for being polite and time to say it out loud- bull! It stinks.
DRESDEN – To put it politely, Theo Heuvelmans doesn’t believe the results of a yet-to-be-seen study that says there are no bats in a 36-acre woodlot on his property near here.
As of Friday, Heuvelmans still hadn’t heard or received any information about what biologists found after they went through his woodlot several times last spring and summer ahead of the North Kent 1 industrial wind farm project which is about to be built nearby by Samsung Renewable Energy and Pattern Energy.
However, he was astounded when The Chatham Daily News informed him on Friday that the newspaper had received a response that no bats were found in the area.
“They’re telling me there’s no bats here? I can’t believe it,” Heuvelmans said.
“The study found there were no bats detected on his property,” according to an e-mail The Daily News received from Pattern Energy’s media spokesperson.
The e-mail also noted the firm that completed the study will be reaching out to Heuvelmans to discuss their findings with him.
The Daily News has requested a copy of the study or to be able to speak with someone about it.
Heuvelmans recently contacted The Daily News after growing frustrated that repeated calls to try to get information about the study have not been returned.
For the past five years he has had to put up a bamboo curtain and a screen to the entrance of the alcove that is part of the entrance to his home, because it attracts so many bats.
“This is the only way I could keep them out,” Heuvelmans said.
He initially refused a request by the wind farm developers to have his woodlot be studied. However, he noted company officials with AECOM Canada, an engineering consulting firm hired by the wind developers to study his woodlot, persisted and told him if bats were present it could impact where the turbines are built.
Heuvelmans agreed, hoping the presence of the bats would result in the wind turbines being constructed further from his woodlot.
However, judging from roads recently built on nearby fields, it appears two turbines will each be constructed within 300-400 metres of the woodlot – one on the west side and another to the north.
Heuvelmans said he put up several bat houses in the woodlot and nearby meadow about a year ago, with the hopes of moving the bats away from his home. He also admits he hoped it would help ensure the turbines would be built farther from the woodlot.
Heuvelmans also said he was told if bats were found in the woodlot, the turbines could be shut down at night to accommodate that.
He is worried that the turbines will negatively impact the wildlife living there, noting great horned owls are regularly seen flying from the woodlot to another nearby bush.
Heuvelmans questions why the turbines can’t be built farther way from woodlots. He would also like to see the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, which is purchasing a 15 per cent stake in North Kent 1, take a more active role in protecting these kinds of areas.
However, the approvals for industrial wind farms are provided through the Green Energy Act, which is under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario.
by ROBERT BRYCE May 2, 2017 4:00 AM @PWRHUNGRY
The world’s biggest wind-turbine company has filed lawsuits against five rural governments because they stand between it and millions in tax subsidies.
NextEra Energy, which bills itself on its website as “the world’s largest generator of renewable energy,” is suing a tiny municipality in one of Oklahoma’s poorest counties. In mid February, NextEra, which operates 110 wind projects in 20 states, filed lawsuits in both state and federal court against the town of Hinton, population: 3,200. Why is the wind giant suing the Caddo County town? Simple: Hinton stands between NextEra and nearly $18 million per year in federal tax subsidies. NextEra isn’t suing only Hinton. Since last October, the wind giant has filed lawsuits against five rural governments from Oklahoma to Michigan, all of which have imposed limits on wind-turbine development.
The company has also filed a libel suit against Esther Wrightman, a Canadian activist who opposed a project NextEra wanted to build in Kerwood, Ontario. Wrightman’s offense? She called the company “NexTerror” and “NextError” on her website, ontario-wind-resistance.org. That libel suit, filed four years ago, is still pending.
To be certain, the oil and gas industry has filed lawsuits against local governments that have sought limits on hydraulic fracturing. The difference is that NextEra is using taxpayers’ money to fund its courthouse mugging of small-town America. Between 2008 and 2015, according to a recent report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, NextEra accumulated profits of $21.5 billion but didn’t pay a dime in federal income taxes. Over that time frame, only ten other American companies received more in tax subsidies than NextEra. Nor does it appear that NextEra will be paying federal taxes any time soon. In its 10-K filing for 2016 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company reported $3 billion in tax-credit carryforwards that it can use to directly offset tax liabilities in future years. Remember, tax credits are more valuable than a deduction from revenue or accelerated depreciation. As my accounting consultant (and brother) Wally Bryce, a CPA, reminds me: “You’d much rather get a tax credit because it applies dollar for dollar against what you owe the government.”
NextEra wants more tax credits. And it’s litigating to get more. But each lawsuit NextEra files against a yet-smaller rural town or yet-smaller website owner provides another example of the backlash against Big Wind and, even more appalling, how Big Wind is using the issue of climate change as an excuse to make a run on the Treasury. Since 2015, more than 130 government entities in states from Maine to California have moved to reject or restrict the encroachment of the wind industry. And while other wind companies have also sued small towns, none can match NextEra’s scorched-earth tactics……
SLAPP Lawsuit Filed by NextEra Against Esther Wrightman
Statement of Defense filed by Esther Wrightman
By Janene Pieters on March 29, 2017
Three people were arrested and various homes and office buildings were raided on Tuesday in an investigation into 8 million euros worth of fraud committed by Dutch investment company Hollandsche Wind. The Public Prosecutor and tax investigative service FIOD also seized several cars, Tubantia reports.
According to FIOD, the now bankrupt Hollandsche Wind was used to commit Ponsi fraud – an illegal pyramid scheme. Investors paid a minimum of 5 thousand euros and were promised high returns on wind energy projects. But their returns were paid with money from new investors. No money was ever invested in wind farms or real estate. According to the Prosecutor, the fraud amount is around 8 million euros…..
March 8, 2017
While the Premier was promising relief for Ontario electricity customers (and blaming lots of other people), more proof of the government’s mistakes was occurring …
The press conference and press release on March 2nd for Premier Wynne’s announcement on reducing electricity bills by 25% took a full hour — she and Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault hung around to answer questions from the media.
The speech and the press release were a mea culpa — she apparently hadn’t noticed rates had climbed and referred to those high rates as the “elephant in the room.” She laid the blame on all previous governments in her answers to questions, for example:
Decades of under-investment in the electricity system by governments of all stripes resulted in the need to invest more than $50 billion in generation, transmission and distribution assets to ensure the system is clean and reliable.
The decision to eliminate Ontario’s use of coal and produce clean, renewable power, as well as policies put in place to provide targeted support to rural and low-income customers, have created additional costs.
If the premier was genuinely interested in the cause for high electricity bills she could have looked no farther back than her immediate predecessor, Dalton McGuinty. Premier McGuinty brought Ontario the Green Energy Act and the misinformed, unfounded belief that getting power from industrial wind turbines and solar panels, while paying at price multiples of other available reliable power, would work!
Those wind turbines and solar panels were generating power out of phase with Ontario demand even during her news conference, for which ratepayers are paying as much as 80.2 cents a kilowatt hour (kWh).
During the news conference hour, Ontario ratepayers consumed 17,300 megawatt hours (MWh); 85% of that consumption was provided by nuclear (10,000 MWh) and hydro (4,900 MWh). The balance came from gas, wind, solar and biomass. The average generation cost of nuclear and hydro generation was about $59/MWh (5.9 cents/kWh) and $191/MWh (19.1 cents/kWh) for the 15% provided by gas, wind, solar and biomass. The former costs include the “water tax” on hydro generation and the “decommissioning and fuel disposal” costs of nuclear whereas the latter does NOT include the cost of curtailed wind, idling costs of gas plants or the costs of moving those two gas plants from Oakville and Mississauga to save Liberal seats during the McGuinty era!
Also during that hour, Ontario exported 1,075 MWh to Michigan and 1,203 MWh to New York. Those 2,078 MWh (20% of Ontario’s demand) were sold to our neighbours at an average of $11.38/MWh (1.14 cents/kWh). The exports cost about $202,000, under the contract terms, yet resulted in just $23,000 of revenue to offset that cost. Ontario ratepayers picked up the loss of $179,000.
In fact, for that whole day, “net exports” hit Ontario’s ratepayers with a cost of $2.4 million.
Admitting she made a “mistake” while blaming decades of previous “governments of all stripes” is not a solution. And the 25% reduction in bills isn’t real, either: Premier Wynne is kicking the can down the road and laying the burden of her mistake on taxpayers. She still doesn’t appear to have the political courage to admit she, Mr. McGuinty and their governments made a mistake believing the environmental non-government organizations who persuaded them to believe in a green dream that has now, negatively affected all ratepayers in the province, driving away jobs in the private sector.
The herd of elephants is still in the room. Premier Wynne should start clearing them out by cancelling all wind and solar contracts that have not put a shovel in the ground!
CANCEL WIND AND SOLAR CONTRACTS!!!
Ontario’s energy policy is generating anger and attracting media attention as rates spiral out of control and residents face the heart wrenching dilemma of whether to heat or eat. Energy poverty that the Premier acknowledges is her government’s mistake but fails to take action to correct. A good place to start is to cancel wind power generation contracts and stop construction of any wind project not yet built. It is never too late to do the right thing.
Robyn Urback · Columnist · CBC News November 23, 2016
Wynne has recognized her ‘oopsies’ and is asking for Ontarians’ patience and trust to fix the problem
“Aside from the repeated, incessant warnings — there was no warning.
Ontario’s energy costs have spiraled out of control. Consumers are struggling to pay their hydro bills and still have enough money left to buy a ticket to one of the premier’s cash-for-access fundraisers.
Who — with the exception of everyone — could have foreseen that wasting billions of dollars on cancelled gas plants, paying way above market value for green energy contracts, producing too much energy and selling it to other jurisdictions at a loss, and investing in smart meters that didn’t actually do what they were supposed to do would translate into skyrocketing electricity bills for everyday Ontarians?
Now Ontario finds itself in a mess of its own making, locked in unsustainable contracts and a looming cap-and-trade scheme that will make hydro bills even more expensive, all while some Ontario families have “had to choose between paying the electricity bill and buying food or paying rent,” according to Premier Kathleen Wynne. Thanks, guys.
“Our government made a mistake. It was my mistake. And I’m going to do my best to fix it,” Wynne admitted in a rare moment of contrition during her address to her party’s annual general meeting this past weekend.
“In the weeks and the months ahead, we are going to find more ways to lower rates and reduce the burden on consumers,” she added…”
READ ARTICLE AT: http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/opinion/ontario-hydro-bills-1.3862838