Flying windmills

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
March 19, 2005

Don’t like fossil fuels? Nuclear power? Hydro dams? Go fly a kite. Really. The next great energy technology may well involve implausible-sounding machines called Flying Electric Generators, windmills 30,000 feet high and tethered to the ground by power lines.

No pollution. No greenhouse gases. No hazard to birds. Enough energy to meet the world’s needs many times over. And costs that are projected at one to two cents a kilowatt hour, far less than that of existing fuels.

These windmills would capture the plentiful power in the strong, steady winds that blow in the jet stream.

The visionaries floating these ideas are no crackpots. Inventor Bryan Roberts, an Australian engineer with a PhD from Cambridge who teaches at the University of Western Sydney, has a long history of getting inventions off the ground, including a tethered four-rotor helicopter built under a collaborative agreement with Bell Helicopters’ Australian agents. David Shepard, co-CEO with Roberts of Sky WindPower Corporation, the machine’s corporate developer, patented the optical scanner in the 1950s and then formed a company that sold the world’s first commercial OCR (optical character recognition) scanners, now at the Smithsonian Institute. Others at Sky WindPower, a San Diego-based corporation, also have impressive practical accomplishments in the corporate and military spheres to complement their flights of fancy.

The flying wind generator, drawing power from the local electric company through its tether, uses helicopter-like rotors to climb skyward and GPS technology to keep its bearings. Once at its desired altitude, the generator drifts in the wind while the rotors generate electricity and send power down the same tether that had powered its ascent. When it needs to come down to Earth, the flying machine can either come down on its own power, as helicopters do, or be winched in.

Sky WindPower plans to raise clusters of these aircraft – perhaps 600 at a time – above lands not far from metropolitan centres. Each cluster would have a capacity of 12,000 megawatts – equivalent to roughly 24 Pickering-sized nuclear reactors – and produce 90 million megawatt-hours a year – 25% more than those 20 Pickering plants would produce. Two of these clusters could more than meet Ontario’s entire power needs; seven Canada’s, not that it would ever be necessary or desirable to eliminate all other electricity technologies.

On land, the flying wind generator’s requirement is negligible. Floating above forests or farmers’ fields, the tethers would cost next to nothing in land or agricultural production while providing farmers with a bit of revenue for the use of their land. If a flying generator ever fell from the sky, as would be inevitable, it would crash in an unpopulated area and so represent minimal threat to human safety.

Above land, there is a cost – airplanes would need to be excluded from these areas, to avoid collisions with the flying generators or their tethers. But there is nothing new here. At 15 sites along the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S. government for decades has tethered balloons carrying radar equipment to detect illegal flights by drug smugglers. These sites, which occur at altitudes up to 15,000 feet, appear on aeronautical charts and are well known to pilots, who in any case routinely deal with restricted air space. Sky WindPower calculates that less than one-quarter of 1% of U.S. airspace would need to be reserved, all away from populated areas, to meet all U.S. energy needs. That is far less than the amount of air space now restricted to civilian aviation.

Flying windmills have many advantages over their land-based counterparts which, because of factors such as contours of the land and daily heating and cooling patterns, often face either inadequate wind or turbulent winds, necessitating expensive designs. No such impediments occur in the jet stream, where air moves near-constantly and at several times the speed that it does at 100 feet off the ground, allowing much more energy to be captured from each square meter of wind.

While the wind blows well almost everywhere in the world, Canada is especially suited to flying turbines. The very best winds, 30,000 feet up, happen to blow along the Canada-U.S. border, where most of our population resides. At Montreal, Toronto, Windsor, Winnipeg or Regina, or Vancouver, a flying windmill will typically operate at 85% to 90% of its full capacity, about 50% higher than at many lower latitudes – and also higher than at more northerly latitudes. The skies above Gagetown, N.B., where a windmill would operate at 92% of its capacity, has one of the world’s best-recorded wind readings.

Roberts first began working on his concept in 1979. He has successfully flown prototypes in wind tunnels and in the sky. Sky WindPower now wants to scale up – its next prototype is designed and has the government permissions necessary for it to be tested in the California desert. It awaits only the $3-million needed to proceed.

Will investors take a flyer on this technology? So far, the big boys have stayed away, and for understandable reason. The smart money is moving to Arctic pipelines, nuclear plants, tar sands, LNG facilities and other government-subsidized energy systems that are with us in a big way only because government decrees it. The world’s energy entrepreneurs have all vanished, aside from a small band tilting at windmills in the sky.

Posted in Energy Probe News, Renewables | Leave a comment

Waiting for the Storm: Ontario’s Deteriorating Tranmission and Distribution Assets and the Privatization Alternative

Tom Adams

March 7, 2005

Report on the deteriorating state of Ontario’s power distribution and transmission infrastructure. The report was originally released in 2005.

Click here for a PDF.

Posted in Electricity, Reforming Ontario's Electrical Generation Sector, Reforming Ontario's Local Electrical Distribution Sector | Leave a comment

N.B. hoping for at least $400 million from Ottawa to fix nuclear plant

Chris Morris
Maclean’s magazine
February 25, 2005

Fredericton: The New Brunswick government is looking for a major cash infusion from Ottawa for refurbishment of the aging nuclear power plant at Point Lepreau, N.B.

Bruce Fitch, New Brunswick’s energy minister, said Friday that based on emission credits under the Kyoto accord, overhauling the 22-year-old reactor at Lepreau should be worth at least $400 million to Ottawa.

“The figure that is being tossed around of $400 million, that’s not out of the question,” Fitch said, adding it could be considerably more.

“That’s based on greenhouse credits.”

New Brunswick is negotiating with Ontario-based Bruce Power to become a private partner in the Lepreau refurbishment, which would extend the reactor’s life by 25 years.

Premier Bernard Lord said this week that if Ottawa doesn’t come through with the cash, the province may be forced to scrap Lepreau and look at another source of power, such as coal-fired generation.

“It’s critical for us to know how much the federal government is willing to pay and support the nuclear industry in Canada,” Lord said.

Shawn Graham, the Opposition Liberal leader in New Brunswick, said Friday it sounds to him like the Lord government is trying to blackmail Ottawa.

Graham said the provincial government has missed every deadline for deciding the future of Point Lepreau.

“Bernard Lord can’t keep his word, he can’t keep his commitments and he can’t negotiate energy files,” Graham said.

“It’s time for a new negotiator in the province of New Brunswick.”

Calls to Ottawa for comment went unanswered Friday.

Tom Adams of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based energy watchdog, said Ottawa doesn’t want to commit huge dollars to New Brunswick with other nuclear refurbishments looming in Quebec and Ontario.

“I’m sure it has dawned on the federal government that if they start shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to help support the renovation in New Brunswick, they could be on the hook for multiples of that sum of money by the time they get through with Quebec and Ontario,” Adams said.

Adams said the province should simply mothball Lepreau and move on with other energy solutions.

The federal budget brought down earlier in the week included $4 billion to $5 billion for reducing greenhouse gases.

But Lord said he has heard that the Kyoto-inspired federal fund does not include money to fix up existing nuclear plants.

“We were disappointed that we didn’t see the words ‘nuclear’ or ‘refurbishment’ in the budget,” Fitch said.

Point Lepreau is Atlantic Canada’s only nuclear power plant.

 

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

CSNC applauds Bruce’s incinerator activities

Electricity Daily, Vol. 24, Issue 031, No. 0005
February 15, 2005

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission recently applauded the environmental performance of a radioactive waste incinerator at Ontario Power Generation Inc.’s Bruce nuclear park.

Since 1977 Bruce has been one of OPG’s volume reduction options for Ontario “low- and intermediate-level” radioactive waste. The Bruce nuclear park features the four-unit Bruce A and Bruce B nuclear generating stations as well as OPG’s Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF). Radwaste is transported from across the 20-reactor Ontario nuclear power program to the park.

In 2004, CNSC reported that operations at the Bruce incinerator “do not result in significant effects on the atmospheric environment.” CNSC staff named a Bruce Power report as their source of technical data on radionuclide emissions from the incinerator and argued that Bruce Power’s assessment of doses to the public from operation of the nuclear park proved that the radionuclides released from the park to air and water “could result in an effective dose to the most critical member of the public” which is considered a small fraction of the public dose limit.

However, Norm Rubin, director of nuclear research and senior policy analyst at Energy Probe, countered that the incinerator dose alone, which is only a fraction of total doses from the Bruce generating stations, carries an estimated risk of fatal cancer several times higher than would be tolerated from conventional pollutants. Rubin said, “Very few Canadians would prefer to suffer cancer from nuclear pollution rather than from conventional chemical pollution. We believe therefore that this double standard is mistaken and absurd in practice and unsustainable in a democracy.”

Posted in Nuclear Safety | Leave a comment

Pricing hydro by the season

John Spears
Toronto Star
February 11, 2005

Ontario householders will pay less to heat their homes in winter but more to cool them in summer under a pricing proposal from the Ontario Energy Board.

In a draft pricing manual, the board says consumers should pay a relatively low price for a set quantity of power each month, and a higher price if they use more than that.

But the set quantity should change with the seasons, the board says, to ease the price shock for low-income users, who are the ones most likely to have electric heating.

The board proposes that in summer, consumers should pay a lower price for the first 600 kilowatt hours they use; in winter, that limit would rise to 1,000 kilowatt hours.

Advocates for low-income consumers had argued for a lower winter price because the poor may be reliant on electricity to stay warm and can’t avoid big winter electric bills. Heavy summer power use probably means it’s being used for air conditioning.

The proposal was released yesterday for public comment.

Energy Minister Dwight Duncan ordered the board to devise a regulated pricing system for householders to come into effect April 1.

Consumers are currently charged 4.7 cents a kilowatt hour for the first 750 kilowatt hours used each month, and 5.5 cents for any amount beyond that. Fixed charges that flow to the local utility, Hydro One and the fund servicing the Ontario Hydro debt add a roughly equivalent amount to the total price.

The board still hasn’t set a consumer price. But an example given in the draft manual released yesterday uses a theoretical average price of 5.6 cents a kilowatt hour. The example said consumers might pay 5.2 cents a kilowatt hour until they hit the seasonal threshold, and 6 cents a kilowatt hour afterward.

A household using 1,000 kilowatt hours of power a month now pays an average of 4.9 cents per kilowatt hour for the energy portion of the bill.

Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, said the pricing method the energy board has chosen may result in consumer prices diverging from the market price.

In fixing prices, the board must estimate a price going forward, then make retroactive adjustments if it turns out to be too high or too low. Those retroactive adjustments will continually intersect with the estimated prices going forward, Adams said. That will blur the link between the consumer price and market prices.

Meanwhile, the small but growing number of residents with “smart meters” that record the time of day power is used will probably face sharply higher prices for power in peak periods.

They’ll pay a relatively low base price for power used at off-peak times, such as during the night.

In mid-range periods, the price will be double the base rate; at peak periods it will be triple the base.

Off-peak periods will be the same all year long: all day on weekends and holidays; and 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. weekdays.

Mid-range periods from Nov. 1 to April 30 will be weekdays from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., and 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. in winter. In the summer it will be weekdays 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 10 p.m.

The peak period in winter will be on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m., and from 5 to 8 p.m. In the summer it will be weekdays from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.

 

Posted in Reforming Ontario's Local Electrical Distribution Sector | Leave a comment

E-dialogue on decision-making under conditions of risk and uncertainty: nuclear waste management

RoyalRoads University

February 10, 2005

“Unfortunately, in the nuclear field, ‘major international collaboration’ [towards permanent disposal of nuclear waste] usually means that Atomic Energy Canada Limited and their 13 international counterparts in most nuclear jurisdictions on the planet have agreed to something. Often, six falsehoods before breakfast, in my view. This is part of how we’ve spent $1 billion answering the wrong questions – like, ‘If you wanted to dispose of this stuff irretrievably, with no monitoring, getting assurances primarily from computer models, how best to do it?'” – Norm Rubin

Energy Probe’s Norm Rubin joined a recent online discussion on conditions of risk and uncertainty related to used nuclear fuel management. Organized by Canada’s Royal Roads University, the discussion was broadcast on February 10, and featured Christopher Henderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Dephi Group; Jim MacNeill, Chairman Emeritus of the International Institute for Sustainable Development; Andy Stirling, a Senior Lecturer at SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex; as well as Norm Rubin, Energy Probe’s Director of Nuclear Research.

The e-dialogue is now posted and is available online at [pdf]:
http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/images/Nuclear_Waste_Feb_2005.pdf

e-Roundtables:

Risk, Uncertainty, and the Management of Nuclear Waste
Part 2, November 29, 2004
(1, 2, 3, 4) [pdf’s]

Risk, Uncertainty, and the Management of Nuclear Waste
Part 3, October 26, 2004
http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/images/Nuclear_Waste_Oct_2004.pdf

Posted in Nuclear Proliferation | Leave a comment

Smart meter cost may double

John Spears and Richard Brennan
Toronto Star
January 27, 2005

Ontario householders can expect to pay an additional $3 to $4 a month for electricity to cover the cost of installing and running new “smart meters” throughout the province, the Ontario Energy Board says.

The OEB has released a $1 billion implementation plan to meet Energy Minister Dwight Duncan’s promise to install a smart meter in every home and business in the province by 2010.

The meters will enable utilities to charge even more for electricity used during peak periods, when the power grid is under stress.

An official in Duncan’s office cautioned that the report isn’t yet government policy.

“The government is going to be reviewing the OEB’s plans and recommendations and will be considering them but we will be announcing our own plan,” said Angie Robson, communications assistant to Duncan, who was in New York yesterday and unavailable for comment.

The monthly costs are far higher than the previous estimates of a dollar or two a month for the smart meters, but Robson emphasized that the savings people could realize by using these meters could easily offset the monthly fee.

“That $3 and $4 doesn’t incorporate potential offsetting savings resulting from people shifting their use to off-peak times,” she said. “We want to empower consumers to better manage their electricity use and consumption.”

New Democratic Party leader Howard Hampton said the plan will do little to cut power consumption, but will have one unpleasant effect.

“It’s going to substantially increase people’s electricity bills,” he said. “There are a lot of people, a lot of businesses and some industries in the province that can’t afford it.”

Conventional meters simply record the total amount of power used between readings, taken every month or two.

Smart meters record power use hour by hour, so customers can be charged a high rate during the peak evening hours, but a lower rate overnight or on weekends when demand for electricity declines.

The board says local utilities should be able to choose their own meters and supporting systems from the variety on the market. Some send information to the utility by radio signal, others over a phone line.

The energy board said consumers should be able to see each day’s electricity use within 24 hours via telephone or Internet, so they can monitor consumption and cost.

The energy board’s plan has one big gap: It doesn’t look at the possibility of installing individual meters for each unit of apartment or condominium buildings that now have a single meter for the entire building.

Duncan has said installing individual meters for each apartment and condo unit in the province would boost the number of meters to about 6 million from 4 million – boosting the cost of the meters alone by another $500 million.

Critics said the plan will hit the poor hardest – they are the most likely to heat their dwellings with electricity, and are most vulnerable to increased power costs.

Keith Stewart of the Low Income Energy Network also noted that the communication systems utilities will install to monitor the new meters will make it easier for them to cut off service to people who fall behind in their payments.

Tom Adams of Energy Probe noted that, under the energy board plan, utilities will be able to charge customers for the computer and communications systems needed to run the smart meters even before all customers get the meters.

“Most customers will be paying smart metering costs even before they get smart meters,” he said.

 

Posted in Reforming Ontario's Local Electrical Distribution Sector | Leave a comment

Re-defeat the nuclear industry

Tom Adams

January 20, 2005

Dear Friend:

The federal government, and three provincial governments, are about to sink billions more dollars into another attempt to salvage the nuclear industry, the country’s least economic energy industry – and its most dangerous.

Last month, New Brunswick discovered that its nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau had cracks in its main steam pipe. Cracks in the same piece of equipment at a reactor in Japan just months before had led to an accident that boiled alive four workers and severely scalded seven others.

The main steam pipe at Point Lepreau, the nuclear authorities had confidently assured us, would never fail. According to their models, any weakness in the pipes would be discovered before the aging became a risk. To add to their confidence, the provincial government had just spent a whopping $70 million on an inspection program designed to identify all aging problems so that they could be fixed in a planned comprehensive renovation. The inspection program didn’t detect the cracked pipe but it did find enough other problems to boost the estimated renovated costs by almost $1 billion, from $500 million to $1.4 billion. Thanks to the cracked piping, that estimate could climb again. The New Brunswick government is now lobbying to have federal taxpayers to support its uneconomic nuclear adventure.

Next door, Hydro Quebec is also seeking provincial government approval to renovate its faltering nuclear reactor. Hydro Quebec’s opening estimate for the total cost is $1.2 billion. If past experience is any guide, that estimate will skyrocket, perhaps to $2 billion or even $3 billion.

Ontario also faces out-of-control costs. The government’s crown-owned reactor operator, Ontario Power Generation, has just announced another huge cost overrun on the Pickering A renovation project, which is now about 400% over budget. That’s just the beginning of the spending. Because Ontario Power Generation is now out of cash, and because the government is committed to refurbishing its other dilapidated reactors, it is offering to pay private nuclear operators to take on the task. Why would the government offer private companies money to run reactors that the government says are economical? Because the private companies know that the reactors are money-losers, and refuse to run them without subsidies..

On top of this, the federal government is planning to open its purse strings wide to support the export of our nuclear reactors. In the past, it justified nuclear exports to poor countries as foreign aid. Now the would-be recipient of our subsidized nuclear exports is the United States. To convince them to take our deeply discounted reactors, our federal crown corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada, is busy courting foreign executives at federal taxpayer expense.

Ten years ago, it seemed the nuclear industry in Canada was dead. Energy Probe’s anti-nuclear arguments became widely accepted, even by government officials, and the industry began to be phased out. Maurice Strong, an environmentalist who shared our perspective on the need to break up the Hydro monopoly, became the head of Ontario Hydro. He began by cleaning up the bankrupt utility’s misleading books and shutting down reactors. His successor continued the nuclear shutdowns, saying the industry had been run by a “nuclear cult.” The federal government, seeing the writing on the wall, began to cut the nuclear industry’s subsidies.

But the nuclear industry and its lobbyists never stopped their back room dealings. While nuclear controversies faded from the public’s radar screen, the pro-nuclear camp and its supporters in government became emboldened. Now taxpayers are faced with billions in new costs and the environment is faced with a new legacy of nuclear waste and radioactive dangers.

The nuclear threat is back. The nuclear industry must once again be fought and defeated. Together, we defeated it before. Together, we can defeat it again.

Sincerely,

Tom Adams
Executive Director

 

Posted in Energy Probe News, Nuclear Economics, Nuclear Plant Security, Nuclear Safety, Towards Shutdown | Tagged | Leave a comment

Province puts up $8 million for energy excellence

Patrick Boake
Business Edge, Vol. 1, No. 1
January 20, 2005

A fifth Centre of Excellence has been added in Ontario – this time for energy.

The Centre of Excellence for Energy will receive $8 million in provincial funding over the next four years, Economic Development and Trade Minister Joseph Cordiano said earlier this month.

The new centre is intended to encourage research and development in leading-edge and emerging energy sources and technology. It is mandated to focus funding on new, made-in-Ontario green energy solutions, as well as shepherding completed projects to market with the help of Ontario businesses.

Cordiano said he believes the new centre will play an important role in Ontario’s long-term energy strategy.

The energy centre is the first new Centre of Excellence since 1987 when David Peterson’s Liberal government launched the program.

The original four centres were: Communications and Information Technology Ontario; Centre for Research in Earth and Space Technology; Materials and Manufacturing Ontario; and Photonics Research Ontario.

The new centre is the latest step in a multi-year rejuvenation process. The Ontario government-owned, not-for-profit corporation took on its current form last April when the four individual centres became divisions of Ontario Centres of Excellence (OCE) Inc. Each division has its own advisory board operating under OCE’s management board.

President and CEO Mark Romoff and a new board of directors were appointed last October. OCE is currently looking for a managing director for the centre, and the planning committee and OCE board are developing a business plan.

“[OCE] is a matchmaker between industry and Ontario’s academic community,” OCE Inc. chair David McFadden says.

“Last year alone, nine startup companies were formed as a result of OCE-sponsored research. Through the years, over 50 companies have been launched as a result of OCE.”

Provincial NDP environment critic Marilyn Churley is upbeat about the government moving forward on innovative energy strategies, but questions the substance of the announcement.

“Parts of the announcement echo the NDP’s call for investment in the green energy sector. We like to have our ideas stolen when they are good ideas,” says Churley.

“The concern is making this announcement without plans, goals and timetables in place, it may be a PR exercise rather than a real push to move forward,” she says. “It’s disappointing to me to hear that they don’t have a plan because if there’s no plan of action and no goals in mind, then I think the result will be very disappointing.”

Centre for Energy planning committee member Tom Adams acknowledges the centre is still a work in progress. He is optimistic.

“This is changing the culture and the way we think about energy in Ontario,” says Adams, who is executive director of the energy advocacy group Energy Probe.

“I’m looking for ways to score some big wins. That depends on identifying the major (energy trends) and trying to bring forward technologies that will have a life,” Adams says.

“There are three principal areas of focus: Markets, systems, and new and emerging energy technologies,” president and CEO Romoff says, adding that there already are a number of energy-related projects under way in the other centres.

“By bringing the centres together we get a critical mass that allows us to make progress in all these areas of focus,” he says.

OCE takes no commercial interest in the outcome of the projects and the Centre for Energy plans to minimize overhead by using existing administrative infrastructure and not building specialized facilities.

“This is going to be a lean operation with a very modest staff,” Romoff says.

OCE has linked approximately 800 companies to nearly 4,000 academic researchers and attracted more than $24 million in investment from the private sector, according to a government news release.

 

Posted in Renewables | Leave a comment

Electricity rates will vary by household and season

John Spears
Toronto Star
January 18, 2005

Consumer electricity prices will vary from season to season according to the amount of power a household uses, says the Ontario Energy Board.

The board also says that consumers with “smart meters” that measure hour-by-hour power consumption will pay three different rates for power, depending on the time of day it is used.

But consumers will have to wait a little longer to find out exactly what prices they’ll be paying when the new price regime kicks in this spring.

The energy board’s plan released yesterday is only a framework, with blanks left when numbers need to be filled in.

The proposal will apply to consumers who have not signed fixed price contracts with retailers.

Among the features of the new pricing regime:

Householders with ordinary meters will continue to face a two-price system. They’ll pay a lower price for a basic amount of power, and a higher price for any power used in excess of the basic amount.

The basic or “threshold” amount of power may vary from season to season under the energy board’s new plan, but the board hasn’t decided what it will be.

Currently, consumers pay 4.7 cents a kilowatt-hour for the first 750 kilowatt-hours of power they use each month, and 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour for additional power. That covers the energy portion of the bill, which makes up about half the total.

Consumers with sophisticated “smart meters” that measure what time of day power is used will face a three-tier pricing system. They’ll pay more for power used during period of high demand. But again, no specific prices are suggested.

The energy board can’t set prices until Energy Minister Dwight Duncan decides what rates to charge for power produced by Ontario Power Generation’s nuclear and large hydro-electric generators. One expert has estimated that price could be anywhere from 4.5 cents to 5.3 cents a kilowatt-hour.

Julie Girvan, a consultant often hired by consumer groups, said the board seems to be moving toward the system that gas utilities use. They charge consumers an estimated price for several months, and then adjust it with a credit or debit to consumer’s accounts to bring it into line with actual prices.

Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, noted that the energy board seems to have shelved the idea of “critical peak pricing.” That would allow the energy minister to set a special, short term price a day in advance as a signal for consumers to cut back consumption if it appeared the electricity grid might be under too much stress.

If critical peak pricing is abandoned, there’s little need to install expensive “smart meters” in every home, as the government proposes, Adams said. Instead, much less expensive meters would do the job.

 

Posted in Reforming Ontario's Local Electrical Distribution Sector | Leave a comment