Why wind power is more complicated than people imagine

Tom Spears
The Ottawa Citizen
August 8, 2010

July 8 — a Thursday — was the height of Ontario’s heat wave, the day it reached 35 degrees in Ottawa, the day when air conditioners strained our electrical system to the limit.

Ontario was drinking power at a rate of more than 25,000 megawatts — that’s 25 billion watts — in the late afternoon. Not a record, but far more than most summer days.

Our nuclear reactors were pumping out more than 9,200 megawatts. Hydroelectric power (mainly Niagara Falls) supplied another 3,400. We burned gas and coal to generate another 10,200.

But wind power, one of the ways of the future, supplied just 107 megawatts of electricity. That’s less than half of one per cent of the province’s demand and enough to power a mere 32,100 homes.

Wind turbines dot much of Ontario’s landscape today — hundreds of tall, white structures with three giant blades. Most of them stand 80 or 100 metres high at the centre hub where those blades revolve.

We’ll be buying more soon. Ontario has contracted with the Korean giant Samsung to build wind turbine factories in Ontario and install hundreds more of the machines, some on breezy hilltops, more along the shores of the Great Lakes, and some standing in the lakes themselves.

On paper, the turbines we already have are able to supply nearly 1,100 megawatts. That’s called their capacity.

In practice their annual average is about 30 per cent of that, because wind doesn’t blow all the time.

And the reality is that in summer, the time when Ontario needs more electricity than at any other time of year, they produce far less even than 30 per cent of their capacity. (In winter, another high-demand time, they produce more — often around 70 per cent.)

The 107 megawatts they produced on the afternoon of July 8 equalled just more than 10 per cent of capacity. For much of July they produced 100 to 200 MW, but sometimes they produced even less — 85 MW on the afternoon of July 9, 72 MW on July 12, and all the way down to a negligible five MW on July 20.

On many of these days, Ontario got more electricity from wood fires and from burning waste methane gas at garbage dumps than from the expensive wind turbines.

So, is wind power worthless? Not at all. But it’s much more complicated than people imagine in the clean-sounding deal where Ontario decided to shut down all its coal-burning generating stations and build smog-free windmills.

Ontario has boosted wind by guaranteeing new wind farms a premium price of 13.5 cents a kilowatt hour, removing the need for wind to compete against cheaper coal and established nuclear plants. The guaranteed price is called a feed-in tariff. Ontario is also building new transmission lines to allow for new and expanded wind farms.

We will get more wind power. What we won’t get is an all-green grid where most of our lights, computers and factories are powered by the wind. At most, wind seems likely to supply up to 10 per cent of our power, and even that will vary with the weather.

As Ontario swings toward new sources of electricity for our lights and computers and factories, a lot of juggling becomes necessary.

“As the electricity system grows and diversifies, with more and more different types of generation coming into the mix, there’s more variability on the supply side,” says Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association. It represents wind energy producers.

“The system operators — their big job is to ensure that supply equals demand,” he said. “When somebody flips the switch, the power is going to be there. And they deal with a lot of variability. You’ve got demand that varies enormously from four in the morning to five in the afternoon,” as well as seasonal changes.

Despite recent growth, Ontario still gets a small proportion of its power from wind, and when the wind changes radically, it doesn’t upset the overall picture much. Someone adds a little power from gas or coal, and the supply stays the same.

But when there’s a capacity of 5,000 megawatts instead of today’s 1,100, this will change. Either a sudden increase or decrease in wind can surprise us:

n The wind drops. Gas-fired turbines must be standing by to pick up the slack.

n The wind rises. This doesn’t sound bad, but in some conditions it might be, if we suddenly have too much power.

This happened in the spring of 2009, though the wind wasn’t to blame. There had been very heavy snow that winter; runoff was filling rivers. The nuclear plants were running at a fairly constant level and suddenly we had a glut of hydroelectric power. Meanwhile demand was down; in April there was little demand for either heating or air conditioning.

With too much power on hand, Ontario has to get rid of it or risk overloading and damage to equipment. For a full month the price of our power was negative — that is, we were paying utilities in Ohio and Michigan to take it off our hands.

Private energy analyst Tom Adams thinks that could happen again when we lean more heavily on wind power. Wind turbines can shut down in high wind, but Ontario would still have to pay them for the power they aren’t generating, like a diner who orders a restaurant meal and doesn’t eat it. It’s called “curtailed output.”

“As wind becomes a big player in the power market, the dynamics of wind power, the come-and-go nature of wind output, becomes critical,” he said.

“You may get a spike of 7,000 megawatts of wind power that comes on at one o’clock in the morning.” Suddenly the Ontario Power Authority has to get rid of surplus power, or there will be damage. “This is a major, major concern.”

Variability is also an issue closely watched by the Independent Electricity System Operator, the Ontario body that provides a market where generators and consumers buy and sell electricity.

“I often think back to a weekend last fall, actually it was Halloween weekend, when we (had) a record of over 1,000 megawatts from wind between 3 and 4 p.m.” said IESO spokesman Terry Young. “And between three and four o’clock the next day it was seven megawatts. So it’s kind of gone from record high to near-record low in 24 hours.”

The other odd side of wind power is that when it falls off, we’re going to use gas-fired turbines to replace it. We traditionally used coal-burning plants but the Ontario Liberal government is phasing these out by 2014. Coal causes more smog and emits more carbon dioxide per unit of energy than gas. Some coal “units” are closed already. One plant in Mississauga is demolished.

But Adams and others argue this is the worst plan for a wind-loving province.

When they’re standing by, coal plants can run at about 20 per cent of full power. Gas turbine plants, however, must run at a higher level — about 60 per cent.

Adams’ analysis is that this will waste energy as Ontario builds new gas-fired plants for backup. As well, gas is more expensive than coal.

Expanding wind doesn’t fit with phasing out coal, says Norm Rubin of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental policy organization. If these were pieces in a puzzle, “you couldn’t bang them together with a hammer.”

At the Canadian Wind Energy Association, Robert Hornung doesn’t see much risk.

A group of North American utilities has analysed the question. It finds that “you can get up to about 10 per cent of electricity coming from wind without having any really significant impact on system operations,” said Hornung. After that, the ups and downs of wind power are harder to handle. But he notes that Alberta has removed limits on wind installation originally set for just this reason.

“Because wind is so new in North America, there’s still an evolutionary process and learning process going on.”

Read the original article here.

Posted in Alternative Energy, Energy Probe News, Renewables | Leave a comment

Work on N.B. nuclear plant delayed again, another year added to schedule 6/08/2010

(Aug. 6, 2010) FREDERICTON – The refurbishment of the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant in New Brunswick has been delayed by at least another year, putting the project 2 1/2 years behind schedule and driving the cost beyond the $2 billion mark. Continue reading

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

Work on N.B. nuclear plant delayed again, another year added to schedule 6/08/2010

Kevin Bissett, The Canadian Press
Winnipeg Free Press
August 6, 2010

FREDERICTON – The refurbishment of the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant in New Brunswick has been delayed by at least another year, putting the project 2 1/2 years behind schedule and driving the cost beyond the $2 billion mark.

NB Power president Gaetan Thomas said crews continue to have a problem getting a tight seal in the joints of the reactor’s new calandria tubes, which contain pressure tubes that hold the fuel bundles. Of the 380 tubes, 80 have been passed and 80 have failed, while the remaining 220 have yet to be tested.

Hugh MacDiarmid, president and CEO of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., confirmed the delay Friday when he met with New Brunswick Energy Minister Jack Keir and Thomas in Fredericton.

Thomas said NB Power needs the refurbishment to last 25 to 30 years, so strict standards must be met.

“For NB Power, we must ensure that when the plant is turned back over from AECL to us that it is exactly as we expect,” Thomas said.

The refurbishment was originally budgeted at $1.4 billion, including $400 million for replacement power. It costs NB Power about $1 million a day to provide replacement power, which means the cost of replacement power could be well over $1 billion.

Thomas said there’s no way to know what the higher costs could do to power rates in the province until the utility learns the exact length of the delay.

Premier Shawn Graham has been pressing the federal government to shoulder the cost overruns because AECL is a federal Crown Corporation.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and federal Conservative MPs have said the contract will be honoured, but have not agreed to pay for the replacement power during the delays.

In a letter to Graham last month, Harper said the province was “fully aware that there were uncertainties involved” when the project was started.

The contract was signed by the province’s previous Conservative government in 2005, a year before Graham’s Liberals came to power.

Graham has threatened to sue Ottawa for the extra costs, but Keir said he wants a mediation process with the federal government to settle the question of who will pay.

“The people of New Brunswick contracted for success on this project, not for failure,” Keir said.

This is the first refurbishment of a Candu-6 reactor by AECL, and Keir said New Brunswickers should not be paying for a federal Crown corporation that’s on a learning curve that will allow it to do a better job of refurbishing similar reactors elsewhere around the world.

But Paul Robichaud, the Tory energy critic, said he thinks the provincial government is jumping the gun.

“I believe there is still some time and some place for discussion and instead of calling a press conference, what the province of New Brunswick should do is to sit at the table with the federal government and try to find a solution to this situation,” he said.

Work on Point Lepreau was scheduled to take 18 months when it began in March 2008. It is now expected to be at least early 2012 when the work is complete.

“Until we have a solution to the leak testing and acceptance testing for the calandria tubes, we just can’t provide a definitive date yet to when the reactor will be returned to service,” said Dale Coffin, a spokesman for AECL.

“We’re working through those options and narrowing down the options to identify which is the best solution.”

The delays faced by AECL at Point Lepreau and at a plant in North Korea have prompted Hydro-Quebec to hold off on the refurbishment of its Gentilly-2 nuclear station, according to media reports. It is also a Candu-6 reactor like Lepreau.

Norm Rubin of the Toronto-based energy watchdog Energy Probe said he’s not surprised by the added delays at Point Lepreau or the decision by Hydro-Quebec.

“People who look at this as a reliable source of power are destined to live in the dark,” he said.

“This is an unforgiving technology and it has found ways to break the hearts of investors and electricity consumers all over the world for decades.”

Read the original article here. 

Posted in Energy Probe News, New Brunswick Power | 3 Comments

Lawrence Solomon: Global cooling could be killing penguins

An alarmingly large number of penguins could be starving due to unusually cold waters in the southern hemisphere, according to scientists interviewed by the Associated Press. “What worries us this year is the absurdly high number of penguins that have appeared dead in a short period of time,” said Thiago do Nascimento, a biologist at Brazil’s Peruibe Aquarium, referring to 500 penguins found dead in the last 10 days alone on three beaches in Sao Paulo state.

Autopsies on several penguins show their stomachs to be entirely empty, pointing to starvation as a cause of death. The scientists speculate that frigid waters in the southern hemisphere, exacerbated by overfishing, may have deprived the penguins of food, forcing them to travel to warmer waters in search of sustenance.

The Antarctic has been in the throes of a long term cooling period that has seen the southern polar cap get progressively colder for decades. In 2002, scientists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon at Harvard warned that the cooling that was then occurring in the Antarctic was leading to the starvation of penguin chicks. The Antarctic cooling with a resulting growth in sea ice — a cooling that proved wrong the warming predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – was disrupting penguin populations, forcing them to migrate to more hospitable surroundings.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, July 20, 2010

Posted in Climate Change | Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: The Globe and Mail’s overheated rhetoric

The planet is experiencing “a summer of swelter,” states a front-page story in today’s Globe and Mail that provides us with anecdotes of the upshot, such as “more than 1000 Russians have drowned in the last month trying to escape record temperatures.” The Globe then speculates that one cause of the worldwide heat wave could be “the ever-shrinking size of the world’s ice caps.”

First, the Russians. The Globe might have told us that they drown in droves every year, disproportionately in the summer months, and the Globe might also have told us why. “The majority of those drowned were drunk,” explains Vadim Seryogin, a department head at Russia’s Emergencies Ministry. Last year, when 3000 Russian drowned, one analysis of drowned Russian males found that 94% had been drunk.

Perhaps the heat caused Russians to drink more – the data is not yet in – but most don’t need heat to drive them to drink. According to a study last year published in the British journal, the Lancet, alcohol was responsible for the deaths of about three quarters of all Russian men, and half of all Russian women, aged 15-54.

Next, those “ever-shrinking” ice caps, of which this planet has two. The ice cap in the southern hemisphere, in the Antarctic, has been growing steadily since the 1970s, especially so this summer. The ice cap in the northern hemisphere, in contrast, did shrink temporarily over the last few months, after having expanded temporarily earlier in the year, and it is now expanding again. On balance, Planet Earth now has slightly more ice than usual, according to the most recent data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It shows the Arctic to have 1.379 million fewer million square kilometres of ice while the Antarctic has 1.404 more.

“Ice reflects sun and when you melt it, the Earth absorbs more heat, which causes further melt back, which causes more warming,” Danny Harvey, a climate researcher at University of Toronto, told The Globe. “So when you lose ice, it means we’re in big trouble.”

So, when we gain ice, as the Earth is now doing, does it mean we are we safe and sound? The Globe didn’t ask, and Harvey didn’t answer.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, July 17, 2010

Posted in Climate Change | Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: IPCC to Scientists: Shut Up!

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on July 5th warned the scientists in its camp to avoid talking to the press. The warning came just before the Muir Russell report into the Climategate Email scandal stated that IPCC scientists needed to enter “a new world of openness” because their bunker mentality was harming the cause of science.

The July 5th letter, written by IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri to hundreds of scientists preparing the IPCC’s next mammoth report, expected to be published in 2013, stressed the importance of managing the media through the IPCC’s PR department:

“I would also like to emphasize that enhanced media interest in the work of the IPCC would probably subject you to queries about your work and the IPCC. My sincere advice would be that you keep a distance from the media and should any questions be asked about the Working Group with which you are associated, please direct such media questions to the Co-chairs of your Working Group and for any questions regarding the IPCC to the secretariat of the IPCC.”

The scientists may have trouble reconciling Pachauri’s instructions with those from Muir Russell, who stated that “Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct.”

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, July 16, 2010

Posted in Climate Change, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Climategate and the Big Green Lie

(Jul. 15, 2010) That isn’t my headline. It comes from The Atlantic, where Clive Crook its senior editor, yesterday took apart the recent spate of verdicts exonerating the Climategate scientists. Continue reading

Posted in The Deniers | Leave a comment

Climategate and the Big Green Lie

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
July 15, 2010

That isn’t my headline. It comes from The Atlantic, where Clive Crook its senior editor, yesterday took apart the recent spate of verdicts exonerating the Climategate scientists. For those who don’t know Clive Crook, he’s one of the world’s prominent journalists having been, among other things, a 20-year veteran at The Economist, 11 of them as its deputy editor. Oh, and Crook is also a long-standing believer in the view that climate change represents a threat to humanity.

Here’s what he says on the inquiry by Penn State into Michael Mann of hockey stick fame. The inquiry “would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for ‘lack of credible evidence’, it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT’s Richard Lindzen tells the committee, ‘It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what’s going on?’ The report continues: ‘The Investigatory Committee members did not respond to Dr Lindzen’s statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.’) Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers — so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.”

His views of the other Climategate investigations are no less damning. “At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.”

Crook’s column notes criticisms of the Climategate emails from the Guardian’s Fred Pearce (who happens also to have impeccable environmental credentials) and The Economist:  “Like Pearce, The Economist rightly draws attention to the failure of the Russell inquiry to ask Phil Jones of the CRU whether he actually deleted any emails to defeat FoI [Freedom of Information] requests. It calls this omission ‘rather remarkable’. Pearce calls it ‘extraordinary’. Myself, I would prefer to call it ‘astonishing and indefensible.’”

Posted in Energy Probe News, The Deniers | 2 Comments

Lawrence Solomon: The IPCC’s First Test in “a New World of Openness”

“Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct,” stated the Muir Russell report into the Climategate scandal after it found the Climatic Research Unit at the UK’s East Anglia University guilty of “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness.” This failure, the Russell report declared to wide agreement among climate scientists, led to harm “to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.”

To ensure that climate scientists never again harm the cause of science in this way, the Russell report then recommended that scientists adhere to new standards of openness. “Without such openness, the credibility of their work will suffer because it will always be at risk of allegations of concealment and hence mal-practice.”

The Russell report was released last week. This week the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientists have their first opportunity to apply the new standards by admitting to yet another gross transgression.

The opportunity comes via the latest revelation over Amazongate, a scandal that erupted in January, just two months after the Climategate scandal broke in November. The Amazongate story begins with a claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation,” leading to the forest’s conversion to savannah. The IPCC gave as its source a report by WWF, the environmental lobby group. The press then dubbed this failure by the IPCC to rely upon peer-reviewed science “Amazongate.”

Last month, one of the media outlets that exposed Amazongate, the Sunday Times, retracted its story, apparently in the belief that the WWF had based its claim about the looming destruction of the Amazon on legitimate peer-reviewed science. If so, the IPCC’s error was trivial – it had sloppily quoted WWF instead of the actual peer-reviewed science.

With the Sunday Times retraction, most of the worldwide press and climate-friendly blogosphere jumped to the assertion that the IPCC had been exonerated. “Newspapers retract faulty climate reporting,” stated a Washington Post headline. “Lies Concocted By Climate Deniers Likely To Stick Around Despite Corrections,” stated the Huffington Post. Climate scientists everywhere supported the belief that WWF had based its views on peer-reviewed science.

One reporter, Christopher Booker at the London Telegraph, wondered where, exactly, was the peer-reviewed document that the WWF relied upon. When he was stonewalled in obtaining answers he dug and dug and finally found WWF’s source. As he explains, it “was not based on peer-reviewed science, as repeatedly claimed, but originated solely from anonymous propaganda published on the website of a small Brazilian environmental advocacy group.” Booker’s impressive sleuthing is described in detail here.

The IPCC now has the opportunity to rise to Muir Russell’s challenge. He posed the following problem for science in introducing his Climategate report to the press: “How is science to be conducted in a new world of openness, accountability and indeed what I might term citizen involvement in public interest science? … There need to be ways of handling criticism and challenge, of responding to a range of different sorts of criticism and getting into a more productive relationship with critics than we have sometimes seen in this case.”

Will the IPCC and others in the climate science establishment pass this, their first test in the new world of openness? I hope they do. I know they won’t.They weren’t closed in the past out of haughtiness but out of necessity.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, July 12, 2010

Posted in Climate Change | Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: Reopen Climategate hearings, says UK parliamentarian

The UK Parliament was misled by East Anglia University when it conducted hearings into Climategate earlier this year, charges Graham Stringer, a scientist and prominent Labour Member of Parliament, in an article published yesterday in The Register, a UK science and technology journal.

Dr. Stringer, a member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, was reacting to the release this week of the Russell Report on Climategate, which he considers a betrayal of an understanding that the Select Committee had with East Anglia University, home of the Climategate scandal.

As the Official Hansards of the Select Committee show, MPs believed that they needn’t examine the science in great detail following assurances from East Anglia that its own independent inquiries would serve that purpose. “I am hoping, later this week, to announce the chair of a panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong,” the Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Edward Acton, told the committee.

The first of the East Anglia inquiries, by Lord Oxburgh, did not do so and never intended to. As Oxburgh told Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit in an email, “The science was not the subject of our study.” Now that the Russell report is in, and it too underlines it never had any intention of examining the science, the snookering of the UK Select Committee is complete.

Dr. Stringer’s sense of betrayal is shared by the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, who in an interview with BBC on the Oxburgh report stated “Quite frankly, I couldn’t believe it. …There has been a slight of hand in that the actual terms of reference were not what we had been led to believe.” Other MPs feel as he does,

The call to reopen the Select Committee hearing arises because the Russell report failed to answer fundamental questions. Among these, Stringer told The Register: “Why did they delete emails? The key question was what reason they had for doing this, but this was never addressed; not getting to the central motivation was a major failing both of our report and Muir Russell.”

Although the Select Committee had stressed to East Anglia the importance of having open and independent inquiries, the hearings failed to oblige. The Russell inquiry, the last straw for Stringer, was held behind closed doors and heard only one side of the story. It failed to interview any scientist critical of the Climategate scientists; it failed to call witnesses who were the subjects of the emails, it failed to publish all the depositions, and its panellists could hardly be viewed as independent. One panellist, Geoffrey Boulton, was a climate change advisor to the UK and the EU; another, Richard Horton, had deemed global warming “the biggest threat to our future health.”

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, July 11, 2010

Posted in Climate Change, The Deniers | Leave a comment