Wind energy contributes to improvement of Ontario's electricity grid stability

Wind energy contributes to improvement of Ontario's electricity grid stability and reliability

Canada NewsWire

OTTAWA, March 3, 2014

OTTAWA, March 3, 2014 /CNW/ - Last week, Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) reported in its 18-month Outlook that the connection of new wind and other renewable energy is being achieved without any impact on the reliability of Ontario's electricity system.

IESO stated late last week that the retirement of coal-fired generation combined with transmission-ready renewable wind and solar power has put downward pressure on peak demands on the electricity system without impacting reliability. As Canada's leader in clean wind energy, Ontario has more than 2,400 MW of installed capacity, supplying over 3 per cent of the province's electricity demand.

"Procuring a stable and steady stream of wind energy complements Ontario's new energy conservation measures, and provides the province with unprecedented flexibility to align electricity supply needs with changing economic and environmental circumstances," said Robert Hornung, President, Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). "Progressive governments around the world know that continuing to integrate new wind energy not only results in a major contribution to reducing carbon emissions, it improves the reliability of electricity grids, while ensuring more predictable and stable electricity prices," he added. 

In 2013, the US Energy Information Administration reported that onshore wind energy is also one of the cheapest forms of new power, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has proven how wind energy enhances grid reliability.
Today, Ontario has a range of options for new electricity generation but few that match the requirement for affordability, economic development potential, environmental sustainability, diversification, reliability and rate base value as compellingly as wind energy. Wind energy developments are growing an increasingly diverse, made-in-Ontario supply and value chains that are fueling new investments and competitive advantages in Ontario's green energy economy.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1769354#ixzz2vOl430eQ

Interview with Dr. David Colby, medical officer of health in Chatham-Kent

Dr. David Colby, medical officer of health in Chatham-Kent, is considered an expert on wind turbines and health and his work is widely quoted in reports and during debates about the safety of turbines. Free Press reporter Norman De Bono goes one-on-one with Colby.

--- --- ---

Q: Is it frustrating to you that the federal government has announced another study, this one to be done by Health Canada, when so much research has been done on this issue?

It's not frustrating but I might question whether it's a wise use of ... taxpayers' money. But let's face it, they are under tremendous political pressure.

 

Q: You are cited as an expert on the subject and have given testimony on the issue at hearings. What has your research found?

My conclusion was the same as 16 other reviews that have been done around the world. They all concluded noise from wind turbines is at most an annoyance of small proportions to people and there are no direct health effects.

 

Q: How do you explain, then, some complaints of health issues?

There is a tremendous body of evidence around sound and health, but if you have already decided wind turbines are bad for your health, it is easy to pick holes in the literature. Acoustic energy does not impact human tissue. It does not damage you in any way. It boils down to the annoyance effect.

 

Q: Certainly you cannot dismiss annoyance, as stress can have a major impact on health.

The argument wind advocates postulate is that then an unforeseen force is causing illness. That has been discredited, but lay people cling to it. If you are annoyed enough by what you see and hear, it will produce stress and everyone knows stress is bad.

 

Q: In your research you cite turbines may cause a "nacebo" effect in some. What is that?

Everyone knows about placebo effect, where you feel better by taking a sugar pill. The nacebo effect is the belief there is a worsening of physical health because of fear, (made even worse by media heightening fears adding to stress).

 

Q: Are you suggesting some health-related concerns may be caused by other factors, such as lifestyle?

Just because someone says "wind turbines make me sick" it does not make it so. If someone is hysterical about their health, humans are empathetic creatures and we will be impressed by that and tend to believe it, even if science says it is not so.

 

Q: But a book has been written about wind turbine syndrome.

There is no such thing as wind turbine syndrome. It's the most spectacularly flawed piece of pseudo-science that I have ever encountered. They took families all over the world who self-reported their symptoms and were articulate in doing so. It's what started all this nonsense.

 

Q: Has this issue affected you personally?

Since I started speaking out on this, there have been five complaints to the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons demanding I be silenced. If you can't argue the facts, the next step is to attack personally. Those complaints have been dismissed. But I'm not a wind turbine activist, I just looked at the evidence and drew my conclusions.

 

David Colby also is an associate professor of pharmacy and pharmacology at Western University. His cottage outside Chatham sits in the shadow of several wind turbines.

Weak nuclear results cause dip in OPG profit

Weak nuclear results cause dip in OPG profit; More station outages cause operating expenses to increase, prompting company's application for 35-per-cent rate hike

Toronto Star - Mar 07, 2014, John Spears Toronto Star

A weaker performance by Ontario Power Generation's nuclear sector dragged down profits for the company owned by the province.



OPG reported Thursday that net income dipped to $135 million in 2013 from $367 million a year earlier.

Revenue rose to $4.863 billion from $4.732 billion.



The company's nuclear generating sector contributed to the weaker profit showing, as the sector turned in a loss of $19 million before interest and taxes, compared with a profit of $364 million the year before.



Outages at nuclear units - some planned and some not - were a factor in the weaker results, the company said.



The Darlington station ran at 83 per cent capacity in 2013, down from 93 per cent the year before, according to the company. The Pickering station dipped to 74 per cent capacity from 78 per cent.  The company's overall nuclear output dipped 8.8 per cent in 2013.



The increase in outages hit OPG's finances in two ways, chief executive Tom Mitchell said in a release. The company earned less revenue and incurred higher operating, maintenance and administration expenses.

The prices OPG receives for the output of its nuclear stations are regulated by the Ontario Energy Board. The company has applied for a 35-per-cent increase in its nuclear rates.



OPG was also hit with higher expenses involved in shutting down two big coal-burning stations, at Nanticoke and Lambton.



Hydroelectric output increased 7.2 per cent, as water levels rose and OPG completed the 10.2-kilometre Niagara tunnel, which channels water through its generating station in Queenston.



The company says it's continuing to trim staff. It had more than 11,000 employees in 2011, and has reduced that number by 1,600, mostly through attrition.



OPG was flayed by provincial auditor Bonnie Lysyk for over-generous salaries and pensions in her latest report.

Three top executives, including the chief financial officer, were let go in the wake of her report.



Lysyk had also found that, while the company had trimmed its overall workforce 8.5 per cent since 2005, the senior management ranks had grown by 60 per cent.

Renewable energy saved Ireland over €1bn

Renewable energy saved Ireland over €1bn in fossil fuel imports in past five years – SEAI CEO

     

Renewable energy saved Ireland over €1bn in fossil fuel imports in past five years – SEAI CEO

  

Wind energy is Ireland’s greatest indigenous energy resource, and we should ensure we exploit it to the benefit of the Irish people, according to Dr Brian Motherway, CEO of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI).

“This is all about making Ireland more energy independent – harvesting our own resources instead of importing the expensive resources of others,” he said.





In a defence of continuing wind energy development, Dr Motherway explained that on a range of objective measurements wind energy is delivering for Ireland, and that in the past five years renewable energy has saved over €1bin in fossil fuel imports, has reduced CO2 emissions by 12 million tonnes and has not added to consumers’ bills.




“As the issues of further wind and grid development are discussed across the country, it is important that this debate be based on factual evidence and not myths."


Dr Motherway said that some vocal opponents of specific developments have sought to question the national case for more wind energy development in Ireland.





“Many people are concerned about renewable energy proposals in their communities. People are entitled to raise all the concerns they may have and a full and open debate is essential. However, false information only serves to worry people further.




“Frankly, many arguments have been put forward questioning the case for more wind development in Ireland which are not fact based. The evidence is very clear that wind energy is good for Ireland, bringing economic, environmental and social benefits. We must ensure we don’t throw away the opportunity to capture these benefits.”





Discussing these benefits, Dr Motherway pointed out that Ireland is highly dependent on imported fossil fuels, spending €6.5bn per year on such imports.


“This creates risk, and bleeds large amounts of money from the domestic economy. Wind and other renewables will allow us to gain greater energy independence, and massively reduce our carbon emissions as well.”




Growing our use of renewable energy is also vital for our national competiveness, giving us greater control over our energy prices, he noted.



“Less reliance on fossil fuels gives us greater certainty on our energy prices, rather than leaving us at the mercy of international commodity price rises. It also helps attract foreign investment, as more global companies seek access to clean energy as part of their location decisions.”



Dr Motherway was speaking at the publication by SEAI of Renewable Energy in Ireland, which shows good progress towards our renewable targets with over 7pc of Ireland’s energy demand coming from renewables in 2012 resulting in €250m less expenditure on imported fossil fuels.

Powerful Presentations on Fukushima and Nuclear Power By Karl Grossman

It started this June in California. Speaking about the problems at the troubled San Onofre nuclear plants through the perspective of the Fukushima nuclear complex catastrophe was a panel of Naoto Kan, prime minister of Japan when the disaster began; Gregory Jaczko, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the time; Peter Bradford, an NRC member when the Three Mile Island accident happened; and nuclear engineer and former nuclear industry executive Arnie Gundersen.

This week the same panel of experts on nuclear technology--joined by long-time nuclear opponent Ralph Nader--was on the East Coast, in New York City and Boston, speaking about problems at the problem-riddled Indian Point nuclear plants near New York and the troubled Pilgrim plant near Boston, through the perspective on the Fukushima catastrophe.

Their presentations were powerful.

Kan, at the event Tuesday in Manhattan, told of how he had been a supporter of nuclear power, but after the Fukushima accident, which began on March 11, 2011, "I changed my thinking 180-degrees, completely." He said that in the first days of the accident it looked like an "area that included Tokyo" and populated by 50 million people might have to be evacuated.

"We do have accidents such as an airplane crash and so on," said Kan, "but no other accident or disaster" other than a nuclear plant disaster can "affect 50 million people...no other accident could cause such a tragedy."

All 54 nuclear plants in Japan have now been closed, Kan said. And "without nuclear power plants we can absolutely provide the energy to meet our demands." Meanwhile, in the two-plus years since the disaster began, Japan has tripled its use of solar energy--a jump in solar power production that is the equivalent of the electricity that would be produced by three nuclear plants, he said. He pointed to Germany as a model in its commitment to shutting down all its nuclear power plants and having "all its power supplied by renewable power" by 2050. The entire world, said Kan, could do this. "If humanity really would work together...we could generate all our energy through renewable energy."

Jaczko said that the Fukushima disaster exploded several myths about nuclear power including those involving the purported prowess of U.S. nuclear technology. The General Electric technology of the Fukushima nuclear plants "came from the U.S.," he noted. And, it exploded the myth that "severe accidents wouldn't happen." Said the former top nuclear official in the United States: "Severe accidents can and will happen."

And what the Fukushima accident "is telling us is society does not accept the consequences of these accidents," said Jaczko, who was pressured out of his position on the NRC after charging that the agency was not considering the "lessons" of the Fukushima disaster.   In monetary cost alone, Jaczko said, the cost of the Fukushima accident is estimated at $500 billion by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Nuclear engineer Gundersen, formerly a nuclear industry senior vice president, noted that the NRC "says the chance of a nuclear accident is one in a million," that an accident would happen "every 2,500 years." This is predicated, he said, on what the NRC terms a probabilistic   risk assessment or PRA. "I'd like to refer to it as PRAY." The lesson of "real life," said Gundersen, is that there have been five nuclear plant meltdowns in the past 35 years--Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and the three at Fukushima Daiichi complex. That breaks down to an accident "every seven years."

"This is a technology that can have 40 good years that can be wiped out in one bad day," said Gundersen. He drew a parallel between Fukushima Daiichi "120 miles from Tokyo" and the Indian Point nuclear plant complex "26 miles from New York City." He said that "in many ways Indian Point is worse than Fukushima was before the accident."   One element: the Fukushima accident resulted from an earthquake followed by a tsunami. The two operating plants at Indian Point are also adjacent to an earthquake fault, said Gundersen. New York City "faces one bad day like Japan, one sad day." He also spoke of the "arrogance and hubris" of the nuclear industry and how the NRC has consistently complied with the desires of the industry.

Bradford said that that the "the bubble" that the nuclear industry once termed "the nuclear renaissance" has burst. As to a main nuclear industry claim in this promotion to revive nuclear power--that atomic energy is necessary in "mitigating climate change"--this has been shown to be false. It would take tripling of the 440 total of nuclear plants now in the world to reduce greenhouse gasses by but 10 percent. Other sources of power are here as well as energy efficiency that could combat climate change. Meanwhile, the price of electricity from any new nuclear plants built has gone to a non-competitive 12 to 20 cents per kilowatt hour while "renewables are falling in price."

Bradford also sharply criticized the agency of which he was once a member, the NRC, charging among other things that it has in recent years discouraged citizen participation. Also, as to Fukushima, the "accident really isn't over," said Bradford who, in addition to his role at the NRC has chaired the utility commissions of Maine and New York State.

Nader said that with nuclear power and the radioactivity it produces "we are dealing with a silent cumulative form of violence." He said nuclear power is "unnecessary, unsafe, and uninsurable...undemocratic." And constructing new words that begin with "un," it is also "unevacuatable, unfinanceable, unregulatable."

Nader said nuclear power is unnecessary because there are many energy alternatives--led by solar and wind. It is unsafe because catastrophic accidents can and will happen. He noted how the former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in a 1960s report projected that a major nuclear accident could irradiate an area "the size of Pennsylvania." He asked: "Is this the kind of gamble we want to take to boil water?"

Nuclear power is extremely expensive and thus uneconomic, he went on. It is uninsurable with the original scheme for nuclear power in the U.S. based on the federal Price-Anderson Act which limits a utility's liability to a "fraction" of the cost of damages from an accident. That law remains, extended by Congress "every ten years or so."


As for being "unevacuable," NRC evacuation plans are "fantasy" documents," said Nader. The U.S. advised Americans within 50 miles of Fukushima to evacuate. Some 20 million people live within 50 miles of the Indian Point plants and New Yorkers "can hardly get out" of the city during a normal rush hour." Nuclear power is "unfinancable," he said, depending on government fiscal support through tax dollars. And it is "unregulatable" with the NRC taking a "promotional attitude."   And, "above all it is undemocratic," said Nader, "a technology born in secrecy" which continues.


Meanwhile, said Nader, "as the orders dry up in developed nations" for nuclear plants, the nuclear industry is pushing to build new plants in the developing world.

Also at the event in New York City, moderated by Riverkeeper President Paul Gallay and held at the 92^nd Street Y, a segment of a new video documentary on nuclear power by Adam Salkin was screened. It showed Salkin in a boat going right in front of the Indian Point plants and it taking nearly five hours for a "security" boat from the plant to respond, and Salkin, the next day, in an airplane flying as low as 500 feet above the plants. The segment demonstrated that the nuclear plants on the Hudson are an easy target for terrorists and, it noted, what it showed was what "terrorists already know."

The San Onofre nuclear power plants were closed permanently three weeks after the June panel event--and after many years of intensive actions by nuclear opponents in California to shut down the plants, situated between San Diego and Los Angeles. The panel's appearances this week in New York City Tuesday and Boston Wednesday, titled "Fukushima--Ongoing Lessons for New York and Boston," are aimed at the same outcome occurring on the East Coast.

  

Wind, solar to replace fossil fuels within decades

Grantham: Wind, solar to replace fossil fuels within decades

By Giles Parkinson on 11 February 2014

 

Legendary hedge fund investor Jeremy Grantham says there is no doubt that solar and wind energy will “completely replace” coal and gas across the globe, it is just a matter of when.




The founder of $100 billion funds manager GMO Capital is known as a contrarian. But he suggests that the pace of change in the fuel supply will surprise everyone, and have huge implications for fossil fuel investments.




“I have become increasingly impressed with the potential for a revolution in energy, which will make it extremely unlikely that a lack of energy will be the issue that brings us to our knees,” Grantham writes in his latest quarterly newsletter.




“Even in the expected event that there are no important breakthroughs in the cost of nuclear power, the potential for alternative energy sources, mainly solar and wind power, to completely replace coal and gas for utility generation globally is, I think, certain.




“The question is only whether it takes 30 years or 70 years. That we will replace oil for land transportation with electricity or fuel cells derived indirectly from electricity is also certain, and there, perhaps, the timing question is whether this will take 20 or 40 years.”




Grantham’s predictions go against the conventional wisdowm of the fossil fuel industry, but they the thoughts of many people, including Stanford researcher Tony Seba, who said last year this could occur within a few decades.




And Grantham says it could happen quicker than even he believes, and will have major implications for new investments in the fossil fuel industry – a topic very much in mind for project developers and bankers in Australia.




“I have felt for some time that new investments today in coal and tar sands are highly likely to become stranded assets, and everything I have seen, in the last year particularly, increases my confidence,” Grantham writes.




“China especially is escalating rapidly in its drive to limit future pollution from coal and gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. Increased smog last year in major cities led to an unprecedented level of general complaint.




“China simply can’t afford to have Chinese and foreign business leaders leaving important industrial areas in order to protect the health of themselves and their families. Nor are they likely to be comfortable with a high level of sustained complaint from the general public. They have responded in what I consider to be Chinese style, with a growing list of new targets for reducing pollution. A typical example recently was an increase of 60% in their target for total installed solar by the end of 2015! Hardly a month goes by without a new step being announced.”




He also questioned whether th $650 billion spent by the fossil fuel industry searching for new oil reserves was a smart idea, given his recent experience of a colleague’s Tesla. Grantham, the former onwer of a 12-year-old Volvo, described his journey from New York to Boston as his best ever car experience, and suggested that the slump in battery costs would mean the $75,000 vehicle like Teslas would soon be available at $40,000.




“One can easily see that in 10 years there could be a new world order in cars. (And if that weren’t enough, there is a wholly different attack on the traditional gasoline engine from an entirely new technology, the hydrogen fuel cell, to be introduced by Toyota this year.)




In short, with slower global economic growth, more fuel-efficient gasoline and diesel vehicles, more hybrids, cheaper electric cars, more natural gas vehicles, and possibly new technologies using fuel cells and, conceivably, methanol, it is certain that oil demand from developed countries will decline, probably faster than expected.




“Some emerging countries, notably China, are likely to take more dramatic and faster steps to reduce demand than we have ever thought about. Already they have 200 million electric vehicles – mostly motorbikes – almost as many as the rest of the world squared.




“Total global oil demand at current prices or higher is likely to peak in 10 years or so. At much lower prices we would fairly quickly lose most of our high-cost production: deep offshore, fracking, and tar sands.




“Times may be changing faster than we think. My guess is that oil prices will be higher than now in 10 years, but after that, who knows?




“The idea of “peak oil demand” as opposed to peak oil supply has gone, in my opinion, from being a joke to an idea worth beginning to think about in a single year. Some changes seem to be always around the corner and then at long last they move faster than you expected and you are caught flat-footed.”

Where does a wind energy opponent get their information from?

Another day, another squabble about a right-leaning policy memo.

This time the disputed document is a 10-page strategy memo appearing to detail an expensive and ambitious campaign targeting the wind energy industry. The memo, circulated by the watchdog group the Checks and Balances Project, calls for opponents of wind power to engage in messaging and media outreach efforts that “appear as a ‘groundswell’ among grass roots.”

The memo also calls for the establishment of “dummy” businesses in communities considering hosting wind power projects to purchase 400-foot billboards opposing the idea.

Renaming wind power as “puff power” or “breeze energy” is also recommended.

The document, which was first referenced in an article yesterday in the Guardian, was drafted by Illinois attorney Rich Porter and edited by John Droz, a longtime opponent of industrial wind and a senior fellow at the American Tradition Institute.

Checks and Balances Project co-director Gabe Elsner said it was discussed at a meeting of wind energy opponents held in Washington in early February, which was convened by Droz.

Participants at that meeting included staffers from national right-leaning organizations like the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and American Legislative Exchange Council, as well as state-based anti-wind groups like Illinois Wind Watch.

The memo called for $750,000 in seed money, and its proposals ranged from book publishing to extensive media campaigns. Stephen Lacey of the Center for American Progress said it left the impression that the supporters of the plan did not have funding yet.

“I think for us the real interesting news is that this is happening and a lot of these folks are trying to coordinate, and it is being done with folks that are affiliated with conservative groups that have historically fought renewable energy standards and tried to sow the seeds of doubt about climate science,” he said.

Climate scientist and author Michael Mann said the memo appeared to be part of an ongoing strategy by right-leaning groups to use “astroturfing” techniques to try to show public support for views that are actually in the interest of a narrow segment of the business community.

“It’s fundamentally dishonest,” he said. “They’re trying to make the public think that there’s grass-roots support for something when in fact it’s a Potemkin village.”

He added, “They’re lying to the public, trying to make the public think their fellow citizens share the views that really represent only the narrow interests of powerful vested interests.”

But Droz said the Guardian had the story all wrong: The memo reflected Porter’s views only. It was never adopted by participants at the Energy Advocates Conference, he said, and in fact was not even discussed. He said he had edited the memo himself, but only for grammar.

“When I looked at the ideas, I thought some of them had some merit, I thought some of them were not so good,” Droz said

He said that as a “grass roots” group, the conference of wind energy opponents had to be open to any private citizen’s ideas.

“I’m open to anyone saying anything, quite frankly,” he said.

Droz also disputed that his meeting represents a coordinated effort by conservatives to go after wind. He said the participants were chosen by him, and they took part as private citizens, not on behalf of their organizations.

Click here to read the memo.