Return-Path: X-Original-To: mgrant132@cogeco.ca Delivered-To: mgrant132@cogeco.ca Received: from BAYC1-PASMTP02.CEZ.ICE (bayc1-pasmtp02.bayc1.hotmail.com [65.54.191.162]) by sunfep3.cogeco.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F19A18C6 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:04:58 -0500 (EST) X-Originating-IP: [64.231.63.138] X-Originating-Email: [gchudy@sympatico.ca] Received: from yourf78bf48ce2 ([64.231.63.138]) by BAYC1-PASMTP02.CEZ.ICE over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:05:27 -0800 Message-ID: <005901c7396f$03177310$6400a8c0@yourf78bf48ce2> From: "carol chudy" To: "Tom Hughes" Cc: "winston sardine" , "paul serruys" , "mark and susan grant" , "Keith Simpson" , "grant church" , "doug miller" , "dale lane" , "carol & greg chudy" , "BROOKS Bill -LAMBTON" Subject: wind energy - comments on article Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:05:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0056_01C73945.19176A00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jan 2007 13:05:28.0224 (UTC) FILETIME=[FE7E8A00:01C7396E] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C73945.19176A00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here are some comments and responses to the last article sent regarding = impacts of wind variability. James Hopf 12.21.06 Roger,=20 You mentioned coal plants being the next-best choice for buffering = wind output. First, I have a question. How useful would IGCC plants be = for performing this function? Does the process inherently involve all = the syngas being burned immediately, or can any gas (or energy) be = stored for any time period? Barring that, to what extent can IGCC units = be cycled. Given the gas situation, it would be nice if we could use = IGCC plants, as opposed to gas plants, to backup wind. I'd rather use = them than conventional coal for environmental reasons.=20 Another reason for the above concern is the possibility that high = use of wind could actually increase our use of gas. The theory is that = wind "doesn't get along with" baseload plants, because those plants do = not like to be cycled. And because of their high capital but low fuel = costs you wouldn't want to cycle those plants anyway. If one knew that = there would be a lot of wind around, resulting in a highly variable and = unpredictable remaining load, one might be inclined to build a gas plant = as opposed to a coal or nuclear baseload plant. This leads to an = interesting result. Whereas the initial (and intuitively obvious) effect = of wind would be that it displaces gas generation when the wind is = blowing (thus reducing gas consumption), the long term effect may be to = increase gas usage by causing gas plants to be built in lieu of baseload = (coal/nuclear) plants. In effect, wind would rope us into using gas for = a higher generation fraction, because we need more reactive load (vs. = baseload).=20 The above argument also leads me to another question for you. You = say that coal plants are the next choice, behind hydro, for buffering = wind. Why wouldn't gas plants be the next choice? As you say, wind is = largely avoiding fuel costs, and the fuel costs for gas plants are = several times as high as those of coal plants. If the wind is blowing = hard, wouldn't you wait for all gas generation in the region to be shut = down before throttling back any coal plants? Is part of the reason the = fact(?) that combined-cycle plants are not good at varying their output? = =20 Roger Arnold 12.21.06 Thanks for the link to WTC, Len. I think their approach = probably does make sense, but there still seems to be controversy in the = wind community about upwind vs. downwind and 3-blade vs. 2-blade = designs. Prior experience with 2-blade and downwind designs was = discouraging. The problem was noise and vibration from passage of the = blades through the turbulence in the wind shadow of the tower. WTC = acknowledges that downwind designs are more "technically challenging" = than upwind designs, but suggests that computer modeling and design = optimization have allowed them to meet that challenge. Perhaps so, but = I'd feel more confident if I knew a bit more about just how. They aren't = using an approach that has always struck me as reasonable: a = lightweight, free-turning fairing that smooths the airflow around the = section of the tower upwind of the blade tips.=20 Regarding IGCC vs. gas vs. coal for dispatchable capacity: The = gas-fired capacity that it sounds like you're thinking of, James, is = simple CT peaking capacity, not combined cycle. Although cheap, it = hasn't traditionally been very efficient. Most simple cycle turbines = have been below 30%. So they weren't generally used until dispatchable = intermediate capacity--usually coal--was fully committed. The = high-efficiency GTCC units were both more expensive and less tolerant of = cycling, so they tended to be reserved for baseload use. That's all = begun to change, but not quickly.=20 The reason that coal is good for dispatchable capacity is that the = key unit is a boiler, whose firing rate and steam output can easily be = varied. It's true that the steam drives turbines which, like all = turbines, operate best over a narrow throttling range. However, that's = handled simply by varying the number of turbines being driven.=20 The same approach can be used with combined cycle plants of = various types. The only difference is that instead of firing the boilers = with flue gases from coal combustion, they're fired with high = temperature exhaust from combustion turbines or (in the future) from = high temperature fuel cells. With CTs, the firing rate would be stepped = by stepping the number of CTs operating on the front end. The number of = steam turbines operating would be stepped in parallel. The steam boiler = and condenser remain at operating temperature at all times--aside from = maintenance shutdowns.=20 I don't know how widely that approach to CC generation is = currently implemented, but I expect that we'll see more of it in the = future. I don't know of any reason that it would matter whether the = front end CTs were fired by gasified coal instead of natural gas.=20 In any case, the point about wind variation is that, to the = system, there's no inherent difference between normal load variation and = wind-related supply variation. My understanding is that the average = daily peak in most RBAs is three times the average daily minimum; that = implies that at most one-third of our generating capacity can be = baseload. In fact, I think the usual is more like a quarter--although = that quarter delivers abut half of kilowatt-hours consumed. The other = three quarters or generating capacity is dispatched, and operates with = low CF.=20 =20 Graham Traynor 12.22.06 Just a note on GTCCs. Going forward, they will be able = to cycle even more than currently. Already most CTs operate at constant = exhaust gas temp. between 50% and 100% load, thereby reducing stresses = on the following boilers, and enabling quick CC load changes. In boiler = design, we will see a lot of "once through" technology in the future, = eliminating thickwalled components like boiler drums, and thereby = enabling quick load changes in wider load ranges.=20 =20 **** **** 12.22.06 Septimus van der Linden 12.22.06 Some comments on open = cycle Gas Turbines--these units today achieve 35% or better = efficiencies.Some recent 100MW developments achieve 45 % efficiency.The = low capital cost makes it easy to simply add this capacity for peak = shaving. Energy Storage is one answer to increasing numbers of WTG's = that do not live up to the installed nameplate rating. Why would the WTG = Industry be interested in Storage when this concept would reduce trhe = number of machines they can sell-subsidized with Tax Incentives..Pumped = Hydro systems are limited by site availability and environ concerns.Bulk = Energy Storage in the form of CAES(Compresed Air Energy Storge) can be = widelly applied across the country. Smaller systems using pipe storage = and adiabatic expansion can be applied to distributed systems keeping = wind Energy "green" no fuel added.With a lack of Energy policy = addressing Storage--it will just remain a topic of discussion--surely = incentives for Energy Storage as for other technologies would change the = equation substantially.=20 David Katz 12.26.06 All the above discussions have an underlying = premise that the electricity markets will be rational similar to other = storable fuels. Unfortuneatly many system planning decisions are = political due to the government being responsible to keep the lights on = no matter what! While the Part 1 above notes the need to look at the = larger system planning issues about where the renewable energy is = produced and where it is ultimately needed, these engineering principles = must also reflect the local economic and environmental considerations. = Here in Ontario we are reverting back to the Intergrated Power System = Plan, however it is still mired in political considerations about = closing coal plants. Standard Offers for Wind but no transmission, and = no real recognition of the sustainable development issues. =20 ... 2nd: Care is required in making any assumptions of capacity value = since the annual average can be considerably different than the capacity = actually contributed by wind during peak periods. For instance, in the = Midwest, the wind is not expected to produce significant generation = duriing the hot summer peaks, or the very cold winter peaks. (Winds are = usually low on hot summer days and most wind turbines shut down at -20 = degrees F.) Unfortunately, these are the times peaker generation is = needed and the price of gas is the highest. For instance, during the = peak hours of July, the actual generation percentage of wind project = namplate may frequently be in the single digits.=20 ... The reality is that depending on the wind regime of the location, = they are generating most of the time, but at less than rated capacity. = Some wind farms in Scotland average over 7,800 hours of generation per = year, but only have annual capacity factors between 27% and 40%. = Notwithstanding the above, it is hard to ascribe capacity credit to any = single wind power installation (be it 1 or 1000 turbines) apart from a = very few exceptions. This is because it is not possible to predict with = sufficient accuracy what the wind speed or direction at any one location = will be 1 hour in advance, let alone 24 hours. Direction is important = because it affects the turbulence pattern and thus array losses within a = wind farm. However, when a number of installations are geographically = dispersed within a "regional balancing area", the level of accuracy in = predicting the total wind output (within the area) rises. The more = installations there are and the more widely they are dispersed, the = greater the accuracy. Denmark realised this some years ago and the grid = operators there are able to factor wind into their dispatch schedules. = My understanding is that they begin their predictions 36 hours ahead and = refine them until 1 hour ahead. With regard to the issue of matching = peak load, this depends very much on the wind regime and demand profile = of the area that the turbines are located in. In North-west Europe, peak = load occurs during winter, when wind energy production is highest. It = could therefore be argued that wind energy is worth more in Europe than = it is in most of the continental US, where peak demand tends to be in = summer. ... With regard to matching wind to another technology to resolve = variable output, I disagree with the view that wind matches well with = hydro. Firstly, much of the hydro power being developed today is = run-of-river, and thus itself is a variable resource, Secondly, the = experience in Europe over the last 20 years has taught us that in years = when wind speeds are below average, rainfall is also below average! = Realistically, matching depends on the portfolio of generating plant = available within the "regional balancing area", however a personal = observation is that the more diverse the generation mix, and the larger = the balancing area, the more easily it seems that variable energy = sources can be accommodated. ... 2. Grids are dynamic entities, the generation mix will change (as = gas becomes more expensive and new coal & nuclear are brought on line) = and demand profiles are changing (in response to higher energy costs). = Therefore, in developing models to calculate the amount that can be = accommodated, a lot of assumptions have to be made about the conditions = that will exist in the future. Call me a cynic but I suspect that most = of the assumptions are likely to be proven wrong when that future = becomes the here and now. After all, twenty years ago who was predicting = that gas fired power stations would expand so rapidly (and get into = difficulties so rapidly)?=20 3. When people talk about variable power sources, they tend to = think exclusively about wind power. They ignore the effects of other = variable sources such as run-of-river hydro and combined heat and power = (which when it is operated primarily for heat production, is the most = variable generation source of all). In the distant future, we may also = have to contend with meaningful amounts of solar, wave and tidal power=20 ... John K. Sutherland 12.29.06 Comment continued: The over-riding problem with = wind electricity is that it occurs on an intermittent, unreliable, and = unpredictable basis that usually requires dedicated standby operation of = a reliable source of power (nuclear, coal, or imports) that must be = constantly available within seconds. This logically requires that the = assumed costs of wind should also include the costs of the needed = standby generation.=20 As one must build and have, the necessary reliable = replacement power on hand - along with all of its costs - for those = times when the wind does not blow, the obvious question should be asked: = why bother with wind power at all? It is a surplus and un-needed = environmentalist dream that causes capital costs of electrical energy = derived from it, to be a factor of three to five and more, higher than = the cost of electricity from the reliable 'standby' asset - in this case = - Nuclear Power. If it is from coal or other fossil fuels, then having = such stand-by power ticking over at a low level, as in Germany, Denmark, = and Spain, also contributes much more to air pollution; pollution that = should also be chalked up against wind energy operation. Not = surprisingly, nuclear power and nuclear refurbishment look like great = investments, and wind power doesn't. Similar projects with similar very = high costs relative to nuclear power are planned and under construction = in Manitoba (Schneider Power), and at Melancthon and Grey Highlands in = Ontario.=20 The Melancthon-GH project, to be constructed by Canadian = Hydro Developers will cost $126 million in Capital Cost to erect 45 = windmills each of 1.5 MW, for a total of 67.5 MW capacity. The maximum = theoretical output (100% operation) from these windmills, and which = cannot be achieved anywhere in the world, is 591,300 MWh. With a more = likely operation of about 20% of capacity in the year - not even = achieved by either Germany or Denmark, which are closer to 15% - the = output will be about 118,000 MWh (118 GWh, costing $120 million) - the = company assumes 190GWh. A comparable nuclear facility (details above) = can generate 4,580 GWh or more, costing $1.4 billion.=20 And now a proposed wind farm at Taber in Southern Alberta = with similar excessive cost: $140 million for 80 MW capacity, and = unavoidable intermittency and unreliability.=20 Gigawatt for gigawatt, these projects demonstrate that wind = project electricity costs more than three times more than that of = nuclear electricity. Definitely not a good deal.=20 Invariably, all wind power projects clearly demonstrate that = they are not only unjustified and unnecessary, but that they are too = expensive, grossly unreliable, and environmentally damaging to an = unacceptable degree. The British recently estimated the costs of their = various options. Onshore wind costs are 5.4 pence/kWh (about 12 cents = Canadian/kWh). Offshore wind costs are 7.2 p/kWh (these also include the = fractional costs of the essential standby backup energy sources for when = the wind does NOT blow and the reliable alternatives must be brought on = line), and nuclear power, whose costs are 2.3 p/kWh.=20 The Utility Data Institute figures in the US show coal and = nuclear as the cheapest overall, followed by gas, then oil and above all = of them (but not shown by the UDI),is wind and solar.=20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C73945.19176A00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here are some comments and responses to = the last=20 article sent regarding impacts of wind variability.
 
James Hopf
12.21.06
Roger,

You mentioned coal plants being the next-best choice for = buffering wind=20 output. First, I have a question. How useful would IGCC plants be = for=20 performing this function? Does the process inherently involve all = the=20 syngas being burned immediately, or can any gas (or energy) be = stored for=20 any time period? Barring that, to what extent can IGCC units be = cycled.=20 Given the gas situation, it would be nice if we could use IGCC = plants, as=20 opposed to gas plants, to backup wind. I'd rather use them than=20 conventional coal for environmental reasons.=20

Another reason for the above concern is the possibility that = high use=20 of wind could actually increase our use of gas. The theory is that = wind=20 "doesn't get along with" baseload plants, because those plants do = not like=20 to be cycled. And because of their high capital but low fuel costs = you=20 wouldn't want to cycle those plants anyway. If one knew that there = would=20 be a lot of wind around, resulting in a highly variable and = unpredictable=20 remaining load, one might be inclined to build a gas plant as = opposed to a=20 coal or nuclear baseload plant. This leads to an interesting = result.=20 Whereas the initial (and intuitively obvious) effect of wind would = be that=20 it displaces gas generation when the wind is blowing (thus = reducing gas=20 consumption), the long term effect may be to increase gas usage by = causing=20 gas plants to be built in lieu of baseload (coal/nuclear) plants. = In=20 effect, wind would rope us into using gas for a higher generation=20 fraction, because we need more reactive load (vs. baseload).=20

The above argument also leads me to another question for you. = You say=20 that coal plants are the next choice, behind hydro, for buffering = wind.=20 Why wouldn't gas plants be the next choice? As you say, wind is = largely=20 avoiding fuel costs, and the fuel costs for gas plants are several = times=20 as high as those of coal plants. If the wind is blowing hard, = wouldn't you=20 wait for all gas generation in the region to be shut down before=20 throttling back any coal plants? Is part of the reason the fact(?) = that=20 combined-cycle plants are not good at varying their output?=20

Roger Arnold
12.21.06 = Thanks for the link to WTC, Len. I = think=20 their approach probably does make sense, but there still seems to = be=20 controversy in the wind community about upwind vs. downwind and = 3-blade=20 vs. 2-blade designs. Prior experience with 2-blade and downwind = designs=20 was discouraging. The problem was noise and vibration from passage = of the=20 blades through the turbulence in the wind shadow of the tower. WTC = acknowledges that downwind designs are more "technically = challenging" than=20 upwind designs, but suggests that computer modeling and design=20 optimization have allowed them to meet that challenge. Perhaps so, = but I'd=20 feel more confident if I knew a bit more about just how. = They=20 aren't using an approach that has always struck me as reasonable: = a=20 lightweight, free-turning fairing that smooths the airflow around = the=20 section of the tower upwind of the blade tips.=20

Regarding IGCC vs. gas vs. coal for dispatchable capacity: The=20 gas-fired capacity that it sounds like you're thinking of, James, = is=20 simple CT peaking capacity, not combined cycle. Although cheap, it = hasn't=20 traditionally been very efficient. Most simple cycle turbines have = been=20 below 30%. So they weren't generally used until dispatchable = intermediate=20 capacity--usually coal--was fully committed. The high-efficiency = GTCC=20 units were both more expensive and less tolerant of cycling, so = they=20 tended to be reserved for baseload use. That's all begun to = change, but=20 not quickly.=20

The reason that coal is good for dispatchable capacity is that = the key=20 unit is a boiler, whose firing rate and steam output can easily be = varied.=20 It's true that the steam drives turbines which, like all turbines, = operate=20 best over a narrow throttling range. However, that's handled = simply by=20 varying the number of turbines being driven.=20

The same approach can be used with combined cycle plants = of=20 various types. The only difference is that instead of firing the = boilers=20 with flue gases from coal combustion, they're fired with high = temperature=20 exhaust from combustion turbines or (in the future) from high = temperature=20 fuel cells. With CTs, the firing rate would be stepped by stepping = the=20 number of CTs operating on the front end. The number of steam = turbines=20 operating would be stepped in parallel. The steam boiler and = condenser=20 remain at operating temperature at all times--aside from = maintenance=20 shutdowns.=20

I don't know how widely that approach to CC generation is = currently=20 implemented, but I expect that we'll see more of it in the future. = I don't=20 know of any reason that it would matter whether the front end CTs = were=20 fired by gasified coal instead of natural gas.=20

In any case, the point about wind variation is that, to the = system,=20 there's no inherent difference between normal load variation and=20 wind-related supply variation. My understanding is that the = average daily=20 peak in most RBAs is three times the average daily minimum; that = implies=20 that at most one-third of our generating capacity can be baseload. = In=20 fact, I think the usual is more like a quarter--although that = quarter=20 delivers abut half of kilowatt-hours consumed. The other three = quarters or=20 generating capacity is dispatched, and operates with low CF.=20

Graham Traynor
12.22.06 = Just a note on GTCCs. Going = forward, they=20 will be able to cycle even more than currently. Already most CTs = operate=20 at constant exhaust gas temp. between 50% and 100% load, thereby = reducing=20 stresses on the following boilers, and enabling quick CC load = changes. In=20 boiler design, we will see a lot of "once through" technology in = the=20 future, eliminating thickwalled components like boiler drums, and = thereby=20 enabling quick load changes in wider load ranges.=20

**** ****
12.22.06
Septimus van der Linden 12.22.06 Some comments on open cycle = Gas=20 Turbines--these units today achieve 35% or better = efficiencies.Some recent=20 100MW developments achieve 45 % efficiency.The low capital cost = makes it=20 easy to simply add this capacity for peak shaving. Energy Storage = is one=20 answer to increasing numbers of WTG's that do not live up to the = installed=20 nameplate rating. Why would the WTG Industry be interested in = Storage when=20 this concept would reduce trhe number of machines they can = sell-subsidized=20 with Tax Incentives..Pumped Hydro systems are limited by site = availability=20 and environ concerns.Bulk Energy Storage in the form of = CAES(Compresed Air=20 Energy Storge) can be widelly applied across the country. Smaller = systems=20 using pipe storage and adiabatic expansion can be applied to = distributed=20 systems keeping wind Energy "green" no fuel added.With a lack of = Energy=20 policy addressing Storage--it will just remain a topic of=20 discussion--surely incentives for Energy Storage as for other = technologies=20 would change the equation substantially.
 
David = Katz
12.26.06 All the above discussions = have an=20 underlying premise that the electricity markets will be = rational=20 similar to other storable fuels. Unfortuneatly many system = planning=20 decisions are political due to the government being = responsible to=20 keep the lights on no matter what! While the Part 1 above = notes the=20 need to look at the larger system planning issues about = where the=20 renewable energy is produced and where it is ultimately = needed,=20 these engineering principles must also reflect the local = economic=20 and environmental considerations. Here in Ontario we are = reverting=20 back to the Intergrated Power System Plan, however it is = still mired=20 in political considerations about closing coal plants. = Standard=20 Offers for Wind but no transmission, and no real recognition = of the=20 sustainable development issues. =

...

2nd: Care is required in making any assumptions of capacity = value since=20 the annual average can be considerably different than the capacity = actually contributed by wind during peak periods. For instance, in = the=20 Midwest, the wind is not expected to produce significant = generation=20 duriing the hot summer peaks, or the very cold winter peaks. = (Winds are=20 usually low on hot summer days and most wind turbines shut down at = -20=20 degrees F.) Unfortunately, these are the times peaker generation = is needed=20 and the price of gas is the highest. For instance, during the peak = hours=20 of July, the actual generation percentage of wind project namplate = may=20 frequently be in the single digits.

...

The reality is that depending on the wind regime of the = location, they=20 are generating most of the time, but at less than rated capacity. = Some=20 wind farms in Scotland average over 7,800 hours of generation per = year,=20 but only have annual capacity factors between 27% and 40%. = Notwithstanding=20 the above, it is hard to ascribe capacity credit to any single = wind power=20 installation (be it 1 or 1000 turbines) apart from a very few = exceptions.=20 This is because it is not possible to predict with sufficient = accuracy=20 what the wind speed or direction at any one location will be 1 = hour in=20 advance, let alone 24 hours. Direction is important because it = affects the=20 turbulence pattern and thus array losses within a wind farm. = However, when=20 a number of installations are geographically dispersed within a = "regional=20 balancing area", the level of accuracy in predicting the total = wind output=20 (within the area) rises. The more installations there are and the = more=20 widely they are dispersed, the greater the accuracy. Denmark = realised this=20 some years ago and the grid operators there are able to factor = wind into=20 their dispatch schedules. My understanding is that they begin = their=20 predictions 36 hours ahead and refine them until 1 hour ahead. = With regard=20 to the issue of matching peak load, this depends very much on the = wind=20 regime and demand profile of the area that the turbines are = located in. In=20 North-west Europe, peak load occurs during winter, when wind = energy=20 production is highest. It could therefore be argued that wind = energy is=20 worth more in Europe than it is in most of the continental US, = where peak=20 demand tends to be in summer.

...

With regard to matching wind to another technology to resolve = variable=20 output, I disagree with the view that wind matches well with = hydro.=20 Firstly, much of the hydro power being developed today is = run-of-river,=20 and thus itself is a variable resource, Secondly, the experience = in Europe=20 over the last 20 years has taught us that in years when wind = speeds are=20 below average, rainfall is also below average! Realistically, = matching=20 depends on the portfolio of generating plant available within the=20 "regional balancing area", however a personal observation is that = the more=20 diverse the generation mix, and the larger the balancing area, the = more=20 easily it seems that variable energy sources can be = accommodated.

...

2. Grids are dynamic entities, the generation mix will change = (as gas=20 becomes more expensive and new coal & nuclear are brought on = line) and=20 demand profiles are changing (in response to higher energy costs). = Therefore, in developing models to calculate the amount that can = be=20 accommodated, a lot of assumptions have to be made about the = conditions=20 that will exist in the future. Call me a cynic but I suspect that = most of=20 the assumptions are likely to be proven wrong when that future = becomes the=20 here and now. After all, twenty years ago who was predicting that = gas=20 fired power stations would expand so rapidly (and get into = difficulties so=20 rapidly)?=20

3. When people talk about variable power sources, they tend to = think=20 exclusively about wind power. They ignore the effects of other = variable=20 sources such as run-of-river hydro and combined heat and power = (which when=20 it is operated primarily for heat production, is the most variable = generation source of all). In the distant future, we may also have = to=20 contend with meaningful amounts of solar, wave and tidal power =

...

John K. = Sutherland
12.29.06=20 Comment continued: The = over-riding=20 problem with wind electricity is that it occurs on an = intermittent,=20 unreliable, and unpredictable basis that usually requires = dedicated=20 standby operation of a reliable source of power (nuclear, = coal, or=20 imports) that must be constantly available within seconds. = This=20 logically requires that the assumed costs of wind should = also=20 include the costs of the needed standby generation.=20

As one must build and have, the necessary reliable = replacement=20 power on hand =96 along with all of its costs - for those = times when=20 the wind does not blow, the obvious question should be = asked: why=20 bother with wind power at all? It is a surplus and un-needed = environmentalist dream that causes capital costs of = electrical=20 energy derived from it, to be a factor of three to five and = more,=20 higher than the cost of electricity from the reliable = =91standby=92=20 asset - in this case - Nuclear Power. If it is from coal or = other=20 fossil fuels, then having such stand-by power ticking over = at a low=20 level, as in Germany, Denmark, and Spain, also contributes = much more=20 to air pollution; pollution that should also be chalked up = against=20 wind energy operation. Not surprisingly, nuclear power and = nuclear=20 refurbishment look like great investments, and wind power = doesn=92t.=20 Similar projects with similar very high costs relative to = nuclear=20 power are planned and under construction in Manitoba = (Schneider=20 Power), and at Melancthon and Grey Highlands in Ontario.=20

The Melancthon-GH project, to be constructed by Canadian = Hydro=20 Developers will cost $126 million in Capital Cost to erect = 45=20 windmills each of 1.5 MW, for a total of 67.5 MW capacity. = The=20 maximum theoretical output (100% operation) from these = windmills,=20 and which cannot be achieved anywhere in the world, is = 591,300 MWh.=20 With a more likely operation of about 20% of capacity in the = year =96=20 not even achieved by either Germany or Denmark, which are = closer to=20 15% - the output will be about 118,000 MWh (118 GWh, costing = $120=20 million) =96 the company assumes 190GWh. A comparable = nuclear facility=20 (details above) can generate 4,580 GWh or more, costing $1.4 = billion.=20

And now a proposed wind farm at Taber in Southern Alberta = with=20 similar excessive cost: $140 million for 80 MW capacity, and = unavoidable intermittency and unreliability.=20

Gigawatt for gigawatt, these projects demonstrate that = wind=20 project electricity costs more than three times more than = that of=20 nuclear electricity. Definitely not a good deal.=20

Invariably, all wind power projects clearly demonstrate = that they=20 are not only unjustified and unnecessary, but that they are = too=20 expensive, grossly unreliable, and environmentally damaging = to an=20 unacceptable degree. The British recently estimated the = costs of=20 their various options. Onshore wind costs are 5.4 pence/kWh = (about=20 12 cents Canadian/kWh). Offshore wind costs are 7.2 p/kWh = (these=20 also include the fractional costs of the essential standby = backup=20 energy sources for when the wind does NOT blow and the = reliable=20 alternatives must be brought on line), and nuclear power, = whose=20 costs are 2.3 p/kWh.=20

The Utility Data Institute figures in the US show coal = and=20 nuclear as the cheapest overall, followed by gas, then oil = and above=20 all of them (but not shown by the UDI),is wind and solar.=20 =

<= /BODY> ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C73945.19176A00--