The beginning of the end for wind power in Ontario

[OVERKILL]

In 2001 Ontario Power Generation built its first, and it turns out, only, wind turbine on the shores of Lake Ontario, directly next to the 4,000MW (3,048MW operational) Pickering Nuclear Power plant, which was constructed started in 1966 and grid connected in 1971. The single Vestas V80 unit, at 1.8MW, has had some reliability issues over its operating life and is the ONLY wind turbine in the province to be paid a market rate, since it's publicly owned.

https://www.opg.com/news/pickering-wind-turbine-to-be-removed/

In 2002, Ontario's first Commercial wind farm was installed in Bruce County, located directly behind the Juggernaut, Bruce Nuclear. This farm consists of 5 of the same Vestas V80 turbines, which will likely meet the same fate as the Pickering one next year.

Ontario's Green Energy Act has been dismantled, hundreds of contracts eliminated for new builds, so as it stands, there will be likely no new wind power constructed in the province in the near future, and none under the now dead GEA.

The Bruce site represents the peak of Nuclear in Canada. It was built before costs went crazy, and many lessons were learned from Pickering. It was the first series of 480 fuel channel CANDU units, which culminated as the CANDU 9 units that were built at Darlington. At 900MWe nominal (880MWe actual) this was as large as the CANDU would ever get. The units at Bruce, which were 750MWe (A) and 800MWe (B) have been uprated several times and now produce 779MWe and 817MWe, pending further uprates as the refurbishment commences.

The 18 year lifespan of these Vestas units marks the beginning of the end for contracted wind in Ontario. As these units reach EOL they will be removed and likely not replaced, given the lack of financial incentives now and the overall poor performance of wind generation in the province. The sun will have risen, and set, on GEA wind during the tenure of Bruce and Darlington, whose anticipated lifespan, barring further life extension and refurbishment, runs through to the mid 2060's.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Certainly a harsh dose of reality. Thanks for the post.

 

[WyrTwister]

What were the problems ? Not enough power produced , given the cost of construction and operation ?

Wyr
God bless

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by WyrTwister
What were the problems ? Not enough power produced , given the cost of construction and operation ?

Wyr
God bless


With the unit? It had some mechanical issues, but Ontario is not overly windy, so wind performance here is much poorer than places like Nova Scotia for example. It also tends to produce out of phase with demand, which is far from ideal.

 

[OVERKILL]

Ontario has, comically, one of the greenest grids in the world, but this is due to Nuclear and Hydro, not wind or solar.

 

[PPWarrior]

Good thing Texas is a green energy paradise. We try everything out.

 

[maxdustington]

Originally Posted by PPWarrior
Good thing Texas is a green energy paradise. We try everything out. I just can't understand why socialist canada won't try it out.
We tried, hard. Our government threw a lot of money at it and couldn't make it work. We don't have enough sun or wind.

Investments in alternative energy follow subsidies, those dried up and the investment went to China. The Libs in Ontario made the electorate foot the bill for alternative energy and were destroyed (literally lost party status) in the next election.

 

[AuthorEditor]

Do some Googling to read the truth about wind and other alternative energy sources. It's already the cheapest way to produce new power and getting cheaper. Every energy source has its ups and downs in the growth phase. Just ask insurance companies how exciting nuclear is. When your money is on the line you think a little more clearly about these things. Fukushima will cost something like $500 billion.

 

[OVERKILL]

We tried it out and it increased our rates massively, all the while providing very little in return. Wind accounts for only around 9% of our power generation, solar is less than 1%, and that's after throwing 10's of billions in subsidies at it, the cost of which we'll be paying for long after those sources have stopped producing.

You may want to compare Ontario's CO2 intensity to Texas. You are currently sitting at 414g/kWh, we are at 19g/kWh. This is due to Nuclear.

https://www.electricitymap.org/?pag...rue&wind=false&countryCode=US-TX

 

[AuthorEditor]

Forbes: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/amp/

Quote
over 75% of the onshore wind and 80% of the solar PV capacity due to be commissioned next year will produce power at lower prices than the cheapest new coal, oil or natural gas options. "Crucially, they are set to do so without financial assistance," it noted.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
Do some Googling to read the truth about wind and other alternative energy sources. It's already the cheapest way to produce new power and getting cheaper. Every energy source has its ups and downs in the growth phase. Just ask insurance companies how exciting nuclear is. When your money is on the line you think a little more clearly about these things. Fukushima will cost something like $500 billion.


I'm not "doing some googling", I'm extremely well educated on the subject in question and have plenty of posts on here about it. Wind is cheap to build. Wind is also intermittent, which means you have gas on standby ready to step in for when it doesn't produce. The same goes for solar, something has to hold the fort when it steps out for the night or it is cloudy. In a vacuum, these sources, in terms of CAPEX for procurement, are incredible cheap. In terms of actual costs for the amount of expanded transmissions infrastructure necessary, the amount of money dumped into standby gas, it becomes ridiculously expensive. Far more expensive than just spending the higher CAPEX on a nuke or hydro and not having to worry about it.

Ontario spent an obscene amount of money subsidizing both wind and solar through a feed-in tariff system, designed to incentivize private parties to build them here. Ratepayers were then on the hook to make up the cost of these subsidies. On top of that, we massively expanded gas capacity to provide backup for these mediums for the above reason. We now have 10,277MW of gas capacity for peaking and VRE backup. It runs at a ridiculously low capacity factor, but has a significant kWh cost due to idle payments. It provides just 6% of our power. Wind, at 4,486MW of installed capacity provides 7% of our power. Nuclear, at 13,009MW provides 61% of our power, Hydro at 8,482MW provides 25% to show how this distills out.

Right now, wind is Ontario is producing 387MW of 4,486MW installed. Ontario demand is 14,777MW which is being entirely satisfied by Nuclear and Hydro, which is why we are at 19g/kWh, the lowest in the world. New Zealand, all hydro, is 2nd at 24g/kWh, followed by France, almost all Nuclear, at 27g/kWh. The bastion of VRE, Germany, who has spent 580 BILLION on renewables at this point, is at 314g/kWh.

Like in France, Nuclear in Ontario was built and owned by the government; it is all public. Fukushima has no bearing on our costs of operation, but was certainly a lesson for Tepco on what happens when you don't follow the advice of the Nuclear Safety Commission. Fukushima Danai, the sister plant with a properly sized sea wall and far closer to the epicentre, faired just fine.

We've thought plenty clearly about this, which is why we have a federally-funded small modular reactor program and are refurbishing 16 reactors over the next decade to see us through to the 2060's.

 

[OVERKILL]

Yet you still need to build the gas to prop it up, which isn't accounted for. I know, we've been there, done it, paid for it, and will continue to pay for it.

 

[mk378]

Of course you have to start with weather data to determine if wind is a viable resource in a certain area. Installing one turbine as a token measure in a wind-poor area seems to be a plan just to reach a desired conclusion that "wind power doesn't work." A place that is a good site for a nuclear plant is likely not the best site for wind turbines.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by mk378
Of course you have to start with weather data to determine if wind is a viable resource in a certain area. Installing one turbine as a token measure in a wind-poor area seems to be a plan just to reach a desired conclusion that "wind power doesn't work." A place that is a good site for a nuclear plant is likely not the best site for wind turbines.


Wind wasn't a poor performer at just this site, it's been a poor performer overall in the entire province. As I noted in the post two above yours, wind is currently producing 387MW.... of 4,486MW installed. All of these farms were properly sited.

 

[CharlieBauer]

The good news is that your risk of getting cancer has gone down.

 

[user52165]

Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
Do some Googling to read the truth about wind and other alternative energy sources. It's already the cheapest way to produce new power and getting cheaper. Every energy source has its ups and downs in the growth phase. Just ask insurance companies how exciting nuclear is. When your money is on the line you think a little more clearly about these things. Fukushima will cost something like $500 billion.


While you are Googling, check out the difficulty of approval of wind power off the MA coast - Cape Cod, Marthas Vineyard, Nantucket Sound, etc.and the powerful MA politicians and why they opposed it. NIMBY.

 

[AuthorEditor]

Sure, there's a need for backup power. That's why there is a grid that links together different plants. Even your beloved gas and nuclear plants go offline for various reasons, and then they need to be backed up by things like wind, solar, and hydro. Or, you can do something like the big pumped storage facility near Ludington, Michigan, not far from Ontario. There they pump water uphill to a basin when there is low demand and let the water back out when demand is high. It's like a giant 1800 megawatt battery. I think it's been in operation since around 1969. Offshore wind is moving ahead, despite the NIMBYs. The first offshore location in the USA is already functioning off of Block Island. Vineyard Wind will soon be building in waters south and west of Martha's Vineyard. Just recently the cable route ashore was approved and contracts awarded for the cable laying. It is all happening, and much more rapidly than most predicted because the price and performance make sense. The 6GW Hornsea Wind Farm off of England will go online in 2020. If you want to meet lots of NIMBYs propose a new nuclear power plant someplace. Nobody wants one of those things in their backyard.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
Do some Googling to read the truth about wind and other alternative energy sources. It's already the cheapest way to produce new power and getting cheaper. Every energy source has its ups and downs in the growth phase. Just ask insurance companies how exciting nuclear is. When your money is on the line you think a little more clearly about these things. Fukushima will cost something like $500 billion.




Is that $500 billion all related to the Fukushima plant disaster alone? I have seen figures in the $200 billion range for the entire calamity which includes the earthquake and the tsunami along with the nuclear accident.

If you can provide credible and reliable source links that would be appreciated.

 

[AuthorEditor]

Here you go:
Quote

The Japan Center for Economic Research, a conservative think tank, estimates the cleanup bill could come to 50 trillion to 70 trillion yen ($460 billion to $640 billion).
Washington Post

And it will take 200 years...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
Sure, there's a need for backup power. That's why there is a grid that links together different plants. Even your beloved gas and nuclear plants go offline for various reasons, and then they need to be backed up by things like wind, solar, and hydro. Or, you can do something like the big pumped storage facility near Ludington, Michigan, not far from Ontario. There they pump water uphill to a basin when there is low demand and let the water back out when demand is high. It's like a giant 1800 megawatt battery. I think it's been in operation since around 1969. Offshore wind is moving ahead, despite the NIMBYs. The first offshore location in the USA is already functioning off of Block Island. Vineyard Wind will soon be building in waters south and west of Martha's Vineyard. Just recently the cable route ashore was approved and contracts awarded for the cable laying. It is all happening, and much more rapidly than most predicted because the price and performance make sense. The 6GW Hornsea Wind Farm off of England will go online in 2020. If you want to meet lots of NIMBYs propose a new nuclear power plant someplace. Nobody wants one of those things in their backyard.


We love them, and they are literally in people's backyards. Ontario has been living with Nuclear since the 1950's and as I noted, we have plans, as a nation here in Canada, to build quite a few more.

To claim that nukes are "backed up by things like wind and solar" is so much bovine excrement I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Wind backs up absolutely nothing, the same with solar. The reason being is their intermittency. To displace a firm source you need a firm source, so if a unit stands down for maintenance, it will be replaced by hydro, or gas if necessary. However, these outages are usually planned for low demand periods so that additional generation is not needed or needed minimally, which is why our nuke maintenance is done in the fall, winter and spring, so the units are available all summer to deal with the demand of AC.

BTW, I love nothing about gas, so I'm not sure where that dig comes from

Gas is a necessity in a VRE grid to account for intermittency, it is not required in a nuke/hydro grid with sufficient capacity, which is why ours supplies such a low amount. With a few more nuke units we could have completely eliminated fossil generation from our grid, we instead did VRE and more than doubled our gas capacity to support it.

Pumped storage works great for dealing with peaking, not so great to augment the intermittency of wind. We had a period that was TWO WEEKS LONG last year where wind capacity didn't break 200MW. We burned gas to deal with it, while the nukes ran wide open, keeping the lights on along with the dams at full bore. A battery or pumped hydro might have helped on day one.

I'm sure offshore wind is moving ahead in a lot of places, but it isn't in Ontario, which is what this thread is about. You are welcome to get offended by that, I really don't care. We'll build our nukes, continue to lead the world with the lowest CO2 intensity grid and the other places can find out how not so cheap VRE really is, just like we did, and Germany continues to.