 |
magazine / jun09
 |
June 2009 issue |
|
|
|
FEATURE
On with the wind (Page
6 of 6)
Economic uncertainties, logistical challenges and environmental debates are buffeting this fast-growing energy sector
By John Lorinc with photography by Benoit Aquin
 |
| Three fibreglass
blades are produced a day at the plant in Gaspé.
|
|
|
|
Over the next four years, the future of wind generation
in Canada is expected to appear like a spectre in the
waters of Lake Ontario, about 20 kilometres offshore from
Prince Edward County — the site of a 710-megawatt wind
farm being built by Toronto-based Trillium Power Wind
Corporation. Unlike land-based wind farms, Trillium’s
giant five-megawatt turbine towers will rise to more than
100 metres; each will be anchored to the bottom in water
about 10 metres deep. Because the wind blows more
consistently over water than over land, the turbines will
produce about a third more power.
| Offshore is where land-based wind was 10 or
15 years ago. There are good winds, and you
don’t have to worry about the neighbours. |
“Offshore is where land-based wind was 10 or 15 years
ago,” says Keith Stewart. “There are good wind resources,
and you don’t have to worry about the neighbours.”
There is nothing technically exceptional about erecting
offshore turbines, according to Quebec-based wind-energy
consulting firm Hélimax Energy. They are typically built
in areas where the water is 5 to 15 metres deep. The
techniques for sinking the foundations are borrowed
directly from bridge and oil-rig-platform engineering:
steel rods are rammed deep into the seabed, or precast concrete foundations are towed to the site and submerged.
Some Canadians have reacted to such plans with hostility,
as was the case last winter when Toronto Hydro
proposed a wind farm south of the Scarborough Bluffs,
which overlook Lake Ontario. Residents bemoaned how
the towers would wreck their view. Similar reactions
greeted offshore wind farms proposed for Nantucket
Island, in Massachusetts — some of them orchestrated by
the Kennedy family.
But, by contrast, Denmark has lived comfortably with
offshore wind farms since the early 1990s. In the past 15 years,
in fact, the Danes have developed more than 1,300 megawatts
of offshore farms, including Horns Rev I and II, located
about 20 kilometres west of Jutland, which, when complete,
will be the world’s largest facilities. One of the newest, a
48-turbine farm operated by the Scandinavian energy
giant Vattenfall, is located in the narrow strait between
Copenhagen and Malmö, Sweden. Savvy to the long-term
payoff from bold renewable-energy innovations, the
Danish government plans to sharply boost its portfolio of
offshore wind over the next 20 years.
The same is true on the west coast of the North Sea. In
December 2008, energy officials in the United Kingdom laid
the groundwork for a massive, multi-decade expansion of wind farms in the North Sea and the Thames River estuary.
With the goal of developing 33,000 megawatts of offshore
wind power by 2020, British officials are now vetting
a “supply chain” proposal to require energy firms to
source the components within the U.K. Such an economicdevelopment
policy would create a substantial domestic
green-manufacturing sector that would be called on to build
and install as many as 7,000 turbines over the next dozen
years. The economic value is in the tens of billions.
Back in Murdochville, as Frédéric Savage and I drive
over the rocky access roads in the fog-shrouded mountains,
such grand ambitions seem a very long way off — politically,
economically, logistically. Savage and his colleagues are
focused on a horizon that is closer to home - in his case,
getting the town’s third wind farm up and running, while
working the kinks out of the other two.
“The wind is very good for this area,” he muses as we
pause at a bend to look out over the rugged, ethereal landscape.
“It’s good to see an industry that can last for years.”
John Lorinc is a Toronto-based writer. Photographer Benoit
Aquin lives in Montréal.
Additional resources:
Canadian Wind Energy Association
Global Wind Energy Council
| Comments on this article | View all comments (17) | Leave a comment | Having worked with alternative energy and fossil fuels the conclusion is we are better off with both. There are increased costs for backup generation, however these are offset because there is a requirement for reserve capacity to maintain reliability of the system. While backup generation is often fueled by fossel fuels, these plants do not run when the wind is blowing thus reducing overall emissions. There are health concerns with wind power but they are less damaging than those associated with fossil fuels. Wind turbines do ruin the landscape and I would not put them in an area where it would ruin the landscape and tourism would suffer. Often overlooked is the comparison of fuel savings from energy efficiency that each homeowner can do to offset their energy footprint. We can all look to the problems caused by power generation but we often forget that these are a result of our consumer demand for more power. We can all be part of the solution.
After researching extensively on coal, nuclear, hydro, solar and wind energy, the only two that stand out of the five is solar and wind. Both are so simple, capturing sunlight and having blades spinning in the wind. I’ve come to the conclusion that sometimes the better things in life are the simplest. With a life expectancy of 30-45 years for both solar and wind, this is far better than mining coal and uranium. It makes no sense: digging holes in the earth to get oil, coal and uranium for energy, or having a wind turbine spinning with the wind and solar panels following the sun for energy. I’ve see many large wind turbines during my investigation, and love the soft noise they make, however standing only 20 feet from them.you can’t hear a thing. Also: most large turbines take up 4 ft of space in a field, which in turn powers 600 homes and can easy plant crop right up to the base. I know which route I’m going — the easy and reliable way.
I am developing a sound insulated home wind turbine power conversion system. Of course it will only work on about 10% of the homes in a community at one time. However during the time those 10% are working they will produce power for 4-8 additional homes. The end result is that if that 10% are tied into the grid they can provide electricity for up to 90% of the homes in that community. Plus there is no need for billions to build new distribution lines, access roads, etc. This is no pipe dream this is the beginning of the end to global warming.
Sam Rotor
i live on Ontario's Oak ridge the wind usually blows strong up here though throughout June of this year June 1-21 2009 we have only had two days of sustained windspeed of plus 15km per hour for at least 18 hours straight. the other 19 days the minimum 15km wind speed hasn't been maintained for a single hour. Where do people get off saying there is no need for backup generation? You have a lot of expensive generators sitting idle as a stark testament to environmental "ignorance"
Re M.Anderson. Wind power does not require 100% fossil fuel backup. All power generators require "backup", it is called contigency and spinning or regulating reserves. Reserves are usually sourced through hydro which ramps up and down rapidly. This is one of the lies perpetrated by wind opponents. The amount of reserves required is dictated by your largest baseload generator. I guess nuclear power needs "backup" as well
Wind power is the great smoke and mirror hoax of the new century. Billions are being wasted on this fairy-tale symbol. Wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel 100% of the time. So in the end you need to pay for both. Sadly, until thousands and thousands of hectares of land are filled with these rusting industrial machines will people wake up from their green "dream" and realize what a waste it was.
Wind energy can help to decrease the carbon dioxide level in the earth's atmosphere to below 350 parts per million. We must support wind energy the alternative is unacceptable.
You state that Ontario will need to build 2000 kilometers of transmission corridors in order to bring privately owned Green Power to the market. While Wind Turbine land owners are willing sellers and are compensated for hosting wind turbines, the same cannot be said about home and landowners along these 2000 Kilometers whose land is expropriated by Hydro One Networks so that privately operated green power companies can get their product to the Golden Horseshoe market.
We are not NIMBY’s. Our family and our neighbours have hosted 2 major power corridors since 1965 and we are about to get our third line. Hydro One will now control over 20% of our property and Hydro One believes that there is very little financial damage to our property. We do not agree with their assessment.
Since March of 2007 we have had to put our lives on hold as we cannot sell land that in the words of professional appraisers is “condemned”. As home and landowners we have been forced to invest thousands of dollars in time and costs to meet with lawyers, land agents, and Hydro One bureaucrats all of whom are paid by the Ontario taxpayer.
Cabinet Ministers refuse to talk or meet with us and it appears to the 400 landowners from Bruce to Milton that we are orphans in the system. While we support Green and renewable power we are being forced to subsidize it’s the Ontario electrical consumer.
Dennis Threndyle
RR# 1 Elmwood, Ontario
NOG 1S0
416.662.4395
dentrhren@rogers.com
I just drove past a wind farm in upstate New York and reflected on the condemnation of such installations. The purported negative impact on the rural aesthetics that drive tourism in different areas clearly exemplifies the fever pitch at which the anti-wind camps operate. If the emotional energy generated by human resistance to change could be tapped into, we might not need any other supply sources.
It is unfortunate that many voters emerge into the working world and spend their lives without a basic understanding of energy flow, where it comes from and that it is the lifeblood of society. As pointed out many years ago, the event of "peak oil," as first coined by U.S. geologist King Hubbert, like it or not, will change our business-as-usual growth-oriented societies forever. Many knowledgeable energy experts agree that peak oil has arrived.
Today’s young will live in a renewable energy society, or they will have no society. So, the question boils down to which is more important: catering to NIMBY wishes today, or for us collectively laying the groundwork for a sustainable society?
|
|
|
