The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) is extremely disappointed that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) has called for a suspension of wind energy development at a time when farmers across the province are actively participating in, and seeking to participate in, wind energy developments throughout Ontario. In fact, many of the issues that the OFA has identified as areas of concern are already being reviewed and examined through processes like the Ontario Government’s Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) Review process.

“We are surprised and disappointed the OFA is proposing to put thousands of jobs at risk in Ontario and limit the ability of farmers to participate in Ontario’s clean energy economy,” said Robert Hornung, CanWEA president. “We will be seeking a meeting with the OFA to better understand their point of view and discuss their concerns and will remain active participants in the processes that are already in place to discuss many of these issues.”

The wind energy industry has a long history of working with the agricultural community and in fact sees farmers as a key partner in wind energy development as thousands of Ontario farmers are participating in Ontario’s clean energy economy through FIT and microFIT programs. CanWEA has worked with leaders within the OFA and other agricultural associations to inform our best practices in stakeholder engagement and to ensure the industry continues to be a good partner.

“We will continue to provide fact-based answers to ensure Ontarians have the information they need to make informed choices as Ontario moves towards a cleaner, stronger and affordable energy system,” added Robert Hornung.

(OTTAWA) Jan. 11, 2012 – Wind energy is playing an increasingly important role in meeting Ontario’s demand for electricity, according to the Independent Electricity System Operator’s annual release of supply, demand and price data. Total wind energy production rang in at 3.9 terawatt hours TWh – up substantially from 2.8 TWh in 2010. November 2011 marked the highest monthly wind output ever seen in Ontario, with production in that month alone exceeding 0.56 TWh. In annual terms, wind generation represented 2.6 per cent of total output across all fuel types of 149.9 TWh.

A record level of new wind energy projects were commissioned in both Canada and Ontario in 2011. In 2011, new wind energy projects were built and commissioned in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. More than 5,000 MW of wind energy projects are already contracted to be built over the next five years.

“Wind energy is proving itself a key partner as Ontario builds a stronger, cleaner and affordable electricity system. Increased growth of wind energy in Ontario means cleaner air, new jobs and local investments for the communities that host wind energy projects,” said Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). “Maintaining Ontario’s leadership position will require continued commitments to aggressive targets for wind energy development and a stable policy framework.”

In 2011, the wind energy industry in Canada represented more than $3 billion in new investments that have created 17,000 person years of employment. Canada is now ranked ninth globally in terms of total installed wind energy capacity.

About CanWEA:
CanWEA is the voice of Canada’s wind energy industry, actively promoting the responsible and sustainable growth of wind energy on behalf of its more than 440 members. A national non-profit association, CanWEA serves as Canada’s leading source of credible information about wind energy and its social, economic and environmental benefits.

To join other global leaders in the wind energy industry, CanWEA believes Canada can and must reach its target of producing 20 per cent or more of the country’s electricity from wind by 2025. The document Wind Vision 2025 – Powering Canada’s Future is available at www.canwea.ca

When I re-read the recent Auditor General’s report on renewable energy, I continued to find significant deficiencies. The report was either written by incompetent people, or was written in a way to intentionally mislead the reader.

On page 104 of the report, it states, “Ontario’s FIT prices were originally designed with the intention of allowing a reasonable rate of return, defined as 11% after-tax return on equity, for developers of all types of renewable energy projects.” Later in that section is states, “The OPA said it initially developed Ontario’s FIT prices based on the long-established and successful FIT programs in Germany and Spain. We noted that the internal rates of return offered to the developers in these countries varied depending on project risks and ranged from just 5% to 7% in Germany to between 7% and 10% in Spain.”

The report is comparing return on equity (ROE) to internal rate of return (IRR). Further, the report offers no explanation to the reader that these are two entirely different concepts. ROE is the return earned on the equity portion of the investment. IRR is the return on all capital, including equity. For example, if you invest $1000, and the IRR is 10%, then the investment will earn $100. But if you can borrow 80% of the $1000, at an interest rate of 7%, then your equity is only $200. The $100 in income goes first to pay the interest – $56. The balance of $44 is your return on equity, or 22% of the equity amount of $200. Internal rate of return is 10%. Return on equity is 22%. (Note that I have simplified things a bit and assumed that the borrowed amount remains borrowed for the life of the investment. In practice, lenders usually like the loan to be paid off over the life of the investment instead of just at the end. This would reduce the return on equity, but the point remains – return on equity is higher than IRR if you can borrow for less than the IRR.)

Surely the Auditor General understands the difference between ROE and IRR. If not, then there is serious incompetence. And surely the Auditor General knows that his writings need to be accessible and understandable to media, politicians, and bureaucrats, most of whom would not understand the difference between ROE and IRR. If the Auditor General doesn’t understand that, then we have a serious problem. Who else reads the reports?

So where are we left? The only plausible explanation is that the Auditor General was writing a report with a strong bias against renewable energy, and the policies designed to enable it. Another word for that is propaganda. Shame.

Reprinted from Wind Blog, http://wind-blog.com/?p=428 by our Colleague & Friend of Wind, Glen Estill.

Developing green energy and securing sustainable energy sources has been a priority for government, industry, researchers and consumers for decades. In Ontario, we are fortunate to have programs that ensure green energy is a priority today, and for future generations.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) was an early supporter of green energy and joined with the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association and other like-minded groups in 2008 to campaign for a Green Energy and Green Economy (GEGE) Act. The act was passed in 2009 and set a commitment to the Feed in Tariff (FIT) program. Ontario’s FIT program is North America’s first comprehensive guaranteed pricing structure for renewable electricity production offering stable prices under long-term contracts for energy generated from renewable sources including wind, solar, biomass and biogas.

A past provincial Conservative government passed legislation to remove coal fired power from Ontario’s energy mix. A key objective of the GEGE act is to assist in the phase-out of coal-fired generating stations inOntario by the end of 2014. In a recent speech to the Economic Club of Canada, Premier McGuinty commented that, “we know the price of fossil fuels will keep going up, while we know the price of renewable technologies will keep coming down. We know where the world is going. And we choose to lead, not follow.” These words from the Premier indicate a rock solid commitment to the development and implementation of green energy technologies.

With the new act, the government also committed to a FIT program review (this includes microFIT) within two years to evaluate the program’s rules and pricing. The provincial government has kept its promise and OFA is pleased to be involved in the FIT program review process. 

Farmers are in a unique position. All farmers are consumers of energy and rely on an efficient generation and delivery system across the province. But now there is also potential for many farmers to participate in the generation of energy through the FIT and microFIT programs. The OFA’s critical assessment of these programs will identify both strengths and weaknesses in each. The intent will be to recommend changes that enable both of these programs to continue into the future and provide opportunities for Ontario farmers to contribute to Ontario’s long-term goal of generating green energy from renewable sources. The OFA’s submission to the FIT program review is in the final stages of drafting. It will be submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Energy by mid-December and posted to the OFA website. The position will include recognition of the balance of improved technology cost implementation and consumer pricing.

OFA continues to advocate for the development of green energy for farmers, consumer pocketbooks, and the health of the province. All farmers are power consumers. And now they have opportunities to become power generators. We must ensure policies embedded in the FIT programs are in the best interests of all Ontarians. Green energy has an important place in our industry and we’re working to make it a better fit.

We encourage you to leave you own supportive comment at the following link http://www.ofa.on.ca/media/news/Improving-the-green-energy-fit.

Ottawa (Nov. 29) – The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) opposes Private Members Bill 10 which was introduced in the Legislative Assembly  yesterday and proposes to restore municipal bylaw and planning authority as it pertains to clean energy projects. While CanWEA is committed to exploring potential mechanisms to enhance the effectiveness of municipal engagement in such projects as part of the current Feed-in-Tariff program review, the association believes that proposals to change existing legislation will create significant policy uncertainty at a time when investors are seeking stable, long-term policy frameworks to support wind energy development.

“While the Green Energy Act (GEA) has very specific requirements for consultations with municipalities, we acknowledge that opportunities exist to strengthen the process under the GEA, ” said CanWEA President Robert Hornung. “Bill 10, however, would create significant policy uncertainty. The wind energy industry wants to work productively with all levels of government to ensure the jobs and investments continue flowing into rural communities across Ontario.”

CanWEA believes municipalities have a vital role to play in any new local development, and has always encouraged municipal governments to take full advantage of all opportunities for engagement under the GEA.  Consistent with its mandate to support the responsible and sustainable development of wind energy in Canada, CanWEA has developed and promotes Best Practices for Community Engagement and Public Consultation – which were informed through discussions with dozens of municipal leaders across Ontario.

“This Private Members Bill appears to take a unilateral approach to what is currently a more collaborative process as a fulsome review of the Feed-in-Tariff program takes place.  Adoption of this act would create significant policy uncertainty. The wind energy industry wants to work productively with all levels of government to ensure the jobs and investments continue flowing into rural communities across Ontario.”

In addition to 2,125 MW of signed contracts in place today, applications have already been made for an additional 6,672 MW of wind energy development in Ontario. Ontario is Canada’s wind energy leader with 1,755 MW of current installed capacity, attracting millions in new investments from around the world.

Each 100 MW of wind energy development represents a minimum of 100 jobs, $250 million in private investment, and $300,000 in revenue to municipal governments in the form of taxes and an equal amount to rural landowners in the form of lease payments. Each 100 MW of wind energy also provides Ontarians with enough clean, affordable electricity to power about 30,000 homes.

Chris Forrest
VP, Communications & Marketing
CanWEA

Flying a kite has often been considered child’s play, but a group of inventors think the concept could be used to make wind energy cheaper and more reliable than ever before, potentially revolutionizing wind power forever.

Correspondent Josh Zepps met the innovators working to turn the idea of flying a kite into an airborne wind turbine that’s lighter and more powerful than traditional wind turbines.

If you’ve ever flown a kite, you’re familiar with the strength and consistency of wind hundreds of feet off the ground, higher up than most land-based wind turbines. What if that same concept could be applied to harness wind power – could it help solve the intermittency, siting, and cost problems that have put a damper on wind energy?

Enter the Makani Airborne Wind Turbine, an innovative design that combines the concept of kite surfing with wind turbines. Its goal is to achieve the same motion of a turbine without the structure itself. “The difference between a wind turbine and what we’re doing is we have a wing that is free-flying and tethered to the ground,” said Corwin Hardham, Makani CEO. “You have this kite flying the same pattern as wind turbine blade, but up higher in the sky.”

The secret to the air turbine design lies in using a fraction of the material necessary for a standard wind turbine. A conventional 1-megawatt wind turbine can weigh more than 100 tons, but Makani’s airborne turbine only uses a carbon-fiber wing and lightweight rotors of their own creation. The company says its 1-megawatt airborne turbine system will weigh a tenth as much and have an installed price half a normal turbine, but with the same rated power. “We expect the cost to be around 3 cents a kilowatt-hour,” said Hardham. “That’s getting lower than a lot of coal-fired generation at the moment.”

Imagine a fleet of 26-feet wide, motorized fixed-wing gliders tracing circles in the air at 150 miles per hour, sending a constant stream of electricity to the grid via the tether connecting them to the ground. The wing’s rotors function as both propeller and generator: when the wing launches, it uses backup or stored power to reach its cruising altitude. At about 1,000 feet high, they switch to creating resistance against the high-altitude winds and generate electricity the same way an electric vehicle generates power from its brakes.

But what about when the wind doesn’t blow? The wings can stay aloft using steady breezes or their own power, but once the wind speed drops below nine miles an hour, they become net consumers of electricity, and would be landed if periods of low wind speed are forecast. Makani says the system will generate power twice as consistently as the best wind farms operating today. “The wind is about twice as powerful at that altitude,” says Hardham.

Makani’s future seems bright. Their airborne turbine system won this year’s Breakthrough Award in energy from Popular Mechanics, received a $3 million dollar grant from the Department of Energy’s ARPA-E program, and $20 million in venture capital funding from Google.

But, like all other energy start-ups, the airborne wind turbine will ultimately succeed or fail based on how much power it can generate. That’s why Makani is developing a bigger turbine system to fly at 1,600 feet and produce enough electricity to power 600 homes. It plans to launch a prototype of the new design by 2013 and enter commercial production by 2015.

Despite all the power and wonders of the internet, one has to very careful in checking out the motives of those posting material on the web.  Here’s a good example of what we’d call a misleading grassroots organization, also known as an “astro-turf” organization.  It concerns the Renewable Energy Foundation.

Despite their name and mission statement, the Renewable Energy Foundation have once again been active in attempting to discredit the wind energy sector. Their declaration that they promote “sustainable development for the benefit of the public by means of energy conservation and the use of renewable energy” has been called into question, with an Energy and Environmental Management article summarising that “the REF is a front for the interests of biofuels companies, energy-intensive industries and even oil and gas companies”.

In a story released last month, the REF together with Civitas claimed that 10,000 jobs would be lost in Britain as a direct result of the government’s green policies, with this expanding to 30,000 jobs if the government’s policies are accelerated. In fact 2010 figures from RenewablesUK show that there are currently 10,800 full time employees in the wind and marine sector alone and has more than doubled in the last three years.

The EAEM article highlights the rather un-green credentials of those running and supporting the REF. It details connections of key REF personnel with biofuel (in particular palm oil) industries, energy intensive industries such as nickel, plastics and aluminium processing and oil and gas industries. It’s hard to ignore the roll-call of anti-renewable, and more specifically anti-wind characters that chair and support the REF. A roll-call that includes the NIMBY celebrity – Noel Edmonds who was a part founder of the REF after learning of the threat of a wind farm near to his Devon home.

Similar concerns were raised by the Guardian in May of this year in their article “Will the real Renewable Energy Foundation please stand up”.

The REF’s campaigning didn’t escape the notice of the charity commission back in 2008, when they were advised to assess the appropriateness of their activities in relation to their stated objectives.

The EEAM piece concludes that “All of the [industry links] represent clear evidence that the Renewable Energy Foundation has an industrial agenda aimed at skewing government policy in favour of the industries for which it is a front.

Its pronouncements on renewable energy, jobs, and especially windpower, must therefore be taken with several pinches of salt.”

For the full story, click here.

The Green Mountain Power wind project in Lowell, Vt., has unprecedented support. Vermonters overwhelmingly want wind: 75 percent of voters in the town of Lowell supported the project, and 90 percent of Vermonters support wind, 74 percent strongly.

After years of intensive oversight, state and federal agencies have determined that this project, sited on a commercially logged mountain, will meet high standards in protecting water quality, wildlife and local ecosystems. To mitigate the effect of the 175-acre development, more than 2,000 acres of prime animal habitat will be conserved.

Of the federal tax credits the project will receive, 100 percent go directly toward lowering the cost of power to our customers.

When completed, this project will be the most significant renewable project in Vermont, producing clean, affordable, local electricity. It will be part of Vermont’s working landscape, and the benefits will flow to Vermont’s environment and economy for years to come.

DOROTHY SCHNURE
Manager, Corporate Communications
Green Mountain Power
Colchester, Vt., Sept. 29, 2011

To the Editor:

Steve E. Wright warns that wind turbines on Vermont’s ridges will deter tourists who come to enjoy the state’s natural beauty. Given how many of these tourists come to ski down mountain slopes stripped of natural forest, this fear seems far-fetched.

Landscape effects of wind farm development are localized, but the clean-energy gains are momentous. Nearly three-quarters of Vermont’s electricity comes from the 39-year-old Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

Since early last year, more than 335,000 gallons of tritium-contaminated groundwater have been pumped from wells surrounding this plant, and many Vermonters are justifiably concerned about broader health hazards as this facility continues to age.

Mr. Wright says wind power in Vermont reflects “a misunderstanding of what a responsible society must do to slow the warming of our planet.” Do “green” Vermonters really prefer continuing reliance on nuclear to the development of readily available renewable power?

PHILIP WARBURG
Newton, Mass., Sept. 29, 2011

The writer is the author of the forthcoming book “Harvest the Wind.”

To the Editor:

As a lifelong Vermonter, I totally agree with Steve E. Wright’s analysis of the large-scale wind project under construction on the Lowell Mountains of our state. This project represents the triumph of big money, provided primarily through overly generous tax credits, over a creative and balanced approach to meeting our energy needs.

Electrical generation through large-scale wind projects should not be promoted as a one-size-fits-all approach. In a state with limited wind energy potential, tearing off the tops of scenic ridges to erect the tallest structures ever constructed here will have limited impact on our ability to provide carbon-free electricity, at a huge environmental and economic cost.

Vermont has a 50-year history of restricting development of pristine mountain ridges, but now, under the direction of a governor with close financial ties to the utility company that is developing this project, we are at risk of throwing away the scenic beauty that is one of our most valuable resources.

JEFFREY RAND
South Burlington, Vt., Oct. 1, 2011

To the Editor:

Steve E. Wright’s article is in denial of reality; he disregards the real effect of Vermont’s importing almost 90 percent of its energy.

It’s not an issue when it’s not in your backyard. But let’s be clear about what it means to oppose clean energy produced locally: it means mountaintop removal in Appalachia, oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico, the extraction of tar sands and transcontinental pipelines, and uranium mining and nuclear meltdowns.

That’s not even mentioning the global effects of climate change and the effects we are already seeing, including the record flooding destruction our state felt just a month ago.

As a lifelong Vermonter, I am proud that Vermonters overwhelmingly support carefully developed wind farm projects and their role in our working landscape. Our Green Mountains will remain green in the future only with the right decisions now.

DAVID BLITTERSDORF
Chief Executive, AllEarth Renewables
Williston, Vt., Oct. 4, 2011

To the Editor:

Steve E. Wright questions the building of a wind farm on Lowell Mountain in Vermont. He describes this ridgeline as if it were deep wilderness; it isn’t. Lowell Mountain has repeatedly been logged. But with the falling price of lumber, the family that owns it is trying to harvest wind instead of trees.

The people of Lowell, Vt., voted overwhelmingly to support this project at a town meeting. I think this is because they view this as land to be used, like a farm or a wood lot.

Admittedly, not every ridgeline should be made into a wind farm. But what is the alternative? A coal-powered plant? And to fuel that, we will lose the mountaintops of West Virginia.

Energy is everyone’s problem, and the people of Lowell are to be commended for facing this, doing something and saying yes to energy in their backyards.

TIM SMITH
Hanover, N.H., Sept. 30, 2011

The writer is an assistant research professor in physics and environmental studies at Dartmouth College.