A scary strategic problem - no oil

[DBA]

Oil is not the problem...major corporations make big coin off of oil and they are not stupid. I am sure that they have plans to release new energy's. such as using ethanol, or using hydrogen....but we wont see those in mass production until oil really starts to run out because these big companies will still make money....did you know that Brazil is the only country to be 100% self reliant. They do not need imported oil because over 90% of the country uses ethanol........Canada and the USA could do that easily, why don't we???Because the oil companies want to make there money....

From wikipedia on Ethanol fuel in Brazil, spot checked with other sources and it's fairly accurate. The last bit is a bit of a stretch tho.

The ethanol program also led to widespread replacement of small farms and varied agriculture by vast seas of sugarcane monoculture. This led to a decrease in biodiversity and further shrinkage of the residual native forests (not only from deforestation but also through fires caused by the burning of adjoining fields). The replacement of food crops by the more lucrative sugarcane has also led to a sharp increase in food prices over the last decade.

Since sugarcane only requires hand labor at harvest time, this shift also created a large population of destitute migrant workers who can only find temporary employment as cane cutters (at about US$3 to 5 per day) for one or two months every year. This huge social problem has contributed to political unrest and violence in rural areas, which are now plagued by recurrent farm invasions, vandalism, armed confrontations, and assassinations.
----------------------------

Look at the wages and method of harvesting. That's not possible in the US and Canada even with migrant labor from Mexico and other Central and South American countires. It's just like China where cheap labor allows them to produce things for far below what we can. Where labor is cheap enough it's possible to produce ethanol price competitively to oil/gas and that's what they are doing, they also removed subsidies for ethanol production a long time ago. Up north even with major subsidies and forced usage it's still not price competitive with gas produced from oil.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Ethanol still requires production energy to create itself, the reality is that for ever litre of ethanol produced it costs 3/4 s of a liter of fossil fuels. A 25% net gain is not worth it especially when you are using food to create a fuel. With the latest discovery off Mexico the US inventory of OIL rises to 50% more, that coupled with our tar sands we in North America have no scary oil issue for some 200 years to come. On another note on Ethanol when a civilization uses its food for fuel production we are on a slippery slope to doom.

 

[a_majoor]

This article suggests that a 100 mpg vehicle is within the current state of the art, but for the estimated $50-60,000 USD, you get a small vehicle, modest performance and little space. Picture on page two.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/3374271.html

 

[a_majoor]

Some more on alternative fuels, and why they are "alternative"

http://greentories.blogspot.com/2006/11/are-we-there-yet.html

Monday, November 13, 2006
Are we there yet?

Canada is getting on the ethanol and biodiesel bandwagon. But it's moving slowly, DENISE DEVEAU reports

Ian Cameron and Steve Gray, co-founders of Cameron's Coffee, started out with the best of intentions when they vowed to use only biodiesel fuel blends in their small fleet of company cars. But three years later, ask Mr. Cameron how it turned out and he says with regret, "We're not [using biodiesel] any more. We simply couldn't find enough places to get it."

Even when they tried to get a fuel tank installed at the company's plant in Port Perry, Ont., "we couldn't negotiate the distribution costs," he recalls. "What else could we do?"

Such supply problems are gradually being resolved as governments and advocacy groups push to add renewable fuels to gasoline.

One such group, E3 Fleet, is a consortium of fleet managers that works to promote greener alternatives in the transportation industry. The group's website (found at http://www.e3fleet.com) provides an interactive map to help members find nearby alternative fuel stations. Users simply type in their address and the kind of green fuel they're looking for, and the system shows where to find supply stations in their area.

What the map underscores, however, is the fact that in many parts of the country the supply of green fuels is spotty at best. Product distribution has been inconsistent, and incentives to support the infrastructure have been lacking. Driving market adoption while ensuring supply requires many players, from government and refineries to retailers and auto manufacturers.

The Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, among others, is laying the groundwork to raise awareness and lobby government to build a better infrastructure.

The federal government's Renewable Fuels Strategy also promises to kick-start the supply network. It targets an average of 5-per-cent renewable content (either ethanol or biodiesel) in Canadian gasoline and diesel fuel by 2010.

Flexible-fuel vehicles can run on gas that has up to 85-per-cent ethanol content, while a standard combustion engine cannot take any more than 10-per-cent ethanol.

Other countries offer incentives to boost the biofuels industry. Sweden, for example, reduced the registration costs and eliminated parking fees for flex fuel vehicles, reduced excise taxes on green fuels, and set mandates for green fuel requirements at pumping stations.

The demand for the flex-fuel option in cars is growing considerably in Canada, says Phil Petsinis, manager of corporate affairs at General Motors of Canada Ltd.

At least five manufacturers are offering it as an option, he says, and GM has 15 models in which the feature is either optional or standard. "It's seamless to the consumer because it's the internal electronics that make the adjustments. In the future I expect it will be standard on vehicles," he says.

Mr. Petsinis notes that Brazil has had a long-standing policy on ethanol use since the 1970s oil crisis, and the U.S. government is becoming equally supportive. "Half the entire fuel pool in Brazil is provided by ethanol. In the U.S., the government has implemented measures to provide funding support for the infrastructure changes needed to deliver E85 [a fuel blend with 85-per-cent ethanol]," he says.

Mr. Petsinis calls Canada's supply of E85 "quite dismal" but expects to see improvements as more consumers adopt the flex-fuel technology.

"It's all a question of economics and market access," agrees Kory Teneycke, executive director of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. "The programs that are in place in other countries that have been very successful aren't in place here right now. Success involves government using a combination of carrots and sticks to encourage early adoption."

He doesn't think supply will be the problem. "The market will supply that which is necessary. The question is will it be Canadian supply?" That depends on the return on investment for producing fuels here, he says.

The demand for biodiesel will not be driven by the consumer market; diesel cars represent less than one per cent of vehicles on Canadian roads. But diesel engines are common in the transportation and commercial sectors, and that's where biodiesel is gaining ground.

"Corporations using biodiesel tend to be stationary fleets such as public authorities like the [Toronto Transit Commission], where the vehicles can all fill up at the same place and stay within the same routes," Mr. Teneycke explains. "Long-haul fleets won't use it until supply is everywhere."

That's not to say industry is sitting back and waiting. One of the largest users of biodiesel fuels in the country is Terminal Systems Inc., a container terminal operator in Vancouver. It uses close to 6 million litres of diesel a year to run 300 engines in its vehicles and machinery. In the past year, TSI converted to a 20-per-cent biodiesel blend, says Ken Kristensen, assistant manager at TSI's Deltaport facility.

"We buy our own raw diesel and blend it ourselves with a soy-based biodiesel," Mr. Kristensen says. To encourage usage, TSI is also considering an on-site fuelling facility for trucks arriving at the terminals.

Unless a company has the volumes and buying power of a TSI, generalized availability of renewable fuel sources could take some time, says Dennis Rogoza of Rogoza Consulting Group, an environmental consultancy in Victoria. "Widespread distribution is a problem. It doesn't make economic sense to transport product thousands of kilometres. It's going to be tough unless all the oil companies do it."

So a strategic approach is needed to create economies of scale. "Companies need to generate the volumes to make it affordable," explains Mr. Rogoza. "The municipal governments in the Greater Vancouver Area, for example, were able to form a buying group to create the economies of scale needed to lower the overall price."

Such efforts will need government support, Mr. Rogoza adds. "[Mandates] could transform the market and turn modest usage levels to massive. Look at California. It just signed a law requiring 50-per-cent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. [They said] they could do it, so they made it law."

posted by Mike Shenher @ 10:20 AM   

Ah yes, attempting to manipulate the market for endless showers of subsidies and grants for Biodiesel and ethanol.

Sorry people, but the real reason we don't use alternative fuels or electric cars is there is no current economic justification for them. Even if sensible alternative fuels can be produced (questionable in the case of ethanol, since it costs more in terms of energy to produce than you ever get out of it), Saudi Arabia can continue to pump oil for as low a $20/bbl; undercutting any possible competition.

Trying to wrestle with the market is futile, the invisible hand will get you every time.

 

[rmacqueen]

There is also the problem that taxpayer money is paying for a number ethanol plants but they are using US corn because it is subsidised.

 

[a_majoor]

There is also the problem that taxpayer money is paying for a number ethanol plants but they are using US corn because it is subsidised.

BONUS! Tax subsidies from two different nations. How cool is that for the ethanol promoters?  >

How cool is that for you and me?  :rage:

 

[RoperAB]

There is no shortage of oil except a man made myth. Then if you factor in coal to oil tech the world has more oil than what it knows what to do with.
The problem is most oil cost $15 a barrel to produce. Gulf region oil cost $5 a barrel. Its very risky to invest billions of dollars in non gulf region oil recovery because if you ever started to cut the dependence on gulf oil the OPEC producers could simple open its taps and flood the world markets with $5 a barrel oil until your bankrupt.

 

[a_majoor]

More demonstrations of why alternative energy is "alternative". If there was some sort of practical means of storing electrical energy generated in off peak periods and releasing it when needed, then this migh not be such a problem. Looking at the chart here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017/post-422007.html#msg422007 suggests a lot more bang for the buck comes from finding ways to reduce thermodynamic losses rather than finding new energy sources.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=7235a029-e0cb-479d-aeb6-ef19c4fc32f5

Windmills aren't the answer
 
Colby Cosh
National Post

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

EDMONTON - It's official: The glorious future of abundant free energy has been put on hold. In May, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) announced that the province's grid could not safely accommodate more than 900 megawatts of wind-power generation, a target that will be met late next year. Proposals for 3,000 more MW of production have been thrown into indefinite limbo at an estimated cost to producers of $6-billion; meanwhile, the province is already spending $1-billion to strengthen the transmission system so that even the 900-MW cap can be reached. In Ontario, meanwhile, the grid operator warned late last month that 5,000 MW -- about one-fifth of the province's current peak consumption -- is probably the absolute technological limit. (A total of 1,280 MW of wind capacity is already in operation or being built.)

It is starting to look as though wind cannot meet more than a fraction of our energy demand even if other issues with the technology, like esthetics and wildlife impacts, are ignored. The problem, as engineers skeptical of wind power have been yelping for decades, is that power usage and production constantly have to be balanced in an electrical grid. Adding too much unstable, unpredictable power to the system creates a risk of failure and cascading blackouts. In fact, the EU is investigating the possible role of Germany's heavy wind-dependence in causing a Nov. 6 blackout that hit 10 million Europeans.

The depressing corollary is that even in reaching the modest limits now being laid down by the grid police, Alberta and Ontario are relying implicitly on the relative sluggishness of their neighbours in adopting wind technology, using interconnections with other provinces and states to off-load excess power and cover shortfalls. So the system operators' warnings aren't just a sign that wind has reached a dead end in their home provinces. They also mean that B.C., Saskatchewan and parts of the U.S. Northeast will never be able to get major wind projects off the ground if they are to continue to serve as an energy release-valve for their wind-harnessing neighbours.

The windustry has met the announcements with its usual optimism, pointing out that existing wind installations could be made to co-operate better with the grid if improved region-specific wind forecasting existed. But even assuming such a thing can be wished into existence, predictability is not the same thing as stability. During low-wind, high-demand periods, a drop in output still must be made good by other power sources. Since a nuclear pile can't be switched on and off like a light bulb, Ontario's hydroelectric output is already taxed to the limit and Alberta doesn't have much hydro, guess what technology steps in to fill the void? That's right -- good old Stone Age hydrocarbon burning.

This wouldn't be such a big deal if wind output were naturally synchronized with patterns of maximum power usage. But a report released last Wednesday by Energy Probe, Ontario's independent power think tank, confirms another longstanding taunt of the wind skeptics: Wind is often utterly out of sync with human activity.

Energy Probe's analysis of hour-to-hour capacity factors at Ontario wind farms shows output declining disconcertingly in the morning, just when we greedy energy hogs are getting out of bed, turning on appliances and lights, and going to work. On a month-to-month basis, data from this summer show wind output remaining flattest during the hottest periods. And the AESO has found that in Alberta's southern wind corridor, the turbines spin like crazy when the chinook is blowing and little electricity is needed; in the still air of serious cold snaps, when loads are high, the turbines grind stubbornly to a stop.

The overall result is that much of the theoretical environmental benefit from wind power cannot be realized, especially since the generators that must remain on standby to provide emergency "ramping" tend to produce more pollution per watt than round-the-clock coal and gas facilities.

But at least it's still economically free energy, right? Well, maybe. As an internationally observed rule of thumb, wind farms are expected to deliver, on average, 30% of their theoretical maximum power output. On the basis of partial data, Energy Probe expects the three major farms in its study to come in at 24%-27% over a full 12 months. And that's not even including the showpiece Windshare turbine at Toronto's CNE, which delivered a mean capacity factor of just 14.7% in its first 42 months of operation.

It must be a harrowing time for those who once thought the cool breeze could save us all from the coming ecocide. The expectations of wind advocates have already had to be minimized as they realize there is nothing inherently virtuous about their pet piece of tech. Alas, like recycling fanatics, they are likely to end up praising wind power as a moral enterprise that "instills good habits" and signals "green consciousness," even if the honest cost-benefit analysis goes against them in the long run.

colbycosh@gmail.com

© National Post 2006

 

[dglad]

It's unrealistic to think that wind power will ever provide more than a relatively small portion of production.  The Hydro One limit of 5000 MW in Ontario represents about 20% of current provincial demand and about 15% of near-term future demand, based on a recent forecast report from the Ontario Power Authority...I'd be very surprised if wind power EVER reached numbers that high.  Part of the reason is that about half of Ontario's major wind potential (according to the MNR Wind Atlas) is along the James and Hudson Bay coasts...a LONG way away from any transmission infrastructure whatsoever.  So the roughly 4-5000 MW available along those northern coasts won't be going into the grid any time soon, and may be better suited in providing electrical power to remote northern communities, who currently rely on expensive, unreliable and dirty diesel generation.  Most of the rest of the signficant wind potential is along the Great Lakes; however, large sections of Superior are tied up in parks (especially Pukaskwa National and Lake Superior Provincial), while much of Huron's shore is heavily invested with private lands.

More, it's undesirable to have too much reliance on a single type of generation.  It's best to have a diverse mix, that preferably represents an oversupply.  That way, if a nuclear plant, gas-fired plant or hydro-plant has to come off line, there are other sources to take up the slack.  If we develop, say, 2000 MW of wind generation capacity in Ontario, and then rely on 1000 MW of production at any given time, we have both enough of a buffer to smooth out instabilities and a source of short-term emergency supply.  However, we will still need substantial generation from nuclear (which can form your base supply, since it can't be "throttled"), as well as hydro and some fossil (probably natural gas, but relatively clean coal technologies are available as well).  Another interesting possiblity is biomass, including municipal, forest and agricultural waste, and peat.  There are enormous peat bogs in northern Ontario and, interestingly enough, early research suggests that harvesting a peat bog and burning it to generate electricity may actually cause a net reduction of "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, as the CO2 produced by burning peat has less "greenhouse" effect than the methane given off by the bogs themselves.  And, a harvested bog basically becomes a lake.  Co-firing coal with biomass may allow for much cleaner operations; this is being studied in northern Ontario now.

 

[a_majoor]

Reducing thermodynamic losses and reducing the use of oil derived fuels is possible using a Stirling engine. A modern Stirling engine can operate at close to the theoretical efficiency of a heat engine, and can be designed use almost any source of heat, including solar and nuclear. Hobby minded people can find plans for Stirling engines, including Low Temperature Differential (LTD) engines which can use the heat of a candle or your hand (or alternatively a cup of ice water as a heat sink) to run.

Stirlings work best at constant speed/constant output, which makes them ideal for generators, as well as prime movers where they can run at a constant speed for most of the time. Railway locomotoves, ships, transport trucks and even aircraft are possible users of Stirling engines. For cars, utility trucks and other applications requiring more variable outputs, a Stirling can run as a constant speed generator in a hybrid vehicle, and also supply the "base" power, while electric engines provide acceleration and braking power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine for an introduction
http://www.qrmc.com/ proposes a very compact and powerful version of the Striling for aircraft use.

 

[a_majoor]

The true scale and scope of the problem:

http://www.reason.com/news/printer/116887.html

Brother, Can You Spare 22 Terawatts?
Big ideas for the future of energy

Ronald Bailey | November 24, 2006

The flip side of the climate change conundrum is energy. Burning fossil fuels—coal, oil, gas—produces 80 percent of the world's commercial energy. They also produce 61 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that are thought to be increasing the earth's average temperature. In the past, energy production scaled directly with a country's gross domestic product (GDP). More energy produced more GDP.  But some analysts believe the connection between GDP growth and energy is loosening, which, if true, is good news because it means that fueling future economic growth will be easier to achieve.

However, Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, writes a sobering analysis of the challenge of supplying adequate energy to the world in 2050. In his article, "On the Future of Global Energy" in the current issue of Daedalus (unfortunately not online), Nocera begins with the amount of energy currently being used on a per capita basis in various countries and then extrapolates what that usage implies for a world of 9 billion people in 2050. For example, in 2002 the United States used 3.3 terawatts (TW), China 1.5 TW, India 0.46 TW, Africa 0.45 TW and so forth. Totaling it all up, Nocera finds, "the global population burned energy at a rate of 13.5 TW." A terawatt equals one trillion watt-hours.

Nocera calculates that if 9 billion people in 2050 used energy at the rate that Americans do today that the world would have to generate 102.2 TW of power—more than seven times current production. If people adopted the energy lifestyle of Western Europe, power production would need to rise to 45.5 terawatts. On the other hand if the world's 9 billion in 2050 adopted India's current living standards, the world would need to produce only 4 TW of power. Nocera suggests, assuming heroic conservation measures that would enable affluent American lifestyles, that "conservative estimates of energy use place our global energy need at 28-35 TW in 2050."  This means that the world will need an additional 15-22 TW of energy over the current base of 13.5 TW.

So where will the extra energy come from? Relying on figures from the World Energy Assessment by the United Nations Development Program, Nocera looks at the maximum amounts of power that various non-fossil fuel sources might supply. Biomass could supply 7-10 TW of energy, but that is the equivalent of harvesting all current crops solely for energy. Nuclear could produce 8 TW which implies building 8000 new reactors over the 45 years at a rate of one new plant every two days. Wind would generate 2.1 TW if every site on the globe with class 3 winds or greater were occupied with windmills. Winds at a class 3 site blow at 11.5 miles per hour at 33 feet above the ground. And hydro-power could produce 0.7-2 TW if dams were placed on every untapped river on the earth. Nocera concludes, "The message is clear. The additional energy we need in 2050 over the current 13.5 TW base, is simply not attainable from long discussed sources—the global appetite for energy is simply too great."

Burning coal, gas, and oil could fuel the world in 2050, but the carbon dioxide produced by these fossil fuels would have somehow to be captured and sequestered (CCS) underground in order to prevent it from being vented into the atmosphere where it contributes to global warming. Some CCS pilot projects have been launched but they are not cheap and they are far from proven.

Given the magnitude of the problem of fueling the future with carbon-neutral energy, Nocera argues that the only real alternative for carbon-neutral energy production is some form of solar power. More energy from sunlight strikes the Earth in one hour than humanity uses in a year. But converting sunlight into energy useful to people is a huge unsolved technological problem. In 2000, author Richard Rhodes and nuclear engineer Denis Beller calculated that using current solar power technologies to construct a global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 percent of the world's known iron resources, take a century to build and cover a half-million square miles. Clearly a lot of technological innovation needs to take place before solar becomes an option for fueling the world.

The challenge of supplying the world with carbon neutral energy has a lot of people calling for the launching of a "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Project." What they mean is that the Federal government should dramatically boost research and development spending for novel energy technologies. Let's recall that the Apollo Project absorbed 5.3 percent of the Federal government's budget in 1965. A comparable expenditure would be $136 billion in 2006—that's almost 5 times higher than the Energy Department's 2006 budget. It is also more than the Federal government currently spends on the agriculture, commerce, energy, homeland security, interior, justice and labor departments. Let's also recall that the Apollo program turned out to be a technological dead end that managed to get just 12 astronauts to walk on the moon. Another telling example of Federal bungling in the energy field was the $20 billion wasted on President Jimmy Carter's Synfuels Corporation which was a pilot project that aimed to make oil production from coal commercially viable. It died in 1985.

Maybe Nocera is right that solar power is the way to go, but history teaches us to scrap the Apollo Project model for technology R&D. Federal bureaucrats are simply not smart enough to pick winning energy technologies. Instead,eliminate all energy subsidies, set a price for carbon, and then let tens of thousands of energy researchers and entrepreneurs develop and test various new technologies in the market. No one knows now how humanity will fuel the 21st century, but Apollo and Manhattan Project-style Federal energy research projects will prove to be a huge waste of time, money and talent.

Disclosure: I own 50 shares of ExxonMobil stock. So what!

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

The lifestyle of modern day India isn't something we would want to aspire to (the 4 TW solution), but it isn't clear what "heroic conservation measures" are being proposed. Since a great deal of current energy consumption is released as waste heat or otherwise unrecoverable energy, programs to reduce energy losses would seem to be what is being advocated here, and certainly well worth the investment.

Part of the problem is the existing capital stock is so vast that it would take decades to economically replace inefficient power plants, old cars, light bulbs, CRT computer monitors and other energy hogs (look around, they're everywhere). Even then, if a vast quantity of electrical energy is consumed in transmission losses, then reducing demand only solves part of the problem. Similarly with cars and trucks, a 100 mpg car still only uses a fraction of the chemical energy in the gasoline or diesel fuel if the power source is a four stroke engine.

 

[dglad]

There's simply no way that 9 billion people (using Nocera's figure) are going to have a uniform standard of living.  It's never been the case in human history; there has always been an affluent few at the top, who conspicuously consume most of the resources.  The far more likely scenario (unfortunately) is that we will, in 2050, produce what we produce, a small proportion of the population will use a disproportionate share of it, and the rest will make do with what's left.  This will be in spite of the efforts of governments and business alike.  The result will be further poverty, famine and otherwise depressed standards of living for a majority of people on the planet, and resulting strife, tension and unrest as humanity muddles along into the future.  Gloomy, perhaps, but the past seems to be all too good an indicator of the future in this department.

The only thing I could possibly see changing this is the development of some truly remarkable, simple, reliable and cheap energy source (cold fusion turns out to be real after all...someone figures out how to fuse hydrogen in something the size of a refrigerator at a cost of a few cents per kWh...a truly fool-proof and inexpensive solution for sequestering CO2 is developed so we can burn coal, oil, gas, peat and whatever else til the cows come home...something like that).  It could happen, I suppose....

 

[rmacqueen]

Read "THE BOTTOMLESS WELL, The Twilight Of Fuel, The Virtue Of Waste, And Why We Will Never Run Out Of Energy" By Peter Huber and Mark P. Mills.  It is an interesting read

 

[a_majoor]

Ontario shoots itself in the foot yet again! Even though wind power can only make a small dent in the overall supply picture, there is no reason to deep six proposals like this so long as technical issues like ensuring it does not destabilize the grid through voltage fluctuations can be addressed.

http://www.intelligencer.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=307383&catname=Local%20News&classif=

County wind project has new owner

Bruce Bell  /  The Intelligencer
Local News - Thursday, December 07, 2006 @ 10:00

The wind turbine project slated for Royal Road at Point Petre in the southern reaches of Prince Edward County is about to be taken over by another Alberta firm.

Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. is set to formally complete the acquisition of Vector Wind Energy Inc. of Ottawa later this month. Vector purchased the Royal Road project from TransAlta Corp., (Vision Quest Windelectric) in February.

"We certainly like the prospects of the Royal Road project and although I'm not completely familiar with all the details myself, we feel it is in a very appropriate area and are ready to move ahead once everything is finalized with Vector," said Hydro Canada CEO John Keating.

Hydro Canada has built and operates a number of sustainable energy facilities across Canada. Publicly listed since 1990, the company owns and operates 18 green-power facilities. Wind-generated electricity accounts for five sites and hydroelectric power for 12 sites. Canadian Hydro's first biomass plant is located in Grande Prairie.

The company owns and operates 45 turbines at Melancthon 1 Wind Plant near Shelburne which produces almost 200,000 MW/h of electricity.
They expect to complete construction of the second phase of the project in 2007, adding another 88 turbines producing a further 350 MW/h of renewable energy annually.

Closer to Prince Edward County, Canadian Hydro is scheduled to begin construction on its Wolfe Island site in 2007 and Keating said he expects that project to be up and running by the end of 2008.

Plans call for 86, 2.3 MW turbines to be erected which will generate an estimated 537,000 KW/h of energy or enough to power 75,000 homes. Keating said the Royal Road project is a natural fit for the company with Wolfe Island close by.

"Once the acquisition is completed we will have to become more familiar with the Royal Road project in order to advance all the work TransAlta had begun prior to selling to Vector," he said.

"We wouldn't anticipate a lot of changes but things like the turbines might be different and we will need some changes for that. Being so close to Wolfe Island, there will be operating synergies between the two sites."

The Prince Edward County project is still before the Ontario Municipal Board. After the municipality approved the project a number of appeals were filed.

A number of wind-turbine projects have received approval recently and Keating said he believes the government fully endorses the production of green renewable energy.

"I don't see any evidence they are trying to slow this process down at all," he said from his Calgary office. "Each project has its own obstacles that have to be dealt with, that's just part of the process, but I think the government is as committed to this as we are."

Rob Miller, a project engineer originally with Vector and now with Canadian Hydro agreed with Keating, saying he had only heard about off-shore projects being slowed down.

"I think the Ministry of Natural Resources basically put a moratorium on off-shore turbines on the grounds they didn't have enough criteria to assess it yet, but that differs completely from turbines going up along the shores of the Great Lakes in remote areas."

Meanwhile, the province has put the brakes on a wind power mega-project proposed for Lake Ontario off the shores of Prince Edward County.

The Ontario government has deferred Trillium Power Energy Corp.'s plans to build a 710-megawatt wind farm - the largest of its kind in North America - until the province can further study the environmental impacts of offshore wind projects.

The Toronto-based private company had proposed building as many as 140 wind turbines in a shallow area of Lake Ontario 17 to 25 kilometres offshore near the Canada/United States water border.

Construction on the $1-billion project was supposed to start in 2008.

But Steve Irwin, spokesman for the Ministry of Energy, said offshore wind energy is still in the early stages in Ontario and more study is needed. He also said the delays are specific to offshore wind projects only and aren't an indication of any provincewide suspension of wind power proposals in general.

"I wouldn't call it a moratorium," he said. "[The review] involves looking at how it affects lake water conditions, what it does to wildlife in the area, how it affects everything from birds to bats." - with files from the Kingston Whig-Standard

 

[Kirkhill]

Arthur, did you see this from Edward yesterday?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46854/post-491398.html#msg491398

Here is a letter to the editor, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, from today’s Globe and Mail from Tom Adams of Energy Probe (see:  http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=486 ):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061206.LETTERS06-9/TPStory/Opinion/letters

Quote
Wind power disappoints

TOM ADAMS
Energy Probe

Toronto -- Re Answer Blowing In Wind (letter -- Dec. 2): The David Suzuki Foundation complains that Energy Probe's recent wind-power study, which identifies disappointing production results from wind in and around Ontario, is based on only a "few months of data" and that the experience in Germany provides "concrete evidence about the reliability of wind power."

In fact, our study shows disappointing production from Ontario and Quebec-based wind-power installations since the 1990s. Germany's actual wind-production results since the industry became established four years ago are also about a third less than expected.

Leading German environmentalists and energy experts, including world-renowned expert Richard Tol, whose work on greenhouse gases the Suzuki Foundation cites, recognize that the German wind system has been a political boondoggle. Mr. Tol notes that the real beneficiaries of Germany's overblown wind system are the corporate interests aligned with Germany's powerful Green Party.

Maybe someone needs to take a closer than usual look at the $430,000 in loans M. Dion used to finance his leadership campaign (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54201.0.html ) to see how much came from those destined to benefit from Canadian environmental billion-dollar-boondoggles.

By the way the 710 MW plant would require 355 Turbines to be installed, wired and maintained off-shore if that were the installed capacity.  In which case the plant will produce 180 to 240 MW a year on an intermittent basis.

If the intent is to GENERATE that amount of power on an AVERAGE basis would require at least 3 times that number of Turbines.  In practice, and in conformity with the German experience, you would likely need to install 4 times that number or about 1500 turbines.

Combined the 8 reactors at Pickering produce 4120 MW.   

This Turbine Farm will produce less than a single new reactor at Pickering or Darlington and be much less reliable.

 

[a_majoor]

I well understand the limitations of wind power (unless the turbines are situated near the House of Commons, there will never be enough steady supply of wind); however since the McGuinty government seems determined to take electrical generating capacity off line, some sort of replacement capacity (however limited) is needed.

The current slack in Ontario's system is being met by coal fired plants in the United States, and of course Hydro One must pay premium rates to buy it. Since the consumer pays subsidized rates for electricity, the taxpayer must make up the difference ( hey, wait a minute.....!)

In the free market consumers would pay some entity for electrical power, and the entity (person, local corporation, multi national corporation) would attempt to meet the demand.  Successful entities will thrive, and P/O'd consumers will see to it that unsuccessful entities fail. Given the vast requirements, someone, somewhere would be building nuclear power stations to generate the baseline, and distributed power systems would be popping up to cover peak needs and local outages from the grid. Consumers also react to market signals; if the price rises, consumer behaviour changes, lights get turned off and so on.

So long as economic illiterates can distort the market with subsidies and ill conceived "Green energy" plans, Ontario will be  on the edge of disaster. Given the huge capital base which is needed to supply the needs of a province, it may take a decade for a new government to set things right.

 

[Kirkhill]

In the meantime Art -  have you bought your generator yet? 

 

[a_majoor]

I was thinking of yoking some of the more obnoxious trolls on these threads to a treadmill....... >

 

[Kirkhill]

An inspired use of under-utilised recyclable resources.  You should patent it.

 

[childs56]

Put up all the windmills you want. What happens when we disrupt the wind patterens?

The experts say it cannot happen. But to me if you put up these wind mills that are 200 feet in the air and have blades that are harnessing the energy, meaning they are putting resistance in the air, Eventually the wind will take the path of least resistance.

Mind you this will occur over a long period of time, that is unless we build these things all over the place. Then be prepared for differant weather patterens and so on.

A good balance between all of the present and future power sources is what is needed.
Not a one component for all.