Cutting Through the Crap: John Laforet’s Fact Check of Toronto Hydro’s Community Presentation

by John Laforet
posted on January 27th, 2009 at 07:14:13 am

I am going to go through Toronto Hydro Energy Services power point presentation to point out misleading statements made by Toronto Hydro Energy Services during their botched community consultation. Click here to follow along with their original presentation.

Slide Four: (Why We Support Renewables[sic])

“Renewable Energy is part of the solution; it is a mature, reliable technology which is cost effective.”

Reliable? really?

“The variable nature of wind will however introduce specific challenges to the reliability of the integrated power system. These challenges are magnified as the number of wind power projects that are connected to the grid increases.” Source: The Electricity System Operator “Wind Power in Ontario

Cost Effective?

Wind generated power is bought by the Ontario Power Authority from wind turbine owners at a rate of 11.08 cents per kWh and sold to the people of Ontario at a rate of 5.6 cents per kWh (a loss of 5.5 cents per kWh generated).

To install an onshore wind turbine costs are predicted to be between $2000 and $2750 per kilowatt of capacity. Recalling the data from Toronto Hydro’s only wind generating project with a five year average output of 12% capacity, 8.3 kilowatts of capacity must exist for every kilowatt of output. The cost per kilowatt of output using the OPA estimate costs would in fact be between $16 700 and $23 000 for the last Toronto Hydro Energy Services wind project.

Source: Ontario’s Stand Offer Program For Wind Energy

Source: John Laforet’s Blog “Jack Simpson – Cover Your Eyes “commercially sensitive” information about the Exhibition Turbine is about to be disclosed…”

Moving on to page five… “Wind Globally”

“Over 94 000 Megawatt wind capacity installed worldwide.”

Really? On Land or Off Shore?

“Offshore wind capacity accounts for almost 1,170 megawatts worldwide, roughly 1.2 percent of the 94,100 megawatts of installed capacity at the end of 2007; while this is a small share of the total, it is up from less than 0.3 percent in 2000.”

Source: Earth Policy Institute

“Today Germany has 22 000 MW of wind capacity installed.

This is just slightly less than all of Ontario’s entire system capacity of 31 000 MW.”

Response to German Wind Capacity:

Germany does have 22 000 MW of wind capacity installed. 100% of that on shore. What is Germany’s take on offshore wind projects?

“Mainly for nature conservation reasons, most German offshore parks will be erected up to 20-60 km away from the coastline and in 20-40 meters deep waters. So far, experience of building such wind farms is very limited, hence higher risk attached make financing from banks more complicated.”

Source: Future trends: Offshore – German Wind Energy Association

Response to Germany to Ontario Comparison: Germany is a country right? Last I checked Ontario is a province.  The population of Germany is 82 million, compared to 13 million in Ontario. Germany has a population over six times, the population of Ontario.

31 000 MW represents 100% of Ontario’s energy capacity and responsible for providing 100% of Ontario’s electricity needs. 22 000 MW represents 7% of Germany’s power consumption.

Responding to the word “slightly”:

As for the word ‘slightly’‘. Ontario’s total grid is 40% bigger than Germany’s wind capacity. There is nothing ‘slight’ about that. Germany’s wind capacity provides just 7% of it’s total consumption, compared to Ontario’s grid providing 100% of it’s. There is nothing ‘slight’ about that either.

Commentary: If Toronto Hydro Energy Services cannot even recognize the need to compare jurisdictions of equal scales, how can they be expected (or trusted) to competently develop complex mathematical modeling to measure wind viability? Further if a ‘slight’ difference to Toronto Hydro Energy Services can include a difference of to be up to 40% of capacity how can any analysis by them be credible. Especially considering Toronto Hydro’s last project predicted an output of 2.25 times higher than the actual five year average for their only wind project to date. That was after their testing too.

Source: German Wind Energy Association: Wind energy in Germany

Page Six here we come: “Offshore Wind Globally”

“Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, England, Wales all have developed successful offshore wind projects.”

Response:

Wrong. This is simply untrue. Germany has not ‘developed successful offshore wind projects’.  “The first pilot project, the test site “Alpha Ventus” with 60 MW in the North Sea, is expected to come into operation during 2009.” Incidentally, it has been sited 45 kilometres offshore.

Source: Germany Wind Energy Association “Future Trends: Offshore”

Clarification Re: Copenhagen Offshore Wind Farm

Copenhagen’s project is 1.5 times further off shore than the proposed closest location for Toronto Hydro Energy Services proposed wind turbine and is sited off an industrial part of the City that is not home to residential communities.

Clarification Re: Slide Six in General

None of the projects referenced are in freshwater lakes

One is an urban example, and that one is 2.5 times smaller than Toronto Hydro’s proposed project, 1.5 times farther from shore, and not being built off a residential area.

Page seven here we come! “Wind Energy in Canada”

“By the end of 2008 Ontario’s wind capacity will power nearly 250 000 homes.”

Response: Capacity doesn’t power a single home. Actual output does. Capacity at Toronto Hydro’s one wind project is over 8 times the five year average annual output. You invest in capacity, and are paid back in actual output. If all project developers failed as badly as Toronto Hydro Energy Services did on their last wind project, a province wide capacity sufficient to power 250 000 homes would power just 30 000 homes.

Source: Common sense. This is so basic it doesn’t need to be cited.

“Economic benefits include green collar construction jobs and more stable energy rates.”

Clarification: ‘More stable energy rates’? Really? I thought the Ontario Energy Board set every one’s energy rate at 5.6 cents per kWh for residential use, while the Ontario Power Authority purchases wind energy (when it’s available) for 11.08 cents per kWh? Stability comes from the Ontario Energy Board and the only impact wind power could have on energy rates is ‘up’. With an under delivery rate (delivering less than promised) of 58%, wind energy output is so unreliable it costs the system hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in addition of the actual paid cost for wind energy when it is available.

Source: Wind Forcast Error Impacts on Efficiency, Wind Power Standing Committee; the IESO

Source: Ontario’s Standard Offer Program – Wind, Ontario Power Authority

Source: Electricity Prices in Ontario – Ontario Energy Board

On to page eight – let the games begin: “Great Lakes Offshore Wind”

“A minimum of 34 500 MW offshore wind on the Ontario side of the Great Lakes has been identified as a significant source of new renewable energy capacity by the Ontario Power Authority’s commissioned study by Helimax  in 2008.”

Response: Neat. Toronto Hydro Energy Services is recognizing the Ontario Power Authority and Helimax as industry experts and name dropping them to give credibility  to their claim that this seems like a good idea. OK, so let’s see what else the OPA and Helimax said.

“The Ontario Power Authority, the government agency that effectively determines which large power projects live or die, says offshore wind costs too much to be considered in its 20-year power system plan. It acknowledges that the technology provides more power than onshore projects, but not enough to justify the higher cost of building offshore wind farms.”

Source: Toronto Star, June 30th 2008

OK, but there is still Helimax right? They said up to 34 500 MW of wind capacity offshore on the Ontario side of the Great Lakes, right? Yes they did. They even gave 65 locations they deemed viable. Viable meant they had strong enough consistent winds to pursue wind generation. The Scarborough Bluffs wasn’t one of them. Even if it was, the OPA would still think it was a bad idea.

Source: Analysis of Offshore Wind Farm Development in Ontario – Helimax

Moving to page nine: “Research Project Overview”

“Seeking approval for an anemometer to measure wind speeds and direction for at least two years”

Helimax says not enough wind is present for this site to be viable. The Canada Wind Atlas agrees. The Ontario Power Authority says offshore wind is just too expensive to be considered part of their 20 year generation plan. The Pickering Wind Turbine Generating Station reports ‘a lack of consistent strong winds’ as a major part of it’s failure. It’s five year average output is just 17%. The WindShare/Toronto Hydro turbine at the EX has a five year average output of just 12%. Apparently none of this matters. Just this one test they want to do, while disregarding these five undeniable facts.

Source: Summary of previously cited facts.

“Any potential offshore wind farm is subject to a separate environmental assessment with full agency and public participation”

Response: Wrong. This is simply untrue. There is no requirement for an environmental assessment for wind turbine projects in Ontario. This is insane but true. Toronto Hydro Energy Service would have to do a self assessment called an ‘environmental screening’. It is the equivalent of designing the test, and then going home and studying really hard for it. The craziest part, if you determine as the potential developer that all is well – and there are no concerns, you don’t even need to file your screening with the Ministry of Environment and as Sarah Palin’s supporters so proudly chanted you’re then free to ‘drill baby drill’ eroding the famous Scarborough Bluffs with every compaction.

Toronto Hydro Energy Services has demonstrated a complete inability to facilitate public participation. They can’t even hold a public meeting. Their slides are filled with lies, and misleading statements and signs of a lack of understanding of their own industry.

Source: Ontario’s Standard Offer Program – Wind, Ontario Power Authority

Some Final Thoughts:

The wind isn’t there. Helimax says so.

The Canada Wind Atlas agrees.

The costs of offshore projects are just too high. The OPA says so.

Capacity isn’t output. You build capacity and get paid back in output. (If you’re WindShare investors who bought 50% of Toronto Hydro’s EX turbine – you invest in capacity and lose money in output).

Germany isn’t Toronto Hydro Energy Services friend. They don’t plan on siting wind turbine generating stations any closer than 20 kilometres from shore. Their first project is 45 kilometres from shore. They also recognize how uncharted this territory is and have avoided these projects until recently.

98.8% of Wind Turbine Developers throughout the world, and in the history of wind turbine development, have opted for onshore projects. Even those aren’t financially viable in a lot of cases. (The Ex and Pickering are two local examples of non viable wind projects).

Parting Words:

Toronto Hydro Energy Services cannot even hold a simple community meeting.

They’ve demonstrated difficulty in sourcing a room.

They allow organizations they finance to shout down residents with bused in supporters and deny them an ability to speak.

They violate the legal principles of public meetings as defined by legislation they are compelled to follow.

They can’t even mail out notices.

And for everyone who braved that mess and ended up listening to what they had to say; they lie.

They mislead with invalid comparisons, factual errors and omissions.

They evade legitimate questions that demonstrate how bad of an idea this is.

The plan they’ve presented is built on an invalid scientific methodology that defies logic and avoids facts that work against their point.

What’s worse, it’s being managed by an individual whose last attempt at a wind project has failed beyond belief and is on track to cost hundreds of individuals thousands of dollars.

I welcome anyone at Toronto Hydro Energy Services to challenge any of the claims I’ve made here. I will publish any unedited response I receive from anyone at Toronto Hydro Energy Services so long as it addresses the points in here.

I also call on Toronto Hydro Energy Services to end this absolutely ridiculous project and withdraw their application.

Tags: AECOM, Anemometer, Anemometer Lake Ontario, Exhibition Place Turbine, Guildwood, Guildwood Village, Guildwood Wind Farm, Jack Simpson, January 20th Meeting, Joyce McLean, Lake Ontario Wind Farm, Pickering Wind Generating Station, Scarborough Bluffs Wind Farm, Toronto Hydro, Toronto Hydro Energy Services, Toronto Hydro Offshore Wind, Toronto Hydro/WindShare Turbine, Toronto Wind farm, Ward 43