Posts Tagged ‘Toronto Hydro Offshore Wind’
What’s Wrong With Toronto Hydro Energy Services?
The folks at Toronto Hydro Energy Services have demonstrated epically bad judgement in a number of different areas. Whether it is their response to electrocuting Torontonians family pets, demonstrating an inability to appreciate their inability to manage and deliver viable renewable energy projects, or their latest, trying to lie to Guildwood Residents and the Ministry of Natural Resources to get their second soon to fail win project off the ground. Things appear so bad that David O’Brien, President of Toronto Hydro Corporation won’t even allow Chris Tyrrell, President of Toronto Hydro Energy Services, to speak publicly when his hydro poles are electrocuting small kids and killing family pets. Having seen Tyrrell address a community meeting, I can appreciate O’Brien’s decision, but still believe it demonstrates a problem with the organization.
I’m going to share some facts on each of these situations to demonstrate ridiculous levels of corporate irresponsibility.
First – Who is Toronto Hydro Energy Services:
- THES is a 100% owned subsidiary of Toronto Hydro Corporation, which is 100% owned by the City of Toronto. It is the municipal equivalent of a Crown corporation.
- THES is the unregulated arm that is supposed to seek out revenue generating opportunities outside of Toronto Hydro’s regulated business of electricity delivery.
- THES’ board is made up of individuals that also sit on THC’s board.
- While legally separate, THES shares resources and responsibilities with Toronto Hydro Corporation and functions more like a division than a company.
Now on to the issues:
1) Electrocution of Toronto’s small children and pets:
Toronto Hydro Energy Services is the proud owner of the electricity poles within Toronto. A lot of people would think it makes sense for Toronto Hydro to own the poles that deliver the electricity within the city right? Sure it does, but why would the unregulated arm that doesn’t deliver electricity own them? Simple – When David Soknacki was Budget Chief from 2003 to 2006 he was consistently unable to balance the budget (Shelley Carroll – current Budget Chief has been able to). Soknacki had all kinds of imaginative schemes to come up with the money to make it work and in 2005 one of them was to ‘sell’ the hydro poles for 60 million dollars in one year program spending. Here I should note that if anyone would like to lease the wires in my apartment – recognizing there will be zero return on investment, I can be reached at john.laforet@laforet.ca – Chris Tyrrell (President of THES) I hope to hear from you soon.
So basically the guy who controlled the City’s finances was short – and went to a company that is 100% owned by a company that is 100% owned by the organization whose money he was responsible for – and set a price to sell this important, but commercially worthless piece of infrastructure to. Sounds like the brain trust at Toronto Hydro Energy Services really knows a deal when it sees one.
And now for the bad judgement by Toronto Hydro Energy Services:
- First dog reported electrocuted in November 2008. THES response? Fix the faulty wiring in the one location, essentially making the deaths of family pets the ‘canary in the mine’ approach to solving the problem. “The Toronto Humane Society yesterday blamed Hydro for not taking the risk seriously in the German Shepherd case, and said the company would have acted more diligently had the victim been human.” (Toronto Star, January 14, 2009)
- Second dog reported electrocuted January 13 2009. THES response? “Toronto Hydro inspected the area for safety hazards and has deemed the area safe.” (CTV, January 13, 2009)
- Toronto Hydro “deeply regrets” it’s role in electrocuting family pets, but assures folks the streets are safe for people because of our rubber shoes and two feet. (Toronto Star, January 14, 2009)
- January 30th 2009 – five children are shocked. Toronto Hydro President David O’Brien suggests maybe parents should avoid hand wells with children, orders all handwells tested and replaced. It is reported there have been 140 reported incidents since November 2008. (National Post, January 30, 2009)
2) Bad Projects:
The Exhibition Turbine was a failure as a project. Yet Joyce McLean and her far left friends practically pray to the thing. They told investors it would generate 1.8 million kilowatt hours annually. It has generated 800 000 kilowatts annually and will mean investors, even after twenty years won’t even be able to extract their principal from this project. Toronto Hydro Energy Services had a proper anemometer test at the exact site they built, made these projections and failed to get anywhere near their targets. When asked about it, they mislead and evade.
Now, they want to find some poor sap or saps with as much as half a billion dollars they don’t need to keep Joyce McLean and Jack Simpson busy blowing it on another failed project. This time, the project will ignore all legitimate scientific data available and rely on an anemometer test up to fifteen kilometres away from possible turbine locations to build. They don’t seem to know what they’re doing, and can’t seem to appreciate how bad their last project went.
3) Toronto Hydro Energy Services Lying and Misleading:
Toronto Hydro Energy Services has not consulted the Guildwood community about the proposed anemometer installation. They are planning to lie to the Ministry of Natural Resources this week and submit an application that can only be approved if they have consulted. The problem? I have a video recording of their proceedings and not once do they speak about any environmental screening or assessment as it relates to the proposed installation. They can deny this if they’d like, but I have demonstrated in past when folks lie and I have them on tape, I release it. Ask Paul Ainslie about that.
Instead of holding a public consultation, they stacked a meeting with lackies from organizations with clear conflicts of interest to speak in favour of a wind farm. The third attempt to hold a meeting was not a legal meeting. It ignored the City of Toronto Act which sets minimal standards for Toronto Hydro’s meeting conduct. Even then, they did not tell residents the meeting was part of an environmental assessment or screening, they did not talk about the findings of any screening or assessment and cut off community consultation after Chris Tyrrell promised to keep it open. They are using this meeting which had nothing to do with an environmental assessment to try and convince Natural Resources to say they did consult the community on this. It is simply untrue.
Even in their presentation, which is available on their website http://torontohydroenergy.com/pdf/Offshore-Dec-2-2008.pdf they don’t reference an environmental assessment or screening. It does have misleading information and full out lies contained within it’s pages. My critique of this can be found here http://laforet.ca/2009/01/27/cutting-through-the-crap-laforets-fact-check-of-toronto-hydros-community-presentation/.
I recognize the word ‘lie’ has a very precise meeting and misusing it can and sometimes does have legal consequences. I am certain enough that Toronto Hydro’s claim that their meeting attempts are community consultations falls under the definition of a lie, and is provable to be a lie. I am prepared to use this word to describe it and will stand by this claim.
Final Thoughts:
These folks are so bad at even the most basic aspects of their responsibilities there is question to their ability to even safely own hydro poles, let alone install major generating projects. The last attempt at wind generation was led by McLean and failed miserably. They are both lying and misleading as it relates to the community consultation process, and any claim that they have consulted Guildwood residents would be a ‘lie’ as at no point did they discuss anything relating to the environmental impacts of their project, nor did they disclose any actual research they had done on this front.
These guys are so off base they’ve entered the realm of lawsuit territory. If they killed my dog or shocked my kid, I would sue. Folks in US cities have won real money off of utilities. Normally I don’t advocate lawsuits as a way to deal with anything, but these clowns have demonstrated they have too much money on their hands and any hit they take would probably be better for all of us in the long run. They knew there was a problem, but waited until it looked bad to fix it. If I were an investor in WindShare, I would sue both Toronto Hydro Energy Services and Joyce McLean personally as she worked for both sides of that deal at different times. Working for two partners in a two partner deal is really sketchy. Kind of like being the President of CanWEA and developing a wind project while pretending to be remotely objective. As a citizen of Toronto, I anxiously await the Natural Resources decision and hope that they turn down their application on the grounds that it simply isn’t true that they’ve consulted, nor does their test appear warranted when all other research demonstrates any project won’t be viable. I am confident that I can place my trust in the hand of a public servant whose decisions are made based on a set of criteria and not politics. I hope the individual who will make this decision rises to the hour and makes the right, but difficult decision.
There will be an environmental impact of even the anemometer platform installation, and considering that all research suggests it is unnecessary to do this test, any possible impact, even if it is as small as killing a single organism isn’t worth it, considering there is no reason for the test. What’s worse, no one can say it looks like Toronto Hydro Energy Services has done any research on the impacts, and from their own words on the topic it appears they don’t even care. Considering they work for a company that doesn’t seem to fret too much about it’s role in killing people’s family pets, or electrocuting children, this probably shouldn’t be all that surprising.
Toronto Hydro Energy Services should be ashamed of their conduct all around, and Toronto Hydro Corporation should be seriously looking at a ‘cleaning house’ at THES in recognition of their complete and utter failure to manage infrastructure responsibly, to build a simple project, or to learn from their past mistakes.
As always, I welcome Toronto Hydro Energy Services to respond. I will give them as much space as they would like and the opportunity to a completely unedited retort to my claims here. And if they want, I will seriously lease them the wires in my walls too.
3 Comments »
Cutting Through the Crap: John Laforet’s Fact Check of Toronto Hydro’s Community Presentation
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.
2 Comments »Jack Simpson – Cover Your Eyes “commercially sensitive” information about the Exhibition Turbine is about to be disclosed…
I’ve updated this post to correct the previous numbers I was using. It was five years of data, not four making the output even worse than before. See corrections below.
Guildwood residents asked repeatedly about success of the Toronto Hydro Wind Turbine on the Exhibition grounds (another waterfront location). They asked whether the output data would be considered as part of the wind study for the proposed massive industrial wind turbine generating station Toronto Hydro Energy Services wants to place in the bluffs. Jack Simpson, Vice President of Generation repeatedly stated that the data as far as output was concerned at the Ex was ‘commercially sensitive’ and could not be shared. I now know why.
Perhaps he should have told someone at Toronto Hydro Corporation that before they wrote about it in the 2007 financial statement… I want to thank the Guildwood resident who brought this to my attention and crunched some numbers that I have since verified and am now about to report. I knew there had to be problems when one shareholder refered to the project as “orphaned and dying” and that the Dutch company that built it had gone bankrupt causing some difficulties as well.
Page 42 of the 2007 Toronto Hydro Financial Statement states: “TH Energy/WindShare wind turbine at Exhibition Place has produced approximately 4 million kWh of green energy since 2003. Sounds impressive right? Sure, except that capacity over those same four five years was 26.3 32.9 million kWh hours (750KWh x 24 hours per day x 365 days per year x four 5 = total four year capacity), meaning the TH Energy/WindShare wind turbine (a project Joyce McLean was instrumental in and appears immensely proud of) has a four year average operating output that represents 15% 12% capacity. That output number is the one Simpson refused to disclose and said was ‘commercially sensitive’. A little math makes it clear it was closer to being ‘commercially humiliating’ than it was to being ‘commerically sensitive’. It appears the Toronto Hydro wind turbine that is literally right on shore is in fact worse (I didn’t even think this could be possible) than the Pickering Wind Generating Station on the other side of Toronto.
So we have two installed wind turbines that are right on the shoreline, both have horrible multi year returns. Toronto Hydro Energy Services has repeatedly stated neither of these count toward their study or consideration though. Just like the independent offshore wind report conducted by Helimax, who excluded this entire section of the lake as being non-viable because it didn’t meet the minimum wind thresholds, isn’t worth considering. The Canada Wind Atlas, a document the Ontario Power Authority actually tells wind turbine developers to consult, has also been ruled out as a source of information on wind viability off the Bluffs (it also agrees with Helimax, that there just isn’t the wind to warrant a project here). What’s more, the Ontario Power Generation failed experiment at Pickering admitted that ‘a lack of consistent strong winds at the Pickering Site’ is in large part to blame for a lack of energy production.
So, the Canada Wind Atlas is no good, the Helimax Report isn’t either. The two examples of such projects don’t count either… all that appears Toronto Hydro Energy Services wants to count is their Anemometer test, something they are in the process of trying to receive permission to install, while Simpson and McLean defy generally accepted scientific methodology and refuse to present a minimum threshold for success before conducting the experiment. Simpson isn’t even sure there is enough wind to power a little anemometer and a couple of navigation lights with three small scale wind turbines. Remember, these are the guys who can’t even mail a notice without extreme difficulty.
I think Toronto Hydro Energy Services has spun so far out of reality that they need to be reined in by the powers that be. This project is simply so far from being remotely credible it cannot be allowed to proceed even to the test phase. It is clear there is not enough wind out there. Two independent, unaffiliated reports state that, and two failed wind turbine projects confirm that cold, hard reality. Why do we need to drop another million bucks so that these guys can try denying those findings and push for a massive project that will see them try building on the Bluffs. They won’t even recognize that even underwater, the Bluffs are still the Bluffs (the underwater portion is both the base of the Bluffs and the result of erosion. It is not a stand alone feature).
These guys need to find something better to do with their time than flog a project without merit in a community that after watching the performance of Toronto Hydro Energy Services over the last six months, simply cannot trust or believe anything they have to say. There too many factual errors and omissions, convenient mistruths and, what is even worse, dirty tricks played on Guildwood residents to allow this process to proceed.
This is the opportunity for Toronto Hydro Corporation, the City of Toronto or one of about four different Provincial Minister’s or the Premier to step in and provide the required adult supervision to tell these guys that this project has already gone off the rails and needs to now be put to bed.
Guildwood is fired up and won’t be backing down. Toronto Hydro Energy Services needs to apologize and move on.
8 Comments »
