What About Wind Power?

In recent years, a great deal of concern has been evident about the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that is being released into the environment as a result of burning fossil fuels like coal and oil. This concern has led to a search for alternative sources of power that do not cause so much pollution. Wind power is one of those promising alternative sources of power. The idea seems simple: capture the tremendous energy of the wind and convert it to electricity using wind turbines. Older Canadians can remember a time when windmills on individual farms were used to generate electricity. Why don't we just implement that idea on a major scale to help solve our environmental problems? Unfortunately, it's not as simple as it looks. We'll get to the complications in a minute, but first some statistics about wind power.

In 2009, the U.S. generated 35,000 megawatts (MWs) of wind power, Germany 26,000, China 25,000, and Canada 3,300. These may seem like large numbers, but wind power currently provides only 1 percent of electricity requirements in Canada, 1.3 percent in the U.S., and 9 percent in Europe. In 2009, more than 37,000 megawatts (MWs) of new wind power were built worldwide (13,000 in China alone). Canada added 950 megawatts, and ranked 9th in the world.

In January 2010, the province of Ontario announced that it had signed a $7 billion agreement with Samsung and Korea Electric Power Corp. to build four manufacturing plants which would produce wind turbine towers and blades, solar inverters, and modules. Samsung also plans to produce 2,500 MWs of wind power. The deal included $437 million of incentives to attract the companies to Ontario. Managers at Canadian companies in the wind power business expressed surprise at the announcement because the incentives given to Samsung were not made available to Canadian companies.

There is currently a great deal of interest and activity in the wind power business, and the future looks promising. But with any new idea there are always unexpected problems that arise, and situation with wind power is no different.

Problem #1â€"Government subsidies which encourage investment in wind farms are having the effect of raising the cost of electricity. But without government subsidies there might be very little interest in the development of wind power. In Ontario, the Green Energy Act pays wind farms 13.5 cents for each kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity they generate. The Ontario subsidy has already attracted attention from a large U.S. company. NextEra, the renewable energy division of Florida Power and Light (FPL), has more than 60 wind farms in the U.S. which are capable of producing 7,500 megawatts MWs of power. That’s more than all the Canadian wind farms combined. NextEra has already bought up Canadian wind farms in Nova Scotia and Quebec, and it is planning to develop new wind farms in Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta.

Critics question why Ontario is paying 13.5 cents per kWh when electricity can be purchased on the open market for less than 6 cents per kWh. A study by the London Economics Consultancy concluded that residential electricity bills will increase by hundreds of dollars each year as a result of the higher rates the province is paying for wind power. Industrial users of electricity will also incur higher operating costs and may therefore be less competitive than companies in other provinces or foreign countries. Opponents of wind power argue that it is a better strategy for Canada to build more hydroelectric generating stations, since there are enough new hydro sites in Quebec, Labrador, and Manitoba to meet Canada’s electricity needs for decades to come.

Problem #2â€"There is a growing debate about the impact that wind farms have on the health of people living near them. NextEra has conducted public meetings for people who live near its proposed sites, and some of those meetings have been quite confrontational. A spokesperson for a group called Wind Concerns Ontario says that NextEra gave unsatisfactory responses when concerns were expressed about the negative health effects of wind farms. One study of 36 people living in several different countries who said they were affected by the noise of wind turbines found that their symptoms disappeared when they moved at least five miles away from any wind turbines. But another study by the American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations found no evidence that wind turbine sounds have any negative physiological effect on people. The report noted that turbine sounds are not any different than the variety of other sounds that people are exposed to. But lawsuits on noise pollution allegedly caused by wind farms are pending in several U.S. states and in New Zealand. The European Platform Against Windfarms has 388 groups in 20 countries that oppose wind power. Canada has more than two dozen groups, and the U.S. has over 100. The effect that all this activity will have on the future development of wind power remains to be seen.

Problem #3â€"There is concern about the visual pollution associated with wind turbines. In Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod, a dispute has developed over a proposal to put 130 turbines offshore (the turbines would be 134 feet high). Residents object, saying it will destroy the view. Some companies say this problem can be solved by building wind turbines far out in the Great Lakes. Trillium Power Wind Corp. plans to build a wind farm in Lake Ontario that will be 17 kilometres from shore. But environmentalists don't like the idea very much.

Problem #4â€"Studies in Europe show that very few new jobs are actually created by wind power, and those that are created are very costly (between $90,000 and $140,000 each). One Canadian study showed that the new jobs that will be created by the Ontario-Samsung deal will cost $300,000 each because of the subsidies that are being paid to Samsung. The claim has been made that the Samsung deal will create 16,000 jobs (out of the total of 50,000 jobs the Green Energy Act is supposed to create), but a study in Spain showed that for every green job created by government, two jobs are lost elsewhere in the economy.

Problem #5â€"Engineers point out that the energy density of flowing air is very low, and this means that in order to generate significant amount of electricity from wind turbines, thousands of them are needed to match the power output of just one coal-fired power plant. Also, turbines operate within a fairly narrow range of wind speed. If a wind farm is designed for a wind speed of, say, 55 kilometres per hour (kph), it will generate no electricity if the wind speed is less than 35 kph. But if the wind speed is more than 70 kph, the turbines will burn out unless they are slowed. The famous Dutch windmills of the past had to be watched 24/7 so that if trouble developed it could be immediately dealt with. There are also reliability problems. On many of the wind farms in Europe, about 20 percent of the turbines are out of service at any one time. Wind power may look simple, but it isn't.

Problem #6â€"Unexpected conflicts have developed between wind power and other sources of clean energy. Consider wind power and natural gas. Environmentalists often talk about how wind power and natural gas can work together to reduce CO2 emissions, but in Texas supporters of wind power have come into conflict with supporters of natural gas. Why? Because in Texas, when a nuclear, natural gas, or coal-fired electric utility fails to deliver the power it promised, it has to pay for back-up power generation. But if a wind power plant doesn't deliver the power it promised, the cost of back-up generation is borne by the other electricity providers. Wind power is also given first priority. That means on windy days, all the power that wind farms can provide is used and there is less need for electricity generated by natural gas. During the past three years, these rules have meant that wind power's share of total electricity output has increased from 2 percent to 6 percent, while natural gas's share has dropped from 46 percent to 42 percent. Why would Texas have such rules favouring wind power? Because there is no way to guarantee that the wind will blow, so wind power is taken when it is available.

Problem #7â€"One of the main reasons for shifting to wind power is to reduce CO2 emissions. While this remains a desirable goal, there are major problems getting an international agreement on carbon reduction. With the failure of the Copenhagen meetings in 2009, and the reduced likelihood that a cap-and-trade carbon system will be imposed in North America, one of the main reasons for shifting to wind power has become far less important. As well, the reduction of CO2 emissions that can be achieved by switching from fossil fuels to wind power is not large. Since wind power is not as reliable as power generated by nuclear, natural gas, or coal, back-up generating stations are needed, and these are usually fossil fuel plants.

Questions for Discussion

1. Which of the problems listed above do you think are the most significant? Which are the least significant? Explain your reasoning.
2. How do the advantages and disadvantages of wind power compare to the advantages and disadvantages of other relatively clean sources of power (nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, and tidal power)?
3. Consider the following statement: Canada should stop spending money trying to develop wind power and should instead emphasize the development of its hydroelectric resources because those resources are abundant and non-polluting. Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Explain your reasoning.

Sources: "Hydroelectric Power Water Use," www.ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html, accessed March 13, 2010; Richard Blackwell, "A Quiet Giant Moves In," The Globe and Mail, March 8, 2010, p. B3; Michael Trebilcock, "Blowing Away Taxpayers; Wind Power is Unreliable, Expensive, and Doesn’t Result in Lower CO2 Emissions. Why Is Ontario Still Rushing Ahead With It?" National Post, March 6, 2010, p. FP19; Henk Tennekes, "Wind Power The Worst Kind of Mirage," National Post, March 3, 2010, p. FP15; Russell Gold, "Natural Gas Tilts at Windmills in Power Feud," The Wall Street Journal, March 2, 2010, pp. A1, A20; Robert Bryce, "The Brewing Tempest Over Wind Power," The Wall Street Journal, March 2, 2010, p. A23; Richard Blackwell, "Canada Breezes into World’s Top 120 for New Turbines," The Globe and Mail, February 4, 2010, p. B2; Richard Blackwell, "Unfair Advantages Cited in Samsung Deal," The Globe and Mail, January 25, 2010, p. B5; Lawrence Solomon, "Winds of Change: Premier McGuinty has Committed Ontario to a Generous Deal for a Soon-To-Be-Forgotten Energy Source," National Post, January 23, 2010, p. FP19; Karen Howlett, "Ontario’s Green Deal Raises Ire of Energy Developers," The Globe and Mail, January 22, 2010, p. A5; Richard Blackwell, "Ontario’s Wind Power Snags Lamented," The Globe and Mail, January 19, 2010, p. B3; Mary Vallis, "Nantucket Wind Farm Fight Nears Resolution; Kennedys Opposed," National Post, January 12, 2020, p. A3; "Turbines Noisy, But Not Harmful: Panel," National Post, December 16, 2009, p. A4.