Ontario wind potential huge: GE Energy
Back in June I pointed out that the Ontario Power Authority, the Canadian Wind Energy Association and the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) had hired GE Energy to figure out how much wind power could be integrated into Ontario’s electricity system before the grid became unstable. Similar studies have been conducted by GE Energy for New York State and California.
The results were released this week, and it turns out that Ontario could handle about 5,000 megawatts of nameplate wind capacity — i.e. 17 or 18 per cent of its current capacity — with “negligible” impact on the system or the requirement for increased spinning reserves. Beyond the additional of 5,000 megawatts, the required investment in reserves would become more significant. I wrote a story about this that appeared Wednesday.
The GE Energy report also found that the average capacity value of the wind resource in Ontario during the summer peak period is about 17 per cent, meaning the province can get 170 megawatts of electricity from wind turbines with a nameplate capacity totalling 1,000 megawatts. It seems low, but it’s actually much better than the average in New York State, which is 10 per cent.
Now, a couple of issues raised in my article, which I also raised in my earlier post, is that GE Energy is hardly an “independent” consultant. It sells turbines. It wants markets to believe they can install lots of turbines. Whether these results are legit or not doesn’t matter — it’s the perception of GE Energy’s lack of independence that casts doubts. Also, the study doesn’t take into account the transmission upgrades that would be needed to tap the thousands of megawatts of wind power cited. Rather, it focuses on the interplay of wind with other power generation and attempts to figure out how much flexibility is in the system to accommodate the intermittent nature of wind while maintaining a balance. Finally, as someone at the IESO pointed out, the averages cited in GE’s report are helpful, but they don’t reflect the reality of how the system operates. That is, *extremes* are what matter, not averages.
All this said, the authorities appear happy with the report and plan to use it and other information, including the outcome of a newly formed wind integration workshop, to formulate a realistic plan. Will the government’s 20-year system plan include 5,000 megawatts of wind? Perhaps over time as system operators collect more data, get more comfortable with how wind is meshing with the system, and get better at wind forecasting. What we do know is that Ontario, unlike Alberta (which just put a moratorium on its wind development), has a diverse, wind-rich geography that holds huge potential. Add to that the opportunity of offshore turbines on Lake Ontario and Lake Erie and we may very well get to that 5,000-megawatt mark within the next decade or so. And don’t forget any opportunities that might come from pump storage or, say, flow batteries.
Just one final note: I’m not a techie when it comes to this stuff. The GE Energy report is a bit techie, so if anyone has a problem with my interpretation of the results, please let me know.
Tyler Hamilton is editor-in-chief of Corporate Knights magazine and a business columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the clean technology and green energy market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper.
October 29th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
I think you have summarized the report well. The key issue, I think, is that wind can be integrated into Ontario, at minimal cost, and in substantial amount. The report doesn’t say it, but wind can be integrated quickly as well. The report makes reference to the fact that the amount of wind, and the cost of wind integration, will very much depend our what we choose as our sources of new generation. If we choose nuclear, which cannot be easily shut down when not needed, the cost of wind integration is higher. If we choose water power, with even a little storage, and natural gas, which can be turned on and off quickly, then we can integrate more wind at lower cost. Our choices on the demand management side also matter a great deal. If smart meters (or other technology) were to allow us to shed or increase load quickly, then the cost to integrate wind becomes very low. Water heater and air conditioner loads come to mind as loads that can be varied quickly, with little impact on consumers. And as you mention, pumped storage, or hydrogen production, may also accomplish load management, allowing wind to be cheaply integrated.
Levelling charges of conflict of interest at GE I think is a cheap shot. GE is the world’s largest manufacturer of gas turbines, and a major player in supplying waterpower, nuclear, and coal generation equipment. Their market share in wind is less than their other technologies. And each of their divisions is a separate profit center. The consulting group is very likely to agnostic on the choices of new supply. And, this report is only one source of information that will be used by the OPA/OEB in deciding on future supply choices.