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.

I love these ideas. A municipal council in southwest London is proposing a parking permits scheme that would reward people driving low-CO2 vehicles and, well, punish those who drive gas-guzzling monsters. Costs range from no charge to a 200-per-cent increase over the current rate based on how many grams of CO2 are released by a vehicle per kilometre driven. Smart Cars, Honda Insights and Toyota Priuses would be examples of cars on the low end of the scale, while Porche 911s, Range Rovers and Jaguar X types would be on the high end.

The proposal goes before the council on Nov. 6 and the plan could be implemented before year’s end. “The proposals, if implemented, will be a national first and are part of the administration’s commitment to put sustainability at the heart of everything it does,” according to a council news release.

So, I wonder if there’s a municipality in Canada that has the chutzpah to do the same kind of thing here. I’d love to be the first to hear about it. Hat tip to the Green Car Congress for point this out.

I love these ideas. A municipal council in southwest London is proposing a parking permits scheme that would reward people driving low-CO2 vehicles and, well, punish those who drive gas-guzzling monsters. Costs range from no charge to a 200-per-cent increase over the current rate based on how many grams of CO2 are released by a vehicle per kilometre driven. Smart Cars, Honda Insights and Toyota Priuses would be examples of cars on the low end of the scale, while Porche 911s, Range Rovers and Jaguar X types would be on the high end.

The proposal goes before the council on Nov. 6 and the plan could be implemented before year’s end. “The proposals, if implemented, will be a national first and are part of the administration’s commitment to put sustainability at the heart of everything it does,” according to a council news release.

So, I wonder if there’s a municipality in Canada that has the chutzpah to do the same kind of thing here. I’d love to be the first to hear about it. Hat tip to the Green Car Congress for point this out.

At first I chuckled at this article, then I thought it was kind of sad. Anyway, apparently obesity in America is contributing to rising demand for gasoline, and affecting — excuse the pun — our bottom line. According to a new study, the U.S. is using 3.8 billion more litres of gas each year than it did 45 years ago because Americans on average are heavier. That is, they’re heavier passengers, meaning vehicles burn more fuel. It also means $2.2 billion (U.S.) more is being spent on gas than in 1960, assuming 59 cents a litre.

Makes you wonder the impact on the airline industry, cruise ships and trains.

The Pembina Institute put out a detailed report yesterday that looks at what it would cost to embrace “carbon neutral” oil sands development by 2020. The organization says it could be done for anywhere between $1.76 to $13.65 (U.S.) per barrel of crude oil by using carbon capture/storage techniques and purchasing carbon offsets, or a combination of both. It also says energy-efficiency improvements and fuel switching should be the first line of defense, but it didn’t include cost forecasts for those.

The way Pembina sees it, oil prices are high enough — around $58 a barrel today but near $80 not so long ago — and the big petro developers are profitable enough that becoming carbon neutral is doable, given that it costs less than $40 to profitably produce a barrel of crude from the oil sands. The group also said the costs, in some circumstances and depending on the approach taken, wouldn’t be that much higher than removing lead or sulphur from oil.

But the key is to act now, Pembina executive director Marlo Raynolds said. “So much of the oil-sands infrastructure is being designed, engineered and built now… We know that retrofitting later on is going to cost more money and be more painful. So there’s this huge opportunity to get it right.”

For additional info you can read my story today in the Toronto Star.