With nuclear, typically the unit is either on, or it is off. You either get full production, or no production. Critics of wind often describe wind as intermittent. But a given wind farm will typically produce at some level 70-80% of the time, with varying output depending on the wind speed. This means that wind is less intermittent than Pickering A, and similar to Pickering B.

The report also compares the staffing level at OPG’s nuclear unit with world standards, and found that it is overstaffed, and over paid compared to the rest of nuclear operators.

Needless to say, when the operating assets perform poorly, and are overstaffed with overpaid workers, the costs are higher. In Ontario’s case, much higher.

But these are only the visible costs. The cost of storing radioactive waste, the cost of decommissioning toxic nuclear facilities, and the risk of release of nuclear material or theft make the invisible costs and liabilities even worse. The report didn’t even talk about these future costs and liabilities. The lack of transparency of costs, and the impossibility of knowing future costs is perhaps the biggest problem with reliance on nuclear power.

The cost of wind, and the transparency of its future costs (the costs to the ratepayer rise by only 20% of the increase in inflation for 20 years) make wind a competitive energy source indeed.

We lose the carbon emissions from coal and natural gas, which we burn to make electricity. We will lose the impact of climate change. We will lose the droughts, and the major rain and storm events. We will lose the climate refugees, which will be coming to our shores in search of a livable part of the planet. We will lose the risk to our food supply, as climate change disrupts world agriculture.

We lose the fracking for natural gas that we burn to make electricity. We will lose its toxic chemical cocktail that we inject under high pressure underground, with its risk to water supplies.

We lose the toxic waste that we don’t know what to do with at our nuclear plants. We will lose the risk that nuclear material falls into the wrong hands. We lose the chronic cost overruns that we face every time we do something nuclear. We lose any additions to the beloved Debt Retirement Charge that is added to our bill to pay for past nuclear follies.

Yes, with wind we have much to lose.

Let’s hope we do.

The conference went on to assess if climate change has been felt on the Peninsula. It has. Bill Caulfield Browne, a local amateur meteorologist presented the findings from his weather station over the past 15 years compared to the long term average from the Environment Canada’s now defunct Tobemory weather station. Average temperatures are up by about 1 degree from 20-40 years ago. The biggest increase is experienced in winter. Precipitation seems to be a bit higher, mainly because the precipitation events are bigger rather than more frequent.

The climate models forecast that the Peninsula will increase by 4-6 degrees C by the end of the century. That is a huge increase. It means we move from an average temperature of 6 degrees C, to 12. The average January temperature rises to zero, from minus 6. The conference spent a fair bit of time speculating on the impact of this on the local tourist economy, but of course it is obvious. Snowmobiling, ice fishing, downhill and nordic skiing will basically be history. And all of the businesses that service these activities will close.

The lakes will have minimal ice cover, increasing evaporation rates, resulting in a decline in water levels, with negative impact on boating and shipping. Declining water levels also reduce riperian zones along the lakes, which are important fish hatcheries. Fishing could see continued problems.

The scientists at the conference seemed almost resigned to climate change occurring in a significant way, and suggested that we need to focus some of our efforts on adaptation rather than mitigation. Adaptation is figuring out how to live with climate change. Mitigation is trying to stop it. It is discouraging to hear that scientists believe the battle for mitigation is going so poorly, that all they can really do now is encourage society to look at adaptation. Several expressed hope that when society starts to look at adaptation, and perhaps more important, when it is costed, mitigation may emerge as the cheapest and preferred alternative.

The impact on flora and fauna on the Bruce was discussed, as we become a different ecozone. Species that used to survive here, may not be able to survive in the future. Rather, new species will be able to take their place – if they can get here.

One of the things I think all environmentalists take as gospel is that if we are planting trees, we should, whenever possible, plant trees that are native, and hopefully from local stock. In other words, plant trees that evolved here, and are genetically ready for our climate, soils etc. But I am not sure of that anymore. Should we plant trees that may survive for 40 years, but then lose vigour, as our temperatures rise? Or is it time to start planning ahead. Perhaps we should start planting the trees of southern Ohio. Will we need to learn to live with sycamore, sour gum, and cottonwood, and without sugar maple and hemlock? Will our orchids survive? Should we be the ones to introduce new species of trees, shrubs, and perhaps other organisms? Humans usually mess such things up, but with the loss of forest south of the peninsula, and no real corridor for species to migrate from southern Ohio, can we let nature take its course?

The conference was first rate, with very high quality speakers, and good materials. My congratulations to the organizing committee.

The local transition group presented the next day. This was the uplifting part of the conference. It is a group of local citizens who are educating themselves about peak oil, and climate change, and taking action to build community resilience. And it is evident they have fun doing it.

The conference was interesting and disturbing at the same time.

The Kenney’s home is 1 km away from the nearest turbine, and is located on western lake front, which would be the source of considerable noise from the prevailing wind and waves. The Kenney’s submitted all the usual complaints that the anti wind people use – lights, flicker, noise, illness etc. Ms. Kenney is the chair of the local anti wind group. But the evidence presented by the Township and by MPAC about property values was far stronger. There is no evidence that wind farms reduce property values.

Part of the evidence included some photographs of the wind turbines taken from the Kenney’s sunroom. The Board noted: “Although Ms. Kenney testified that her views were obstructed, no photographs were introduced of their uninterrupted view of the lake.” They went on: “While the Kenneys did submit a photograph (Page 6, Exhibit 14) taken from a boat out on the Bateau Channel showing the Island windmills in the background, the Board is not satisfied that the Kenneys’ enjoyment of their property is from a boat on Lake Ontario.” It is good to see the Board has a bit of a sense of humour.

The Board looked at the limited number of sales since the assessment date, which was Jan 1, 2008. They also looked at the basis of the assessment, which was the limited number of sales in 2005-2007. In both cases, the evidence presented was strong, but as is always the case with unique rural property, was based on limited data. Nonetheless the valuation on the property was appropriate based on the data set available. Property continues to sell on the Island, and does not show evidence of a slowdown. The Board said: “The sales evidence confirms that waterfront properties on the Island have continued to sell since the approval, operation, and construction of the wind farms.”

More compelling evidence came from the experience in two other wind farms, the Melancthon wind farm near Shelburne, and the Erie Shores wind farm near Port Burwell. Properties located abutting and near these wind farms were identified, and the value of the sale of any of the properties was determined. The evidence according the Board shows: “The Board finds that there is nothing in the MPAC evidence of sales in proximity to or abutting wind farms to lead to the conclusion that property values …..have been adversely affected by the wind farm.”

One of the more interesting arguments presented by the Kenney’s was that the access to the island by ferry had become too congested since the wind farm was built, and that this congestion has had a negative effect on property values. Of course this argument is contrary to what the anti wind crowd often espouses – that wind farms drive away tourists. Indeed, the evidence presented argues just the opposite. More people are going to Wolfe Island to see the wind farm. As Yogi Berra said, “No wonder nobody ever goes to that restaurant. It’s always too busy.”

Overall, the case is important. It demonstrates that when objective people review real evidence, they conclude that wind farms do not negatively affect property values of nearby properties.

Electricity prices in most wholesale markets, including New England (and Ontario), are set hourly, based on bids submitted by various generators. The price in the hour is set by the highest bid that will allow enough power to be produced to meet the demand. This aspect of electricity markets means that the price is set by the highest cost producer at a given time. This is almost always the fossil fuel producer, because they have to pay for fuel. Wind, waterpower, or even nuclear, by contrast, have almost no incremental cost, and so they submit bids that are close to zero. That means that they will reduce the average price of electricity in the market. What is striking about this study is the extent of the savings. $7.2 billion is serious money.

The impact of new wind contracts, as well as nuclear refurbishments and reduction in demand has had a dramatic impact on electricity prices in the wholesale market in Ontario. When my firm built its first turbine, the average wholesale price in the market was 5-6 cents/kWh. Today, it struggles to get above 2 cents. New generation capacity,that has low marginal cost to operate, like wind, reduces the price of electricity. And it reduces carbon emissions.

Saving money while reducing the climate threat – a winning combination.

It was basically a curmudgeonly diatribe on why he doesn’t do or support Earth Hour. According to McKitrick, “Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness.” Hmmm. I guess fancy restaurants do the same thing.

“I don’t want to go back to nature. Travel to a zone hit by earthquakes, floods and hurricanes to see what it’s like to go back to nature. For humans, living in “nature” meant a short life span marked by violence, disease and ignorance.” Hmmm. Its so nice to know we are violence free now. Trayvon Martin’s family might disagree. Sickness is a thing of the past. And we are no longer ignorant.

Why was this appropriate to send to the anti wind crowd? Because for them it is OK to burn fossil fuels. Nuclear waste is not a problem. Just keep the lights on. Consume consume consume. Drill baby drill. Climate change and nuclear waste are not a problem, so why would you need to generate electricity from wind? And why would you need to conserve. After all, you don’t want to be ignorant.

Not one hour after I received that email, I received one from Friends of Wind. They were providing a link to a web cam located on the wind turbine in Toronto at the exhibition. The web cam would show city as it turned down the lights. The lights were dimming at NHL arenas across the continent, at the CN Tower, and on many of Toronto’s skyscrapers. It would be an interesting video.

This pretty much sums up the debate. On the one side, we don’t have any environmental problems. No need to do anything. Use all the electricity you want. Nothing needs to change.

On the other side, we need to make a change, and a big one. Every one knows Earth Hour is just educational, and a statement. A video cam of Toronto furthers that education. Wind energy is about the change that we need to make as a society. Including a change in how we make electricity. Because the environmental impact of how we do it today is just not acceptable.

But the anti winders don’t think any change is needed.

That is the contrast. That is the issue. It is not wind or nothing. It is wind or something else. And some of us think the something else – the status quo – is not acceptable.

France, more than any nation on earth, knows nuclear energy. They get 77% of their power supply from nuclear, and it is a major domestic and export industry. By comparison, Ontario gets about 50% of it’s power from nuclear. And the French nuclear industry serves a market with 64 million residents, compared to only 13 million in Ontario. France has 63 GW of nuclear capacity compared to about 12 GW in Ontario, depending on whether you count laid up units.

The report from the Auditors also expressed concern about the uncertainties of future cost of decommissioning plants, and future waste storage. Without knowing these unknowable costs, we can’t really know the cost of nuclear, can we?

The Ontario government official policy continues to call for construction of a new nuclear reactor at Darlington. The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) continues to drastically underestimate the unknowable cost of nuclear. But now those who know nuclear best – the French – are admitting that the cost of nuclear is going to rise drastically.

When will the Ontario government, and the OPA admit that the cost of nuclear is untenable, and cancel plans for new nuclear build?

I was especially impressed with how Hamilton described the top level objectives, that were totally missed by the Auditor General. Hamilton points out that the government struggles to control Ontario Hydra, which replaced the previous difficult to control Ontario Hydro. Simply put, implementing change in the change resistant culture of the IESO, Hydro One, the OPA, OEB etc., is hugely challenging. This is something the Auditor General didn’t even address.

The review is the most devastating commentary I have seen, drawing attention to the Auditor’s lack of references, blind acceptance of discredited report from overseas, many funded by fossil or climate deniers, and even lack of understanding of costs. After all, the Auditor General used a number of platitudes on cost, without publishing why they thought something was expensive. If you try to compare wind with natural gas, but don’t publish your future price of natural gas, you don’t really have much of a comparison, do you? And how do you forecast the price of natural gas in 20 years anyways? Hamilton’s review of the Auditors work in this area is dead right.

This is a must read for anyone commenting on or developing policy in the electricity sector in Ontario.

One company was outfitted with solar thin film photovoltaics to recharge their radios and equipment. While the troops started out skeptical, they are now among the biggest supporters. The need for fuel dropped from 20-25 gallons per day to 20 gallons per week, as solar did the work that gasoline generators used to. Even better, recharging with solar is quiet, which is of course very useful if you are trying to keep hidden.

But the military is going beyond just field units, where solar makes perfect sense, saves money and lives, to include renewable energy for all of their bases, and their vehicles. Admiral Mike Mullen said they need to address energy security, “before we deploy another soldier, before we build another ship or plane, and before we buy or fill another rucksack.” Bases are seeing solar and wind installed, and vehicles are being tested for use of biofuels. New vehicle designs are helping reduce fuel need, like the USS Makin Island, an electric hybrid ship that uses 60% less fuel that its predecessors.

The military is converting to renewables for strategic reasons. It is not because of climate change, or oil spills. It is because switching to renewables saves lives, and reduces cost, and provides energy security. An enemy can’t cut of the sun or wind supplies like they can oil.

The logic used by the military is sound. But they have a limited vision. Many people believe that one of the main things the US fights for is access to oil. Think Iraq. Think Libya. Think Kuwait. Then think about taking the entire US economy and making the shift to renewable energy. Progress is being made, but more progress is possible. No more need to fight over oil. Wouldn’t that be the best way to reduce the loss of lives, and save money?

But good for the military to have the renewable vision. They are well positioned to build bi-partisan support for their plan.

Most electricity markets are governed by the merit order. Various suppliers provide bids to the system operators to supply electricity in a given hour, and the bids are organized in a stack, from lowest to highest price. The system operator then buys the power from all the generators required, beginning from the least price to the highest price that supplies the electricity required in that hour. All of the generators will be paid that highest price – the market clearing price. Generally, the price submitted by a generator is based on the fuel cost, so fossil generators tend to submit the highest bids. If their bid is too high, they are not dispatched.

Solar generates its electricity during the day. And no country has embraced solar energy like Germany – they have a lot of it. Solar basically supplies a large chunk of demand during the day, which means that the highest bids from generators are not accepted. This of course means that the market clearing price is lower, so all the generators receive a lower price, reducing the price of electricity.

Solar generated power has been under fire from some as “too expensive”. But in Germany, the study found that solar has reduced the average price by 10%, and the peak price by 40%. The difference between the base price, and the peak price has narrowed considerably. Average peak prices used to be 20-25% higher than base prices, but they are now only 12% higher. Overall, the existence of solar power is estimated to have reduced the cost of electricity by 520-840 million Euros.

When we assess the cost of solar electricity, we cannot consider it in isolation. The existence of solar has an effect on the need for other higher priced electricity. If we speak of solar as “too expensive”, but fail to make this link, we have done a shallow analysis that is wrong. Let’s make sure we do the right analysis.