All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Friday, December 4th, 2020

wpd ‘met’ towers to update County wind data

wpd Canada will be updating wind data for the area. Over the next few weeks, two meteorological (met) towers will be installed on lands that are part of the proposed White Pines Wind Farm in South Marysburgh. The met towers are to collect wind data in and around the proposed sites.

“We already know the wind resource in Prince Edward County is exceptional for producing electricity,”
said wpd Canada President, Ian MacRae. “We have previously gathered meteorological data for the
area, and we’re simply updating that information.”

Each meteorological tower will be 100 metres in height, lattice construction, and will be lit as per
Transport Canada requirements. wpd anticipates that the two towers will be in place for approximately
one to two years, and has obtained building permits for the installation.

The proposed White Pines project consists of 29 turbines. The Renewable Energy Approval (REA)
application for the project was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in September, 2012.

Once the application is deemed complete, it will be posted to the Environmental (EBR) Registry. wpd
will provide notice to residents that comments can be made to the MOE via the EBR posting.

MacRae says that if approved, the White Pines project is expected to feed an estimated 169,464,000 kWh of energy annually into the local electricity grid – equivalent to the average annual power usage of
9,683 homes.

Filed Under: Local News

About the Author:

RSSComments (17)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Jo Anne says:

    Thanks Marie.

    I didn’t get quite the results I wanted, as we live a bit downhill from the two turbines, and in Google Earth you don’t get a sense of what they would look like from my back deck. It doesn’t zoom down enough.

    I suspect they will take up half of our view from the back of our house.

  2. Marie says:

    Hi Jo Anne, I found this link a couple years ago, and someone (not White Pines) rendered all of them in Google Earth. It was very depressing to learn that all 29 of them could be seen from our farm, complete with red flashing lights at night…

    The link is self explanitory, but it’s not as complicated as it seems…find the White Pines .kmz file and load into Google Earth

    Here’s the link…

    http://windfarmrealities.org/i-have-pictures/

  3. Jason Alford says:

    Jo Anne,

    I have developed a visual aid that will give you a sense of the apparent size of a wind turbine at various distances. Here is a link to the article on County Live:

    http://www.countylive.ca/?p=35050

    My contact information is at the bottom of the article. Please let me know if you are interested in a demonstration.

    Jason.

  4. Jo Anne says:

    Thanks for the link, Marie.

    Who do I talk to to get visual simulation of the turbines as seen from my house, which happens to be less than 1 km from two of them.

    The pictures shown all seem to be quite a distance from the nearest IWT.

    Jo Anne

  5. Marie says:

    Just received this web link in the South Marysburg Mirror showing visual simulations of the turbines proposed by White Pines. Here’s the link

    http://canada.wpd.de/uploads/tx_projectdownloads/WPWF_9.7_HAR_Appendix_G_20131015_Web.pdf

  6. Doris Lane says:

    For those of you who read this blog, remember Jason Alford is an employee of White Pines.
    If you are on face Book you might have seen the list of hydro prices in Canada with Ontario being nearly twice the cost of other provinces.
    Let us hope that the Blanding turtle wins and keeps Ostrander Point safe.

  7. Mark says:

    A former high level boss I had and highly respected would always say when an investigation was being conducted “Mark, continue to peel the onion”. I can’t help but see this taking place here. Watching and listening as this plays out. It is truly interesting as we await the next manouver!

  8. David Norman says:

    Jason Alford,

    Your reply: “Magnetic saturation is not something that accumulates over time.”

    My reply: Magnetic saturation does indeed accumulate over time… it is what creates flux density. The only difference between the doubly-fed induction generator and permanent magnet generator is the length of the period of time. Whether this magnetic saturation is a short cycle or cumulative is irrelevant since both create inefficiencies in output. And, in permanent magnet generators the magnets do not “weaken”, the output is inhibited due to the increasing magnetic flux density. I should mention that one of the aspects to the magnetic (flux) saturation cycling of doubly-fed induction generator is the resulting increase in high frequency (noise) harmonics.

    Your reply: “32.5% is not an efficiency ratio. It is an indication of resource availability (wind) and will be different for every location. The south shore of PEC is a windy location. This estimate is not significantly different than that of other projects in similar locations.”

    My reply: 32.5% is indeed an efficiency ratio of the nameplate capacity, regardless of whether it is factor of wind resource. If the south shore of PEC is a windy location why is MM92, a model which makes proclamation as the “low wind” turbine of choice, specified for this project. Please provide a reference which has an estimate that is not significantly different in a similar location (with wind speed data over time, preferably).

    Your reply: “Mr. Barnard and I do not communicate regularly.”

    My reply: I completely agree that you and Mike Barnard do not communicate regularly. Bye the bye, did you know that Mike Barnard’s employer, IBM, refer to their global plans to harness the main frame and cloud computing and computational algorithm needs of the climate change industry as “deep thunder”. Get it? Deep throat = Watergate, deep thunder = Climategate.

    Your reply: ” Power Blades is actually in Welland, not London. I am not aware that there is a Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) hearing underway regarding that manufacturing facility.”

    My reply: My bad again again. I have no idea why I typed in London for Welland. And my bad again again again. Here’s the EBR (not ETR) link for your due diligence; http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTIwMzYy&statusId=MTgwMTQz&language=en .

    Your reply: “An Australian government energy site indicates that an average 4 person household in Victoria will use 6617 kWh of electricity per year. Using that information and the expected output of the Bald Hills project, 380,000 MWh, we come to a value of 57,427 homes powered. This result is reasonably close to the predicted number of 62,000 homes. The data available suggests that Australians use less than half as much electricity as Canadians. As a result, the electricity generated will be able to power more homes.”

    My reply: While my research of more current info reveals an average Canadian home using 11,879 kWh annually, exceeding your own, it shows the average Australian home using 7,227 kWh annually. In Canada, this would suggest that the estimated output of the South Shore WPD Industrial Wind Turbine development of 169,464MWh would power 14,266 houses on a yearly basis, not the measly 9,683 homes MacRea stated. Jason, seems his math differs from yours. Bye the bye, 6,617 kWh’s is more than, not less than, half of 11,879 kWh’s.

    David

  9. Jason Alford says:

    David Norman,

    There are a lot of topics here to address, I will go through them in order.

    ————————————-
    Your comment: “…depreciating generation output from magnetic flux saturation.”

    My reply: First we need to define Magnetic (Flux) Saturation. Wikipedia offers this: “Seen in some magnetic materials, saturation is the state reached when an increase in applied external magnetic field H cannot increase the magnetization of the material further, so the total magnetic flux density B levels off. It is a characteristic particularly of ferromagnetic materials, such as iron, nickel, cobalt and their alloys.” and “Saturation limits the maximum magnetic fields achievable in ferromagnetic-core electromagnets and transformers to around 2 T, which puts a limit on the minimum size of their cores. This is one reason why high power motors, generators, and utility transformers are physically large; because they must have large magnetic cores.”

    Magnetic saturation is not something that accumulates over time. It does not have a lasting effect on the generator. The cores within the generator go from 0 to maximum flux density, back through 0 to maximum reverse flex density and back through 0 again about 60 times per second. This is true for most motors or generators operating on or producing alternating current. It also applies to the power transformers which are present in everything from the transformers at the substations, the “can” transformers that supply power to our homes and the little transformers inside our cell-phone chargers. As such, I am not aware of any time-based reduction of output due to magnetic saturation.

    On the permanent magnet generators, (which we agree are not the units proposed for this project) there can be some reduction in flux density over time as the magnets slowly weaken. I do not know the value of this reduction and whether it would have an appreciable effect on generated output.

    ————————————-
    Your comment: “…I have not been able to find a single existing Sevion MM92 project which has demonstrated up to a 32.5% efficiency ratio.”

    My reply: 32.5% is not an efficiency ratio. It is an indication of resource availability (wind) and will be different for every location. The south shore of PEC is a windy location. This estimate is not significantly different than that of other projects in similar locations.

    ————————————-
    Your comment “…perhaps Mike Barnard, IBM employee and Industrial Wind Turbine energy “advocate” and “guru”, with whom you have exchanged laudatory commentary as of late, will be piping in to set me straight on this matter.”

    My reply: “exchanged laudatory commentary” is an interesting way of saying that I “liked” an article that he published. Beyond that, Mr. Barnard and I do not communicate regularly. I cannot comment on whether he will join the conversation.

    ————————————-
    Your comment: “… I might ask you about whether Power Blades in London is close to receiving ERT approval to release ammonia, petroleum distillates, ethylbenzene and suspended particulate matter, emissions into the atmosphere.”

    My reply: Power Blades is actually in Welland, not London. I am not aware that there is a Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) hearing underway regarding that manufacturing facility. I visited the ERT site and searched for “Senvion”, “RePower” and “Power Blades”. There were no results. Perhaps you can provide a reference. Other than that, I am not aware of any delays.

    ————————————-
    Your comment: “…has only slightly more than twice the annual MWh estimation powering more than 6X the number of homes.”

    My reply: Using old (2007) data from Stats Canada, the average electricity consumption in Canada is 40 gigajoules per household per year. This translates into ~11.1 MWh per year. In 2013, my usage was ~10.3 MWh. If we use the Stats Canada numbers then 169,464 MWh will provide the power equivalent of 15,267 homes. Given that the Stats Canada numbers are now 7 years old and household power usage may have increased, the estimate of this project being able to power the equivalent of 9,683 homes seems me to be a realistic conclusion.

    An Australian government energy site indicates that an average 4 person household in Victoria will use 6617 kWh of electricity per year. Using that information and the expected output of the Bald Hills project, 380,000 MWh, we come to a value of 57,427 homes powered. This result is reasonably close to the predicted number of 62,000 homes.

    The data available suggests that Australians use less than half as much electricity as Canadians. As a result, the electricity generated will be able to power more homes.

    Jason.

  10. Olmanonthemtn says:

    WOW 9683 homes who have been conserving to cut their costs will be so thankful for such a WINDFALL of paying a WHOPPINGLY DELIGHTFUL increase to their electricity costs such that it brings tears of joy to our auditor general. These lucky homes will feel so magnanimous that they want to pay other jurisdictions to take their power (is their no end to the irony)??!!

  11. David Norman says:

    Jason Alford.

    Oooops, my bad again! In my haste to make comment I inadvertently referred to a similar revamped Vestas model which uses a permanent magnet generator as opposed to a doubly-fed induction generator of the Senvion (formerly Repower) MM92. This does not however negate my assessment on the depreciating generation output from magnetic flux saturation. I’ve gone through all of the specs and consultants reports provided by WPD for the REA approval that I can find and have not found any calculations which factored in this variable. Nor have I been able to find Please provide a link which shows this calculation. As well, I have not been able to find a single existing Sevion MM92 project which has demonstrated up to a 32.5% efficiency ratio. Again, a link for verification would be appreciated. Actually Jason, I noted from the Feedjit CountyLive feed that there have been a couple of recent visits to this particular blog from Singapore… perhaps Mike Barnard, IBM employee and Industrial Wind Turbine energy “advocate” and “guru”, with whom you have exchanged laudatory commentary as of late, will be piping in to set me straight on this matter. After all, IBM has a “strategic” business relationship with Suzlon, the parent company of Sevion.

    While I’ve got your attention, I thought I might ask you about whether Power Blades in London is close to receiving ERT approval to release ammonia, petroleum distillates, ethylbenzene and suspended particulate matter, emissions into the atmosphere. As you, I’m sure, are aware, this company, a subsidiary of Sevion, will be producing the blades for these MM92 Industrial Wind Turbines. Given the time frame provided in this blog it could be tight.

    Jason, in parting, and in reference to MacRea’s statement, 169, 464 MWh of estimated yearly production as equivalent to powering 9,683 homes, I quote Andreas Nauen, CEO, Sevion as stating in reference to the Bald Hills, Industrial Wind Turbine development at Bald Hills, Australia, that the expected production there of “380,000 MWh annually will power over 62,000 homes”. Perhaps his math is a less sophisticated than MacRea’s, after all Nauen has been known to make mistakes before (just last year he publicly proclaimed that the only place folks made health complaints about Industrial Wind Turbines was in Australia)… you see, Nauen has only slightly more than twice the annual MWh estimation powering more than 6X the number of homes. Even accounting for latitude this seems a tad flamboyant estimation don’t ya think?

    Thank you for your continued interest in my commentary,
    David Norman

  12. Jason Alford says:

    David Norman,

    You are correct, a number of those factors were taken into account when the estimate of annual generation was calculated. Values for wind conditions, gusts and turbulence have been recorded for several years by the existing meteorological towers is the proposed project area.

    Also, you are correct in factoring in maintenance shutdowns. As with any power generator, some routine maintenance is necessary to ensure safe and efficient operation. This is typically conducted during times of low wind. As previously discussed, there is a resource availability of approximately 32.5% so that gives plenty of time for the technicians to do their job without having a large impact on production.

    Factoring in “… depreciating efficiency of 3% annually over the proposed 20 year life due to saturation in the permanent magnet (rare earth) nacelle.” is not necessary in this case because the MM92 turbines do not use permanent magnet (rare earth) generators. That type of generator is more commonly seen on the direct-drive units.

    To address the expectation of an efficiency slightly higher than the Wolfe Island project, the MM92 turbines are newer and incorporate some improvements in design, but the largest factor resulting in a higher output is that the hub height for the White Pines turbines are 20m higher then the Wolfe Island Turbines. That results in improved access to a better resource (stronger wind with less turbulence).

    These are all important factors and they were taken into account when the estimate of 169,464,000 kWh was calculated. Your original post of this subject questioned how an output of 83% was possible. I agree, that would be very difficult to produce. That is why I demonstrated, through simple math, that our expectations based upon resource availability and various efficiencies was much closer to 32%.

    Thank you for your continued interest in this project.

    Jason Alford

  13. Mark says:

    David, you can’t fix stupid and this case you can’t fix an industry that plays us for fools. Nice to see you back though.

  14. David Norman says:

    Jason, my bad. I had no idea the calculation was so simple. Here’s me factoring in wind industry validated factors such as estimations of different wind conditions like turbulence, gusts, wind shear and upstream turbine wakes (wind shadow). And then doing a depreciating efficiency of 3% annually over the proposed 20 year life due to saturation in the permanent magnet (rare earth) nacelle. Not only that but I got completely carried away and factored in maintenance shutdowns of approx. 20 days annually and industry reported efficiencies and evaluations of the Suzlon nacelle product. I see I need not have been so thorough considering that your calculation of 32.5% is over 8% higher than the annual efficiency ratio of the Industrial Wind Turbines on Wolfe Island. Reminds me of the adage “keep it simple, stupid”

  15. Jason Alford says:

    To answer David Norman’s question:

    The proposed White Pines project consists of 29 turbines with a generating capacity of 2.05mW.

    For the purposes of calculating efficiency we first have to examine the output of the project if the wind were blowing with sufficient strength every hour of the day for one year.

    29 turbines * 2.05mW * 24 hours per day * 365 days per year = 520,782 mW hours or 520,782,000 kWh.

    Now, if we take the estimated output of 169,464,000 and divide that by the maximum possible output of 520,782,000 then we get the estimated operational output of 32.5%.

    Also, perhaps referring it this number as an “efficiency” may not be the most accurate terminology. When discussing efficiency of mechanical devices, whether it is a power generator or a car or the furnace that is heating your house, we discuss it as a ratio of the usable output energy versus the input energy. However, in this case we are speaking about the availability of the resource (the wind) that powers the turbine. On that basis, I would say that the estimated availability is 32.5%.

    I hope that this answers your question.

    Jason.

  16. Doris Lane says:

    But we don’t need the power, we are giving it away now or worse we are paying people to take it or paying wind companies to not run their IWT’s

  17. David Norman says:

    “MacRae says that if approved, the White Pines project is expected to feed an estimated 169,464,000 kWh of energy annually into the local electricity grid – equivalent to the average annual power usage of 9,683 homes.” … WPD, in reference to the numbers provided in the preceding quote, please provide the “efficiency” percentage estimate upon which this calculation is based! I did some quick math on these numbers and it produced an efficiency rating of 83% based on the number and generating capabilities of the Industrial Wind Turbines specified for this project. That’s a lot of wind! 83%… magical! Please tell me how WPD and Suzlon and managed this?

OPP reports
lottery winners
FIRE
SCHOOL
Elizabeth Crombie Christine Henden
Tony Scott Sharon Armitage

HOME     LOCAL     MARKETPLACE     COMMUNITY     CONTACT US
© Copyright Prince Edward County News countylive.ca 2020 • All rights reserved.