Wind Power Could Help Us Preserve the Valley

(Originally published in the Northeast News June 24, 2009, p. 15)

During public consultation for Site C, BC Hydro provided a cursory survey of energy-supply options, stressing the advantages of hydropower and the disadvantages of other choices. However, options such as wind energy deserve more impartial and sustained public discussion.

In British Columbia, with our long tradition of hydroelectric development, wind power may seem exotic or fanciful, yet we’re behind the times. Although BC doesn’t have a single commercially-operational wind turbine, wind is the fastest growing electricity resource in the world today.

According to Energy Tech Magazine (Feb. 3, 2009), “in 2008, more wind power was installed in the European Union than any other electricity-generating technology.” Denmark, for example, relies on wind power for approximately 20% of its current electricity production and hopes that wind power will supply 50% of national electricity needs by 2030. Across Europe, an average of 20 wind turbines were installed each working day in 2008.

Globally, while the construction of large dams has declined sharply, wind power is a booming, multi-billion dollar, high-tech industry, in which countries such as Germany have become world leaders.

Independent academic research discusses the merits of wind power. Mark Jacobson (2008), Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University, identifies wind power as the best way to promote energy security while mitigating climate, land, and health impacts.

According to Jacobson, wind turbines have the lowest lifecycle CO2 emissions among available energy technologies. In general, the relative overall impacts of wind farms also look pretty good when compared to mining, flooding, and nuclear waste.

Jacobson’s work is particularly significant because it qualifies BC Hydro’s description of wind as “intermittent” power.

Jacobson grants that wind power “at one location and time” is naturally intermittent. Yet he also says that “whether or not intermittency affects [wind power] depends on whether efforts to reduce intermittency are made.” An interconnected, coordinated transmission grid among wind farms over regions just a few hundred kilometers apart “can eliminate hours of zero power.”

Also, developments in turbine technology are constantly improving efficiency. Today’s gearless or direct-drive turbines minimize mechanical wear, generating power like a dynamo on a bicycle wheel. Meanwhile, individual turbines are becoming bigger and more powerful: six megawatt machines are being built and many are three megawatts.

The picture to the left shows the Enercon E-126, one of the largest wind turbines in the world, under construction in Emden, Germany. Big turbines like this will produce 20 million kilowatt hours per year, providing enough electricity for 1,776 North American homes.


But when it comes to energy production, there are no free lunches. Powerful wind farms are large industrial projects that can raise significant environmental concerns, depending on the location.

Here in the Peace country, for example, the proposed Hackney Hills wind project is controversial largely because it will disrupt sensitive alpine habitat for the threatened Graham herd of woodland caribou.

And even if intermittency can be mitigated by large-scale development in multiple locations, the inherent variability of wind creates a gap between actual output (the so-called “capacity factor”) and combined nameplate or “installed” capacity.

The best individual sites may have a capacity factor of 20 to 40%. The average capacity factor among multiple wind farms connected to a regional grid tends to be lower: Germany has an average capacity factor of 16.9%; in the US, where only the best sites have been developed so far, the average capacity factor is 28.8% (De Wachter, 2008).

Nor can wind be stored or banked like hydropower. Moment by moment, we use it or lose it.

So what does all this mean for BC’s future? Could wind power help to provide a desirable alternative to Site C? This depends on our goals and priorities. If the priority is to have large amounts of surplus energy on hand for export to the United States, Site C is the answer.

Yet if we’re really focused on domestic needs, on conservation, and on potentially green technology, wind power could, perhaps, be part of a diversified energy portfolio that would help us preserve what’s left of the Peace River valley.

As Jacobson’s work suggests and as countries in Europe have shown, the coordinated output from wind farms in different locations can provide a significant proportion of firm, base-load power. Jacobson and others are also addressing the prospect of wind-hydro integration, whereby existing hydro facilities, with their large storage potential, could act as a “battery” for wind, bolstering supply during peak demand periods.

Our mighty dams have generated abundant, cheap power for many decades, but they’ve also decimated river valleys, fish and wildlife habitat, and people’s lives. As we look to the future, we need to concentrate on diversification and catch up with other countries.

In the right locations, wind power has a lot to offer, but it’s only part of the solution. The answers are not only in the air above us; they’re in the ground below. More on that next week.