# Wind Power



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Right now, Ontario's wind turbines are putting out close to 20% of Ontario's power needs. More than hydro. Almost no power coming from fossil fuels. Of course it's not always like this! During summer highs, only about 2% comes from wind (but solar does increase).

https://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html

Our local (Kingston) wind farms are running at close to nameplate capacity.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

agent99 said:


> Right now, Ontario's wind turbines are putting out close to 20% of Ontario's power needs. More than hydro. Almost no power coming from fossil fuels. Of course it's not always like this! During summer highs, only about 2% comes from wind (but solar does increase).
> 
> https://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
> 
> Our local (Kingston) wind farms are running at close to nameplate capacity.


Did you notice it's mostly nuclear?


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Did you notice it's mostly nuclear?


Well yes. 

The major source of electric power in Ontario IS nuclear and it provides roughly 50-70% of our needs. It stays close to same output (about 11,000MW) at all times because it is not easy to adjust output. 

Hydro is usually next (mainly Niagara and Cornwall). Fossil fueled generation (Gas) ramps up when wind and solar drop. Other than two cogen stations in Sarnia, the only main generator running under the Gas heading gas, is, it seems, powered by wood waste.

It is windy in Ontario this evening, thus the high output from turbines.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Did you notice it's mostly nuclear?


You're not Ontario resident, right? Maybe you are not aware that nuclear has pretty broad public support here. There was a time when Ontario had regular smog alert days, sometimes even in the winter. Shutting down the coal plants here (and in some of the upwind US states) has dramatically improved air quality, and resulted in thousands of fewer premature deaths.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Wind in solar are not practical since the wind is not always blowing or the sun always shinning. Thorium might be the way to go. Though best for the market to figure out the best source of energy not the government. No tax payers money should be given for using certain forms of energy. Oil & gas might be the best currently since it is still holding up well even though the government is taxing it to fund their pensions


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

There are limits to how much wind the grid can rely on. Every X windmills requires Y natural gas plants to augment when the wind doesn't below. The wind can not-blow for a very long time. There are also limits on density proportional to the patience of residents who will eventually complain if the landscape becomes covered in these things. Offshore wind is pretty good because then you don't hear the noise and fish can eat all the dead birds. 

But we're in a climate emergency, and absolutely nothing produces less CO2 emissions all-in than good old nuclear. And it's also ideal base load for power grids. And the all-in cost isn't bad at all - Bruce Power gets less than 7 cents/KWH and that includes full funding for refurbishments.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

We need to look into Thorium as a safer, lower cost, source of atomic energy. Research done in the 80s indicates Thorium could be used in CANDU reactors but purpose built Thorium reactors would be more efficient.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> You're not Ontario resident, right? Maybe you are not aware that nuclear has pretty broad public support here. There was a time when Ontario had regular smog alert days, sometimes even in the winter. Shutting down the coal plants here (and in some of the upwind US states) has dramatically improved air quality, and resulted in thousands of fewer premature deaths.


I'm in Ontario, there is a lot of criticism of the nuclear plants, mostly when they expand.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/darlington-nuclear-hearing-protesters-arrested-1.1094164

Recently they've been quiet, but that's because they're not proposing any new expansions.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Fukushima nuclear plant just announced they are releasing all the stored radioactive water from holding tanks, as they are at capacity.

Putting the water in holding tanks is better public optics than flushing it directly. This way they only flush all the water once in awhile and few notice.

As to our nuclear, I think we could probably design a fail safe nuclear plant, but am still concerned about where they store the spent fuel. There is talk of storing it in the salt caves at Goderich that stretch under Lake Huron. There is concern because Lake Huron supplies a lot of drinking water to Ontario cities (including London) and is a huge beach, cottage tourist area.

I don't think people realize how much solar and wind has been built in Ontario and is functioning. Our son put fences around 5 solar farms in one year. They are mostly German companies.

Prove that it is safe.......and Ontario residents would welcome more nuclear.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> The Fukushima nuclear plant just announced they are releasing all the stored radioactive water from holding tanks, as they are at capacity.
> 
> Putting the water in holding tanks is better public optics than flushing it directly. This way they only flush all the water once in awhile and few notice.
> 
> ...


safe storage technologies exist. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QXSkXHDZgU&t=414s


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Funny how people talk about the wind not blowing or the sun not shining as if they were meaningful. This is the 21st century folks, you need to get your heads out of the Industrial Age of thinking.

There are these things called storage batteries. No, not the kind in a flashlight or even those used to start most cars and trucks. It is entirely possible these days to equip a new build home with a battery smaller than a carry-on bag allowed by airlines, that will run all your electrical needs without any need to be connected to the 'grid'. It is also entirely possible to charge that battery using just wind and solar power, indefinitely. 

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/powerwall


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The video says there are no safe underground storage sites for highly dangerous waste. I do believe there is a vault in Scandanavia that houses waste permanently.

There are problems even with that concept. Warning signs in many languages and graphics have been put on entrances to warn any future humans to stay away.

A problem is the waste remains radioactive for longer time than the containers will last. Rusting barrels of nuclear waste are already a problem.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/rus...te-cost-csiro-30-million-20170307-gusb6v.html

I don't think nuclear is going to be acceptable until there is a method of rendering the waste products safe for humans.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Another windy day - Only 106MW being produced from gas and that in a Cogen plant that would burn the gas anyway to fuel their steam boilers. 

Sags - Acceptable or not, we and many other jurisdiction already have nuclear and have had it for a long time. We would have a hard time replacing it in Ontario and I don't hear of any plans to do so. I can imagine serious opposition if new nuclear plants were proposed. But then, these days we can't even get pipelines approved.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I'm in Ontario, there is a lot of criticism of the nuclear plants, mostly when they expand.
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/darlington-nuclear-hearing-protesters-arrested-1.1094164
> 
> Recently they've been quiet, but that's because they're not proposing any new expansions.


Not like Germany, where the government shut down functional nuclear plants after Fukushima tsunami. Of course, that required brown coal burning to replace the power production.

Nuclear is always going to face some NIMBY attitudes (even a natural gas plant in Oakville was scrapped due to resident opposition), but it has broad support in the province. My biggest concern with it is how efficiently new capacity can be deployed. Ontario has a bad track record in developing nuclear plants on budget.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

andrewf said:


> (even a natural gas plant in Oakville was scrapped due to resident opposition).


Well, it wasn't exactly scrapped. (I think there were to be two). The project was moved at great expense to Napanee. It is not far fromwhere I live. I think at one time they got the new plant running, but then blew a transformer or something. I haven't seen any vapor coming out of the stacks or cooling towers, so I presume the plant is not working at present. No problem, Lennox next door only runs on good days at about 1.5% of capacity


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Ontario has certainly come a long ways from the days of "rolling brownouts".


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Funny how people talk about the wind not blowing or the sun not shining as if they were meaningful. This is the 21st century folks, you need to get your heads out of the Industrial Age of thinking.
> 
> There are these things called storage batteries. No, not the kind in a flashlight or even those used to start most cars and trucks. It is entirely possible these days to equip a new build home with a battery smaller than a carry-on bag allowed by airlines, that will run all your electrical needs without any need to be connected to the 'grid'. It is also entirely possible to charge that battery using just wind and solar power, indefinitely.
> 
> https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/powerwall


$20,000US for batteries. That'll go over like a lead balloon.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

Pluto said:


> $20,000US for batteries. That'll go over like a lead balloon.


Sure, it is possible to be off grid, it just isn't economical. I don't have air conditioning, and have driven my electricity usage down to about 14kWh/day from perhaps 30kWh/day 2 or 3 decades ago. So this household is almost certainly low quartile in electricity usage. Yet even here, I couldn't go off grid for under about $40,000. And I would have a permanent part time job babysitting my system. Contrast that with my annual Hydro One bill of under $1000.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We have 4 room air conditioners, a freezer, washer, dryer, fridge, stove, computers, televisions.........all going and our hydro bill is around $110 a month.

Most of the bill is unavoidable fees. The cost of electricity in Ontario is dirt cheap as far as I am concerned. 

If $1200 a year is problematic, I would say that people probably have other financial problems to deal with.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

Solar and Wind result in many more connections to the grid; requiring much more use of sulphur hexafluoride, a gas "that has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide".
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Retired Peasant said:


> Solar and Wind result in many more connections to the grid; requiring much more use of sulphur hexafluoride, a gas "that has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide".
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197


+1 ^

I was thinking about that too while reading all the posts above; you beat me to it! One thing to note also, is that SF6 will last over 1000 years in the atmosphere; the current levels are low, but the effect is cumulative. 

Problem though, is try to point this out, and you're a "climate denier".


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Pluto said:


> $20,000US for batteries. That'll go over like a lead balloon.


How much do you think the contractor charged who put in the first indoor toilet? You cannot just take a number for something that is a new idea and hang your hat on it for every situation. Yes, if you want to put in Tesla batteries to power your home today, it is expensive and the pay back is likely to take a long time but what if every new house built was required to be independently powered for electrical needs? National new housing starts are over 200,000 per month in Canada. What do you suppose orders for 200,000 batteries per month would do to the price per battery? What if every new house built in Canada was required to have solar panels on the roof, what would that do to the cost of solar panels?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Userkare said:


> +1 ^
> 
> I was thinking about that too while reading all the posts above; you beat me to it! One thing to note also, is that SF6 will last over 1000 years in the atmosphere; the current levels are low, but the effect is cumulative.
> 
> Problem though, is try to point this out, and you're a "climate denier".


To me that is an example of tunnel vision. If each house has it's own electrical system, there is NO connection to the grid. The assumption is that all power must come from the grid, that is only an assumption based on 'standard practice' of the past. 

There's always more than one way to look at a problem and a solution.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

We are watching the Tesla Powerwall technology closely.

When we moved off grid a dozen years ago, we had little choice but to go with conventional lead acid batts. We bought 8 of the best then available, described as: 6CS-25PS Surrette Solar Battery, 6V, 1156 AHr, Dual Wall Container. Each battery is composed of 3 cells, 2 volts each, so we run a 48-volt system. The batts cost about $1,300 apiece and, with care, should give a service life of about 20 years. 

We are 12 years in. They have served us well, but they are not cheap, they weigh about 325 lb. each, are hard to ship and take up space. Moreover, while our bank is considered large and offers significant storage, much of that is not really available. The "deep cycle" description is really a misnomer. Sure, they can be run flat, but that reduces their life expectancy, as does heat. We keep ours outside. They will store less in winter, but they last longer in winter temperatures. At the same time, solar panels produce more power in winter temperatures. To optimize battery lifespan, they should not really be drawn down below 70% of full charge. 

If the Tesla batts are anything close to what is claimed, I would cheerfully shell out $20,000. Right now, that looks like how we will go when our existing bank is ready to retire. Unlike many here on CMF, batts usually manage to retire before age 65. They have it figured out.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> National new housing starts are over 200,000 per month in Canada. What do you suppose orders for 200,000 batteries per month would do to the price per battery? What if every new house built in Canada was required to have solar panels on the roof, what would that do to the cost of solar panels?


What you really mean is annualized rate of 200,000 housing starts. These are not monthly starts. But point is still relevant.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think battery storage is really going to scale with industrial applications. Batteries can earn a lot of money providing grid regulation services, a function they perform orders of magnitude better than peaker plants. As peaker plants become less appealing, batteries will also likely take on the role of shifting power from the afternoon and night to the peaks of the duck curve in the morning and evening. They should be able to cycle 2x per day.

I think home batteries make more sense for trying to arbitrage your way around local utility pricing scenarios, or of course for off-grid use.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Retired Peasant said:


> Solar and Wind result in many more connections to the grid; requiring much more use of sulphur hexafluoride, a gas "that has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide".
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197


SF6 is used in several different industries including metals, electronics and even has medical applications. Main use _is_ in power generation and distribution. But this is in _all _types of power - Wind and solar would be a very small part. It is _contained_ in things like sealed electrical switchgear. It only gets into the atmosphere when a leak occurs. Much like Freon did when widely used in refrigeration and other uses.

SF6 is no doubt undesirable from a greenhouse point of view and it's use should be eliminated or at least limited. But don't do this just because of wind turbines/solar - they are just a drop in the bucket so far as overall use is concerned! And there are alternatives for them - they don't actually _need_ to use SF6. It is mainly needed for High voltage applications - not medium and low.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Andrew, battery storage will have to become much less expensive though. 

With smart meters, time of day pricing will be a given, but the difference in time of day pricing may not be sufficient enough to warrant battery storage. I don't remotely think about it today*. Eventually there will be an equilibrium between the cost of maintaining and using peaking plants and battery storage. It is unlikely to become exclusively all battery storage simply for competitive reasons.

* Today, BC Hydro simply has tiered pricing. Tier 1 being 666 kwh/month at 9.45 cents and Tier 2 at 14.17 cents. Don't know how that could translate into time of day pricing (the 2 concepts being very different).


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

andrewf said:


> I think home batteries make more sense for trying to arbitrage your way around local utility pricing scenarios, or of course for off-grid use.


They are useful for use with solar panels. You don't have to be off-grid to benefit. Just take what you can from the sun during the day when your usage is low. This works best in sunny climes. In Ontario, it was always much less expensive to just feed the power into the grid. 

Tesla's Solar City's sales have apparently dropped. Maybe they saturated the market in those sunny states. Now they are trying Canada??


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Longtimeago said:


> To me that is an example of tunnel vision. If each house has it's own electrical system, there is NO connection to the grid. The assumption is that all power must come from the grid, that is only an assumption based on 'standard practice' of the past.
> 
> There's always more than one way to look at a problem and a solution.


Yes, but any solution has to be practical. 

How many houses are there crammed into the city? Each one has to have a solar array on the roof and maintain a battery system? Most people don't even check if their furnace filter is dirty, you think they'll chip thick ice off their roof's solar array, or shovel deep snow off? What about industial buildings that require lots of power? Probably would be more practical to replace the SF6 with another inert gas, that doesn't damage the environment, in the electrical switches, and keep doing what they are now with large solar & wind generation feeding the grid.

Watching CBC last week, they had a story about a guy who had built an "off the grid" home. He spent his entire day unplugging things - like his TV, satellite receiver, and coffee maker, when they weren't being used - because the clocks consumed power. During the interview, they walked through the garage where I noticed a large pile of firewood stacked along a wall; nobody mentioned it. Oh, so he doesn't have enough power to heat his house, and burns wood that directly gives off CO2? Net-zero, my ***!


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Userkare said:


> Yes, but any solution has to be practical.


Such a great post Userkare - my sentiments exactly. It's so much pie-in-the-sky, but very unlikely to be realized in practical terms.

Those Tesla solar roof panels look so cool in the ad, but I think of the three or four feet of snow on my roof over the winter and it's just not practical.

Myself, I feel solar in all forms is a waste of time, evidenced by how much it supplies to the grid compared to its costs. Wind has possibilities, but only from the grid of course. You aren't likely to see a windmill in a townhouse back yard.

ltr


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> Those Tesla solar roof panels look so cool in the ad, but I think of the three or four feet of snow on my roof over the winter r


You have three or four feet of snow on your roof???? It's not likely designed for that! Never saw that much even when we lived in Quebec. 

Solar panels don't have to work all the time. We don't have to be off grid. Just use the sun's energy to reduce our draw on the grid when conditions are right. (We don't have solar panels ourselves though - too many trees). Presently not economical to store energy from panel energy though. 

Using residential solar may help reduce CO2 emissions from fossil plants. But here in Ontario, not much gas gets burned anyway. 

In order to reduce GHG emissions, I would think that space heating using natural gas seriously needs to be addressed. Heat pumps make more sense. (and new types work fine in Canada) They use electricity, but with 200-300% efficiency (1/2 to 1/3 of what would be needed for baseboard heating). And, according to NRCan, in 2017 82% of electricity generated in Canada did not produce ANY GHGs. I haven't heard much about it lately, but I believe heat pumps are supposed to be part of building code at some future date (for new construction)


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Don't get me wrong; I would love to see a clean renewable energy source to replace the burning of fossil fuels, if for no other reason than non-polluted air. The sun is an incredible source of energy, too bad we have an atmosphere and weather that prevents us from harvesting it reliably. Same with wind - comes and goes like the wind 

The SF6 is just part of the issue. Can we create an energy source that doesn't require any harm to the environment? Where do the chemicals come from to make batteries, and what can we do with them when they are totally spent? Tesla batteries use Lithium, Nickel, Cobalt, and Aluminium _(LiNiCoAlO2)_. Where will all this come from? Does it just pop out of the ground or will there be mines? As long as it's places like Argentina, China, and Zimbabwe that are destroying their salt flats to extract the Lithium, and child labour for the Cobalt mines in the Congo, then I guess it's not our problem, right?

http://www.lithiummine.com/lithium-mining-and-environmental-impact
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-toll-of-the-cobalt-mining-industry-congo/


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

agent99 said:


> You have three or four feet of snow on your roof???? It's not likely designed for that! Never saw that much even when we lived in Quebec.


Actually here in E. Ontario it is designed for several feet of snow load. I do get nervous, though, when it's very wet, or there are several layers of ice mixed in. I wonder how efficient a solar cell is when under ice and snow.


----------



## nortel'd (Mar 20, 2012)

agent99 said:


> Right now, Ontario's wind turbines are putting out close to 20% of Ontario's power needs. More than hydro. Almost no power coming from fossil fuels. Of course it's not always like this! During summer highs, only about 2% comes from wind (but solar does increase).
> 
> https://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
> 
> Our local (Kingston) wind farms are running at close to nameplate capacity.


I could end up eating crow, but I think you are confusing capacity with capability. The Wolfe Island wind facility has a nameplate capacity of 197.8 megawatts and includes 86 wind turbines. 

Are you sure it had an output close to 197.8 MW on September 13, 2019. Right now (September 15, 2019 from 2pm – 3 pm) according to Gridwatch the Wolfe Island Wind farm has an output of 10MW and is “capable” of 8MW.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Userkare said:


> Actually here in E. Ontario it is designed for several feet of snow load. I do get nervous, though, when it's very wet, or there are several layers of ice mixed in. I wonder how efficient a solar cell is when under ice and snow.


Well, if you buy a study by the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, it loses some efficiency but otherwise viable. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8iovcGawVd-Ri02Q090Y29Xbzg/view

I suspect the idea that there would be several feet of snow to bury the panels excludes the fact that the panels are usually at an angle so the snow normally will slide off, and during the day, the sunlight reaching the panels will warm the panels somewhat reducing buildup. Of course, an overnight snow storm putting a foot of snow or long periods of cloudy days would affect that.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

agent99 said:


> You have three or four feet of snow on your roof???? It's not likely designed for that! Never saw that much even when we lived in Quebec.


I suppose the three or four feet of snow was at the drift points when I was using my snow rake to fix that situation, but regardless, if there was even a few inches of snow, that would reduce the solar panel roof output to about zero? In Canada, a waste of time given the investment.

ltr


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Userkare said:


> Watching CBC last week, they had a story about a guy who had built an "off the grid" home. He spent his entire day unplugging things - like his TV, satellite receiver, and coffee maker, when they weren't being used - because the clocks consumed power. During the interview, they walked through the garage where I noticed a large pile of firewood stacked along a wall; nobody mentioned it. Oh, so he doesn't have enough power to heat his house, and burns wood that directly gives off CO2? Net-zero, my ***!


As a long-time off-gridder, I have never spent any time unplugging things, much less any "entire days" doing so. What you saw on CBC sounds like a perfect example of a very poorly-designed off-grid setup or one done on the cheap. If you want "town-style" power off-grid, you have to pay for it.

As for the woodpile, I am guessing you have never been in a rural or semi-rural area outside Ottawa, where many people burn wood in a variety of appliances in cold weather. They are on grid, have fossil fuels readily available, but seek to save a few bucks with wood heat. Even in smaller cities, I see a lot of wood being burned. I agree that many of those wood-burning appliances burn dirty.

A good off-grid heating system requires a high-efficiency gasifying wood boiler. They can achieve CO2 emissions rivalling natural gas. Again, they don't come cheap. Properly managed, wood heat can be net zero, not that I purport to have made any study of the matter.

I came across this item, of late:

_Fuel is not equal to fuel - at least if we consider carbon dioxide emissions. Burning of lignite emits nearly 100 % more carbon dioxide with respect to the energy content than burning of natural gas. Even natural fuels such as wood or peat have high specific emissions, if they are not used sustainable. Hence, deforestation has a high impact on climate change. On the other hand, if we only use as much wood as can grow again, it is carbon dioxide neutral because it binds as much carbon dioxide during growing as is emits during burning.
If fuels are used for electricity generation, carbon dioxide emissions increase with the reciprocal of the power plant efficiency. E.g. if a power station with an efficiency of 34 % burns coal, it emits 1.0 kg carbon dioxide for generating one kilowatt hour of electricity.
Changing to less carbon dioxide intensive fuels reduces the emissions and contributes to climate protection in the short-term. For a long-term climate protection the only alternative are zero-carbon energy resources such as sustainable-used biomass and other renewable types of energy.
_
https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.php

In our case, we grow a lot more wood than we burn. We burn about 4-5 cords per year. Our house sits on 60 acres of forest. A rule of thumb for even a woodlot with a modest rate of growth is that a cord per acre per year is sustainable. We have maybe 10 of those 60 acres cleared or semi-cleared, so most of our land is adding to timber volume. On this part of the coast, timber volume increases by close to 8% per year. So I think in our case we fall within the ambit of "zero-carbon energy resources such as sustainable-used biomass and other renewable types of energy". And that leaves aside other forest lands we own apart from our home site.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

bgc_fan said:


> I suspect the idea that there would be several feet of snow to bury the panels excludes the fact that the panels are usually at an angle so the snow normally will slide off, and during the day, the sunlight reaching the panels will warm the panels somewhat reducing buildup.


OMG, where do you live in Canada - southwestern Ontario or Vancouver I'll bet? There isn't a single roof in my city in eastern Ontario or Quebec that isn't completely covered the entire winter in several feet of snow. Solar panels need not apply.

ltr


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> As a long-time off-gridder, I have never spent any time unplugging things, much less any "entire days" doing so. What you saw on CBC sounds like a perfect example of a very poorly-designed off-grid setup or one done on the cheap. If you want "town-style" power off-grid, you have to pay for it.
> 
> As for the woodpile, I am guessing you have never been in a rural or semi-rural area outside Ottawa, where many people burn wood in a variety of appliances in cold weather.


You guessed wrong . My first home (built mid '70's) was on a ~65 acre lot between Madoc and Bancroft Ont. For over 20 years, I cut down dead trees to feed a wood burning forced-air furnace. We had hydro, but the baseboard heaters couldn't really keep the house warm on the coldest days. With the wood burning, we were so toasty, we would open windows in -20C weather. Those dead trees, by the way, would have eventually fallen to the ground, where they would have rotted and created Methane, another nasty GH Gas. So I guess you'd say I was an environmentalist way back then. Now, I'm on 2 acres in rural Ottawa. I have a wood fireplace, but it doesn't heat the entire house - and I still only burn trees that are standing dead or recently windfelled. The Emerald Ash Borer has given me an ample supply of firewood for many years to come.

As for the guy on CBC, he said that he had installed this system years ago, when the solar panels cost way more than they do now. Every light and appliance would only be turned on when it was being used immediately, then unplugged, or switched off power bar. My point was that he was being held up as a Green Super-Hero, but they never mentioned the wood burning that he needed to keep from freezing.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Userkare said:


> Actually here in E. Ontario it is designed for several feet of snow load. I do get nervous, though, when it's very wet, or there are several layers of ice mixed in. I wonder how efficient a solar cell is when under ice and snow.


The building code require a minimum of 1kPa loading, I believe. That is about 22psf. (actually I was wrong - or at least my reference was! should be about double that) Or about 2 ft of wet heavy snow. http://foretruss.com/includes/SCAN0003.pdf The code doesn't specify the depth because snow can vary so much in weight.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

nortel'd said:


> I could end up eating crow, but I think you are confusing capacity with capability. The Wolfe Island wind facility has a nameplate capacity of 197.8 megawatts and includes 86 wind turbines.
> 
> Are you sure it had an output close to 197.8 MW on September 13, 2019. Right now (September 15, 2019 from 2pm – 3 pm) according to Gridwatch the Wolfe Island Wind farm has an output of 10MW and is “capable” of 8MW.


At the time I posted, Wolfe Island was over 180MW and Amherst Island was in the 70s. BTW, the "capable" number is based on estimate they do - actual can be slightly higher or lower.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> I suppose the three or four feet of snow was at the drift points when I was using my snow rake to fix that situation, but regardless, if there was even a few inches of snow, that would reduce the solar panel roof output to about zero? In Canada, a waste of time given the investment.
> 
> ltr


No, if you look at the paper I linked to, it was relating efficiency of the solar panels without clearing snow in Edmonton (unless you believe that Edmonton doesn't get snow). So it doesn't reduce to zero, but there is a hit to effectiveness (roughly 5%). Sunlight can still make it through a few inches of snow.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Userkare said:


> You guessed wrong . My first home (built mid '70's) was on a ~65 acre lot between Madoc and Bancroft Ont. For over 20 years, I cut down dead trees to feed a wood burning forced-air furnace. We had hydro, but the baseboard heaters couldn't really keep the house warm on the coldest days. With the wood burning, we were so toasty, we would open windows in -20C weather. Those dead trees, by the way, would have eventually fallen to the ground, where they would have rotted and created Methane, another nasty GH Gas. So I guess you'd say I was an environmentalist way back then.
> 
> As for the guy on CBC, he said that he had installed this system years ago, when the solar panels cost way more than they do now. Every light and appliance would only be turned on when it was being used immediately, then unplugged, or switched off power bar. My point was that he was being held up as a Green Super-Hero, but they never mentioned the wood burning that he needed to keep from freezing.


I guessed as I did because you appeared to be sneering at a guy with a woodpile. Your added comments help out. 

If our CBC guy built his system years ago, including his wood heating, with no upgrades since, chances are he is running a quite inefficient system, burning too much wood, with too much in the way of emissions. Our wood furnace heats the basement floor slab and a couple of hot water radiators on the main floor and it produces no smoke and burns with very little residue. We clean out the ash only once a year, when winter is over. Like your system, ours can produce enough heat to drive us out of the house if we set the thermostat high enough.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> if there was even a few inches of snow, that would reduce the solar panel roof output to about zero? In Canada, a waste of time given the investment.
> 
> ltr


I have the same thought when I drive by the solar panel "farms" we have around here. There are acres of them, and I wonder who keeps then clean. The panels are of course at an angle from horizontal, so maybe the snow falls or melts off? I don't see many on high roof tops. Probably because they would be hard to maintain. Many here are mounted on posts and rotate to face the sun. I don't see snow on those, but then we are not here much of winter these days


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> As for the woodpile, I am guessing you have never been in a rural or semi-rural area outside Ottawa, where many people burn wood in a variety of appliances in cold weather. They are on grid, have fossil fuels readily available, but seek to save a few bucks with wood heat. Even in smaller cities, I see a lot of wood being burned. I agree that many of those wood-burning appliances burn dirty.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> OMG, where do you live in Canada - southwestern Ontario or Vancouver I'll bet? There isn't a single roof in my city in eastern Ontario or Quebec that isn't completely covered the entire winter in several feet of snow. Solar panels need not apply.
> 
> ltr


Ottawa. So, yes, I do get a lot of snow, but a couple of things that you decided to ignore in my post and I'll restate.
1. The angle of solar panels can be set to reduce snow build-up.
2. Sunlight will warm the panels slightly so snow build-up also is reduced.

Tell me, do you have shingles or metal roof? This year was the first year with a metal roof and the snow build up on the roof was minimal. Unlike asphalt shingles, metal roofs allow snow to slide off a lot more easily.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

bgc_fan said:


> Tell me, do you have shingles or metal roof? This year was the first year with a metal roof and the snow build up on the roof was minimal. Unlike asphalt shingles, metal roofs allow snow to slide off a lot more easily.


hehe, one of the few advantages of being old is that every investment is tempered with the knowledge of your demise.

A metal roof's lifespan is estimated at 40-70 years. That excludes me from ever owning one.

So, I'll continue to enjoy many feet of snow on my shingles every winter until the end is nigh.

ltr


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

bgc_fan said:


> Unlike asphalt shingles, metal roofs allow snow to slide off a lot more easily.


This has been a problem for me. I am in the process of buying and installing a snow guard system since the metal roof sheds the snow all to efficiently and dangerously. The design calculator for the snow guard system takes the snow load in lb/ft2 and I looked up values for Ottawa finding 56 lb/ft2 as a conservative design load.

Anyone looking for snow load info have a look at
http://www.jabacus.com/engineering/load/snowload.php


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

bgc_fan said:


> 1. The angle of solar panels can be set to reduce snow build-up.
> 2. Sunlight will warm the panels slightly so snow build-up also is reduced.


Our cottage in central frontenac has a steel roof and solar panels on the south facing slope. They get covered with snow and generate nothing for months at a time. Unlike my house, the snow does not shed appreciably from our cottage roof despite comparable (3:12) slopes. We had to install small panel on a south facing wall to ensure that the batteries get a charge during snow season.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

gardner said:


> Our cottage in central frontenac has a steel roof and solar panels on the south facing slope. They get covered with snow and generate nothing for months at a time. Unlike my house, the snow does not shed appreciably from our cottage roof despite comparable (3:12) slopes. We had to install small panel on a south facing wall to ensure that the batteries get a charge during snow season.


Just out of curiosity, any chance your cottage is surrounded by trees limiting wind that would help blow off light snow before is starts to accumulate?


----------



## accord1999 (Aug 9, 2013)

agent99 said:


> I have the same thought when I drive by the solar panel "farms" we have around here. There are acres of them, and I wonder who keeps then clean.


They probably got in during the times of incredibly generous feed-in-tariffs. It's probably worth the effort to clean them if you're able to sell electricity to suckers for 50 or 60c/kWh.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

bgc_fan said:


> Just out of curiosity, any chance your cottage is surrounded by trees limiting wind that would help blow off light snow before is starts to accumulate?


There are trees, yes. The factors that make snow accumulate on my cottage but not on my house in town are probably more down to:

(1) cottage has exposed fasteners which provide a little grip for the snow versus hidden fasteners on the house which leaves just sheer sheet steel with no features at all
(2) the cottage is unheated and the roof stays at freezing temps more often, vs the house where interior heat escapes and can help to warm the underside of the snow load and enable it to break loose.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

gardner said:


> (2) the cottage is unheated and the roof stays at freezing temps more often, vs the house where interior heat escapes and can help to warm the underside of the snow load and enable it to break loose.


I know with my home, the roof use to clear of snow fairly easily, but when I upgraded the insulation to R60 that completely stopped any melting of the snow.

ltr


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Some comments just stick out for me and are worth responding to.

Re home wind turbines being impractical. I guess that writer has never been around any marinas with sailboats who have their own wind turbines hanging off the stern to provide power for the boat. No reason you can't do the same for a home that I know of. https://www.sailmagazine.com/diy/know-how-wind-generators

Re solar panels and snow cover. Umm, one poster mentions a 3:12 roof slope ratio. Presumably the solar panels are mounted parallel to the roof. Why? 

Here is something to consider regarding roof or solar panel slope. "*Roof pitch that exceeds the angle of repose of snow results in snow sliding; the angle of repose is the maximum angle at which snow will not slide, approximately a 30 degree roof slope, often referred to as 6:12 or 7:12. This is not to say that snow on roofs with a shallower slope will not slide.*

Taken from here in 3.2 https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/7d8c55d1c4f815edf3d7e7d1c120383f/FEMA957_Snowload_508.pdf

So what does that tell us? Well a slope of 3:12 is not sufficient to expect the snow to slide off the solar panels so if my roof had that slope and I was going to install solar panels I would install them at a greater slope than the roof slope, not parallel to it. A slope of at least 7:12. Then I could reasonably expect them to not remain snow covered. There is a reason why the A Frame house was invented in the Scandinavian countries where they get plenty of snow. https://avrame.com/ Think they have any snow on their roof problems?

I find the comment about steel roofs having snow melt faster due to heat loss from the house, somewhat puzzling. A roof that snow melts on is an indication of an uninsulated attic/roof. It is not desirable at all. You don't want heat loss to 'help' melt snow on a roof, you want to eliminate heat loss! That's just a basic energy conservation step every home owner should be aware of.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

If one is in a confined space, such as most city houses on small lots, solar panels on the roof are pretty much a necessity. I prefer to have them mounted on the ground near the house, so they are readily accessible. With ours, some years we get little or no snow, but sometimes we get wet snow that sticks to the panels. Being ground-mounted, it's no big deal to go out and brush them off.

I love wind turbines, but they pose some of their own problems. The small marine power types have modest output. They certainly won't power a whole house, even in a stiff breeze. Those that will do the job have other requirements. One is height. Turbines do not fare so well close to buildings, trees, hillsides. All of that creates turbulence, which reduces output. Moreover, the higher one gets, the smoother the wind and the greater the velocity. Output is also dependent on "swept area", which refers to the span of the turbine blades. Go big or go home applies.

Our wind turbine, not a real big one for home use, is rated at 2.5 kw. In a good breeze it can turn out 4 kw. The turbine itself weighs 320 lb., has an 11.5-foot wingspan and sits atop a 100-foot tower. The tower sits on a concrete base the size of a car, set well into the ground, and has guy wires for added support. It probably uses up a half acre of ground by itself. Much can be avoided with a tower that does not employ guy wires. For service, ours can be lowered to the ground, so one needs 100 feet of space for that operation.

We are not within sight or earshot of any neighbours, so one one gives a damn. But in town, I suspect most neighbours would not be thrilled looking aloft at that tall tower with that sizeable propeller up top. As well, people often ask if turbines are noisy. They vary, but none of the ones with output measured in kilowatts are silent. I tend not to notice the sound from ours, it is usually masked by the sound of the wind, but not entirely. For us, on large acreage, it is unobjectionable. Quite the opposite. When I do hear it, it's the sound of free energy; music to my ears. 

Like everything else, I expect as time goes on, wind turbine technology will improve and might make town installations more practical. In Canada, wind is a great complement to solar. There is often wind when the sun don't shine.

Solar also seems to be getting better in low light. We have about 4,000 watts worth of panels. Even on the gloomiest day, they still produce a steady 200-300 watts. Some of our panels are 12 years old and the newer ones about half of that. I suspect that some of the ones made today are even better.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> Re home wind turbines being impractical. I guess that writer has never been around any marinas with sailboats who have their own wind turbines hanging off the stern to provide power for the boat. No reason you can't do the same for a home that I know of.


I think a tower is everyone back yards amongst the trees is fairly impractical and wouldn't offer good results. Turbines work best when they're in the open - read sailboats......



Longtimeago said:


> Re solar panels and snow cover. Umm, one poster mentions a 3:12 roof slope ratio. Presumably the solar panels are mounted parallel to the roof. Why?


Why, because we were discussing agents99's reference to Tesla's nice looking solar panel tiles that act as shingles, so they take whatever slope your roof offers.

ltr


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Longtimeago said:


> sailboats who have their own wind turbines hanging off the stern to provide power for the boat.


Windmills are a more practical source of power when "shore power" is not available. It is not usually regarded as a really great option when you can just plug into the marina. Windmills, solar panels and towed generators come into their own when the boat is out at sea and shore power is not an option.

My dad grew up on the bald prairie before rural electrification (around 1950) and the family homestead had windmills and batteries and all that. He said that it was a total PITA and they danced on its grave when grid electricity came, because it was cheaper and easier to maintain equipment, effectively limitless and reliable. He said they would never have gone back after years of futzing with the off-grid BS. These days technology has changed, but my own experience with an off-grid cottage leads me to think I would feel the same way now, if grid power came to our cottage.



> Presumably the solar panels are mounted parallel to the roof. Why?


Because the engineering design specifies this. It is a simpler, cheaper, safer and more secure installation than a more tilted one, is less (not at all) visible from the ground, and (in the summer) generates close to optimal power. Since the cottage is not used in the winter, winter performance of the solar panels is (mostly) neither here nor there anyway. Although we did have to install a small panel on a southern wall, just to ensure the batteries are charged in winter.



> I find the comment about steel roofs having snow melt faster due to heat loss from the house, somewhat puzzling.


I did not say that the snow melts, and it does not. What happens is that the residual warmth under the snow weakens the (rather weak) temperature sensitive frictional bond between the snow and the roof, enabling the snow to slide. This is a good read if you want to read up:

https://www.constructioncanada.net/snow-guards-and-metal-roofs-101/


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

FWIW, there is a Canadian company based in Kingston called RidgeBlade which offers a different wind turbine design. It would be something that you could supplement the solar panel installation.

It's probably a little less obtrusive, although it will still stick out.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Re solar panels and snow cover. Umm, one poster mentions a 3:12 roof slope ratio. Presumably the solar panels are mounted parallel to the roof. Why?


One can always install a single (or dual) axis mounting system for the solar panels.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

bgc_fan said:


> FWIW, there is a Canadian company based in Kingston called RidgeBlade which offers a different wind turbine design. It would be something that you could supplement the solar panel installation.
> 
> It's probably a little less obtrusive, although it will still stick out.


Interesting. I live close to Kingston and had not heard of it. It would lend itself to our home - We have a ridge that is about 50ft wide that is exposed to the wind off the lake. I wonder how much noise they make inside house and outside (for neighbors).

And how much power would such an installation generate? Website say 2kw for 5 rotor system. Say 4kw for our roof. But only when wind blows. Data from the Amherst & Wolfe Island generators suggest average production of about 27% of nameplate capacity. With these Ridgeblades being at much lower elevation than the island turbines, I suspect average would be much lower. Say 20%. So 4x8760x0.2=7008 kw per year? Does that sound right? If so, the installation would have to cost under $10k. And does Ontario still buy back power from new installations?

Don't know whether there are by-laws that limit installation of residential turbines. I recall a dispute in Ottawa some time ago. (found it - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/backyard-wind-turbine-stalled-by-ottawa-bylaws-1.716536)

The Ridgeblade system installed on home:


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

I believe the design is supposed to maximize wind capture based on the roof pitch. If you look at the multiplier (https://ridgeblade.ca/how-it-works/), there is an increase in effective wind speed based on the wind being bounced off of the roof's surface into the turbine. Nominal output is supposed to be 2.0 kW @ 9 m/s wind speed, so maybe you can see if there is some historical data for wind in your area. But if your house has an unobstructed path to the water, I suspect you will always have some wind.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

bgc_fan said:


> I believe the design is supposed to maximize wind capture based on the roof pitch. If you look at the multiplier (https://ridgeblade.ca/how-it-works/), there is an increase in effective wind speed based on the wind being bounced off of the roof's surface into the turbine. Nominal output is supposed to be 2.0 kW @ 9 m/s wind speed, so maybe you can see if there is some historical data for wind in your area. But if your house has an unobstructed path to the water, I suspect you will always have some wind.


They say that the wind at turbine could be 3x actual, but then in their chart the optimum 45deg roof gives 2.2 and more conventional roofs like ours, about 1.6??? They must assume the wind direction is at 90deg to roof ridge. But it could be at any angle which could reduce or eliminate the multiplier

Average wind speed in our area is apparently about 6m/s so it looks like they are saying we would get about 29% of 2kW per 5 rotor unit. Or 1.16kW for a 10 rotor unit. (Power varies with cube of wind speed (6/9)^3=0.29) That would provide just over 10,000 kW pa. Slightly better than my earlier figure. But this being theoretical I would like to see this first! I am sure that trees, landscape and other factors would reduce performance further. Then what to do with the power generated? Haven't the FIT and and microFIT programs been closed down in Ontario?

It is an interesting concept, and sorry to get so technical  It would be useful to know an approximate cost as well as noise levels generated and permit data.


----------

