Halifax urban wind power

[bornagainbiking]

Dropped in for a visit and got a quick and constant reminder of wind.
Has there ever been any thought to mounting appropriate wind turbines on buildings in City? Some other cities mount solar panels on Government buildings or geo-thermal or garden roofs where it is sustainable.
There are some new designs now that are not as offensive. It would be a fairly constant source.
Seems like an opportunity to harness what's already there and maybe help with reducing hydro costs. Use it to offset the power to the Metro Center.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1zBan7bXJJ...nd-turbine.jpg

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by bornagainbiking

Dropped in for a visit and got a quick and constant reminder of wind.
Has there ever been any thought to mounting appropriate wind turbines on buildings in City? Some other cities mount solar panels on Government buildings or geo-thermal or garden roofs where it is sustainable.
There are some new designs now that are not as offensive. It would be a fairly constant source.
Seems like an opportunity to harness what's already there and maybe help with reducing hydro costs. Use it to offset the power to the Metro Center.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1zBan7bXJJ...nd-turbine.jpg

I think city bylaws prohibit wind turbines (of any size) in most urban areas. The Seaport Market building has some small ones, but they were installed before updates to the Municipal Planning Strategy and bylaws disallowed more.

[IanWatson]

For the most part urban wind turbines don't make sense. High-speed, constant wind depends on high altitudes and no obstructions. Within dense urban areas there's just too much turbulence due to all the obstructions, and if you put them on top of buildings to avoid this then you have a huge host of structural and vibration issues you have to deal with.

Yes, there are a multitude of vertical-axis designs that claim to generate tons of constant electricity in all conditions, but I'd almost go so far as to call them scams. The companies that sell these things go out of business at a rapid pace, because they simply don't work well enough to make them worth it.

Where "urban" wind might start to make a little more sense is in the semi-urban areas where you can put larger turbines and buildings are short. A good example is the Porters Lake Super Store turbine.

[fenwick16]

The following stat refers to all of Nova Scotia not just urban Halifax, however Nova Scotia seems to be doing well at increasing its share of renewable energy. Nova Scotia seems to be reliably windy.

(source: http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com...CMO-EN01292016 )
Nova Scotia renewable capacity surges: powers 27 per cent of province in 2015
Rapidly expanding wind generation helping province kick coal


Nova Scotia has increased its wind power capacity from just one per cent in 2007 to 14 per cent today. PHOTO: Dennis Jarvis, via Wikimedia Commons

HALIFAX—10 years ago, Nova Scotia used coal for more than three-quarters of its electricity. Today, the province is well on its way to meeting its ambitious renewable energy commitments.

Using wind power, biomass as well as hydro and tidal energy, Nova Scotia Power has reported it produced 26.6 per cent of the province’s 2015 electricity using renewable sources.
.
.
.
.... Along with small gains in hydro and tidal power, the biggest contributor to Nova Scotia’s transformation has been harnessing the reliable Atlantic breeze.

[Keith P.]

...which explains why power rates here are rather high. There is no free lunch.

[Phalanx]

Except that rates went down slightly last year, and the last major increase was to cover the cost of their new HQ?

And while there's an initial upfront investment cost, overall renewables are generally cheaper because the fuel is often 'free', meaning only maintenance and land use fees (where applicable)?

Not to mention avoiding various environmental fees and long term cleanup costs.

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

...which explains why power rates here are rather high. There is no free lunch.

Except that power rates rose pretty steadily before they started leaning on renewables.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Except that rates went down slightly last year, and the last major increase was to cover the cost of their new HQ?

And while there's an initial upfront investment cost, overall renewables are generally cheaper because the fuel is often 'free', meaning only maintenance and land use fees (where applicable)?

Not to mention avoiding various environmental fees and long term cleanup costs.

Plus, there are no large generating facilities to maintain/heat, etc. It must cost a lot just to keep a generating station going.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run, but ultimately the idea of generating power using wind as 'fuel' is very promising. One of the 'greener' ways to maintain our great thirst for electricity.

[Keith P.]

Wind power is expensive because it is unreliable and inefficient. You still need to maintain all that other generating infrastructure for times when wind does not work.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Wind power is expensive because it is unreliable and inefficient. You still need to maintain all that other generating infrastructure for times when wind does not work.

Given that its widespread use is now in its infancy, I imagine these issues will be worked out as it becomes the norm rather than the exception.

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Wind power is expensive because it is unreliable and inefficient. You still need to maintain all that other generating infrastructure for times when wind does not work.

Tell that to Denmark, then? Almost half of all their energy needs are supplied by wind.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Tell that to Denmark, then? Almost half of all their energy needs are supplied by wind.

Only when the wind blows.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Only when the wind blows.

Which is always in Nova Scotia!

Besides, don't they have the capacity to store energy to use for the 1 or 2 hours a year when it's not windy? I recall reading about that technology somewhere.

[Phalanx]

Er, no, the 42% usage was total consumption for the year. So it did supply almost half of their needs. There are other technologies which offset during the low production periods, but that doesn't change the fact that the total consumption was largely supplied by wind.

Try to spin it all you want, wind is a viable technology, especially for a place like NS. I'm going to trust the experts on this one.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Which is always in Nova Scotia!

Besides, don't they have the capacity to store energy to use for the 1 or 2 hours a year when it's not windy? I recall reading about that technology somewhere.

There are several methods, one method is to use the off-demand energy to pump water to a higher elevation and then recover it by allowing it to flow by gravity through turbines when needed. Such methods could also be used for tidal power - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped...droelectricity. However, I am not sure if this is the method being used in Nova Scotia.

[Phalanx]

This was in the news recently, too:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015...e-ontario.html

Surplus power is used to inflate balloons under the lake. The air is released to power generators when supply falls off.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Er, no, the 42% usage was total consumption for the year. So it did supply almost half of their needs. There are other technologies which offset during the low production periods, but that doesn't change the fact that the total consumption was largely supplied by wind.

Try to spin it all you want, wind is a viable technology, especially for a place like NS. I'm going to trust the experts on this one.

James Hansen, well known climate scientist favours nuclear over all other alternatives to coal and wind. Others disagree.
And Steve Brand, the founder of the 1970s 'Whole Earth Catalog' and author of 'Whole Earth Discipline, notes a claim that a 1,000 MGW nuclear plant covers one third of a square mile, a 1,0000 MGW wind farm requires 200 sq miles and a 1,000 MGW solar array requires 50 square miles.
Tidal power in NS and many other is an engineering nightmare, not to mention adverse ecological impacts
We need reliable,affordable 24/7 baseload power and solar and wind cannot meet that requirement.

[Phalanx]

My assertion wasn't that it was the only way forward, only that it was viable. You'll always need more than one source. I'm fine with nuclear so long as it's built to modern spec with passive safety designs (to avoid situations like Fukushima). Though we're still left with the question of what to do with the waste.

Denmark is a particularly interesting example in that it's actually smaller than Nova Scotia (but comparable in size ~55k sq. km vs ~42k sq. km), and much denser in population (less than 1m vs over 5m)... Under those conditions you can't argue that we don't or won't have the space. We also have lots of offshore options for wind, and yes, tidal.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

My assertion wasn't that it was the only way forward, only that it was viable. You'll always need more than one source. I'm fine with nuclear so long as it's built to modern spec with passive safety designs (to avoid situations like Fukushima). Though we're still left with the question of what to do with the waste.

Denmark is a particularly interesting example in that it's actually smaller than Nova Scotia (but comparable in size ~55k sq. km vs ~42k sq. km), and much denser in population (less than 1m vs over 5m)... Under those conditions you can't argue that we don't or won't have the space. We also have lots of offshore options for wind, and yes, tidal.

Our climate is substantially different.
The Halifax Ferry terminal has much different tidal & storm influences compared with the Dartmouth terminal. The Halifax ramp was replaced because of the movement of the ramp in different directions at the same time. Go down to the terminal during the next big storm and watch the movement of the ramp.
Nuclear waste is not a problem except to those who fearmonger.
Curtailing power use is the best way forward. Pick a price for basic power and increase the price for those with homes full of TVs and electronics and lousy insulation.

[Phalanx]

Actually, our climates are remarkably similar. It gets a bit colder here in the winter, but not by much (average highs are about the same, we just have lower lows). So a bit more snow, but our conditions are not extremely different by any measure. They get hurricanes about as often as we do.

Anyway, all of that is moot because wind turbines are already demonstrably working here. Other places with turbines have to deal with high winds and storm situations, and turbines typically aren't built where conditions do not permit. Again, I'll leave it to people far more knowledgeable in these things to figure out, and they already seem to think it's workable, so there you go.

And nuclear waste is always a problem. Yes, there are lots of storage options, but they all require long term and intensive monitoring. And while it doesn't happen often, things can and do go wrong with storage...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...0HE03020140919

And then you have good old human error and indifference...

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26658719

So brush it off as fear mongering all you want, but there are many practical problems with nuclear waste. Not something I want to have to put blind faith in for the next few (24k) years.