As I get more familiar with the issues around wind technology, I hear different opinions on how much wind we could realistically add to the grid without compromising stability. Obviously, 100 per cent wind is impossible today without cheap and reliable storage technologies, and while there’s been some movement in that regard (flow batteries, for example), there’s still a long way to go.

The issue is that wind — and solar, for that matter — is intermittent, and this means you have to have a certain level of “flexible” generation on the grid, be it natural gas or coal-fired plants. In other words, you need plants that can be fired up when needed within a reasonable amount of time. Nuclear is inflexible baseload power, so the more of that you have in the grid the less room for wind in the overall mix.

In Ontario, we’ve got lots of nuclear and large hydro (i.e. Niagara Falls). We’re shutting down all our coal plants and replacing them with a combination of natural gas and wind. Some suggest a combination of more natural gas, wind (and other renewables) and conservation could permit us to reduce our use of nuclear, while others shoot it down.

It boils down to a debate between the old-school crowd that support massive central generating stations and the new-school system planners who see the future of the grid within the context of distributed generation. Given these conflicting opinions, why not do an in-depth study — an independent study — on what’s possible with wind under a variety of grid models? GE Energy, for example, has just been commissioned by the state of California to do just that. The 16-month project will look at how power plants and system operators can compensate for the fluctuations caused by wind power. Certainly, this is an initiative Ontario can learn from.

Yes, a manufacturing centre like Ontario has different power demands than California, and yes, GE Energy isn’t exactly independent. But how about asking Professional Engineers Ontario to look at the same issue? The organization has already volunteered to help the province come up with a blueprint for energy conservation, and it has expressed an interest in helping out in other areas.  An unbiased, well-meaning group of engineers who want to act in the public interest is much more preferable than an “inside” consulting company that is friends with everyone in the industry.

What are we waiting for?