Note: Subsequent to this post the Ontario Power Authority sent me an e-mail to clarify some of the points I made below. I’m including them in the post where appropriate.

The Ontario Power Authority recently submitted an amendment of its 20-year system power plan to the province’s energy regulator. It includes a study completed by consulting firm Helimax Energy Inc. that looks at wind energy potenial on the Ontario side of the Great Lakes — presumably both offshore and nearshore opportunities. The study identified and ranked 64 offshore sites totalling nearly 35,000 megawatts. All sites were at water depths of between 5 metres and 30 metres, had average annual wind speeds of at least 8 metres a second, and were able to accommodate 100 MW or more each.

Helimax excluded any site that had physicial or environmental constraints. No sites on shipping lanes or located above underwater cables were considered. Likewise sites that were located around wetlands, conservation reserves and other protected areas were not included. Lake Huron had 27 promising sites, while Lake Erie had 25. Only nine sites were identifid for Lake Ontario and just three in Lake Superior. It bears repeating that these sites are only on the Ontario side — the U.S. side could have just as much or more. Characteristic of the better offshore wind regimes, Helimax calculated that the net capacity factor for all sites ranged from 34.7 per cent to 40.8 per cent, and it assumed the installation of 5-megawatt turbines. And as Helimax pointed out, “There are wind power projects that can be feasibly developed beyond the sites that are identified in the present study.”

What the study shows is that there is tremendous opportunity for offshore wind development in the Great Lakes, and it confirms capacity factors far superior than onshore sites. Though it is acknowledged that the cost of developing offshore farms will be higher, one must remember that they won’t be as high as the offshore projects being pursued in Europe, where rough, deep seas present greater technical challenges. And costs could drop depending on how serious Ontario — or Michigan or New York for that matter — want to develop this resource. In fact, jurisdictions like Ontario have an opportunity to become a centre of excellence for offshore wind development in North America.

But critics say the Ontario’s power authority continues to downplay the importance of the resource. For some reason its submission to the regulator has assumed a capacity factor for offshore projects of 25.3 per cent, compared to an assumed 20 per cent for onshore. Why it has ignored Helimax’s 34.7 to 40.8 per cent rating is perplexing? (OPA comment: The capacity factor of 34.7 per cent to 40.8 per cent to which Tyler refers represents the net annual output of offshore wind projects divided by the maximum output at rated capacity. It is a measure of the forecast energy contribution of offshore wind projects. Effective capacity of 25.3 per cent is OPA’s estimate of the amount of output from offshore windprojects that will be available with a high degree of confidence during the peak hour of the year… Effective capacity is a measure of the capacity contribution, and is quite different from the capacity factor. Unfortunately, the industry terminology has lead to confusion for many.)

The power authority also says it will not include any offshore projects in its 20-year plan because it claims the lowest-cost offshore project would still be more expensive than the highest-cost onshore project, “despite having a more favourable wind regime and higher energy production potential.” Interesting is that it includes the cost of transmission in the offshore projects, which doesn’t generally happen with other power projects. (OPA comment: Costs for connection, enabler lines and transmission upgrades were included in the all-inclusive Levelized Unit Energy Cost calculation for all wind and hydroelectric projects… To reiterate, transmission costs were included in the all-inclusive LUEC calculation for both onshore and offshore wind proejcts).

Given that the offshore market in North America is new and relatively wide open, one might think there’s added benefits to pursuing this resource as part of a much broader industrial strategy. Ontario’s manufacturing sector is struggling. Offshore wind could present one of several opportunities to create green-collar manufacturing jobs, proponents say. They’re hopeful that the Ontario government sees the larger opportunity and is more willing to pursue it.

Perhaps more frustrating for some is the context of all this. Two nuclear reactors in southwestern Ontario are 60 per cent complete and already $600 million over budget, but both the operator of these reactors and the power authority that approved the project seem to treat it more like a rounding error. Yet talk of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support development of a new industry is dismissed because of higher costs and too much risk.

It’s fair to ask why?