News
Sep 03, 2009
Some Myths Regarding Wind Versus Hydro Power
Yukon Energy has received some criticism recently for wanting to proceed with our Mayo B project. The essence of the argument is that wind is a much cheaper alternative to Mayo B, and therefore should be pursued instead of the Mayo B project. The calculations in a recent issue of the Yukon News are based on Mayo B costing $142 million, which is incorrect. Mayo B is actually projected to cost $120 million, with an additional $40 million going to complete the Carmacks-Stewart transmission line.
Incorrect numbers aside however, from Yukon Energy’s point of view wind and hydro do not present an either/or argument, since we are exploring both. Over the next several years we will need to find new clean, renewable energy from as many different sources as possible, and this may include both wind and hydro. Wind is an option that will be assessed along with all other new renewable options. However before we pursue brand new energy projects, we have committed to making the most of our existing assets.
Mayo B is one such initiative; it enhances our current Mayo facility and does not require any new dams to be built. As such, it has a smaller environmental footprint compared to any new ‘greenfield’ projects.
While we are looking at wind as potential new power, it does present some challenges. The newspaper article states that wind has an efficiency rate of only 30 percent. Using that number, the columnist argues that building 17 wind turbines of one megawatt each would produce the same amount of energy as Mayo B at half the cost. In fact Yukon Energy’s existing wind turbines are only about 15 percent efficient. Using the columnist's scenario and calculations, we would need 34 turbines to meet Mayo B’s capacity, making such a wind project equal in capital cost to Mayo B. And while this number of wind generators may give the same amount of energy, it doesn’t necessarily provide that energy when it’s needed. Wind turbines will only work when there is sufficient wind, a fact that’s true whether there are two turbines or 200. Even if our turbines did run at 30 percent efficiency, that means 70 percent of the time we would be forced to burn diesel at a very costly 30 cents per kilowatt hour, resulting in higher electricity rates for Yukoners and more GHG emissions.
Added to that is the fact that wind generation equipment does not last as long as hydro equipment. The existing Mayo facility was built in the mid-1950s and is still going strong. A wind turbine’s life expectancy is 20 to 25 years. Factoring in the replacement cost of the turbines, the cost of the wind energy project proposed (using the newspaper's calculations but based on 34 turbines) would be about double that of Mayo B.
The Yukon’s harsh climate is hard on wind turbines, and because of their remote location, maintenance can be difficult. In winter, when we need power the most, it is often unsafe for staff to repair the equipment. In addition, the turbines are susceptible to rime icing, which greatly reduces their ability to produce electricity. We often encounter rime icing problems in the winter, so just when we need the energy the most, it is not available to us.
All that being said, Yukon Energy is not ready to give up on wind. We continue doing research to see if wind energy can be a viable source of electricity in the territory.
On a final note, it is important for Yukoners to understand that the $71 million promised by Ottawa is specifically for Mayo B and the Carmacks-Stewart Transmission Line Phase 2. There is no provision for us to use this money for other projects, including wind. If we don’t use the money for these two strategic projects that will benefit the vast majority of Yukoners, we lose it. Yukon Energy feels that to allow $71 million in infrastructure money to slip through the Yukon’s fingers would be highly irresponsible.
