Could Wind Be Our Main Energy Source?

Today's question: If wind is possible year-round and cheap, when are we installing more? I recently learned that there are wind turbines being specifically manufactured for an Arctic environment and that they work through the winter. If wind is inexpensive to produce and abundant in the winter and the technology exists to harness it, could this be our main source for future energy needs?

Thanks for your question. It is true that wind technology for Arctic environments is better now than it was in 1993 when we installed our first wind turbine on Haeckel Hill, and in 2000 when we installed our second. However wind turbines only produce electricity when the wind is blowing. To our knowledge, even the most technologically advanced wind turbines function, at best, 30 to 40 percent of the time. That means when we add wind to our available sources of energy we need to add something else in tandem, to provide power for the 60 to 70 percent of time that wind is not available to us.

Wind is not inexpensive either. Currently it costs about 10 cents a kilowatt hour for us to produce electricity using our legacy hydro assets. Wind is estimated to cost more than double that amount.

That being said, we believe that wind should be a part of our basket of electricity options. We are researching the possibility of putting a 20-megawatt wind farm on Ferry Hill near Stewart Crossing. We believe there is a better wind regime there than on Haeckel Hill, and we don't think there will be as many issues with ice buildup on the turbine blades. We hope to know for sure if Ferry Hill is a viable site within the next year or so.