info@truenorthpower.com
A Publication of the FREE Wind Press - May be re-printed for personal use only
Copyright (C) 2007 TRUE-NORTH Power Systems
For commercial or non-profit publication contact TRUE-NORTH Power Systems
Lion's Head ON N0H 1W0 - (519) 793-3290
A Publication of the FREE Wind Press - May be re-printed for personal use only
Copyright (C) 2007 TRUE-NORTH Power Systems
For commercial or non-profit publication contact TRUE-NORTH Power Systems
Lion's Head ON N0H 1W0 - (519) 793-3290
Issue 4:5 Headlines: June 2006
Messages to Ottawa - Big Wind and Small Wind
I had the fortunate opportunity last week to participate in a delegation to Ottawa, to speak directly to Federal politicians and bureaucrats about how critical it is to continue developing incentives and remove barriers for wind energy . . for both commercial and private systems. Apparently the new conservative government's desire to "rethink" Kyoto Accord has caused them to lump together all wind energy initiatives with climate change. As a result, the Wind Power Production Incentive (WPPI) that was stimulating a lot of the new commercial Wind Farms across Canada, is now on HOLD. The WPPI incentive is really a production incentive of about 1 cent/wKhr paid to commercial producer but that one cent accounts for almost 11 % of the profit margin of these projects.
Being on HOLD while it is studied again means that many current wind farm projects are in jeopardy of stalling and potentially resulting in huge "failure to perform" penalties being paid if projects miss milestones or are canceled. This is what happens when big government policy says "here's a multi-year commitment" to stimulate growth and then once things are stimulated "oops sorry things are on indefinite HOLD, while we study it again" after a lot of private funds are committed. This is an ENERGY initiative, more so than a climate program. If the WPPI stalls beyond August many "committed" projects are in jeopardy of failing and worse than that . . it will take a couple of years to restart them once the money goes elsewhere. . . and worse than THAT even . . with major wind farms starting up in Canada and US European manufacturers are looking to establish manufacturing and assembly operations in Canada and those potential new high-tech jobs, technology nuggets and commerce will dry up with them . . .We'll be left with nuclear and fossil fuel mega projects . . . maybe that's the plan.
On the small wind side I think we also got across the message that "There are tens of thousands of private citizens ready and wanting to install their own small wind systems and generate "negative load" for the system" if it just wasn't so complicated. We need to encourage simple connection schemes for allowing these systems to connect to the grid and operate economically without the bureaucratic burden of commercial generators. For example, the existing single register meters work fine running backwards . . even if they were wrong by up to 10% (highly unlikely) that would still save the "Line Losses" that averages 9.2% in Ontario . . so why are we not getting Measurements Canada to certify the accuracy in BOTH directions and save the expense of changing out all the existing home meters. I think it's not because there is no political will to do so. Politician and Bureaucrats can't get out of the BIG UTILITY mind set. Somehow everyone is thinking way more complicated than it needs to be because it's Federal Weights and Measures and big utilities involved. Ontario's Net Metering Program is authorized by Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and their rules allow for existing single register meters to be used. . . so who's objecting? Well, no one really but everyone as well . . . the whole resolution is caught in it's own bureaucracy.
One official suggested "Well the utility is planning to change the meters out anyway at no charge so what's the problem?". The problem is it does not cost nothing to change out the meters. There is the cost of the meter AND the Change-out labour. We all pay for that. Just in the Ontario alone a "Smart Meter" pilot project was to cost over $2,000,000 dollars. The whole province would be hundreds of millions. Let's save the cost AND the effort and put it to energy conservation. The point is, once you get over the idea that you have to be PAID for every kilowatt produced ALL the time, you realize that, as a private producer, over-producing from billing period to billing period is of little REAL value and you would be just as happy to GIVE it to the utility, if only the connection and tracking of those few extra electrons weren't so complicated. There is more free energy coming your way tomorrow so don't sweat a few electrons not being paid or accounted for. On the Utility side, again don't sweat the small stuff. The extra energy being fed back into the grid from privately owned personal systems is less than line losses generally. Why would I intentionally over produce even a few hundred kWHrs for $10-20 payback? personally, I'd prefer to own a less expensive and less complicated system that makes just enough power for myself and not worry about accounting for every extra kWhr . . . . To the grid, my system appears only as a small, widely dispersed, occasional "Negative Load" . . something that's good for the system. It takes more energy to track the differences than it's worth .. so why obsess over all this accounting. Just know the system is better off for it, allow simple, already "safety conscious" connections and save all the time and expense of treating personal systems like a commercial generator.
I had the fortunate opportunity last week to participate in a delegation to Ottawa, to speak directly to Federal politicians and bureaucrats about how critical it is to continue developing incentives and remove barriers for wind energy . . for both commercial and private systems. Apparently the new conservative government's desire to "rethink" Kyoto Accord has caused them to lump together all wind energy initiatives with climate change. As a result, the Wind Power Production Incentive (WPPI) that was stimulating a lot of the new commercial Wind Farms across Canada, is now on HOLD. The WPPI incentive is really a production incentive of about 1 cent/wKhr paid to commercial producer but that one cent accounts for almost 11 % of the profit margin of these projects.
Being on HOLD while it is studied again means that many current wind farm projects are in jeopardy of stalling and potentially resulting in huge "failure to perform" penalties being paid if projects miss milestones or are canceled. This is what happens when big government policy says "here's a multi-year commitment" to stimulate growth and then once things are stimulated "oops sorry things are on indefinite HOLD, while we study it again" after a lot of private funds are committed. This is an ENERGY initiative, more so than a climate program. If the WPPI stalls beyond August many "committed" projects are in jeopardy of failing and worse than that . . it will take a couple of years to restart them once the money goes elsewhere. . . and worse than THAT even . . with major wind farms starting up in Canada and US European manufacturers are looking to establish manufacturing and assembly operations in Canada and those potential new high-tech jobs, technology nuggets and commerce will dry up with them . . .We'll be left with nuclear and fossil fuel mega projects . . . maybe that's the plan.
On the small wind side I think we also got across the message that "There are tens of thousands of private citizens ready and wanting to install their own small wind systems and generate "negative load" for the system" if it just wasn't so complicated. We need to encourage simple connection schemes for allowing these systems to connect to the grid and operate economically without the bureaucratic burden of commercial generators. For example, the existing single register meters work fine running backwards . . even if they were wrong by up to 10% (highly unlikely) that would still save the "Line Losses" that averages 9.2% in Ontario . . so why are we not getting Measurements Canada to certify the accuracy in BOTH directions and save the expense of changing out all the existing home meters. I think it's not because there is no political will to do so. Politician and Bureaucrats can't get out of the BIG UTILITY mind set. Somehow everyone is thinking way more complicated than it needs to be because it's Federal Weights and Measures and big utilities involved. Ontario's Net Metering Program is authorized by Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and their rules allow for existing single register meters to be used. . . so who's objecting? Well, no one really but everyone as well . . . the whole resolution is caught in it's own bureaucracy.
One official suggested "Well the utility is planning to change the meters out anyway at no charge so what's the problem?". The problem is it does not cost nothing to change out the meters. There is the cost of the meter AND the Change-out labour. We all pay for that. Just in the Ontario alone a "Smart Meter" pilot project was to cost over $2,000,000 dollars. The whole province would be hundreds of millions. Let's save the cost AND the effort and put it to energy conservation. The point is, once you get over the idea that you have to be PAID for every kilowatt produced ALL the time, you realize that, as a private producer, over-producing from billing period to billing period is of little REAL value and you would be just as happy to GIVE it to the utility, if only the connection and tracking of those few extra electrons weren't so complicated. There is more free energy coming your way tomorrow so don't sweat a few electrons not being paid or accounted for. On the Utility side, again don't sweat the small stuff. The extra energy being fed back into the grid from privately owned personal systems is less than line losses generally. Why would I intentionally over produce even a few hundred kWHrs for $10-20 payback? personally, I'd prefer to own a less expensive and less complicated system that makes just enough power for myself and not worry about accounting for every extra kWhr . . . . To the grid, my system appears only as a small, widely dispersed, occasional "Negative Load" . . something that's good for the system. It takes more energy to track the differences than it's worth .. so why obsess over all this accounting. Just know the system is better off for it, allow simple, already "safety conscious" connections and save all the time and expense of treating personal systems like a commercial generator.
How Many Blades is Best?
People often ask why only 2 or 3 blades? Wouldn't more blades make more power? Yes, intuitively that would seem to be true, but it depends what you are trying to achieve . . Low rotational pumping action or simple high RPM for an alternator. Basically multi-blade designs are for low wind and high drive torque, but you'll need a gearbox and other mechanical stuff to create electricity. . . (because the way you get electricity is to move a lot of wire through an intense magnetic field as quickly as possible) . . you can't do that with a slow moving blade array unless you have a gearbox . . . so most commonly the big boys use a gear box and transmission with variable pitch blades to create higher rpm at the generator shaft . . . 4 and 5+ blade array designs are usually for slower mechanical action of pumping water with a mechanical pump or just a century ago for grinding grain. However, you may also see some 5 blade small wind designs, especially on micro-turbines, but these designs tend to be noisy and inefficient due to the blade tip vortices and turbulence. One new European design has tried to quiet their flexible , plastic or fiberglass blades by connecting the tips with a solid ring. Seems to help but why not just make stiff blades in the first place. If you want to hear what a quiet turbine sounds like CLICK HERE
The simplest most efficient design for a fixed pitch blade array that has a permanent magnet direct drive alternator generator, is horizontal axis 3 blade array. You could use 1, 2 or 3 blades but the 1 and 2 blade designs have inherent mechanical and gyroscopic problems to overcome . . 3 blade arrays work best for small or large Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines (HAWT) due to minimal gyroscopic and aerodynamic interaction/interference of the blades.
Cross section area is still cross section area . . bigger is more square meters of "collector" and there are only so many watts per square meter at any given wind speed. The only difficulty really with multi-blade designs beyond the mechanical complexity and aerodynamic interference is they are no good in high wind where the real energy is and they may pose a real safety issue when they are turning in high winds above 30mph or so . . BUT . . . the dynamic power differences between the energy in the wind at 5-10mph compared to 30-40 mph is so great that neither design can be optimized for both high and low wind regimes at the same time . . so . . . generally turbine manufacturers tend to use 3 blade arrays and optimize their designs for 10-25mph and then shut down. . . remember there is literally no energy to capture below 10mph . . in 5-8 mph wind there is almost nothing less than 15 watts per square meter at 10mph so it you want a kilowatt from 10mph wind you need a BIG "collector" and that's a blade array that is over 30 feet across . . that's 4.5 meter blades . . but that same array at 30mph would have to be able to handle over 25kW of power or at least protect itself from that kind of energy.
Little plug for AEROMAG designs like LAKOTA or OB1 . . . Their whole philosophy in designing their turbines is to capture as much energy as the alternator/generator can process at ALL wind speeds . . even storm levels above 50-60mph . . . They are optimized for about 18-19mph but unlike most other small wind designs they do not shut down or turn away in high wind. . . . Instead they are designed to keep generating in wind as high as 50-60mph and they simply shed any excess power that they can't safely convert. Why hide from the wind when the best energy is available above 30mph?
People often ask why only 2 or 3 blades? Wouldn't more blades make more power? Yes, intuitively that would seem to be true, but it depends what you are trying to achieve . . Low rotational pumping action or simple high RPM for an alternator. Basically multi-blade designs are for low wind and high drive torque, but you'll need a gearbox and other mechanical stuff to create electricity. . . (because the way you get electricity is to move a lot of wire through an intense magnetic field as quickly as possible) . . you can't do that with a slow moving blade array unless you have a gearbox . . . so most commonly the big boys use a gear box and transmission with variable pitch blades to create higher rpm at the generator shaft . . . 4 and 5+ blade array designs are usually for slower mechanical action of pumping water with a mechanical pump or just a century ago for grinding grain. However, you may also see some 5 blade small wind designs, especially on micro-turbines, but these designs tend to be noisy and inefficient due to the blade tip vortices and turbulence. One new European design has tried to quiet their flexible , plastic or fiberglass blades by connecting the tips with a solid ring. Seems to help but why not just make stiff blades in the first place. If you want to hear what a quiet turbine sounds like CLICK HERE
The simplest most efficient design for a fixed pitch blade array that has a permanent magnet direct drive alternator generator, is horizontal axis 3 blade array. You could use 1, 2 or 3 blades but the 1 and 2 blade designs have inherent mechanical and gyroscopic problems to overcome . . 3 blade arrays work best for small or large Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines (HAWT) due to minimal gyroscopic and aerodynamic interaction/interference of the blades.
Cross section area is still cross section area . . bigger is more square meters of "collector" and there are only so many watts per square meter at any given wind speed. The only difficulty really with multi-blade designs beyond the mechanical complexity and aerodynamic interference is they are no good in high wind where the real energy is and they may pose a real safety issue when they are turning in high winds above 30mph or so . . BUT . . . the dynamic power differences between the energy in the wind at 5-10mph compared to 30-40 mph is so great that neither design can be optimized for both high and low wind regimes at the same time . . so . . . generally turbine manufacturers tend to use 3 blade arrays and optimize their designs for 10-25mph and then shut down. . . remember there is literally no energy to capture below 10mph . . in 5-8 mph wind there is almost nothing less than 15 watts per square meter at 10mph so it you want a kilowatt from 10mph wind you need a BIG "collector" and that's a blade array that is over 30 feet across . . that's 4.5 meter blades . . but that same array at 30mph would have to be able to handle over 25kW of power or at least protect itself from that kind of energy.
Little plug for AEROMAG designs like LAKOTA or OB1 . . . Their whole philosophy in designing their turbines is to capture as much energy as the alternator/generator can process at ALL wind speeds . . even storm levels above 50-60mph . . . They are optimized for about 18-19mph but unlike most other small wind designs they do not shut down or turn away in high wind. . . . Instead they are designed to keep generating in wind as high as 50-60mph and they simply shed any excess power that they can't safely convert. Why hide from the wind when the best energy is available above 30mph?
Sky Generation Comments on Small Wind - Glen Estill
Glen Estill, Owner/Manager of Sky Generation and the 1.8MegaWatt Vestas 80 turbine has recently started and interesting weblog . . on blogger.com. His comments on big wind and bureaucratic issues are definitely only of serious interest to commercial producers, and industry experts but just last week he switched gears for a few minutes and took a look at "Why Small Wind?" . . . definitely worth reading . . He also has comments on Hybrid Cars (he's owned one for years) and it's co-hosted on his brother's site who does BioFuels in North Carolina . . both have some very worthwhile content . . .have a look.
Glen Estill, Owner/Manager of Sky Generation and the 1.8MegaWatt Vestas 80 turbine has recently started and interesting weblog . . on blogger.com. His comments on big wind and bureaucratic issues are definitely only of serious interest to commercial producers, and industry experts but just last week he switched gears for a few minutes and took a look at "Why Small Wind?" . . . definitely worth reading . . He also has comments on Hybrid Cars (he's owned one for years) and it's co-hosted on his brother's site who does BioFuels in North Carolina . . both have some very worthwhile content . . .have a look.
LAKOTA Pricing and the Strong Canadian Dollar
With the strong Canadian dollar hitting 90 cents US this week I've been asked several times if the price of LAKOTA will be coming down soon to reflect that lower cost of importing, so I thought I'd answer that here for everyone. You may have seen LAKOTA advertised on the web or on eBay for $1,195 US and $1,499 US (which at the time was around $2,200-$2,300 US) but please make sure you compare that machine to LAKOTAs sold here in Canada. Canadian Dealers normally advertise LAKOTA and Commander for $2,645 or less or possibly $2,795 for the white version called SC. If it's more than that it's just supply and demand or additional value the Dealer is offering in service and support. The new 2006 Machines are in short supply right now as the factory catches up with international orders and we are currently flying small orders of 2-4 machines at a time when we can get them. That process takes about 10days or so as opposed to waiting 6-8 weeks for an ocean shipment but it costs about 200 more per turbine for air freight.
When you compare LAKOTA pricing in other countries they may not be selling the same machine . . here's why . . When LAKOTA was first sold in Canada in 2002 for $2995, the Turbine and controller looked like this. There are still many of these units available for sale in dozens of countries besides US and Canada, so make sure you know what you are buying if you buy a less expensive LAKOTA from off-shore.
With the strong Canadian dollar hitting 90 cents US this week I've been asked several times if the price of LAKOTA will be coming down soon to reflect that lower cost of importing, so I thought I'd answer that here for everyone. You may have seen LAKOTA advertised on the web or on eBay for $1,195 US and $1,499 US (which at the time was around $2,200-$2,300 US) but please make sure you compare that machine to LAKOTAs sold here in Canada. Canadian Dealers normally advertise LAKOTA and Commander for $2,645 or less or possibly $2,795 for the white version called SC. If it's more than that it's just supply and demand or additional value the Dealer is offering in service and support. The new 2006 Machines are in short supply right now as the factory catches up with international orders and we are currently flying small orders of 2-4 machines at a time when we can get them. That process takes about 10days or so as opposed to waiting 6-8 weeks for an ocean shipment but it costs about 200 more per turbine for air freight.
When you compare LAKOTA pricing in other countries they may not be selling the same machine . . here's why . . When LAKOTA was first sold in Canada in 2002 for $2995, the Turbine and controller looked like this. There are still many of these units available for sale in dozens of countries besides US and Canada, so make sure you know what you are buying if you buy a less expensive LAKOTA from off-shore.
|
|
Since 2004 then the Canadian price was dropped to $2,645 while at the same time, adding a full diversion load regulated controller called Commander. The turbine itself has also undergone several improvements just in the last 3 months, since Jan 2006 . . . like new fore and aft spring geometry, stabilizer bar and attachment/adjustment points, dual brush sets and increased aerospace grade machining tolerance on the magnets and drive components and marine grade wire in both land and marine units. The 2006 LAKOTA "StormChaser" and Commander now look like this ( note the spring attachment points) . . . and no price increase. In Canada also we now include Canadian ESA electrical inspection "Field certification" at no cost. . . and just since 3 May 2006 the Commanders now include an integrated blocking diode, Muffin Fan and controller temperature sensing switch not shown in this photo.
[missing 2 images]
[missing 2 images]
|
|
So it's not just a matter of the value of US vs Canadian dollar . . the 2006 LAKOTA offers more and better standard features at the same price as before. As noted in a previous Newsletter watch out for LAKOTA Copies coming from China. LAKOTA is manufactured in China by an American company since 2002 but there have been concerted efforts to copy the design and steal the technology. There may be a good "bargain" LAKOTA out there from other countries (some 80+ countries around the world now) and they may well be a legitimate LAKOTA Dealer or owners who are upgrading and wanting to sell. Feel free to call and inquire. If you have a serial number I can probably tell you when and where it was built and what upgrades is has or does not have before you put your money on it . . . It may actually be a good deal . . if it is I'll tell you that too. But if you are ever in doubt it's free to find out and it might save you some aggravation once you own it. Hope that helps explain the value of Canadian LAKOTA and it's current pricing. Despite all that, the cost of metals and carbon fibre world-wide will continue to put pressure on pricing no matter where they are made
Proposed Township By-Laws No Help to Small Wind
Municipal Planning offices are working hard to catch up with small wind installations by coming up with local By-Laws that define small wind and how and who can install them and what size and where. One particular Township is suggesting :
Re-defining what is small wind into three categories
Micro under 500 watts
Small 500 - 1000 watts and
Medium 1000
Another wants only one turbine per property and setbacks of tower height plus some distance for safety. Still another is asking for height limits and setbacks of 400ft for noise reduction. My question for all municipal planners is "Why?" . . why do you suggest these by-laws. . .and the reasons seem to be unclear and appear to have more to do with having some written by-laws to refer to so small wind can be restricted rather than having rational reasons to allow small wind turbines to exist in the first place. For example suggesting you need a setback for noise is controlling the effect rather than the function. If a turbine is quiet why do you need a setback. You should control the noise limits at the property line by limiting the noise they are allowed to produce not the distance away they must be. If you say the setback is for safety they again you are treating the effect not the function. If a tower is properly designed by a qualified engineer and installed properly then it's no more likely to fall down than your TV antenna or ham radio tower.
If you're municipal planners are creating new by-laws . . . and many of them are as we write this . . ask the questions before they become law. Ask "why?" first and await their reply on each issue . . then you have something to works with . . once they become law you can not ask why? again because Councils and building inspectors will then hide behind the answer . . "because that's what the by-law states" . . as if it had some credibility or actual justification in the first place. . . if it is a proposed by-law and is soon to become law then they owe you an explanation as to "why" FIRST so these reasons can be thoughtfully challenged and logically adopted if they are truly valid in the first place. The reasons they respond with will be limited to lack of informed understanding of Small Wind . . that's OK they just need to become more informed. Without such information they will react out of fear and unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims of safety concerns. Often they just find existing by-laws that look like they may be similar but aren't and craft Small Wind by-laws to match. Classic examples include assuming (wrongly) that small private wind systems are just like the big turbines only smaller so similar or even identical by-laws should apply. Our own municipal by-laws have already defined “COMMERCIAL WIND ENERGY TURBINE” means a structure designed to convert wind to useable energy for the purpose of inclusion into the electrical grid system. That means if my 1kW home turbine is Net Metered it becomes a "Commercial Wind Energy Turbine" by definition and could be challenged to comply with applicable by-laws.
There is a lot to consider when implementing new By-laws no matter what they are for so it's not an easy task and should take some thoughtful time and consideration before becoming law. I'd suggest not making up new definitions but look to CanWEA to define small wind and here are some reasoned suggestions for bylaws that make sense . . at least it's a reasoned approach to be challenged with different reasoning not arm-waving arguments based on lack of knowledge of how small wind operates.
1. Small Wind Turbine towers must have engineering analysis that is certified by a qualified mechanical engineer to withstand maximum vertical and horizontal loading anticipated for the winds up to at least 128km/hr with 32km/hr gust spread. and to take my own advice "WHY those limits?" . .because that is about 80mph with gusts to 100mph and I believe that is a realistic MAXIMUM storm surge you can expect in Ontario short of a tornado or hurricane and it's pretty obvious that homes and barns are generally already likely to be destroyed if those types of winds are encountered . . that's what insurance is supposed to cover unless it's an "Act of God"
2. The property size must allow erection of the tower within the boundaries of the property (even that seems a little obvious)
3. The operation of the wind turbine must meet NPC232 Noise guidelines, as measured at the property line. These noise limits may be exceeded only during storm periods when storm noise also exceeds NPC232 guidelines.
4. Small privately operated wind systems means single or dual small turbines with a total combined production under 10kW for personal or small business use, whether connected to the utility power or not. "Why?" because many small wind systems designs will call for two smaller rather than 1 large turbine for aesthetics as well as performance and reliability reasons and forcing people to put all their eggs in one basket or have none at all is unfair since the result is more green power and less pollution.
5. The maximum height of the tower without a variance should be 75ft hub height as long as the property size allows the tower to be erected within the property boundaries and the tower meets engineering safety standards. You don't need to worry about blade size as a function of tower height because of the 10kW max . and 10 kW is more than a typical personal use system needs.
Municipal Planning offices are working hard to catch up with small wind installations by coming up with local By-Laws that define small wind and how and who can install them and what size and where. One particular Township is suggesting :
Re-defining what is small wind into three categories
Micro under 500 watts
Small 500 - 1000 watts and
Medium 1000
Another wants only one turbine per property and setbacks of tower height plus some distance for safety. Still another is asking for height limits and setbacks of 400ft for noise reduction. My question for all municipal planners is "Why?" . . why do you suggest these by-laws. . .and the reasons seem to be unclear and appear to have more to do with having some written by-laws to refer to so small wind can be restricted rather than having rational reasons to allow small wind turbines to exist in the first place. For example suggesting you need a setback for noise is controlling the effect rather than the function. If a turbine is quiet why do you need a setback. You should control the noise limits at the property line by limiting the noise they are allowed to produce not the distance away they must be. If you say the setback is for safety they again you are treating the effect not the function. If a tower is properly designed by a qualified engineer and installed properly then it's no more likely to fall down than your TV antenna or ham radio tower.
If you're municipal planners are creating new by-laws . . . and many of them are as we write this . . ask the questions before they become law. Ask "why?" first and await their reply on each issue . . then you have something to works with . . once they become law you can not ask why? again because Councils and building inspectors will then hide behind the answer . . "because that's what the by-law states" . . as if it had some credibility or actual justification in the first place. . . if it is a proposed by-law and is soon to become law then they owe you an explanation as to "why" FIRST so these reasons can be thoughtfully challenged and logically adopted if they are truly valid in the first place. The reasons they respond with will be limited to lack of informed understanding of Small Wind . . that's OK they just need to become more informed. Without such information they will react out of fear and unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims of safety concerns. Often they just find existing by-laws that look like they may be similar but aren't and craft Small Wind by-laws to match. Classic examples include assuming (wrongly) that small private wind systems are just like the big turbines only smaller so similar or even identical by-laws should apply. Our own municipal by-laws have already defined “COMMERCIAL WIND ENERGY TURBINE” means a structure designed to convert wind to useable energy for the purpose of inclusion into the electrical grid system. That means if my 1kW home turbine is Net Metered it becomes a "Commercial Wind Energy Turbine" by definition and could be challenged to comply with applicable by-laws.
There is a lot to consider when implementing new By-laws no matter what they are for so it's not an easy task and should take some thoughtful time and consideration before becoming law. I'd suggest not making up new definitions but look to CanWEA to define small wind and here are some reasoned suggestions for bylaws that make sense . . at least it's a reasoned approach to be challenged with different reasoning not arm-waving arguments based on lack of knowledge of how small wind operates.
1. Small Wind Turbine towers must have engineering analysis that is certified by a qualified mechanical engineer to withstand maximum vertical and horizontal loading anticipated for the winds up to at least 128km/hr with 32km/hr gust spread. and to take my own advice "WHY those limits?" . .because that is about 80mph with gusts to 100mph and I believe that is a realistic MAXIMUM storm surge you can expect in Ontario short of a tornado or hurricane and it's pretty obvious that homes and barns are generally already likely to be destroyed if those types of winds are encountered . . that's what insurance is supposed to cover unless it's an "Act of God"
2. The property size must allow erection of the tower within the boundaries of the property (even that seems a little obvious)
3. The operation of the wind turbine must meet NPC232 Noise guidelines, as measured at the property line. These noise limits may be exceeded only during storm periods when storm noise also exceeds NPC232 guidelines.
4. Small privately operated wind systems means single or dual small turbines with a total combined production under 10kW for personal or small business use, whether connected to the utility power or not. "Why?" because many small wind systems designs will call for two smaller rather than 1 large turbine for aesthetics as well as performance and reliability reasons and forcing people to put all their eggs in one basket or have none at all is unfair since the result is more green power and less pollution.
5. The maximum height of the tower without a variance should be 75ft hub height as long as the property size allows the tower to be erected within the property boundaries and the tower meets engineering safety standards. You don't need to worry about blade size as a function of tower height because of the 10kW max . and 10 kW is more than a typical personal use system needs.
Proposed Township By-Laws No Help to Small Wind
Municipal Planning offices are working hard to catch up with small wind installations by coming up with local By-Laws that define small wind and how and who can install them and what size and where. One particular Township is suggesting :
Re-defining what is small wind into three categories
Micro under 500 watts
Small 500 - 1000 watts and
Medium 1000
Another wants only one turbine per property and setbacks of tower height plus some distance for safety. Still another is asking for height limits and setbacks of 400ft for noise reduction. My question for all municipal planners is "Why?" . . why do you suggest these by-laws. . .and the reasons seem to be unclear and appear to have more to do with having some written by-laws to refer to so small wind can be restricted rather than having rational reasons to allow small wind turbines to exist in the first place. For example suggesting you need a setback for noise is controlling the effect rather than the function. If a turbine is quiet why do you need a setback. You should control the noise limits at the property line by limiting the noise they are allowed to produce not the distance away they must be. If you say the setback is for safety they again you are treating the effect not the function. If a tower is properly designed by a qualified engineer and installed properly then it's no more likely to fall down than your TV antenna or ham radio tower.
If you're municipal planners are creating new by-laws . . . and many of them are as we write this . . ask the questions before they become law. Ask "why?" first and await their reply on each issue . . then you have something to works with . . once they become law you can not ask why? again because Councils and building inspectors will then hide behind the answer . . "because that's what the by-law states" . . as if it had some credibility or actual justification in the first place. . . if it is a proposed by-law and is soon to become law then they owe you an explanation as to "why" FIRST so these reasons can be thoughtfully challenged and logically adopted if they are truly valid in the first place. The reasons they respond with will be limited to lack of informed understanding of Small Wind . . that's OK they just need to become more informed. Without such information they will react out of fear and unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims of safety concerns. Often they just find existing by-laws that look like they may be similar but aren't and craft Small Wind by-laws to match. Classic examples include assuming (wrongly) that small private wind systems are just like the big turbines only smaller so similar or even identical by-laws should apply. Our own municipal by-laws have already defined “COMMERCIAL WIND ENERGY TURBINE” means a structure designed to convert wind to useable energy for the purpose of inclusion into the electrical grid system. That means if my 1kW home turbine is Net Metered it becomes a "Commercial Wind Energy Turbine" by definition and could be challenged to comply with applicable by-laws.
There is a lot to consider when implementing new By-laws no matter what they are for so it's not an easy task and should take some thoughtful time and consideration before becoming law. I'd suggest not making up new definitions but look to CanWEA to define small wind and here are some reasoned suggestions for bylaws that make sense . . at least it's a reasoned approach to be challenged with different reasoning not arm-waving arguments based on lack of knowledge of how small wind operates.
1. Small Wind Turbine towers must have engineering analysis that is certified by a qualified mechanical engineer to withstand maximum vertical and horizontal loading anticipated for the winds up to at least 128km/hr with 32km/hr gust spread. and to take my own advice "WHY those limits?" . .because that is about 80mph with gusts to 100mph and I believe that is a realistic MAXIMUM storm surge you can expect in Ontario short of a tornado or hurricane and it's pretty obvious that homes and barns are generally already likely to be destroyed if those types of winds are encountered . . that's what insurance is supposed to cover unless it's an "Act of God"
2. The property size must allow erection of the tower within the boundaries of the property (even that seems a little obvious)
3. The operation of the wind turbine must meet NPC232 Noise guidelines, as measured at the property line. These noise limits may be exceeded only during storm periods when storm noise also exceeds NPC232 guidelines.
4. Small privately operated wind systems means single or dual small turbines with a total combined production under 10kW for personal or small business use, whether connected to the utility power or not. "Why?" because many small wind systems designs will call for two smaller rather than 1 large turbine for aesthetics as well as performance and reliability reasons and forcing people to put all their eggs in one basket or have none at all is unfair since the result is more green power and less pollution.
5. The maximum height of the tower without a variance should be 75ft hub height as long as the property size allows the tower to be erected within the property boundaries and the tower meets engineering safety standards. You don't need to worry about blade size as a function of tower height because of the 10kW max . and 10 kW is more than a typical personal use system needs.
Municipal Planning offices are working hard to catch up with small wind installations by coming up with local By-Laws that define small wind and how and who can install them and what size and where. One particular Township is suggesting :
Re-defining what is small wind into three categories
Micro under 500 watts
Small 500 - 1000 watts and
Medium 1000
Another wants only one turbine per property and setbacks of tower height plus some distance for safety. Still another is asking for height limits and setbacks of 400ft for noise reduction. My question for all municipal planners is "Why?" . . why do you suggest these by-laws. . .and the reasons seem to be unclear and appear to have more to do with having some written by-laws to refer to so small wind can be restricted rather than having rational reasons to allow small wind turbines to exist in the first place. For example suggesting you need a setback for noise is controlling the effect rather than the function. If a turbine is quiet why do you need a setback. You should control the noise limits at the property line by limiting the noise they are allowed to produce not the distance away they must be. If you say the setback is for safety they again you are treating the effect not the function. If a tower is properly designed by a qualified engineer and installed properly then it's no more likely to fall down than your TV antenna or ham radio tower.
If you're municipal planners are creating new by-laws . . . and many of them are as we write this . . ask the questions before they become law. Ask "why?" first and await their reply on each issue . . then you have something to works with . . once they become law you can not ask why? again because Councils and building inspectors will then hide behind the answer . . "because that's what the by-law states" . . as if it had some credibility or actual justification in the first place. . . if it is a proposed by-law and is soon to become law then they owe you an explanation as to "why" FIRST so these reasons can be thoughtfully challenged and logically adopted if they are truly valid in the first place. The reasons they respond with will be limited to lack of informed understanding of Small Wind . . that's OK they just need to become more informed. Without such information they will react out of fear and unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims of safety concerns. Often they just find existing by-laws that look like they may be similar but aren't and craft Small Wind by-laws to match. Classic examples include assuming (wrongly) that small private wind systems are just like the big turbines only smaller so similar or even identical by-laws should apply. Our own municipal by-laws have already defined “COMMERCIAL WIND ENERGY TURBINE” means a structure designed to convert wind to useable energy for the purpose of inclusion into the electrical grid system. That means if my 1kW home turbine is Net Metered it becomes a "Commercial Wind Energy Turbine" by definition and could be challenged to comply with applicable by-laws.
There is a lot to consider when implementing new By-laws no matter what they are for so it's not an easy task and should take some thoughtful time and consideration before becoming law. I'd suggest not making up new definitions but look to CanWEA to define small wind and here are some reasoned suggestions for bylaws that make sense . . at least it's a reasoned approach to be challenged with different reasoning not arm-waving arguments based on lack of knowledge of how small wind operates.
1. Small Wind Turbine towers must have engineering analysis that is certified by a qualified mechanical engineer to withstand maximum vertical and horizontal loading anticipated for the winds up to at least 128km/hr with 32km/hr gust spread. and to take my own advice "WHY those limits?" . .because that is about 80mph with gusts to 100mph and I believe that is a realistic MAXIMUM storm surge you can expect in Ontario short of a tornado or hurricane and it's pretty obvious that homes and barns are generally already likely to be destroyed if those types of winds are encountered . . that's what insurance is supposed to cover unless it's an "Act of God"
2. The property size must allow erection of the tower within the boundaries of the property (even that seems a little obvious)
3. The operation of the wind turbine must meet NPC232 Noise guidelines, as measured at the property line. These noise limits may be exceeded only during storm periods when storm noise also exceeds NPC232 guidelines.
4. Small privately operated wind systems means single or dual small turbines with a total combined production under 10kW for personal or small business use, whether connected to the utility power or not. "Why?" because many small wind systems designs will call for two smaller rather than 1 large turbine for aesthetics as well as performance and reliability reasons and forcing people to put all their eggs in one basket or have none at all is unfair since the result is more green power and less pollution.
5. The maximum height of the tower without a variance should be 75ft hub height as long as the property size allows the tower to be erected within the property boundaries and the tower meets engineering safety standards. You don't need to worry about blade size as a function of tower height because of the 10kW max . and 10 kW is more than a typical personal use system needs.
Solar Advantages in Canadian Climates
Here's a simple suggestion for solar PV that seems to work best in Northern Climates. First of all Solar PV in Canada is often more efficient than PV in Arizona because in hot places (like 90-100 Deg F) the panels are less efficient. . . and in cold "snow covered" locations with full sun the reflections off the snow can add quite a bit more energy than off desert scrub. In northern climates there is a wide variation from summer to winter solar angles and PV arrays can benefit a fair bit from changing their elevation from summer to winter . . unlike say Florida where the sun never gets very low very the horizon at noon like it does in much of Canada during the winter. So a simple 6 ft pedistal mount rather than roof mount offers a number of advantages.
1. You can easily tilt the panels to a higher angle for winter and provides easy and cheaper, installation and maintenance access, without climbing ladders and taking "roof risks".
2. Fewer, shorter wire runs are required to reach the combiner box which is also more accessible.
3. You can easily brush off a leaf or some light snow or frost with a broom. Also snow generally slides off if they are set to a winter angle of 65 or 70 degrees. Believe me though, a single leaf can reduce current flow by 50% or more. Remember a PV panel is a series circuit, like a garden hose. Pinch the hose and the flow is seriously reduced.
4. If you make a simple azimuth lock on the array you can easily point the array to take full advantage of afternoon sun when it's been cloudy all morning . . without having to invest $4000 in an active tracking mount.
"Top-of-Pole" mounts are sometimes special order depending on the panels you choose, but I'd say that is the "REFERRED INSTALL METHOD" in Canada and the results are well worth it. It's a useful option that's easy to build into any northern installation.
Here's what I mean: You can do it on your way out the door.
[missing image]
Here's a simple suggestion for solar PV that seems to work best in Northern Climates. First of all Solar PV in Canada is often more efficient than PV in Arizona because in hot places (like 90-100 Deg F) the panels are less efficient. . . and in cold "snow covered" locations with full sun the reflections off the snow can add quite a bit more energy than off desert scrub. In northern climates there is a wide variation from summer to winter solar angles and PV arrays can benefit a fair bit from changing their elevation from summer to winter . . unlike say Florida where the sun never gets very low very the horizon at noon like it does in much of Canada during the winter. So a simple 6 ft pedistal mount rather than roof mount offers a number of advantages.
1. You can easily tilt the panels to a higher angle for winter and provides easy and cheaper, installation and maintenance access, without climbing ladders and taking "roof risks".
2. Fewer, shorter wire runs are required to reach the combiner box which is also more accessible.
3. You can easily brush off a leaf or some light snow or frost with a broom. Also snow generally slides off if they are set to a winter angle of 65 or 70 degrees. Believe me though, a single leaf can reduce current flow by 50% or more. Remember a PV panel is a series circuit, like a garden hose. Pinch the hose and the flow is seriously reduced.
4. If you make a simple azimuth lock on the array you can easily point the array to take full advantage of afternoon sun when it's been cloudy all morning . . without having to invest $4000 in an active tracking mount.
"Top-of-Pole" mounts are sometimes special order depending on the panels you choose, but I'd say that is the "REFERRED INSTALL METHOD" in Canada and the results are well worth it. It's a useful option that's easy to build into any northern installation.
Here's what I mean: You can do it on your way out the door.
[missing image]
|
|
|
|