Wind power fails in Canada – a 23 year life span not likely to be replaced

From the Calgary Herald and the “waiting of the government cash cow” department:

Oldest commercial wind farm in Canada headed for scrapyard after 23 years

By: DAN HEALING, CALGARY HERALD

A line of turbines on metal lattice legs catch the breeze at the Cowley Ridge wind farm in southern Alberta. The 23-year-old facility, Canada’s first commercial wind project, is being decommissioned. TED RHODES / CALGARY HERALD

The oldest commercial wind power facility in Canada has been shut down and faces demolition after 23 years of transforming brisk southern Alberta breezes into electricity — and its owner says building a replacement depends on the next moves of the provincial NDP government.

TransAlta Corp. said Tuesday the blades on 57 turbines at its Cowley Ridge facility near Pincher Creek have already been halted and the towers are to be toppled and recycled for scrap metal this spring. The company inherited the now-obsolete facility, built between 1993 and 1994, as part of its $1.6-billion hostile takeover of Calgary-based Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. in 2009.

“TransAlta is very interested in repowering this site. Unfortunately, right now, it’s not economically feasible,” Wayne Oliver, operations supervisor for TransAlta’s wind operations in Pincher Creek and Fort Macleod, said in an interview.

“We’re anxiously waiting to see what incentives might come from our new government. . . . Alberta is an open market and the wholesale price when it’s windy is quite low, so there’s just not the return on investment in today’s situation. So, if there is an incentive, we’d jump all over that.”

Full story: http://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/oldest-commercial-wind-farm-in-canada-headed-for-scrapyard-after-23-years


I’ll bet they would. Does anyone need any more proof that wind power just isn’t economically feasible on large scales without subsidies?

Coal and nuclear plants last longer and provide far more power…and production isn’t tied to the vagaries of wind and weather.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
265 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Amber
June 15, 2017 10:09 am

The eagles hearts soar .No more bird blenders . What happened did the tax payer rip off subsides end ?

crackers345
Reply to  Amber
June 17, 2017 7:59 pm

wanna compare bird deaths from wind
turbines to bird deaths from automobiles
and buildings and cats?
i didn’t think so.

troe
June 16, 2017 4:50 am

This reads like a confession

June 16, 2017 11:41 am

DCE
I am also not in favor of wind, as it appears that often the wind blows when you don’t need more power on the grid. That creates problems of oversupply.
First on my wish list is hydro power. This could be extended by using wind to pump water up into a reservoir and using it like you would hydro power: letting the water flow down when you need the power on the grid.
Second on the list is gas. I use gas to heat my office. It has clean exhaust. More carbon is OK for the environment. And you have the exact power when you want it and need it.
Third would be coal but you have to purify the exhaust and carefully handle the ash as it contains poisons like silicate dust and heavy metals.
Next on my list is solar. I have a solar geyser for warm water which works quite well if the sun shines and it gets reasonably warm in the day. I also have a few solar panels for some power to run the office but I have a lot of hassles with it. Panels get dirty. Batteries don’t last for more than 2 years. etc. Quite frankly, I think electricity from solar is not worth the hassle.
Last on my list is nuclear, mainly because of cost to build, environmental concerns, waste handling and high level expertise required which is not always readily available in developing countries.

Cory Davis
June 17, 2017 9:50 am

That wind farm (Cowley Ridge) was decommissioned over a year ago. The reasons it was decommissioned early are a little unclear depending on who you want to listen to.

crackers345
June 17, 2017 7:58 pm

oil and coal require larger subsidies still — except they
don’t show
up on your monthly utility bill,
but in your health care bills.
[??? .mod]

mrmethane
Reply to  crackers345
June 18, 2017 1:53 am

I suspect you refer to SCC, the “social cost of carbon”, an invisible and imaginary amount used by the green blob to “prove” that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels. Almost always defined as a cost, with no mention of benefits arising from CO2 richness. Asthma, being often cited as a leading health threat component of SCC, is linked thereto in an imaginary and unproven way. As an aside, the asthma bombs comprising the fleets of under-maintained diesel vehicles partially combusting french-fry oil and driven by holier-than-all-of-us superstitious zealots, are rarely mentioned. In my quaint home community, these same folks treat power lines and smart meters like kryptonite.