Henvey Inlet isn’t harbouring honesty

A short post to debunk some belligerently dishonest claims regarding Ontario’s most inane electricity/social science project, Henvey Inlet Wind.

Background: Clement/Thibeault $billion negligence: Henvey Inlet Wind

The contract, according to the IESO’s contract list, was signed in June 2011 under the feed-in-tariff (FIT) program that paid $135/MWh, plus up to another $15/MWh as an “Aboriginal Price Adder.” While those contracts were expected to be operational 3-years after the project data, apparently this one is exceptional in ways other than costing $150/MWh (roughly 5 times what new 2019 wind in Alberta will cost).

Here are the claims I’ll rebuke (emphasis added):

Development of wind energy will help Ontario in meeting its goal of phasing out coal-fired power generation.

The windfarm is expected to displace 851,000t of carbon dioxide emissions a year, which is equivalent to the amount of carbon dioxide released by 200,000 cars. It will also offset 4,100t of sulphur dioxide, 1,200t of nitrogen oxide, and 13.4kg of Mercury emissions per year.

Unlike coal-fired power plants, the project will not use water leading to the conservation, which normally uses approximately two billion litres of water a year.

The project, of course, missed the coal era in Ontario’s electricity sector. The “goal of phasing out coal-fired power generation” is long since met.

According to the Government of Canada’s Air Pollutant Emission Inventory, for 2015, Ontario’s electricity sector emitted 436 tonnes (t) of sulpher oxides. It is simply ignorant to claim nearly 10 times that will be displaced by an irrelevant, aside from costs, industrial wind project.

The Air pollutant data for 2015 shows 9,572 tonnes of nitrous oxides emitted in generating electric power, which 7,801 t of that coming from natural gas. In 2017 the IESO reported generation from natural gas down 61% from 2015’s level, so if the wind project were to displace 4,100 t of nitrous oxides, it would again be displacing all emissions in the sector.

The claim that the project will displace 851,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is also driven by the fantasy the slow and expensive project participants are displacing coal-fired generation. Assuming coal plants emit 1 tonne of CO2 per MWh, 851,000 MW displaced would be the 851,000 tonnes of CO2 displaced – and it would coincide with an annual capacity factor of 32.4% from the 300 MW wind project, which may be achievable in the mediocre wind setting due to the delay in construction allowing for the project to use much bigger industrial wind turbines newly designed to be efficient in low and mild winds.

But there is no coal to displace, and there’s not much gas to displace either.

Ontario’s electricity system operator (IESO), reports 5.9 TWh of transmission-connected gas/oil fueled generation in 2017, down sharply from 12.7 TWh in 2016. Preliminary greenhouse gas reporting for 2016[1] shows 4.5 million tonnes CO2e for the electricity sector, so I’d expect 2017’s emissions to be roughly half that. It’s unlikely this one big, late, unnecessary industrial wind facility will further reduce emissions by 40%, despite the ignorant claim of the proponent.


The biggest reductions due to this project seem to be in honesty.



[1] Preliminary 2016 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory tables:


4 thoughts on “Henvey Inlet isn’t harbouring honesty

  1. I stayed at the Riverside Inn in Britt for a few days at the beginning of February. The owner is over joyed as before construction started he was faced with paying a monthly electrical bill of $4000 with little business and now the Inn is filled with construction workers and after that maintenance workers for many years. Below the Inn is his general store that also includes all alcoholic beverages. He has got it made. With a 132 meter hub height these turbines are immense.

    I believe there is some objections being raised with regard to the location of the transmission lines.

    Is Tony getting a kick back on this?

    You must have seen this.


    Pattern Energy Group LP, a U.S. company headquartered in San Francisco.

    Dec 26, 2017, 08:30 ET

    “This landmark project is a first on many fronts: largest wind project in Ontario, largest on-reserve wind installation in Canada, highest hub heights in North America, and the first to develop a First Nation Environmental Stewardship Regime under the First Nations Lands Management Act,” said Mike Garland, CEO of Pattern Development. “We are proud to be partners with Henvey Inlet First Nation. Together we’re excited to kick off construction on this historic project that will harness the strong and steady winds blowing across the Georgian Bay to create hundreds of local jobs and provide a significant new source of revenue for Henvey Inlet First Nation.”

    “This will be the first wind power project on First Nation land, representing an economic turning point in which we are creating a prosperous future,” said Chief Wayne McQuabbie of Henvey Inlet First Nation. “This project’s watershed permitting and real estate regime sets an example for responsible economic development that protects and preserves First Nation land while also generating revenue for future generations. The project also benefits Magnetawan and Shawanaga First Nations with income and employment opportunities.”

    “We aren’t just building a wind farm, we’re building an economy,” said Ken Noble, President and CEO, Nigig Power Corporation. “The net proceeds over the next two decades of operations will provide the financial resources to transform the local economy, expand all community services, relieve poverty, and create employment.”

    Henvey Inlet Wind will utilize 87 Vestas 3.45 MW turbines with a 136-meter rotor diameter and 132-meter hub height. The project has a 20-year Power Purchase Agreement with the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) for 100% of its production.

    The project will create up to 500 jobs during construction. Once operational the project will employ approximately 15 permanent full-time workers and also create the need for more than 100 ongoing indirect jobs.

    Once operational in the first half of 2019, Henvey Inlet Wind will generate clean power for approximately 100,000 Ontario homes each year. It is expected to generate lease royalties of more than C$8 million annually for the Henvey Inlet First Nation, in addition to significant income from project distributions.


    Liked by 1 person

  2. Out of curiosity, I took the amount of gasoline used in Ontario during 2016 and worked out how many Henvey Inlet size wind farms would be required to replace gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles. If the whole of Southern Ontario was covered with Henvey Inlet size wind farms enough power wouldn’t be generated.



  3. Thank you for the comment.

    I don’t believe it is the first project on First Nations land. I’ve mapped all Ontario wind projects ( https://goo.gl/aFPqTe ) , so anybody familiar with territory could decide for themselves. The one project that springs to mind is the 2-turbine “Mother Earth Renewable Energy Project” which is either on M’Chigeeng Indian Reserve 22, or right beside it.

    On a more important note… renewable auctions have seen increasingly low pricing in recent years, and part of the reason is bidders plan on continual rate declines. The 7-year delay from awarding of this very lucrative feed-in tariff contract to the ordering of the 3.45 MW turbines is unique.

    In my opinion, uniquely irresponsible.

    The Inn owner will not be the only one overjoyed by the financial changes – unfortunately that joy will come due to a little grief on the part of the rest of the province.


  4. This is part of a compiled document presented to some of my former students who meet with me every year in February at Britt. You have probably seen this. I am now 90 years of age so please excuse screw ups in my writings. I was with the University of Toronto for 40 some odd years when I wasn’t doing contract work in the private sector. My speciality was in the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through the atmosphere. My former students now range in age from 55 to 70 years. I am still lecturing them! I have fought this stupid idea that the world is going to burn up if we don’t do something about CO2 right now. I could send you the whole document if you are interested.

    How Big are Wind Turbine Towers?

    75.Industrial wind turbines are not the benign little structures you might see in a schoolyard or behind someone’s house. The widespread GE 1.5-megawatt model, for example, consists of 116-ft blades atop a 212-ft tower for a total height of 328 feet. The blades sweep an area just under an acre. The 1.8-megawatt Vestas V90 from Denmark is also common. Its 148-ft blades (sweeping more than 1.5 acres) are on a 262-ft tower, totaling 410 feet. Also gaining use in the U.S. is the 2-megawatt Gamesa G87 from Spain, which sports 143-ft blades (just under 1.5 acres) on a 256-ft tower, totaling 399 feet. Many existing models and new ones now coming out reach well over 400 feet high, with higher towers and extra-long blades designed to turn the generator in less-than-ideal sites. The base of the steel tower is anchored in a platform of more than a thousand tons of concrete and steel rebar, 30 to 50 feet across and anywhere from 6 to 30 feet deep. Pylons may be driven down farther to help anchor the platform. The gearbox — which transforms the slow turning of the blades to a faster rotor speed — and the generator are massive pieces of machinery housed in a bus-sized container, called the nacelle, at the top of the tower. The blades are attached to the rotor hub at one end of the nacelle. Some nacelles include a helicopter landing pad. On the GE 1.5-megawatt model, the nacelle alone weighs more than 56 tons, the blade assembly weighs more than 36 tons, and the tower itself weighs about 71 tons, for a total weight of 164 tons. The corresponding weights for the Vestas V90 are 75, 40, and 152, total 267 tons, and for the Gamesa G87 72, 42, and 220, total 334 tons. Besides the noise and vibrations such huge moving machines unavoidably generate, they must be topped with flashing lights day and night to increase their visibility.

    Wind Turbines Can’t Replace Gas Turbines

    In the U.S. burning coal provides around half, atomic fission more than a fifth, and burning natural gas about a sixth of the electricity. Unfortunately, wind turbines can’t replace them — or even reduce their use or slow their growth. Because of the way the electric grid works, constantly matching supply with demand to avoid dips and surges of power, the variable production of wind turbines is treated as part of the demand side of the equation. A base level of power is provided from large plants, and other plants are kept burning to be able to provide the maximum likely power (peak load) needed as it varies through the day. As demand drops, those plants are diverted from power generation, and as demand rises they are brought back on to resume generating the needed power. These plants burn fuel whether or not they are producing electricity. In other words, these peak load plants must continue burning fuel when demand falls or wind production rises, because either trend may reverse at any time. The effect of wind turbines, because they are out of the control of the grid’s dispatchers, just like user demand, is only to bring the spinning standby plants in and out of production. But, again, the plants continue to burn their fuel. And the additional fluctuations of wind power add to the cost and inefficiency of that burning. A further irony is that because an increase in wind power capacity is seen on the grid as an increase in demand fluctuation, it requires dedication of other grid capacity to cover it. Rather than reducing other sources, wind power requires building more conventional capacity, particularly natural gas–fired plants, which it then forces to operate less efficiently.

    77.Do not be surprised by the duplicity. It’s been noticed that the global warming alarmists who run their mouths the most are also running a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We can start with Leonardo DiCaprio, who earns a fabulous living playing a child’s game — that is, he pretends to be someone else, a behavior that most of us outgrow as adults. But he doesn’t have to fake being a hypocrite. That’s his real life. Type “Leonardo Dicaprio climate hypocrite” into a web search engine. The results flow like the exhaust from one of the jets he flies all over the world — he reportedly even made a two-day turnaround trip from France to New York so he could receive a “green” award — to lecture his inferiors about their greenhouse gas emissions. He also lays about on luxury yachts that have neither oars nor solar panels but internal-combustion engines that spew carbon dioxide.

    “It can be estimated that DiCaprio has potentially emitted up to 418.4 tons of CO2 this year because of his globe-trotting. The average American emits 19 tons a year,” the Daily Mail reported last year. He once “celebrated New Year’s Eve on a yacht in the Sydney Harbor, then flew with his pals to Las Vegas to ring in the New Year a second time.” Yet DiCaprio deigns, quite eagerly, we’d say, to preach to the masses, even using the pulpit of the United Nations to badger everyday people about their carbon footprint.

    There’s also ubernag Al Gore, who, like DiCaprio, jets around the world to instruct the peasants on the proper way to live while spreading a massive carbon footprint on his own. And never forget his Tennessee mansion, which devours electricity at a rate that is “more than 21.3 times that of the U.S. household average,” says the Daily Signal. Put another way, in a single month last year, “Gore’s home consumed more electricity than the average family uses in 34 months.” And we wouldn’t want to forget Canada’s own hypocrite, David Suzuki.

    The list of climate hypocrites is actually extensive and must include Prince Charles, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, United Nations nabobs, and, well, just about every Westerner who hectors others about their carbon footprint. Some are bigger hypocrites than others, of course. But hypocrisy smells of corruption no matter who is oozing it. It’s even worse when the lesson the hypocrites are trying to teach is useless.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s