Tom Astle, energy analyst with National Bank Financial, put out a lengthy report last week citing the huge investment opportunities in the fast-growing wind energy sector, pointing to the United States as a "hotspot" and Canada as an "up and coming" market.

"Several of the companies in this segment are experiencing growth rates of 50 per cent or more," wrote Astle, highlighting the advantages of the technology.

"It is clean, competitive at 5 to 7 cents (U.S.) per kilowatt hour, abundant, quick to install, and the best alternative for most utilities to diversify their energy supplies."

It's estimated, he said, that nearly 18,000 megawatts of wind power will be added globally per year by 2010. According to some predictions that figure could be as high as 24,000 megawatts — the rough equivalent of Ontario's electricity capacity.

The downside? As Astle points out, wind can't really offer us a true capacity rating. Sure, we can say we're building a 100-megawatt wind farm, but that figure is assuming the turbines spin at optimal speed 24 hours a day or on request.

Let's take Ontario during the month of July. Last Thursday, for example, the output of the province's three operational wind farms, which at full output can produce 207 megawatts, only generated between 4 and 42 megawatts depending on the hour.

For most of the day last Friday, output was below 10 megawatts, working out to less than 5 per cent of "nameplate" capacity. So far this month the typical range is between 35 megawatts to 75 megawatts, with a top output of 157 megawatts achieved during a single hour.

This is part of the reason why power planning authorities, when factoring in the contribution that wind makes to the grid, only assume that an average of about 10 per cent of theoretical output will make it to the grid during peak times.

This doesn't mean wind is bad, or that we shouldn't embrace it. But it does mean we need to evolve the grid to become more flexible and able to accommodate the wind when it's blowing, as well as fill the gap with other quick-to-dispatch resources when it's not blowing.

It's why the Ontario Power Authority hired GE Energy last month to "determine the maximum amount of wind power that could be added to the Ontario bulk power system with minimal impact on system operation."

The study should be complete by the end of the summer, offering valuable insight into how much wind Ontario's electricity system can handle and what we need to do now to accommodate more of this resource.

Another downside from an investment perspective? Astle said three out of four people may like wind power, but many still say "Not In My Back Yard!" when it comes to building wind farms.

"The Kennedy family are famous for their environmental record — but according to numerous reports, they are among the strongest opponents of a major offshore wind farm proposed for Cape Cod, eight miles from their home," wrote Astle.

This month alone we have seen similar opposition to proposed wind farms in Ontario and Quebec:

Bruce County is trying to push for a full environmental assessment of a 121-turbine wind farm to be located in Kincardine and Saugeen Shores. The project is being proposed by Enbridge Inc., which has reportedly failed to ease community concerns about noise. Sandy Donald, deputy mayor of Kincardine, was quoted in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record warning that a full assessment will not only delay the project but may have the larger effect of discouraging investment in other wind energy ventures.

Last week, Sky Power Corp. said it was stopping work on a proposed wind project near Rivière-du-Loup, Que., citing difficulty in obtaining approvals from the regional municipality. The company, which has raised $77 million for the project, is reportedly exploring its options.

Also last week, Canadian Hydro Developer Inc. disclosed that its Melancthon II Wind Project about two hours northwest of Toronto will be delayed by "up to 12 months" because of community requests for a higher-level scrutiny of the project. The delay will cost the company an additional $10 million, bringing total project costs to $275 million.

The Melancthon II is the second of two phases, the first of which, the 67.5 megawatts Melancthon I project, is complete and in service. Phase 2 is twice the size and consists of 88 wind turbines.

Ann Hughes, executive vice-president of Canadian Hydro, tried to be diplomatic about the delay in an interview with the Star.

"We prepared an environmental screening report which is submitted for comment to stakeholders. If stakeholders choose to raise concerns they can do that," said Hughes. "I wouldn't characterize it as resistance, but as a (heightened) level of inquiry and uncertainty as to what the implications are."

But, fact is, investors didn't like it. The company's share price dropped 10 per cent two days following the disclosure. "It's disappointing. It's a setback," said MacMurray Whale, alternative energy analyst with Sprott Securities in Toronto. "The delay means they have to take delivery of the turbines, ship them into storage, and pay for that storage over the winter."

The delay, as well as probable delays with the Enbridge project, also means the Ontario government is less likely to meet its target of having renewable sources of power account for 5 per cent — or 1,350 megawatts — of the province's electricity capacity by 2007. Both Melancthon and Kincardine amount to more than 300 megawatts of new wind supply — though as discussed already, the actual output will be much less.

Clearly, so-called NIMBYism is a real issue with wind and threatens to slow down, and in some cases derail, our attempts to wean the province off of coal power and eventually nuclear. Given the dramatic environmental benefits of wind when compared to fossil fuel or nuclear plants, it seems unreasonable to submit these projects to the same level of scrutiny.

What alternative would these anti-wind communities like to see?

Last year, environmentalist David Suzuki wrote a commentary for New Scientist magazine criticizing some environmental groups that "lock horns" with the wind industry.

"It is time for some perspective," Suzuki wrote. "With the growing urgency of climate change, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot shout from the rooftops about the dangers of global warming and then turn around and shout even louder about the `dangers' of windmills."

He said some degree of scrutiny is necessary to limit noise and impact on bird and bat migratory paths, but "aesthetics" shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Unfortunately, unsubstantiated concerns about birds and noise are often used to mask the fact that some people simply don't like the look of wind farms.

"Some people think wind turbines are ugly. I think smokestacks, smog, acid rain, coal-fired power plants and climate change are ugly," Suzuki wrote, calling those who take a NIMBY approach to wind "counterproductive" and "hypocritical."

So yes, there's huge growth potential for the wind industry and in using this renewable resource to significantly reduce nasty emissions. But tapping that growth isn't a slam-dunk as long as self-interested groups, concerned more about property values and aesthetics than what's good for the environment, can bog down the process.

If the McGuinty government is serious about bringing 7,845 megawatts of new renewable projects online by 2025, essentially doubling what we have today, then it better figure out a way of streamlining approvals before private investors walk away out of frustration.

Until that happens, this "up and coming" market will never rise to its full potential.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Hamilton can be reached at thamilt@thestar.ca.