This interview took place on February 11th for the first episode of Atlantica’s Fuel for Thought, a Reimagined Energy podcast.
Jonathan Alward, the Atlantica Centre for Energy’s Vice President of Policy, interviewed Robert (Robb) Apold, Principal at Natural Forces, to discuss recent quotes about wind energy made by U.S. President Donald Trump and the TV series Landman, to clear up misconceptions including its cost, efficiency, and environmental impact.
Please share a little bit more about Natural Forces and the work that you're doing to develop wind and solar projects across Atlantic Canada.
Jonathan: Please share a little bit more about Natural Forces and the work that you’re doing to develop wind and solar projects across Atlantic Canada.
Robb: Thanks, Jonathan. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak a little bit about my passion, which is renewable energy and specifically wind energy.
Natural Forces is an all-encompassing firm that deals with renewable energy from solar, wind, hydro and storage, and are focused mainly on delivering these projects through community. So what does that mean? It means having community be part owners of the projects that we developed here. Our focus is mainly on the Canadian market, the Irish market and the French market in Europe.
We have a team of about 100 people now. Our main offices are in Halifax, but we also have offices in Sussex, New Brunswick, Dublin, Ireland, and now France.
Robb, can you walk me through how big some of the wind projects are here today in Atlantic Canada and what we can expect maybe their size and scale to look like here in the future?
Jonathan: Let’s discuss first the new Paramount Plus series, Landman, and it’s currently the 24th most popular show on TV according to Rotten Tomatoes. In season one, episode three, main character Tommy Norris gives a now viral speech outlining the character’s thoughts on wind generation relative to oil production. This character is an executive of a fictional oil company in Texas, and he’s played by Billy Bob Thornton. Norris mentions that windmills are up to 400 feet tall and their concrete foundation covers over a third of an acre and goes down 12 feet into the ground. Robb, can you walk me through how big some of the wind projects are here today in Atlantic Canada and what we can expect maybe their size and scale to look like here in the future?
Robb: Well, yeah, it certainly can. So many of my friends have sent me that clip from Landman. It’s getting a little bit interesting for me. But what he says is partially true on the size of the turbines. The size of the turbines now, tip heights, that’s the top of the tip to the basement, can be well over 500 feet now. They’re getting larger and the reason they’re getting larger is because we’re trying to have less impact on the bottom. We’re trying to become more efficient and the larger they get, the more efficient they are. The foundations can be very large.
We find here in the Maritimes we do a lot of rock anchor foundations, not as many of the large buried ones. But the lovely part about wind energy and why it is so effective is that it has very little land usage and so while the foundation can be buried, you can actually farm all the way and right up to the base over top of those foundations. The third of an acre is probably a little bit of an overstatement, but the size and height would be accurate.
Thornton's character goes on to state that windmills use alternative energy, there is nothing clean about it, and in its 20-year lifespan it won't offset the carbon footprint of actually making it. Is this true and how do emissions from some of the Natural Forces projects, for example, in the Maritimes compare to those shared in the Landman series?
Jonathan: Thornton’s character goes on to state that windmills use alternative energy, there is nothing clean about it, and in its 20-year lifespan it won’t offset the carbon footprint of actually making it. Is this true and how do emissions from some of the Natural Forces projects, for example, in the Maritimes compare to those shared in the Landman series?
Robb: This is not true. It wouldn’t make sense that we use more oil to make a turbine and then have to have it pay back with less energy. It doesn’t quite make a lot of sense, especially when he’s [President Trump] saying that they last only 10 years. But anyway, let’s take it from the rule of thumb. The rule of thumb that we usually use, it’s about six months of production is required to pay off the energy bill to build a wind turbine. This does change. It changes based on what you’re building, what the design is of the actual wind turbine. But in general, the rule of thumb is about six months.
Jonathan: Does that cover the whole scope of manufacturing the turbines, shipping them here, looking at types of land, forests that you might not be able to use – the whole gamut?
Robb: No, it’s not a full cycle. That is what it costs to build the wind turbine. The big [emissions] cost, of course, is building the steel. That’s the big piece of it. Now, if you start taking the other, you know, what is the cost of diesel to lift the tower up? Those will add on to it, but it’s not a significant amount. I would say you’re going to move from six months instead to eight to twelve months. It’s not a massive difference in carbon output for that.
From your experience, how do the costs of wind energy generation compare with other generation sources here in Atlantic Canada?
Jonathan: Let’s jump to some comments made about onshore and offshore wind projects recently by the President of the United States, Donald Trump. At the time when he made them, back on January 7th, he was then President-elect. The following quotes aren’t in order, but are not taken out of context. Referring to onshore windmills, President Trump said: “The most expensive energy ever. They only work if you get a subsidy. The only people that want them are the people that are getting rich off windmills, getting massive subsidies from the U.S. government. And that’s the most expensive energy there is. It’s many, many times more expensive than clean natural gas.” So, Robb, from your experience, how do the costs of wind energy generation compare with other generation sources here in Atlantic Canada?
Robb: I think it’s all about your jurisdiction. What I like to talk about is what America does is not necessarily what the world does. If you look at the world, wind is the cheap form of energy. Now, it does not solve all the problems; I’ve said that many times before. It’s not a silver bullet, but it does add a lot of value. And the low cost of power is probably the biggest benefit besides this renewable portion of the of the equation for a wind project. If you look at Europe, for example, you look at what the cost of energy is, you’re going to find that wind energy is the cheapest form of energy compared to building new assets. What happens though is when it’s compared to a fully depreciated asset in terms of that it’s already been paid for, and all it is that you just put gas into it or you put coal into it, then yes, that’s going to be very cheap. But so will wind turbines when they’re 25 years old, and you don’t have to pay back debt or anything like that. They’ll be the cheapest form again. So, for new energy, wind turbines are definitely the cheapest form.
He talks a lot about subsidies and subsidies are important. I think subsidies happen throughout all of our economy. So that’s a difficult one to talk about. Here in Canada, there is a recent subsidy that has come in, which is the ITC. Again, that is a tax policy and ultimately you [Canadians] will pay for that in long term. It really comes down to when you pay for the asset.
Jonathan: The ITCs (investment tax credits), I think they’re important because, looking at decarbonization goals, they are societal goals. They’re goals for Canada and, understandably, the [federal] government is trying to shift some of that burden of decarbonizing from electricity ratepayers to all taxpayers. And there’s certainly a strong justification for doing so, especially to support those maybe newer or industries that are still maturing like wind and solar to a degree, and certainly other types of more nascent clean energy sources that different utilities around the country are exploring.
Robb: If you think about wind energy, the idea that you have to change is the big part. We could run the system now and continue to pollute, but if you want to update your system, there is a cost to making that transition over. That’s really what we’re talking about here, is that transition.
Do think that President Trump was correct that wind projects only work financially with subsidies in place? Is this true in Atlantic Canada even after the investment tax credits wrap up after 2030?
Jonathan: I think it’s important to remember that electrical utilities in Atlantic Canada are highly regulated and every time they want to bring forward a new investment or development project, they need to go through a utility board to justify those costs as being the most effective one for ratepayers. For examples, Nova Scotia Power or NB Power develop integrated resource plans (IRPs) and they’re looking at what is the most cost-effective mix to deliver reliable energy to ratepayers. All the utilities in the region have found that wind is part of that most cost-effective mix of electricity generation moving forward. Robb, do think that President Trump was correct that wind projects only work financial with subsidies in place? Is this true in Atlantic Canada even after the investment tax credits wrap up after 2030?
Robb: No, I don’t think so. I can give you examples of why I don’t believe that. If you look at the very beginning of my career in 2005, 2006, we were talking about wind energy and contracting then, and the price back then was 6.9 cents [per kilowatt hour] as a winning bid. That price has fluctuated up and down, but in general, that’s where wind energy has stood. And when you look at the avoided cost of energy across utilities, that’s in keeping with what prices they can afford. So, I don’t believe it’s the highest cost. I think that there are many more issues coming due with trying to keep these older plants running. I think there are a lot of costs that’s associated with it, so we really need to think about how to update the grid effectively. One of the ways is to go with low-cost wind.
Can you speak to the benefits of natural gas and how it relates to wind generation in the region? Are there clean benefits to natural gas other than combusting it?
Jonathan: President Trump also mentioned the concept of “clean natural gas,” and I guess one thing I don’t strictly agree with. As you know, Atlantica’s work doesn’t place one technology ahead of another. I certainly believe that there’s a role for natural gas in Atlantic Canada’s energy future, but I have a bit of a problem with the term “clean natural gas” because I think it wrongly implies for some that natural gas produces few to no emissions and that’s just not true. Modern natural gas combustion turbines used to generate electricity are obviously much lower emitting than some of the coal assets we still use in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Can you speak to the benefits of natural gas actually and how it relates with wind generation in the region? Are there clean benefits to natural gas other than combusting it?
Robb: I think there are weaknesses with renewable energy, just like there are weaknesses with natural gas. I actually think they complement each other quite well in the near term, for sure. Who knows what will happen in 20 years with new technologies? Maybe wind energy will be no good anymore. Maybe natural gas won’t be needed anymore. But I think right now it’s really essential that the two work together. It’s essential that we do not just go all in on one resource. It’s a big mistake and it’s done so often is that we think that we must do only this [one thing]. When you look at what the utilities are planning, they are planning on using more natural gas because they understand that it’s necessary for the reliable operation of the grid; not only do you have low-cost renewable energy, but you also try to use as green as possible fossil fuels to make sure that you continue to have a reliable grid on cold days when it’s not windy.
Can we start with whether wind projects only produce electricity for 10 years in Atlantic Canada? Is that true?
Jonathan: President Trump went on to state later in the interview: “You can talk about windmills, they litter our country, they’re littered all over our country, like dropping paper, like dropping garbage in a field. And that’s what happens to them because over a period of time they turn to garbage.” I was a little unclear of what the president meant with the garbage comment, but he went on to explain: “After 10 years, you have to redo them [windmills] and what happens is they don’t that. They let them stand, they rust, they [developers] save because it’s a certain fiberglass that the blades cannot be buried in the earth.” And by “they” he’s referring to developers like Natural Forces. Robb, is this true? Can we start with whether wind projects only produce electricity for 10 years in Atlantic Canada? Is that true?
Robb: No, that’s absolutely not true. If you look at the earliest wind turbines that were placed in the Atlantic provinces, they’re still running today. It’s like a good car; if you treat it poorly, it won’t last long. You must do the maintenance and you have to put the time and money into them. I think that’s why the way that our utilities contract is so important. They contract on long-term PPAs [power purchase agreements] so that the projects continue to run and people continue to put the money into them. In general, a turbine’s life cycle is designed for 20 years. But when you talk about design life, that doesn’t mean that they don’t last longer. It just means throughout all the movement, we think every component will last so long. So perhaps in a certain wind regime maybe the blades are the first ones that we have to do some work to, so there would be a blade replacement. The rest of the turbine still works very well. Or perhaps there’s a gearbox that requires a substitution. You take that gearbox in, you put a new one in there, it continues to operate. Those are costs but they don’t mean that the project has to be totally redone.
The issue that the President talks about is really an issue with how [the U.S.] tax credit works. Their tax credit works on a 10-year process, so they [the developer] gets paid for 10 years with their tax credit. And then because of the newer technology, and because they get to get the tax credit again, they redo their projects occasionally. That happens a lot in Texas where the cost of power is so low, and actually it’s more a tax credit play. In Canada, we don’t have that problem. We [developers in Canada] can’t go back for more tax credits. You get your one and you’re done. You have to own the project for over 20 years. Otherwise, they [the government] claw it all back. We are all incentivized to continue to operate the projects well and make them last well past 20 years. For example, in BC, we have a PPA that is for 40 years and we will keep those projects running for 40 years. It will require major maintenance to be done just like a hydroelectric plant does, just like a gas plant or any other project around.
After those 20 years, can you explain the decommissioning rules for windmills and wind farms in Atlantic Canada? What processes do Natural Forces or other owners of a wind project have to do when it eventually needs to be retired?
Jonathan: After those 20 years, can you explain though the decommissioning rules for windmills and wind farms in Atlantic Canada? What processes do Natural Forces or other owners of a wind project have to do when it eventually needs to be retired?
Robb: We [Natural Forces] haven’t had to deal with decommissioning yet, but it’s something that we deal with our landowners constantly with to make sure that they feel solid in how we decommission. Generally, what we [the industry] do is we take the blades off, take the tower down, and then dig down the foundation and take the first two meters off the foundation, take that out and reclamate the soil. Most of the turbine parts are recyclable. The blades are the one issue. They [industry] are working on that issue to try to figure out a better way to recycle them, but generally, they are either landfilled or they are repurposed in some other fashion. I would say there’s a lot of good research being done on them to figure out what to do with them. And I’m certain that we’ll come up with a solution before we actually have to decommission a project.
The decommissioning cost, is that borne by the project developer and owner in the life of the contractor? Or is that something that needs to be paid for by ratepayers or landowners after-the-fact?
Jonathan: The decommissioning cost, is that borne by the project developer and owner in the life of the contractor? Or is that something that needs to be paid for by ratepayers or landowners after-the-fact?
Robb: That’s completely borne by the operator. So that is part of the contract that we have with our projects, our landowners.
Jonathan: I think that’s an important stipulation and one thing I’ve heard would be valid concerns for these wind development projects. But knowing how things operate in Atlantic Canada, I think it’s something we should be proud and be rest assured it isn’t going to become an issue long into the future.
Robb: I think if you look at some of the decommissioned projects, I know in Nova Scotia there have been a few that have been taken down. If you look at them, they’ve all been done in that manner. They’re all taken down, looked after, and the site is reclamated appropriately. If you think of the amount of steel that is in the towers alone, that would easily pay for any cost it would take to knock down the towers.
Do you agree with the sentiment that because much of our lives depend on petroleum-based infrastructure, we shouldn't take the effort needed to move away from it?
Jonathan: Before we finish up, I’d like to discuss another comment from the Landman series. Atlantica would like to look forward to the future to help understand what role energy is going to play here in economic development and to reduce emissions as well. Billy Bob Thornton’s character went on to state: “If the whole world decided to go electric tomorrow, we don’t have the transmission lines to get the electricity to cities. It’d take 30 years if we started tomorrow.” He added, “We have 120 years of petroleum-based infrastructure that our lives depend on.” I certainly think it’s true that we have 120 years of petroleum-based infrastructure here too, but we also have 100 years of electricity infrastructure in place in the region. I also agree that it’s probably going to take 30 years from today to fully electrify and build the transmission infrastructure and new generation needed to make it happen. But this is really where my personal agreements end with the statement. Do you agree with the sentiment that because much of our lives depend on petroleum-based infrastructure, we shouldn’t take the effort needed to move away from it?
Robb: Absolutely not. I agree with the statement that he generally says, like, of course we can’t change overnight. What change ever happens overnight? And he might be right; it probably would take close to 30 years to change. But I always go back to, let’s look at our history. In the late 1800s, the conversation was about there being too many horses. We can’t deal with all the horse poop everywhere. It’s clogging up the drains, everything stinks. We don’t have enough people to pull all that out. And then all of a sudden we change to cars. All the jobs that had to do with horses went away and they changed. That happens.
Now, I don’t think it [electrification] should happen overnight. I definitely think that petroleum will have a large part to play in our lives, especially for the rest of my life, but we need to start making strides towards change for the better.
Nobody thinks that we should stop drilling oil. I definitely think that we need to do that to keep our lives going, but we need to change and we have to take the first step. Electrification is the first step. I don’t think everybody needs to have an electric car, but it certainly helps if some people do. If people can deal with having an electric car, that’s great. Some people can’t because they have to drive where there’s not infrastructure yet, they should stay with petroleum based. How I really feel about this is that we don’t have all the answers. We don’t know what we’re going to run into, but we do have to make the first step up the hill.
Jonathan: I completely agree. And I think one of the things I’m most excited for in Atlantic Canada is our potential to develop wind, whether that be onshore, offshore, and other renewables. We have huge, huge amounts of potential to do it for our own needs and potentially for export as well. When you look at things like you mentioned that are going to be harder to decarbonize or electrify, like heavy transportation, marine shipping, fuel, some industry, I think there will a growing role for clean fuels like renewable diesel, sustainable aviation fuel. We’ve heard lots of discussion about the potential to develop clean hydrogen in the region, and we can use wind, solar, other renewable assets that we can still build out here in large number to help produce those clean fuels, as well to reduce emissions that aren’t going to be coming from electrification.
Similarly, I think the natural gas grid at some point in the future, will be referred to as a gas grid and that’s a great thing. There’s still going to be a role for fuels, but to your point, we should all be working towards a future where we can decarbonize those sectors while maintaining the quality of life that we enjoy today.
Robb: I don’t think that this [decarbonization] is going to be a straight line. There will be some zigs to the line. We’ll try some things which won’t work very well. But that goes back to my comment; you just can’t bet everything on one number. You have to place your bets strategically and try to find out the best solution for each grid. Each grid is different. Each grid has different requirements, so we really have to invest in planning and making a map for the next 30 years so that we can be in a position that in 30 years we will be there if we want to be.
This podcast episode can be listened to on Apple Podcasts and Spotify as well.
To learn more about Natural Forces and the guest speaker, visit: https://www.naturalforces.ca/.