Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 97e107

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Solar and wind resource complementarity: Advancing options for renewable

electricity integration in Ontario, Canada
Christina E. Hoicka a, *, Ian H. Rowlands b
a
Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
b
Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In Ontario (Canada), the integration of renewable power is a priority policy goal. Since 2004, the
Received 17 March 2010 circumstances under which the integration of renewable power is evaluated have changed due to
Accepted 2 June 2010 successive changes in price as well as concerns that its over-production may add to grid congestion. This
research investigates the value of increasing complementarity (both proximate and geographically
dispersed) of wind and solar resources as a means by which electricity planners and researchers might
Keywords:
advance electricity sustainability in Ontario. More specifically, this paper asks the following questions: 1)
Complementarity
Does the combination of solar and wind resources in selected locations in Ontario serve to ‘smooth out’
Solar
Wind
power production, i.e., decrease instances of both high and low values, as compared to either resource
Renewable electricity producing individually? 2) Can this ‘smoothness’ be further improved by dispersing these resources
Canada (Ontario) geographically amongst locations? and 3) Does increasing the number of locations with solar and wind
resources further ‘smooth out’ power production? Three years (2003e2005) of synchronous, hourly
measurements of solar irradiance and wind speeds from Environment Canada’s Canadian Weather
Energy and Engineering Data Sets (CWEEDS) are used to derive dimensionless indices for four locations
in Ontario (Toronto, Wiarton, Sault Ste. Marie and Ottawa). These indices are used to develop three
transparent and accessible methods of analysis: (1) graphical representation; (2) percentile ranking; and
(3) using a theoretical maximum as a proxy for capacity. The article concludes that the combination of
solar and wind within locations and amongst two locations improves ‘smoothness’ in power production,
as compared to when each resource is produced on its own; moreover, it is further improved once more
than two resources and two locations are combined. However, there is neither further benefit, nor
drawback, associated with the geographic dispersion of complementarity between solar in one location
and wind in another, when compared to both resources in one location.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction For instance, many jurisdictions that have attempted to incorpo-

Energy systems in their current form are unsustainable. While
the availability of modern energy, in particular electricity, is
understood as a facilitating factor for economic development and
many social aspirations [1], it is also responsible for environmental
and other sustainability impacts ranging from acid rain and smog
to climate change [2]. While specifics vary, it is generally accepted
that renewable resources for power generation need to play
a larger role. Thus, a growing number of governments are making
commitments to increase renewable energy in their power supply
profiles, however, there are debates about how to go about this.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 519 888 456732574.
E-mail address: choicka@uwaterloo.ca (C.E. Hoicka).
rate more renewable electricity are experiencing lengthening
queues for connection to transmission and distribution systems;
other disputes have also arisen. Renewable power integration
poses unique challenges to conventional modes of electricity
system operation, thus limiting the easy integration of these
resources. First, renewable resources tend to be geographically
dispersed and the greatest production may be far from load
centres. Second, many forms of renewable electricity are ’inter-
mittent’, with temporal variance displayed hourly, daily, and
seasonally; hence, they may ‘over’ or ‘under’ produce from the
perspective of the load or grid to which they are connected. These
characteristics pose significant challenges for system operators
who are tasked with providing reliable electricity and historically
have developed markets or dispatched on the basis of
predictability.

0960-1481/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.06.004
98 C.E. Hoicka, I.H. Rowlands / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 97e107
Nomenclature
Apv area of photovoltaic array (m2)
Aw cross sectional area of the wind rotor (m2)
H0 initial hub height (m)
H hub height (m)
K1 dimensionless constant for solar power
K2 dimensionless constant for wind power
hpv photovoltaic system efficiency
hw wind turbine system efficiency
Pj power at hour j (kWh)
Ppvj power from photovoltaic array at hour j (kWh)
Pwj power from wind turbine at hour j (kWh)
Sj solar insolation at hour j (W/m2)
r air density (kg/m3)
V average wind speed at hub height H (m/s)
V0 average wind speed at initial hub height H0 (m/s)
Vj wind speed at hour j (m/s)
1.1. Ontario context
Interestingly, many of these conflicts are playing out in Ontario
(Canada), a jurisdiction at the forefront of North America with
respect to an examination of the sustainability of its electricity
supply system [3]. Targets and plans to increase the use of
renewable resources in Ontario’s electricity supply have involved,
in turn, requests for proposals, then a standard offer program
(<10 MW) and now a revised feed-in-tariff program e the latter
two programs explicitly encourage the connection of renewable
electricity production facilities to the province-wide distribution
system. Each new program has offered a substantial change in the
price offered for renewable electricity, particularly to solar elec-
tricity which now attracts between 44.3 and 80.2 cents (Canadian)
per kWh generated for the grid [4]. Despite economic policies
becoming more favourable for renewable electricity integration,
following the general experience, Ontario is experiencing conflicts
and challenges in deploying these plans. According to the program
delivery agency the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), an excess of
grid-connected renewable power would affect the transmission
system. More specifically, less than two years after the launch of the
standard offer program, the OPA announced that applications “to
date have outstripped transmission availability (as well as Hydro
One’s [Ontario’s transmission system operator] capacity to process
connection impact assessments). There are hundreds of projects
applying for connection where there is no space to accommodate
them.” [5] Citing economic concerns, the OPA then stated: “It would
be imprudent and financially irresponsible for the OPA to procure
new generation that will effectively constrain off other generators
e where they are already under contract with the OPA, and in some
cases also renewable generation e and pay twice for the genera-
tion.” [5] Thus, the OPA identified regions of the province for which
it would no longer entertain renewable electricity contracts,
arguing that such regions were already constrained by the already-
existing demands placed on the transmission system. These are
identified as ‘Orange zones’ (high constraints, no new renewable
electricity projects allowed), ‘Yellow zones’ (moderate constraints,
renewable electricity projects would be allowed in restricted
amounts subject to review and approval), and ‘Green zones’ (no
constraints, renewable electricity projects would be allowed to
proceed) [5]. In addition, the newest feed-in-tariff program
subjects all proposed projects to reviews for capacity for both
transmission and distribution before any agreement is reached [6].
Clearly, the potential for renewable electricity projects to add to
electricity system congestion problems is on the minds of system
operators. In addition to changing economic policies, and increased
technical issues, there is also increasing opposition around siting
decisions, augmented tension about the economic support accor-
ded renewable and growing hostility towards energy as a tool for
economic development. These concerns are being voiced more
loudly, resulting in changing social concerns. It is evident that in
Ontario the integration of renewable power is a priority policy goal,
but the shifting social, economic and technical concerns are
resulting in a rapidly changing policy environment. It is thus
equally clear that electricity planners are in need of tools to address
questions of intermittency and geographic dispersion of renewable
power generation under complex and changing circumstances,
particularly tools that might be used to inform decision makers and
to enlighten the public.
One potential answer is to examine benefits of complemen-
tarity, which is the combination of two or more resources whether
proximate or geographically dispersed, and is considered by some
researchers as an option to manage the variability of typically
intermittent renewable resources. Researchers seek to understand
whether complementarity ‘dampens’ variability, and further,
whether geographic dispersion of combined resources produces an
improvement by further ‘dampening’ or ‘smoothing out’ renewable
power production. In the case of wind and solar, it has been noted
that it is possible that wind power can be generated when solar
power is low and vice-versa [7], and that geographic dispersion
may thus provide further benefits than either resource on its own.
Jurisdictions are also beginning to see analysts investigate more
formally where complementarity exists; to date, however, there
has not been a rigorous investigation of complementarity among
resources in Ontario. Drawing upon the literature on complemen-
tarity of wind and solar resources, this article presents a case study
of solar and wind power production in Ontario, aiming to deter-
mine whether resource complementarity of solar and wind serves
to ‘smooth out’ renewable power production, as compared to either
solar or wind on its own. Given that an issue in Ontario is the
experience of transmission and distribution constraints, particu-
larly given the OPA’s stated concerns that all resources are ‘on’
simultaneously, rather than simply focusing on considering
complementarity to reduce instances of zero power production, it
seems appropriate to also investigate the extent to which both
wind and solar resources generate ‘full power’ at the same time.
A brief glance at solar and wind resource maps in Ontario
confirms the conventional wisdom that solar irradiance varies little
across the province [8] while wind production varies greatly across
the region [9], with areas close to the province’s lakes generally
having higher wind speeds. Some locations in Ontario may be
windier with lower population density, while others may have
a weaker wind resource, but a larger population (hence, more
rooftops for solar power production). It follows that the geographic
dispersion between complementary resources could also be
examined for potential benefits.
For these reasons, this study seeks to answer the following three
questions: 1) Does the combination of solar and wind resources in
selected locations in Ontario serve to ‘smooth out’ power produc-
tion, i.e., decrease instances of both high and low values, as
compared to either resource acting individually? 2) Can this
‘smoothness’ be further improved by dispersing these resources
geographically amongst locations? and 3) Does increasing the
number of locations with solar and wind resources further ‘smooth
out’ power production?
Given the changing nature of policies and the electricity system
in Ontario, this study seeks to avoid the social and economic
elements of technology choice or the effects of supply and demand
of renewable power production and consumption. Acknowledging
 C.E. Hoicka, I.H. Rowlands / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 97e107
that electricity planners may encounter a variety of social and
economic issues pertinent to their decision-making, this article
nevertheless explores methods that aim to apply easily attainable
measured data to practical problems, using a dimensionless
biophysical measure of complementarity for wind and solar
resources. To accomplish this end, the authors examine lessons
learned from the literature and identify appropriate available data
for analysis to develop a dimensionless index. This dimensionless
index is examined in three ways: by means of graphical represen-
tation, by using a percentile ranking method, and, finally, by
developing a theoretical maximum as a proxy for a capacity
measurement.
1.2. Learned lessons from the literature
A growing body of literature on renewable power notes that
the combination of wind and solar resources improves reliability
and predictability of power production. Indeed, examinations of
the complementarity between wind and solar resources have
been carried out since at least 1981 (Aspliden as cited by Notton
et al. [10]). The literature shows that methods and approaches to
define and measure complementarity vary according to the
system configuration and the optimal solution(s) sought. System
configurations may be any of: autonomous battery connected,
autonomous and connected to a constant or variable load, or
grid-connected. Optimal solutions sought might concern any
combination of: relative size of solar to wind capacity or
production, cost minimization, or to compare site options within
a geographic region. These assumptions affect the methodology
that is ultimately selected by defining the granularity of data
used, whether social and economic elements (such as electricity
price and technology cost) are included, or whether technology is
specified, or rather, whether biophysical and dimensionless
parameters are adopted.
Within the literature, one key difference in methodology is that
non-grid-connected studies tend to focus on cost minimization,
while, for whatever reason, approaches to assess complementarity
of renewable resources that are grid-connected tend to avoid the
economic element of cost minimization; finally, those that compare
geographic locations tend to favour dimensionless parameters
which avoids choice of technology or economic elements (such as
cost) altogether. Further, most studies of complementarity ask
whether the combination of intermittent solar and wind resources
reduces variability in power production. That is, they explore
whether the combination reduces the instances of zero power
produced.
For example, studies that include battery storage generally
assume that this will take up any statistical variations of power
produced, hence, hourly variations are ignored and daily and
monthly/seasonal variations are instead analysed [7,11]. These
assumptions dominated early studies which also tended to analyse
off-grid (autonomous) configurations and size systems according to
minimizing costs of the combination of wind turbines, solar panels
and battery banks. Markvart [11] and Ai et al. [12] size hybrid
systems assuming battery storage; Habib et al. [13] optimize to
satisfy a constant load; Celik [7] and Diaf et al. [14] solve for variable
loads, although Diaf et al. [14] increase the resolution of time and
compare various system sizes and costs by modeling hourly
production. All of these studies optimize system size by minimizing
cost, sometimes e as in the case of Ai et al. [12] e specifying for
trade-offs between solar panels and battery banks.
The purpose of this paper is to take contributions from the
literature while innovating techniques according to the specific
situation of Ontario. The literature on solarewind complemen-
tarity is useful to compare system configurations and to derive the
99
basis of power production equations, however, the Ontario situa-
tion for renewable power has the characteristics of grid-connected
and a changing electricity price structure, which affects the value
of power produced. Further, Ontario has densely populated areas
which are large load centres as well as much less densely popu-
lated areas. Depending on location, loads vary hourly, daily,
seasonally, and annually. Perhaps more appropriate to an analysis
for Ontario, Tina et al. [15] size a solarewind system based on
long-term average performance which can both export and import
power from the grid. They describe their approach to hybrid sizing
as ‘versatile’ to decision-making in that it is adaptable for the
many pricing scenarios of buying and selling power in a grid-
connection, and hence compare power production values at
various temporal scales (i.e., between yearly and hourly) depen-
dent upon the situation. Taking geography into account, Notton
et al. [10] employ dimensionless parameters to compare solar and
wind resources and rank reliability and optimal power production
values to compare sites in different locations. Beluco et al. [16],
while focusing on hydroelectricity and solar power, show that one
useful solution rests in using a dimensionless index to compare
site options, including amongst different locations. On the other
hand, Dihrab and Sopian [17] compare a grid-connected solar and
wind hybrid at three locations by applying eight years of meteo-
rological data to a selected wind turbine and solar photovoltaic
array. However, these methods of analysis which use dimension-
less parameters and avoid social and economic elements show the
most promise for applicability to the Ontario situation, a changing
policy environment in which there are concerns to reduce
instances in which renewable resources are either ‘on’ or ‘off’
simultaneously.
2. Material
2.1. Data selection
The ideal data to undertake this analysis are synchronous
solar and wind power production measurements. A review of
solar and wind power production data in Ontario reveals that
there are no publicly available solar power production data and
that the temporal period of available solar irradiance data (before
2005) does not correspond with the period of publicly available
wind power production data (after 2006). The next best available
data are Environment Canada’s Canadian Weather Energy and
Engineering Data Sets (CWEEDS), which consist of hourly
measurements of weather conditions at 145 Canadian locations
for up to 53 years (between 1953 and 2005), and include both
solar and wind measurements. CWEEDS provide solar global
horizontal irradiance measurements as the total of direct and
diffuse radiant energy (in kJ/m2) received on a horizontal surface
by a pyranometer. CWEEDS provide measurements of wind
speeds at the standard height of 10 m above ground in a flat,
open exposure as measured by anemometers [18]. For the
purposes of this study, CWEEDS measurements are considered an
appropriate source of biophysical data for an analysis of
complementarity. This study uses hourly data for 2003, 2004 and
2005.1
2.2. Choice of location
CWEEDS records are available to 2005 in ten locations across
Ontario. Of the ten available locations, four locations were chosen
because they are close to (or part of) Ontario’s transmission and
1
February 29th, 2004 was eliminated from analysis for the basis of comparison.
100 C.E. Hoicka, I.H. Rowlands / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 97e107
distribution systems (determined with the use of Hydro One’s
map of the province’s transmission system). In choosing loca-
tions, consideration was also given to whether the area was
windy or a large load center. Given the types of complementarity
sought amongst locations, four locations were chosen as follows:
Wiarton (44.75 N latitude, 81.1 W longitude) is a windy and
rural area on the shore of Lake Huron within a designated orange
transmission-constrained zone; it has already attracted close to
500 MW of wind power development [19]; Toronto (43.67 N,
79.63 W), with a population of 5,531,300 [20], was chosen as
a large load center with little local power generation; given its
high population density, however, it has many rooftops that are
potentially useful for solar power production. For the same
reason, the moderately large urban area of Ottawa (45.38 N,
75.72 W), which has a population of 1,198,700 [20] was selected.
Finally, Sault Ste. Marie (46.48 N, 84.50 W), a moderately remote
and industrialized location proximate to the windy Lake Superior,
which has attracted Ontario’s largest wind power project, the
Prince I and II wind developments [19], was also chosen. Fig. 1
shows where these four locations may be found in the province
of Ontario.
2.3. Data preparation
CWEEDS data measure wind velocity at the standard height of
10 m. The CWEEDS solar data are measured at a horizontal tilt. The
distribution of solar power varies temporally dependent upon
angle of orientation for incidence of solar irradiation [21]. ESP-r,
a modelling tool which can be used to predict solar power
production, was used to convert horizontal diffuse and direct
components of solar irradiance data provided by CWEEDS to solar
irradiance values at an angle of incidence of 45 for all locations2
[22,23]. It should be noted that if a different angle of incidence
was chosen, this would alter the monthly ratios of wind to solar
power production [21].
3. Method and results
3.1. Dimensionless index
The focus of this research is on the biophysical complemen-
tarity between wind and solar resources as a proxy for power
production. In order to examine the hourly distribution of solar
and wind resources across a given year, a constant is derived to
compare dimensionless hourly values of solar and wind produc-
tion. To arrive at this constant, it is assumed that the wind and
solar resources produce equal amounts of electricity e namely,
106 kWh per year (a value chosen arbitrarily for simplicity in
calculation) e but that the electricity produced is distributed
differently across the 8760 h of the year, according to the
biophysical profile of each of the two resources.
The hourly solar/wind hybrid power production, Pj, is given by:
Pj ¼ Ppvj þ Pwj
where Ppvj is the hourly-calculated solar power at hour j in kW h,
Pwj is the hourly-based calculated wind power in the hour j in kW h.
CWEEDS data are used to estimate solar and wind power
produced using the following equations.
2
Due to erroneous solar radiation measurements provided by CWEEDS on
a small number of days, Ottawa 2003, hours 11e15 of day 153 were replaced by the
average of each of the hours for days 152 and 154 for, and hours 8e 12 of day 161
were replaced by the average of each of the hours for days 160 and 162. Sault Ste.
Marie 2004 days 42 and 43 were also replaced with the average of days 41 and 44.
A (flat-plate) photovoltaic array of an area Apv (m2) and solar
insolation Sj, produces solar power at hour j, Ppvj, according to
Ppvj ¼ Sj $hpv $Apv (2)
where system efficiency is hpv. While it is recognized that effi-
ciency, hpv, changes with temperature, it is assumed that the vari-
ance is small enough that hpv can be assumed to be constant for all
values of Ppvj, while panel area, Apv, also remains constant, hence,
hpv$Apv can be replaced by a single constant, K1.
Adapting an equation from Gipe [24], we note that wind power
production is calculated as
Pwj ¼ 0:5$hw $r$Aw $Vj3 (3)
where Aw is the cross sectional area of the wind rotor in m2,
Vj is the wind velocity in m/s at the hub height, r is the air
density in kg/m3 and hw is the system efficiency. The actual
available wind energy that can be obtained depends on the
wind turbine’s power output which is usually illustrated by its
characteristic curves [24]. Wind velocity increases with hub
height [24], and as hub height may vary anywhere upwards of
25 m [24], the social or economic element of wind turbine
choice presents numerous possibilities. In order to estimate
wind speed at a height other than the height of measurement,
Gipe [24] adjusts values using a surface roughness exponent, a,
measured according to:


V H a
¼ (4)
V0 H0
Where V is average wind speed at hub height H, V 0 is wind speed at
anemometer height H0, and a is the wind shear exponent, which is
generally be assumed to be constant [24]. Accordingly, if a constant
hub height is assumed, and a is assumed to be constant, then the
velocity measured by CWEEDS at 10 m will increase by the same
factor for all hourly wind values to give a velocity at some new hub
height of wind power production. Further, it is assumed that
although air density, r, varies with temperature and elevation, the
effects of changes in wind velocity far outweigh the effects of these
changes in r [24]. Hence for this study, it is assumed that r is
essentially constant for all wind values. Thus, decisions regarding
the social and economic elements are avoided by assuming
constant hub height, H, constant a, and that all of the elements
beyond wind velocity are constant for each wind speed across
8760 h of the year; therefore, 0.5∙hw∙r∙Aw is replaced by a single
constant, K2.
Taking into account the constant coefficients for both wind and
solar power production for a solar array of a given size and a wind
turbine of a given size, power produced at hour j is now assumed
to be
Pj ¼ K1 $Sj þ K2 $Vj3 (5)
(1) To derive a dimensionless biophysical measure, as previously
described, annual production for each resource is assumed to be
equal, and for simplicity, given an arbitrary value of 106 kW h per
year. Hence, solar power produced across a given year is then
represented as
X8760
K1 1
Sj ¼ 106 kWh (6)
and wind power across a given year is represented as
X8760
K2 1
Vj3 ¼ 106 kWh (7)
 C.E. Hoicka, I.H. Rowlands / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 97e107
Fig. 1. Map of selected locations in Ontario.
Using hourly CWEEDS data for Sj and Vj for the 8760 h in each
year solves for K1 and K2.
3.2. Assessing complementarity
This papers aims to answer the three questions set out in the
introduction, drawing from the lessons of Tina et al.’s [15] desire to
use data to provide ‘versatile’ analysis, and Notton et al. [10] and
Beluco et al.’s [16] approaches to use dimensionless values to
compare complementarity of resources in different geographic
locations. Additionally, the importance of the specific needs of
energy planners in Ontario e particularly the complex and unique
issues that arise as a result of renewable electricity integration in
Ontario e was also kept in mind. To these ends, this study uses the
dimensionless variables K1, K2, and the hourly CWEEDS data for
2003, 2004 and 2005 in order to explore the answers to these three
questions by three distinct approaches: (1) graphical representa-
tion; (2) percentile ranking, and; (3) using a theoretical maximum
as a proxy for capacity.
101
3.2.1. Approach 1: graphical representation and visual inspection
3
To begin to address the first research question, K1$Sj and K2$Vj
are plotted graphically to visually assess the distribution of power
production and compared to a plot of the combined resource,
calculated as (K1$Sj þ K2$V3j )/2 (divided by two in order to ‘weight’
total power production to 106 kW h per year for the combined
resource). This display is useful in answering our research ques-
tions, and it can be used to show how the range of resource
production for any combination of solar and wind resource varies
according to which resources and locations are combined. Although
these values are calculated for all 8760 h of the year for each of
2003, 2004, and 2005 for all locations and location combinations
previously defined, Figs. 2e5 present the distribution of solar, wind
and combined resources for one week in January and one week in
July in Toronto in 2004. Given that the combined resource is
weighted, the high values of the combined resource are reduced
unless both resources are ‘on’ simultaneously. Other locations
produce a similar pattern in reducing the maximum wind values,
thus producing a ‘smoothing’ of at least the high end of the
102 C.E. Hoicka, I.H. Rowlands / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 97e107
2500
Solar (K1S)
Wind (K2V^3)
2000
K1S or K2V^3
1500
1000
500
0 4345
1 168
Hour
Fig. 2. Hourly solar and wind resource patterns normalized to 106 kWh output per
year for Thursday January 1 to Wednesday January 7, 2004 in Toronto.
production curve, the focus of the first research question. However,
it is difficult to tell the extent to which the resource production
improves, especially the extent to which the occurrences of close to
zero output are reduced. Hence a more specific measure of
complementarity would be useful.
3.2.2. Approach 2: percentile ranking
A percentile ranking approach is used to provide analysis to
answer each of the three research questions. In this case, the
dimensionless values are ranked and the 80th, 50th and 20th
percentiles are noted and plotted for the individual resources by
location and for each combination of locations chosen. Using this
method, an answer in the affirmative to the first, second and third
research questions (in order) would be revealed by a graph where
consecutive values of the 80th percentile should lower, and
consecutive values measured at the 20th percentile should rise. The
median value of resource production, the 50th percentile, should
rise to demonstrate a rise in median production values.
Accordingly, for singular locations the 80th, 50th and 20th
percentiles of the singular resources (K1∙Sj for solar and K2∙V3j for
wind) are plotted. For the first research question, the combined
resource by location is called Combination A, is weighted as
(K1∙Sj þ K2∙V3j )/2. For the second research question, geographic
2005
2000
(K1S +K2V^3)/2
1005
1000
500
0 0
1 168
Hour
Fig. 3. Hourly combined solarewind resource patterns normalized to 106 kW h output
per year for Thursday January 1 to Wednesday January 7, 2004 in Toronto.
1000
Solar (K1S)
Wind (K2S*V^3)
K1S or K2V^3
500
0
4512
Hour
Fig. 4. Hourly solar and wind resource patterns normalized to 106 kWh output per
year for Thursday July 1 to Wednesday July 7, 2004 in Toronto.
dispersion is represented by the following matching of locations:
Combination B) Toronto solar, Wiarton wind; Combination C)
Ottawa solar, Sault Ste. Marie wind. The same is done for the third
research question, using the following combinations: Combination
D) Toronto and Ottawa solar and Wiarton and Sault Ste. Marie wind
(and weighted accordingly by dividing by 4); Combination E) solar
and wind for all of Ottawa, Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie and Wiarton
(and weighted accordingly by dividing by 8). The results are shown
in Fig. 6 and Table 1. Overall, the 20th and 50th percentiles follow
a similar pattern: Combination A produces a marked rise compared
to the singular solar or wind resource. With respect to the second
research question, there is little difference between the values
produced at the four locations of Combination A when compared to
Combinations B and C. With respect to the third research question,
Combinations D and E do produce further improvement to the 20th
and 50th percentile values showing potential benefits of combining
multiple resources geographically. Meanwhile, analysis of the 80th
percentile shows a different pattern. First, the 80th percentile of
solar and wind as singular resources are remarkably different,
hence Combination A produces an averaging of these resources.
With respect to the second question, Combinations B and C do not
produce much improvement over Combination A. With respect to
the third question, Combinations D and E produce a slight
1000
(K1S + K2V^3)/2
500
4345 4512
Hour
Fig. 5. Hourly combined solarewind resource patterns normalized to 106 kW h output
per year for Thursday July 1 to Wednesday July 7, 2004 in Toronto.
 C.E. Hoicka, I.H. Rowlands / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 97e107
Fig. 6. Average of years 2003, 2004 and 2005 percentile ranking for all combinations of resources and locations.
improvement (lowering of the 80th percentile) over Combinations
A, B and C.
3.2.3. Approach 3: use of a theoretical maximum as a proxy for
capacity
Another method to gather evidence to answer the three
research questions is to estimate a theoretical maximum produced
by combined solar and wind resources at any given hour in the year
and then use it as a proxy for a ‘rated capacity’. Following Rowlands
and Jernigan’s [25] analysis of wind variability, three thresholds are
defined: a) less than 2% of rated capacity, b) 2e50% of rated
capacity; and c) above 50% of rated capacity. Less than 2% can be
considered as instances when both resources are ‘off’ and above
50% can be considered as instances when both resources are ‘on’.
The same combinations as Approach 2 are used; however, rather
than ranking values, the instances in which the singular (solar or
wind) or combined dimensionless measure of the resource falls
within these ranges are counted and compared. Using this method,
an answer in the affirmative to the first, second and third research
questions (in order) would be revealed as the number of instances
in the ranges of less than 2% and above 50% production should
decrease, while those in the 2e50% range should increase, showing
a reduction in the spread of values of power production.
The theoretical maximum was difficult to choose and selected as
a somewhat arbitrary value based on CWEEDS data and the derived
dimensionless constants, K1 and K2. Knowledge of an hourly
maximum global insolation value in Ontario would be ideal.
However, while there are solar maps of Ontario, such as the one
provided by Natural Resources Canada [8], these provide mean
daily, but not hourly, or maximum hourly, insolation values.
Further, this map does not match the 45 tilt of the converted
CWEEDS irradiance data. The maximum solar irradiance value
found in the three years of CWEEDS data was 1498.4 W/m2, at the
location of Wiarton, chosen as the maximum solar irradiance value.
In choosing a maximum wind value, wind turbines typically have
a ‘cut-off’ point, a speed above which zero power is produced;
however, the decision as to where this lies implies some social or
103
economic element of technology choice. For this study, 15 m/s is
chosen as the theoretical maximum as it was the maximum value
for most selected wind sites for most years.3 Following these
decisions, the dimensionless constant, the highest K1 is just less
than 1.0 and the highest K2 is less than 1.4. Hence K1max is arbi-
trarily set at 1.0, and K2max at 1.5. The theoretical maximum of the
combined resource is estimated to be 3280.3 (a dimensionless
value). While the theoretical maximum is measured somewhat
arbitrarily, of importance to the analysis is the extent to which the
number of instances within different thresholds change as our
analysis attempts to answer the three research questions.
Table 2 displays the results of this method. In examining the
threshold greater than 50% of the theoretical maximum, it can be
seen that wind tends to exceed this level in a range of 8e35 h per
year, while solar does not exceed this value at all. With respect to
the first research question, Combination A reduces the number of
instances this threshold is exceeded to a range of zero to 8 h per
year. With respect to the second research question, Combinations B
and C do not produce much improvement in reducing the number
of instances above this threshold, with zero to seven instances per
year which exceed it. However, with respect to the third research
question, Combinations D and E do show a further reduction in
instances above the 50% threshold, although not for the year 2005,
in which Combination D produces four instances which exceed this
threshold. For the less than 2% production threshold, the unique
solar resource occurs below this threshold for 5433 to 5641
instances per year, and wind for 5134 to 5630 instances per year,
amongst locations over the three years of analysis. With respect to
the first research question, Combination A provides a significant
improvement over the singular resources, with the instances below
3
It can be noted that wind velocities exceeded this in Toronto for a total of 23 h
across three days in 2003, for 7 h across three days in 2004, for 10 h across four days
in 2005. This was also exceeded in Sault Ste. Marie for 3 h over one day in 2004.
These velocities measured above 15 m/s were assumed to be 15 m/s rather than
zero.
 104
Table 1
Results for percentile ranking for combinations of resources and locations, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Year 2003 2004 2005

Location Ottawa Sault Toronto Wiarton Ottawa Sault Toronto Wiarton Ottawa Sault Toronto Wiarton
Ste.Marie Ste.Marie Ste.Marie

C.E. Hoicka, I.H. Rowlands / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 97e107

Solar
80 percentile 236.0 222.0 240.1 222.5 233.2 214.7 228.7 221.2 232.5 224.9 243.3 236.8
50 percentile 7.9 7.7 9.0 8.5 7.7 7.7 9.6 8.8 7.4 8.3 8.7 8.7
20 percentile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Wind
80 percentile 165.6 176.2 142.8 176.7 168.7 201.2 147.4 163.2 175.1 202.7 153.9 163.0
50 percentile 33.1 35.2 32.3 28.4 40.3 37.8 33.3 33.1 35.0 29.9 37.4 30.8
20 percentile 6.5 3.2 5.0 4.7 7.3 4.0 6.0 5.1 6.9 1.2 5.8 3.9
Combination Aa
80 percentile 211.9 214.5 210.7 211.9 220.9 215.6 212.5 205.1 215.5 216.4 212.4 218.2
50 percentile 55.6 57.6 54.5 55.0 58.2 59.2 56.3 57.9 59.2 60.0 58.4 62.1
20 percentile 8.0 4.9 7.0 8.5 8.4 4.4 8.0 8.6 9.0 4.0 6.9 4.8
Wind and solar, mixed locations
Combined Combination Bb Combination Cc Combination Dd Combination Ee Combination Bb Combination Cc Combination Dd Combination Ee Combination Bb Combination Cc Combination Dd Combination Ee
locations and
resources
80 percentile 218.2 211.4 213.4 212.4 216.6 204.2 207.6 209.2 217.4 214.3 211.6 211.2
50 percentile 63.4 57.0 67.8 67.6 64.9 60.2 71.6 73.2 60.3 63.0 68.1 72.4
20 percentile 5.5 8.3 11.5 13.4 5.1 9.2 15.2 19.5 4.0 4.8 8.0 14.3
a
Combination A: solar and wind combined for each location.
b
Combination B: Ottawa solar, Sault Ste Marie wind.
c
Combination C: Toronto solar, Wiarton wind.
d
Combination D: Ottawa and Toronto solar, Sault Ste. Marie and Wiarton wind.
e
Combination E: all locations and resources.
 C.E. Hoicka, I.H. Rowlands / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 97e107 105

this threshold reduced to a range of 4470 to 4705 instances over the

Combination Ee
three years across all locations. With respect to the second research
question, Combinations B and C produce power below this
threshold between 4462 and 4640 h per year; again, this produces

0
4424

0
4336

4613

0
4147

4571
4189
significant benefits over the singular resources, but not necessarily
over Combination A. Further, as the number of instances reduces,
Combinations D and E show improvement over Combinations A, B
Combination Dd

and C, with production below this threshold between 4206 and

4336 h per year.
0
4425

0
4335

4554

4
4206

4452
4307
4. Discussion
Combination Cc

4.1. Analysis

This article has set out to answer the following questions: 1)

3
4117

0
4640

4132

2
4628

4284
4476

Does the combination of solar and wind resources in selected

Geographic dispersion

locations in Ontario serve to ‘smooth out’ power production, i.e.,

decrease instances of both high and low values, as compared to
Combination Bb

either resource acting individually? 2) Can this ‘smoothness’ be

further improved by dispersing these resources geographically
amongst locations? and 3) Does increasing the number of locations
0
4277

2
4483

4298

7
4462

4274
4483

with solar and wind resources further ‘smooth out’ power

production?
Wiarton

To answer these questions, this study has utilized three years of

3
4092

0
4665

4055

2
4705

4290
4470

data, from 2003 to 2005, for solar and wind resources for four
locations. In response to the first research question, combining
resources does ‘smooth out’ power production for solar and wind
Toronto

over the individual resource, as measured using a biophysical

8
4040

0
4712

4089

1
4671

4165
4595

indicator, in the following three ways. First, this research shows

that for this time period and for these locations, the combination of
Sault Ste.

wind and solar resources reduces the instances in which power

Marie

production is ‘off’. This is demonstrated in Figs. 2 and 4, which show

0

2
4130
4630

7
4157
4603

4217
4540
Combination Aa

a reduction in zero, or close to zero, values when solar and wind

Results for capacity of theoretical maximum for combinations of resources and locations, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

resources are combined. This is also demonstrated in Fig. 6 and

Ottawa

Table 1, with a rise in the 20th percentile value between single

3

0
4095
4662

0
4207
4553

4184
4576

resource and locations and either of Combinations A, B or C.

Further, Table 2 demonstrates a reduction in the number of recor-
Wind
27

20
3462
5271

20
3128
5630

3121
5474

ded instances below a threshold of 2% of a theoretical maximum

when comparing unique resources to Combinations A, B or C.
Wiarton

Second, this research also shows that this same combination of

0
Solar

0
3214
5546

0
3223
5537

3223
5557

resources reduces the instances in which both are above a peak

D: Ottawa and Toronto solar, Sault Ste Marie and Wiarton wind.

value, or in which power production is ‘on’. Again, this can be seen

Wind
35
3159

22
5566

3313

22
5447

3309
5441

in Figs. 2 and 4, which show a definite improvement in the high

values (particularly for wind) over those of Figs. 1 and 3. A reduc-
Toronto

tion in the 80th percentile value is found in Fig. 5 and Table 1 when
0
Solar

3266

0
5494

3301

0
5459

3301
5497

comparing the unique resources and Combinations A, B or C.

Further, Table 2 demonstrates a reduction in the instances above
A: solar and wind combined for each location.
Wind
16
3564
5180

20

the threshold of 50% of a theoretical maximum when comparing

3621
5134

20
3612
5391

unique resources and Combinations A, B or C.

Sault Ste.

B: Ottawa solar, Sault Ste Marie wind.

Third, this research shows that this combination of resources

Marie

Solar
0
3168
5592

0
3159
5601

0
3159
5535

improves the median value of output of power production. This can

C: Toronto solar, Wiarton wind.

E: all locations and resources.

be seen in Fig. 6 and Table 1, through the rise of the 50th percentile
Unique resources

Wind

value. This can also be seen in Table 2, as the instances in which

27
3462
5271

8
3321
5437

8
3323
5194

power is produced between the 2% and 50% thresholds rises when

Ottawa

comparing unique resources to Combinations A, B or C.

Solar
0
3308
5452

0
3327
5433

0
3327
5526

On the other hand, the results for geographic dispersion are

mixed. In response to the second research question, this analysis
shows that there is not much benefit produced from the combi-
% of theoretical

nation of one resource (either solar or wind) per location in two

maximum

locations over the benefits of combining two resources (both solar

2e50%

2e50%

2e50%

Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
>50%

>50%

>50%

and wind) in one location. For instance, in Fig. 6 and Table 1, it can
<2%

<2%

<2%

be seen that Combinations B and C do not produce much

improvement in either the 80th percentile (by lowering it) or the
Table 2

2003

2004

2005
Year

20th percentile (by raising it) as compared to Combination A. The

d
a

e
b
c

same result can be seen in Table 2, whereby for each of the

106 C.E. Hoicka, I.H. Rowlands / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 97e107

measured thresholds, Combinations B and C do not demonstrate maximum values (i.e., are ‘on’ at the same time), it could be that
significant improvement over Combination A. a different combination of locations is more optimal in terms of
Turning to the third research question, there is improvement: lowering maximum production values in a similar manner. Further
when the number of locations is increased beyond two, geographic to this, multiple locations with multiple resources do produce
dispersion does improve the highs, lows and overall production of a more reliable resource, hence planners and decision makers
the combined resource by all approaches used. This can be seen in should continue to examine and encourage geographic dispersion
the drop of the 80th percentile and the rise of the 20th and 50th of renewable resources in Ontario. This could be taken into account
percentiles when comparing Combinations D and E to Combina- for multiple locations which are geographically dispersed on the
tions A, B or C in Fig. 5 and Table 1. This can also be seen in the same transmission or distribution system.
improvement in all thresholds (reduction in instances greater than
50% and below 2%) when comparing Combinations D and E to A, B
5. Conclusions
or C in Table 2.
Overall, this study found that the combination of solar and wind
4.2. Impacts of analysis
within locations and amongst two locations produces less vari-
ability in power production than when each resource is produced
A motivation for this research was to illuminate options for
on its own. Further, once more than two resources and two loca-
biophysical data to provide analysis of solar and wind resources
tions are combined, this ‘smoothness’ further improves. This
in Ontario. Further, given that Ontario can be characterized by
investigation was carried out using publicly available data; these
a changing policy environment, particularly with respect to the
data were used to develop a dimensionless measure, for equal
value of renewable power and options for connecting to the
annual amounts of solar and wind power. While the findings led to
grid, another motivation was to provide tools for electricity
specific policy recommendations (enumerated above), this area is
planners to better integrate renewable electricity to Ontario’s
certainly worthy of continued attention.
grid. In response, this study found that the easily obtainable
The authors suggest that CWEEDS data could be mined for other
CWEEDS data are a valuable asset in Canada as these biophysical
optimal location combinations according to the social and
data can be used to facilitate the analysis of solar and wind
economic elements that communities and planners find important.
resources. Whereas the literature demonstrates a fair bit of
Given that CWEEDS data are provided for locations across Canada,
complexity in analysis of complementarity between solar and
researchers and electricity planners in other provinces are
wind resources, the methods used in this analysis are meant to
encouraged to use these data to investigate the ways in which
allow planners to engage with the public and decision makers;
renewable resource complementarity could conceivably advance
hence the simplicity of the visual methods employed herein
their own policy goals.
might prove useful for such communication. Further, this anal-
As for Ontario, there is no reason why this method of analysis
ysis adds to the literature of grid-connected systems, as opposed
cannot be applied using more recent power production data; given
to autonomous systems, which require different decision-
Ontario’s three recent renewable power procurement programs,
making tools.
there are now more such data being collected. The OPA reserves the
As for decision-making, the analysis leads to a number of
right to audit these production data, hence, it is possible for this
conclusions. First, in order to meet the twin goals of renewable
planning agency to consider more analysis internally for improved
electricity provision and electricity system reliability, these results
decision-making for renewable power options.
indicate that an optimal policy solution for planners and decision
While CWEEDS data prove to be a very useful resource for
makers would be to encourage hybrid renewable electricity
investigation, much of this analysis is preliminary and points to
combinations in order to reduce overall variability of electricity
the need for more data collection and further research with which
produced for the grid in Ontario. In other words, electricity plan-
to make more reliable decisions. Further analysis could also
ners and decision makers in Ontario should strongly consider
compare these renewable resource (and/or electricity) data to
policies that favour the combination of renewable resources,
loads in different distribution areas within the transmission-con-
particularly solar and wind.
strained sections of the electricity system. Such an investigation
In terms of placing limits on awarding contracts for renewable
could determine whether peak production of the windesolar
electricity according to transmission constraint zones and distri-
combination coincides with peak demand, or, whether there is
bution constraints, planners should consider this method of anal-
further merit in pursuing options for geographic dispersion. This
ysis to ascertain the likelihood that both solar and wind power are
could most likely be done using the Independent Electricity
‘on’ simultaneously: this analysis shows that when resources are
System Operator’s (IESO) nodal (locational marginal) prices by
combined and weighted according to annual power production this
region.
likelihood is reduced, but not eliminated.
A better understanding of complementarity will allow renew-
Further to this, consideration should continue to be given to
able electricity to play a larger role in electricity production in
encouraging geographic dispersion of renewable electricity
Ontario, and should support the province in achieving its sustain-
production across Ontario. For instance, for this study, combina-
ability goals.
tions of locations were made assuming that windier regions and
regions with more urban density (i.e., more rooftops) could
produce better results. However, when comparing production Acknowledgements
values of combined solar and wind resources in the same or
different locations, for instance, comparing Combination A with This study was completed with support from the Solar Buildings
Combinations B and C, little difference was found. This could be Research Network under the Strategic Network Grants Program of
interpreted as geographic dispersion provides few benefits. On the the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
other hand, in a province with transmission constraints, this anal- The authors are grateful for this support. Further thanks are given
ysis still offers choice in decision-making as one combination is at to Dr. Ian Beausoleil-Morrison and Briana Paige Kemery for their
least no worse than the other. That is, in the instances where help in accessing and managing CWEEDS data. The authors,
locations are combined such that solar and wind still have several however, remain fully responsible for the contents of the article.
 C.E. Hoicka, I.H. Rowlands / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 97e107 107

References [11] Markvart T. Sizing of hybrid photovoltaic-wind energy systems. Solar Energy
1996;57:277e81.
[12] Ai B, Yang H, Shen H, Liao X. Computer-aided design of PV/wind hybrid
[1] Owens S. Energy, planning and urban form. Pion; 1986.
system. Renewable Energy 2003;28:1491e512.
[2] Goldemberg J, Johansson T, Anderson D. World energy assessment: overview
[13] Habib MA, Said S, El-Hadidy M, Al-Zaharna I. Optimization procedure of
2004 update. United Nations; 2004.
a hybrid photovoltaic wind energy system. Energy 1999;24:919e29.
[3] Ontario Power Authority. Directives to OPA from Minister of Energy and
[14] Diaf S, Diaf D, Belhamel M, Haddadi M, Louche A. A methodology for optimal
Infrastructure. Available from: http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?
sizing of autonomous hybrid PV/wind system. Energy Policy 2007;35:
PageID¼122&ContentID¼6268; 2010 [Accessed 15.02.10].
5708e18.
[4] Ontario Power Authority. OPA feed-in tariff program: quick facts
[15] Tina G, Gagliano S, Raiti S. Hybrid solar/wind power system probabilistic
table. Available from: http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID¼122&
modelling for long-term performance assessment. Solar Energy 2006;80:
ContentID¼10195&SiteNodeID¼1098&BL_ExpandID¼259; 2009a [Accessed
578e88.
25.01.10].
[16] Beluco A, de Souza PK, Krenzinger A. A dimensionless index evaluating the
[5] Ontario Power Authority. Ontario’s standard offer program: transmission
time complementarity between solar and hydraulic energies. Renewable
constraints. Available from: http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?
Energy 2008;33:2157e65.
PageID¼829&ContentID¼4061; 2008 [Accessed 15.09.09].
[17] Dihrab SS, Sopian K. Electricity generation of hybrid PV/wind systems in Iraq.
[6] Ontario Power Authority. Feed-in tariff program. FIT Rules. Version 1.0.
Renewable Energy 2010;35:1303e7.
Ontario Power Authority; 2009b.
[18] Environment Canada-Atmospheric Environment Service and The National
[7] Celik AN. Optimisation and techno-economic analysis of autonomous photo-
Research Council of Canada. Canadian weather energy and engineering data
voltaic-wind hybrid energy systems in comparison to single photovoltaic and
sets (CWEEDS Files) and Canadian weather for energy calculations (CWEC
wind systems. Energy Conversion and Management 2002;43:2453e68.
Files) updated user’s manual. Available from: ftp://arcdm20.tor.ec.gc.ca/pub/
[8] Natural Resources Canada. Photovoltaic potential and solar resource maps
dist/climate/CWEEDS_2005/ZIPPED%20FILES/ENGLISH/CWEEDS%
of Canada. Available from: https://glfc.cfsnet.nfis.org/mapserver/pv/
20documentation_Revised%2020081023.txt [Accessed 25.01.10].
pvmapper.phtml?MapSize¼500%2C500&ViewRegion¼-57000%2C5830950%
[19] Ontario Power Authority. Wind power contracts. Available from: http://
2C1688900%2C7523650&minx¼-2508487.000000&miny¼5139927.500000&
www.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID¼924&SiteNodeID¼234; 2009c
maxx¼3080843.000000&maxy¼10729257.500000&imagewidth¼500&image
[Accessed 22.01.10].
height¼500&CMD¼ZOOM_IN&CMD¼ZOOM_IN&CHKBOX%5B4240%5D¼4240&
[20] Statistics Canada. Population of census metropolitan areas (2006 Census
CHKBOX%5B2057%5D¼2057&CHKBOX%5B2701%5D¼2701&CHKBOX%5B2700%
boundaries). Available from: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo05a-
5D¼2700&CHKBOX%5B92163%5D¼92163&units¼0&tilt¼1&period¼13&title¼
eng.htm; 2009 [Accessed 22.01.10].
PV+potential+and+insolation&title_e¼PV+potential+and+insolation&title_f¼
[21] Page J. The role of solar radiation climatology in the design of photovoltaic
Potentiel+ photovolta%EFque+et+ ensoleillement&NEK¼e&LAYERS ¼2700%
systems. In: Markvart T, Castañer L, editors. Practical handbook of photovoltaics:
2C2701%2C2057%2C4240&SETS¼1707%2C1708%2C1709%2C1710%2C1122&
fundamentals and applications. Elsevier Science & Technology; 2003. p. 5e70.
RLAYER¼92163; 2009 [Accessed 20.01.10].
[22] Clarke JA. Energy simulation in building design. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Butter-
[9] Ministry of Natural Resources (Ontario). Wind resource atlas. Available
worth-Heinemann; 2001.
from: http://www.lio.ontario.ca/imf-ows/imf.jsp?site¼windpower_en; 2009
[23] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 3rd ed.
[Accessed 25.01.10].
Hoboken, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 2006.
[10] Notton G, Lazarov V, Stoyanov L. Complementarity of solar and wind sources:
[24] Gipe P. Wind energy comes of age. John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 1995.
application in Bulgaria and Corsica. In: Sayigh A, editor. World renewable
[25] Rowlands I, Jernigan C. Wind power in Ontario: its contribution to the
energy congress (WRECX); 2008.
electricity grid. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2008;28:436.