Hydro plans

[afransen TO]

So, the government has released a plan for the future of Ontario's electrical supply, with about $45 billion earmarked for new nuclear plants and other improvements.

Now, it seems to me that we could probably avoid massive investments in new plants (though our existing plants would have to be maintained) through the use of Ontario's abundant wind resources. An energy consultant I spoke with mentioned that Ontario has even better wind resources than Germany, a country with some of the most installed MWs of wind turbines. By investing $20 billion or so in new wind projects, we could help build a domestic industry for wind turbine design and construction in this province.

Now, there are the traditional complaints that wind can't compose too great a proportion of our energy supply as the power output is highly variable and unreliable. What I propose is that we have a great deal of wind turbines. The excess supply can be stored by producing hydrogen. In the coming years, the demand for hydrogen should become quite significant as a replacement for both natural gas and gasoline.

This hydrogen can then be used during peak periods when supply can't match demand. This can also help with the problem this province has with transmission capacity. Many institutional (hopsitals, large office complexes, universities) or industrial users can probably be convinced to produce electricity on-site using fuel cells. This process can be made more efficient by utilising waste heat to produce hot water or to heat the building. It can also be used to fuel hydrogen vehicles, obviously. Failing this, NIMBYs would have a harder time blocking the construction of generating stations based on fuel cells in urban areas like Toronto.

Of course, creating hydrogen is somewhat inefficient and requires probably substantial sums of capital. The world is going to need to develop industrial-scale electrolysis, so why not develop that expertise here in Ontario?

 

[bizorky]

Wind is variable, so you really can't always depend on it. Germany will derive maybe 2 to 4% of its power from wind resources. That's not much. Ontario may have better wind resources than Germany, but then Ontario is much larger than Germany in area. Most of the "resources" that the consultant made reference to are in the north, and would require expensive transmission lines for a not so terribly reliable source of electricity.

Generally, windmills covering one thousand hectares of land will generate electricity equal to a mid-sized conventional power plant that typically has a ten hectare foot print. In other words, a tremendous amount of land will be required for generating a negligible amount of electricity from wind.

As for producing hydrogen, for what purpose? There is no demand for large scale hydrogen production at the moment beyond what is already necessary for industry. Besides, producing hydrogen is energy intensive. You would be better off using a nuclear reactor to get the electricity required - or making the hydrogen you want.

 

[prometheus the supremo]

we shouldn't be too dependant on nuclear energy. remeber the big blackout? remember how long it took to bring the plants back online?

we should have a healthy mix of options. we shouldn't be too dependant on one form only. did we not learn anything from being a oil dependant society?

we have enough nuclear energy sources in the mix already. i don't think it should be anymore than it is.

 

[bizorky]

^The "big blackout" wasn't caused by nuclear energy or our nuclear generators. As for bringing generation back online, the coal, hydro and natural gas plants were up and going very quickly. Bruce was up and running far more quickly than Darlington or Pickering.

We already have a mix of options and don't rely on one source. Presently, nuclear generates about 11,400MW of power; hydro output is 7,700MW, coal is 6,400MW, natural gas and oil account for about 5,100MW, and wind adds about 300MW. The generation from biomass amounts to about 70MW.

You say we have enough nuclear energy in the mix, but new generation is required, as are replacements to units coming to the end of their useful cycle.

If all possible wind resource sights were utilized in Ontario, the peak output would be around 8,000MW. That is if the wind is always blowing, which means peak output would not always be available. For that reason, wind can't be counted on for the baseload energy requirements that Ontario needs. In that sense, biomass is more reliable since it is fuel-based. Also consider that the land use for such wind installations would be significant - as in immense.

All that being said, does this mean there is no place for wind power? Not at all; it just means that wind will be a minor element in the overall energy mix. Should the resource be developed? Yes, but not with a $20 billion investment. Biomass should be pursued as well since it offers local generation possibilities to rural communities.

There are many promising technologies out there, but it may take some time before we see them economically or commercially available. For that reason, we need to make investments now, and nuclear - while not everyone's favourite source of power - is a very good option to pursue.

 

[prometheus the supremo]

The "big blackout" wasn't caused by nuclear energy or our nuclear generators.

i know, i was talking about the time they took to come back online.

p.s, they are proposing a ban on incandescent bulbs. that would help a bit. even though CF bulbs contain mercury, the use of incandescent bulbs causes more mercury pollution because of the amount of coal needed to power them.

when solid state lighting takes off, well save even more power...

www.aip.org/pt/vol-54/iss-12/p42.html

 

[bizorky]

We will just have to see what's up in 2020, won't we? A "goal" is not a fact presently, is it?

When it comes to wind power, there is a big difference between potential capacity and total available output. That all depends on the wind, and the wind is not always reliable. Hence the reason why there is a place for wind, but not a central place. I'm sure that many European countries will (and do) rely on overcapacity from other sources in order to make up for drops in generation from wind.

Concerning potential output for wind, I took my numbers (rounded) from the Ontario Power Authority. Believe it, don't believe it, I don't care. My fundamental point still stands.

I've heard many different estimates. GE Consulting has said that 5,000 MW could be developed with ease on Lakes Erie and Ontario alone. Ontario has HUGE wind potential. And while the wind is not always there, the idea is you have overcapacity, use the excess to produce hydrogen when there is excess. When there is a shortage, use other means of generation (such as fuel cells using stored hydrogen, or natural gas).

Yes, you've heard many different estimates, and that's the point. Since wind is not constant, accurate statements about how much power can be generated at any given moment cannot be calculated accurately. That makes wind power unreliable as a baseload source.

As for locating windmills, I'm sure the north shore of Lake Superior would look lovely decked out with hundreds of towers and the necessary transmission lines. Also, the best areas of wind power in Ontario are further north, where infrastructure costs would be the most expensive, and voltage loss would be the greatest due to the long distances for transmission. And still, it would not be reliable as a baseload source.

Most of the cost associated with nuclear power - and with the power generation sector as a whole - can be traced back to poor political decisions. Ontario Hydro was a political fun house. Funny that developing nations can build reactors on budget, but we couldn't. As for nuclear power itself, it's not my favourite source of electricity generation either. But as our governments are intent on reducing natural gas consumption, and wish to eliminate coal, it leaves us with very few choices at the moment. Counting on technologies or infrastructures that have yet to be developed as a means to solving present-day problems is a non-starter; present-day reliability is essential Sometimes you have to go with the devil you know rather than the devil you don't know.

Maybe over the next twenty to thirty years we can count on planning that does not lapse into hesitation or wait to the last minute in order to solve essential problems like generating electricity. There is plenty of room for funding innovation, and many potential sources for future electricity needs or increasing efficiency. These projects need to be investigated now so as to be available in the future. That effort is underway.

 

[prometheus the supremo]

Switching to CF bulbs has little impact on coal use or mercury output from that energy source. There is still street lighting to tackle. With respect to using coal for energy, mercury can be removed from the process.

it uses less energy, less mercury is released compared to regular lighting

 

[bizorky]

p.s, they are proposing a ban on incandescent bulbs. that would help a bit. even though CF bulbs contain mercury, the use of incandescent bulbs causes more mercury pollution because of the amount of coal needed to power them.

I have no issue with CF bulbs so long as there is a disposal program. The trouble is getting everyone to know about it. People throw smoke detectors in the trash even though they contain radioactive material within.

I've had CF bulbs for years. The interesting thing is that I used to live in a fairly drafty apartment, and the incandescents provided a noticeable amount of heat, which came in handy in the winter, but kinda sucked in the summer.

Concerning LED's I'm surprised that they have not been used more significantly. They are actually quite versatile.

Switching to CF bulbs has little impact on coal use or mercury output from that energy source. There is still street lighting to tackle. With respect to using coal for energy, mercury can be removed from the process.

 

[afransen TO]

"There is no demand for large scale hydrogen production at the moment"

Did you even read what I wrote?

"Germany will derive maybe 2 to 4%..."

GERMANY'S 2020 ENERGY GOALS
-20% of all energy to come from renewable sources
-28,000 megawatts of power from onshore windfarms
-20,000 megawatts of power from offshore windfarms in the Baltic and North Sea
bbc

"[wind]accounts for approximately 18% of electricity use in Denmark, 9% in Spain, and 7% in Germany."wikipedia

Frankly, I'll take your figures with a grain of salt.

"^The "big blackout" wasn't caused by nuclear energy or our nuclear generators. "

That wasn't really his point. It was rather that it took a long time to bring them back online. A blackout isn't a big deal if it lasts for an hour.

"If all possible wind resource sights were utilized in Ontario, the peak output would be around 8,000MW. That is if the wind is always blowing, which means peak output would not always be available."

Source? I've heard many different estimates. GE Consulting has said that 5,000 MW could be developed with ease on Lakes Erie and Ontario alone. Ontario has HUGE wind potential. And while the wind is not always there, the idea is you have overcapacity, use the excess to produce hydrogen when there is excess. When there is a shortage, use other means of generation (such as fuel cells using stored hydrogen, or natural gas).

"land use for such wind installations would be significant"

We have lakes. Some are quite shallow, and quite windy.

"There are many promising technologies out there, but it may take some time before we see them economically or commercially available. For that reason, we need to make investments now, and nuclear - while not everyone's favourite source of power - is a very good option to pursue."

Wind is pretty close to being economical. Nuclear is deceptively cheap because all the costs are not factored in, especially waste disposal, moth-balling costs, and inevitable cost overruns. A huge portion of Ontario's debt is directly attributable to nuclear power. That said, I'm not particularly down on the technology. However, I'm not so enamoured with it that I think we should toss $45 billion (probably in excess of $60 billion when construction is complete) at it, foolishly.

 

[afransen TO]

A nice map of Ontario's wind resources: www.ontariowindatlas.ca/ms/mapservEn?lang=en&layer=speed80&layer=province&program=/ms/mapservEn

Clearly, most of the best sites are located on the Great Lakes, relatively near Ontario's population centres.

 

[Brighter Hell]

Generally, windmills covering one thousand hectares of land will generate electricity equal to a mid-sized conventional power plant that typically has a ten hectare foot print. In other words, a tremendous amount of land will be required for generating a negligible amount of electricity from wind.

That one thousand hectares is usually functioning farmland or other productive uses. The amount of land that the wind turbines themselves take up is tiny.

 

[prometheus the supremo]

As I pointed out, mercury can be removed from coal burning, and people can throw their CF bulbs in the trash rather than dispose of them properly. That'll mess up that chart somewhat.

i'm pretty sure the chart is pointing out current methods of coal generation. the faster they can start removing mercury from coal power plants the better. who cares if the chart gets messed up then. hopefully by the end of 2007, LED lighting will be the new rage and CF bulbs will seem like a turn of the 20th century outdated technology.

Just in case I have not convinced you otherwise: I LIKE CF BULBS. I'd better, because I own a whole bunch of 'em.

:lol i'm not fighting with you!

i know you like CF bulbs, so do i. a few years ago i went nuts and bought all kinds.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"That one thousand hectares is usually functioning farmland or other productive uses. The amount of land that the wind turbines themselves take up is tiny."

I don't know, there's just something romantic about endless rippling cornfields punctuated by windmills...maybe it's because I've lived most of my life within sight of a hydro corridor, or watched "To New Horizons" (Futurama) last night, or played too much SimCity, or am fascinated by efficient screwball European land uses.

edit - or maybe it reminds me of the end of "Twister" or Polka Dot Door filmstrips or...

 

[bizorky]

As I pointed out, mercury can be removed from coal burning, and people can throw their CF bulbs in the trash rather than dispose of them properly. That'll mess up that chart somewhat.

Just in case I have not convinced you otherwise: I LIKE CF BULBS. I'd better, because I own a whole bunch of 'em.

 

[afransen TO]

"We will just have to see what's up in 2020, won't we? A "goal" is not a fact presently, is it?"

A German state has achieved 19% wind power.... You're also disingenuously implying that Germany was stupid or naive enough to make a commitment to achieve a target you said was impossible.

"As for locating windmills, I'm sure the north shore of Lake Superior would look lovely decked out with hundreds of towers and the necessary transmission lines."

I don't think windmills are all that ugly. You'd also have a hard time seeing them from shore.

"Also, the best areas of wind power in Ontario are further north"

Sure, even if this is true, it doesn't change the fact that Lakes Erie, Ontario and Huron are perfectly suited to wind generation, and they are smack-dab next to existing transmission infrastructure, since every one has a power plant on its shore in at least one place.

"And still, it would not be reliable as a baseload source."

As I've said, this can be overcome.

"These projects need to be investigated now so as to be available in the future."

Sure. Ontario is also working on close to a GW of wind projects at the moment, including 700 MW off-shore. I'm not really sure that the technology can be construed as unproven... Germany has plans to have an installed wind capacity of nearly 50,000 MW over the next decade, and there is no reason to think Ontario couldn't come close to matching that.

If we're looking at solving our electrical problems, and quickly, I don't understand the choice of going with nuclear. It will take in excess of a decade to have any new nuclear plants operational. I'm also astonished by the near complete disregard for efficiency improvements that can be implemented quickly and inexpensively to reduce demand. I don't believe that Ontario's hydro plan was developed with an honest and open mind, and was instead drafted to shore up the nuclear industry in this province.