M
mark simpson
Guest
"Who do you suppose is going to foot the bill for all these projects? "
the majority from the sale/development of the land
the majority from the sale/development of the land
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
U
unimaginative2
Guest
The power plant will pay property tax; it's privately-owned and -developed.
B
billonlogan
Guest
Editorial: Plant will bridge city's power gap
thestar.com
Feb. 15, 2006
Protests have only just begun concerning a 550-megawatt power plant that the Ontario government wants built on Toronto's waterfront. Energy Minister Donna Cansfield insists the project must proceed to avert a looming electricity crisis. But critics, including Toronto Mayor David Miller, warn that a big new generating facility near the city's shoreline in the eastern port area is unnecessary and will ruin the waterfront.
Construction of the power plant could emerge as a major issue in the municipal election this year, similar to how the Toronto Port Authority's controversial plan to build a bridge to the island airport became a lightning rod for pro- and anti-development proponents in the last election.
The stakes this time are far higher. It is not just a question of more aircraft traffic along the lakefront, but whether Toronto will be plunged into darkness in future years. Given the seriousness of that risk, the province was right last week to end uncertainty over Toronto's energy supply by approving a $700 million, natural gas-burning power plant.
Ontario as a whole is facing electricity shortages as coal-fired generating plants are gradually phased out. But Toronto in particular is at risk of rolling blackouts, beginning as early as the summer of 2008, unless 250 megawatts of generating capacity is built in the city's core. That need is expected to double by 2010, just four years from now.
Queen's Park's solution to the threat of power shortages has been to approve construction of the Portlands Energy Centre next to the old Hearn Generating Station in the derelict eastern port area.
It is a sound idea on several grounds. If a power plant is to be built, it must be near Toronto's core because transmission lines feeding the city with power from existing plants outside the city limits already run at capacity on days of high demand. The mothballed Hearn plant is too small to be converted to a 550-megawatt facility. But building a new plant just next door means existing transmission routes from the Hearn site could be used, avoiding the cost that would come from installing new lines.
Miller and other critics of this plan call for a combination of increased energy conservation and the construction of a small gas-fired plant within the Hearn building capable of generating 300 megawatts of power.
However, it is far from clear that even aggressive conservation efforts will be enough to bridge Toronto's looming power gap. If conservation falls short, and Toronto fails to build a power plant big enough to handle local needs, rolling outages might leave Canada's largest city in darkness. That prospect is too dangerous to be risked. It would be more than an inconvenience; it would cost jobs and livelihoods.
Critics dreaming of more parks warn that Toronto's waterfront revitalization will be hurt by the presence of a new plant near the shoreline. But a modern gas-fired station produces relatively few emissions. The obvious desirability of parkland and "green" waterfront redevelopment must be balanced against other municipal needs. And few needs are more vital than a stable, reliable supply of electricity.
Ontario's government is right to treat this city's power shortfall seriously and provide a long-term supply. Rather than indulging in angry election-year opposition, Toronto should accept this initiative.
------------------------------------------
I wonder how far Miller & Co. will take this before everyone realizes how out of touch they are on this issue.
thestar.com
Feb. 15, 2006
Protests have only just begun concerning a 550-megawatt power plant that the Ontario government wants built on Toronto's waterfront. Energy Minister Donna Cansfield insists the project must proceed to avert a looming electricity crisis. But critics, including Toronto Mayor David Miller, warn that a big new generating facility near the city's shoreline in the eastern port area is unnecessary and will ruin the waterfront.
Construction of the power plant could emerge as a major issue in the municipal election this year, similar to how the Toronto Port Authority's controversial plan to build a bridge to the island airport became a lightning rod for pro- and anti-development proponents in the last election.
The stakes this time are far higher. It is not just a question of more aircraft traffic along the lakefront, but whether Toronto will be plunged into darkness in future years. Given the seriousness of that risk, the province was right last week to end uncertainty over Toronto's energy supply by approving a $700 million, natural gas-burning power plant.
Ontario as a whole is facing electricity shortages as coal-fired generating plants are gradually phased out. But Toronto in particular is at risk of rolling blackouts, beginning as early as the summer of 2008, unless 250 megawatts of generating capacity is built in the city's core. That need is expected to double by 2010, just four years from now.
Queen's Park's solution to the threat of power shortages has been to approve construction of the Portlands Energy Centre next to the old Hearn Generating Station in the derelict eastern port area.
It is a sound idea on several grounds. If a power plant is to be built, it must be near Toronto's core because transmission lines feeding the city with power from existing plants outside the city limits already run at capacity on days of high demand. The mothballed Hearn plant is too small to be converted to a 550-megawatt facility. But building a new plant just next door means existing transmission routes from the Hearn site could be used, avoiding the cost that would come from installing new lines.
Miller and other critics of this plan call for a combination of increased energy conservation and the construction of a small gas-fired plant within the Hearn building capable of generating 300 megawatts of power.
However, it is far from clear that even aggressive conservation efforts will be enough to bridge Toronto's looming power gap. If conservation falls short, and Toronto fails to build a power plant big enough to handle local needs, rolling outages might leave Canada's largest city in darkness. That prospect is too dangerous to be risked. It would be more than an inconvenience; it would cost jobs and livelihoods.
Critics dreaming of more parks warn that Toronto's waterfront revitalization will be hurt by the presence of a new plant near the shoreline. But a modern gas-fired station produces relatively few emissions. The obvious desirability of parkland and "green" waterfront redevelopment must be balanced against other municipal needs. And few needs are more vital than a stable, reliable supply of electricity.
Ontario's government is right to treat this city's power shortfall seriously and provide a long-term supply. Rather than indulging in angry election-year opposition, Toronto should accept this initiative.
------------------------------------------
I wonder how far Miller & Co. will take this before everyone realizes how out of touch they are on this issue.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
What evidence is there that this is the last piece of property available and that no other alternatives exist? Maybe the choice to build in the portlands are far from the only choice and the province is simply taking the cheapest option. Based on the predicted energy consumption increase rates even the planned plant would not handle power requirements beyond 2020... what then? A nuclear plant at the CNE? I will not believe there is no way to put up wires from other industrial sites in the city or just outside the city to bring power downtown. There might be no willingness from the province to do it but I highly doubt there is no way to do it.
D
Darkstar416
Guest
Gord Perk's had an interesting take in today's EYE Weekly...
The Death of Possibility
They say politics is the art of the possible. If only it were. Unfortunately, politics is the art of defining the possible. The best trick in the politician's handbook is to convince the public that most things aren't possible. They present their decisions as the only choice. In John Turner's words: "I had no option."
Consider two big-news environmental issues here in Toronto: electricity and transit.
The city and the province are heading for a showdown over electricity generation. Electricity demand is growing; supply is shrinking. Our crappy nukes are just about done, and McGuinty has promised to close Ontario's coal plants. Toronto has a worse problem. We don't generate any electricity here. Every kilowatt we use arrives via a couple of already overloaded transmission lines. As the population grows, those lines won't be able to carry enough juice. The province sees a large, gas-fired power plant in the industrial lands east of the mouth of the Don River as the best answer. A popular counter-proposal calls for a more efficient and much smaller gas plant. The balance of the electricity demand would be met with conservation, efficiency and green power (windmills).
Premier Dalton McGuinty promotes the big plant by saying: "In an ideal world, we could get to where we need to go through conservation and renewables like wind. But we don't live in that world; we live in this one." Mayor Miller would have us believe that a better world is possible: "The proposal announced today by the province is not forward-thinking, is not innovative and doesn't meet the needs of this city in the 21st century." In his lexicon, a green energy strategy is the best hope for a bright future.
Energy minister Donna Cansfield appeals instead to darkness: "I'm making the assumption that the mayor would like to keep the lights on in the city the same as I would like to." Translation: betting on the impossible leads to disaster.
Notice how the debate isn't over what's desirable. No claims are made about who wins and who loses. Climate change, smog, urban-planning goals, public ownership, cost and industrial strategy all vanish as the debate degenerates into: "Cannot!" "Can too!" "Cannot!" It doesn't matter which future we want; all that matters is who wins the rhetorical battle over which future is possible.
We aren't even being granted that much when it comes to public transit. Once upon a time, most people got around on public transit. In those days, transit was profitable. Then we started building sprawling automobile-dependent suburbs, automobile ownership became the norm and transit became a money loser. Mike Harris decided that transit was too costly and dumped the cost of it on the city. Dalton McGuinty committed to overturning the Harris legacy, but claimed he could do it without increasing taxes. Sandwiched between these promises, he's put back less than half of what Harris took out.
In past years, transit officials and councillors have launched campaign after campaign aimed at getting the province to pay its full share again. But this year they decided not to fight. And so it becomes their job to say that improving transit any further is impossible. The only issue they'll discuss is where to save money: staff cuts, service cuts or fare increases. When I went to City Hall to remind them that council policy, the Official Plan and the city's environment plan all rely on increasing service and cutting fares, I was ignored. One staff person told me privately that I must be delusional to argue for more TTC funding.
There's the power of the impossible. Legitimate aspirations: clean air, healthy neighbourhoods and equitable transportation systems become delusions. No one chose bad air, sprawl, social isolation, cars for the wealthy or crappy, overpriced transit service for the poor. This is, supposedly, the only possible way to live. We do have an option. Many options. We should be very suspicious of anyone who claims otherwise.
GORD PERKS IS A CAMPAIGNER FOR THE TORONTO ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE. ENVIRO APPEARS EVERY TWO WEEKS. EMAIL LETTERS eye.net.
The Death of Possibility
They say politics is the art of the possible. If only it were. Unfortunately, politics is the art of defining the possible. The best trick in the politician's handbook is to convince the public that most things aren't possible. They present their decisions as the only choice. In John Turner's words: "I had no option."
Consider two big-news environmental issues here in Toronto: electricity and transit.
The city and the province are heading for a showdown over electricity generation. Electricity demand is growing; supply is shrinking. Our crappy nukes are just about done, and McGuinty has promised to close Ontario's coal plants. Toronto has a worse problem. We don't generate any electricity here. Every kilowatt we use arrives via a couple of already overloaded transmission lines. As the population grows, those lines won't be able to carry enough juice. The province sees a large, gas-fired power plant in the industrial lands east of the mouth of the Don River as the best answer. A popular counter-proposal calls for a more efficient and much smaller gas plant. The balance of the electricity demand would be met with conservation, efficiency and green power (windmills).
Premier Dalton McGuinty promotes the big plant by saying: "In an ideal world, we could get to where we need to go through conservation and renewables like wind. But we don't live in that world; we live in this one." Mayor Miller would have us believe that a better world is possible: "The proposal announced today by the province is not forward-thinking, is not innovative and doesn't meet the needs of this city in the 21st century." In his lexicon, a green energy strategy is the best hope for a bright future.
Energy minister Donna Cansfield appeals instead to darkness: "I'm making the assumption that the mayor would like to keep the lights on in the city the same as I would like to." Translation: betting on the impossible leads to disaster.
Notice how the debate isn't over what's desirable. No claims are made about who wins and who loses. Climate change, smog, urban-planning goals, public ownership, cost and industrial strategy all vanish as the debate degenerates into: "Cannot!" "Can too!" "Cannot!" It doesn't matter which future we want; all that matters is who wins the rhetorical battle over which future is possible.
We aren't even being granted that much when it comes to public transit. Once upon a time, most people got around on public transit. In those days, transit was profitable. Then we started building sprawling automobile-dependent suburbs, automobile ownership became the norm and transit became a money loser. Mike Harris decided that transit was too costly and dumped the cost of it on the city. Dalton McGuinty committed to overturning the Harris legacy, but claimed he could do it without increasing taxes. Sandwiched between these promises, he's put back less than half of what Harris took out.
In past years, transit officials and councillors have launched campaign after campaign aimed at getting the province to pay its full share again. But this year they decided not to fight. And so it becomes their job to say that improving transit any further is impossible. The only issue they'll discuss is where to save money: staff cuts, service cuts or fare increases. When I went to City Hall to remind them that council policy, the Official Plan and the city's environment plan all rely on increasing service and cutting fares, I was ignored. One staff person told me privately that I must be delusional to argue for more TTC funding.
There's the power of the impossible. Legitimate aspirations: clean air, healthy neighbourhoods and equitable transportation systems become delusions. No one chose bad air, sprawl, social isolation, cars for the wealthy or crappy, overpriced transit service for the poor. This is, supposedly, the only possible way to live. We do have an option. Many options. We should be very suspicious of anyone who claims otherwise.
GORD PERKS IS A CAMPAIGNER FOR THE TORONTO ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE. ENVIRO APPEARS EVERY TWO WEEKS. EMAIL LETTERS eye.net.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
A rendering/sketch of the project is available here:
www.portlandsenergycentre...etter5.pdf
Fairly innoculous.
AoD
www.portlandsenergycentre...etter5.pdf
Fairly innoculous.
AoD
B
billonlogan
Guest
Here's an article from today's Toronto Star exploring the idea of PEC using the old Hearn plant...
The past or the future?
City and Toronto Hydro want old plant to be resurrected
But key competitor believes the building can't be adapted
Feb. 23, 2006. 03:26 AM
JOHN SPEARS
CITY HALL BUREAU
Standing in the cavernous space of the R.L. Hearn Generating Station, Jim Burpee gestured at the lattice of steel girders rising from floor to ceiling down the centre of the main hall.
Those girders, Burpee explained, support the roof of the old station, soaring 42 metres above his head. They run right down the 274-metre length of the station.
And they are the reason why it's not so simple to install new equipment and return the old east-end building to its original use, he said.
The spaces defined by the girders were custom-fitted for the old station before it was mothballed in the 1980s. But, Burpee said, the network of solid steel would only get in the way of installing modern, differently configured equipment.
As chair of the Portlands Energy Centre, he said that's why his company wants to erect a brand-new building just east of Hearn to house a 550-megawatt generator fired by natural gas.
Portlands Energy Centre is a partnership of Ontario Power Generation Inc. and TransCanada Corp. Two weeks ago, Energy Minister Donna Cansfield directed the Ontario Power Authority to strike a deal with Portlands for the new generating plant.
The matter took on urgency in December when the agency that runs the province's power grid warned that downtown Toronto risks rolling blackouts by the summer of 2008 unless new generation is built to supply the city's core with electricity.
It then took on a political dynamic when Mayor David Miller started pushing for a competing power project, which Toronto Hydro and an American partner want to install inside the Hearn plant.
Opposition to Portlands is also coming from local residents, councillors and MPPs, who argue that the plant is too big and will add more pollution to an area already laden with more than its share of grimy industries.
Cansfield's directive seemed to push Miller's objections aside. But Toronto Hydro says it still plans to file a bid for its proposal — for 350 megawatts of generation, coupled with energy-conservation measures — this week.
Burpee said OPG sees technical problems for the plan, which could jeopardize a tight schedule.
"We're not saying you couldn't build it in here," he told reporters touring the site yesterday. "We're saying we don't think it's the smartest thing to do."
The Portlands project, he said, is ready to go, with all environmental permits in place. It would require only tree clearance and building permits from the city, plus an expanded gas line that would be installed by Enbridge. It will be much smaller than the Hearn plant.
The massive building is currently leased to a film studio company, but it looks mostly like an indoor demolition site, with pipes, cables and metal fittings being dismantled and hauled out for scrap.
Chris Tyrrell, general manager of Toronto Hydro Energy Services, has a different perspective from Burpee.
He said Toronto Hydro engineers and representatives of the company that would manufacture the generating equipment have examined the Hearn site.
"We can work around the girders," Tyrrell said in an interview yesterday.
Toronto Hydro's plans call for a number of smaller-scale generating units that could be accommodated within the existing spaces, he said. "We have a high degree of confidence that we won't have any problem."
Another complication is the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp., which wants to make sure the waterfront, including the port lands area, becomes an attractive place to live and work.
Chief executive John Campbell has written to Cansfield arguing that any new generating facility should be installed inside the existing Hearn plant.
The waterfront corporation echoes Miller's concerns that a new facility should include a "co-generation" element — one that produces not just electricity but steam that could be used to heat buildings in the area, generally known as a district heating system.
Burpee said the Portlands proposal calls for a highly efficient generating plant. Waste heat from the exhaust of the gas turbines would be used to make steam to drive a secondary generator. The Portlands plant could be set up to generate steam for a district heating system, he said, but efforts to strike a deal with a potential buyer for steam have so far failed.
Burpee noted that the proposal to use the existing Hearn station had never been advanced during the period since the Portlands project was first proposed.
"In the three years we've been in the community, not one person has ever suggested: `Why don't you just build it inside the Hearn and we're fine.' No one had ever raised that," he said.
The past or the future?
City and Toronto Hydro want old plant to be resurrected
But key competitor believes the building can't be adapted
Feb. 23, 2006. 03:26 AM
JOHN SPEARS
CITY HALL BUREAU
Standing in the cavernous space of the R.L. Hearn Generating Station, Jim Burpee gestured at the lattice of steel girders rising from floor to ceiling down the centre of the main hall.
Those girders, Burpee explained, support the roof of the old station, soaring 42 metres above his head. They run right down the 274-metre length of the station.
And they are the reason why it's not so simple to install new equipment and return the old east-end building to its original use, he said.
The spaces defined by the girders were custom-fitted for the old station before it was mothballed in the 1980s. But, Burpee said, the network of solid steel would only get in the way of installing modern, differently configured equipment.
As chair of the Portlands Energy Centre, he said that's why his company wants to erect a brand-new building just east of Hearn to house a 550-megawatt generator fired by natural gas.
Portlands Energy Centre is a partnership of Ontario Power Generation Inc. and TransCanada Corp. Two weeks ago, Energy Minister Donna Cansfield directed the Ontario Power Authority to strike a deal with Portlands for the new generating plant.
The matter took on urgency in December when the agency that runs the province's power grid warned that downtown Toronto risks rolling blackouts by the summer of 2008 unless new generation is built to supply the city's core with electricity.
It then took on a political dynamic when Mayor David Miller started pushing for a competing power project, which Toronto Hydro and an American partner want to install inside the Hearn plant.
Opposition to Portlands is also coming from local residents, councillors and MPPs, who argue that the plant is too big and will add more pollution to an area already laden with more than its share of grimy industries.
Cansfield's directive seemed to push Miller's objections aside. But Toronto Hydro says it still plans to file a bid for its proposal — for 350 megawatts of generation, coupled with energy-conservation measures — this week.
Burpee said OPG sees technical problems for the plan, which could jeopardize a tight schedule.
"We're not saying you couldn't build it in here," he told reporters touring the site yesterday. "We're saying we don't think it's the smartest thing to do."
The Portlands project, he said, is ready to go, with all environmental permits in place. It would require only tree clearance and building permits from the city, plus an expanded gas line that would be installed by Enbridge. It will be much smaller than the Hearn plant.
The massive building is currently leased to a film studio company, but it looks mostly like an indoor demolition site, with pipes, cables and metal fittings being dismantled and hauled out for scrap.
Chris Tyrrell, general manager of Toronto Hydro Energy Services, has a different perspective from Burpee.
He said Toronto Hydro engineers and representatives of the company that would manufacture the generating equipment have examined the Hearn site.
"We can work around the girders," Tyrrell said in an interview yesterday.
Toronto Hydro's plans call for a number of smaller-scale generating units that could be accommodated within the existing spaces, he said. "We have a high degree of confidence that we won't have any problem."
Another complication is the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp., which wants to make sure the waterfront, including the port lands area, becomes an attractive place to live and work.
Chief executive John Campbell has written to Cansfield arguing that any new generating facility should be installed inside the existing Hearn plant.
The waterfront corporation echoes Miller's concerns that a new facility should include a "co-generation" element — one that produces not just electricity but steam that could be used to heat buildings in the area, generally known as a district heating system.
Burpee said the Portlands proposal calls for a highly efficient generating plant. Waste heat from the exhaust of the gas turbines would be used to make steam to drive a secondary generator. The Portlands plant could be set up to generate steam for a district heating system, he said, but efforts to strike a deal with a potential buyer for steam have so far failed.
Burpee noted that the proposal to use the existing Hearn station had never been advanced during the period since the Portlands project was first proposed.
"In the three years we've been in the community, not one person has ever suggested: `Why don't you just build it inside the Hearn and we're fine.' No one had ever raised that," he said.
B
billonlogan
Guest
Here's some more insight from today's Toronto Sun...
Power play zaps Miller plan
OPG objects to using old plant
By ROB GRANATSTEIN, CITY HALL BUREAU
Ontario Power Generation brought the media out to the R.L. Hearn Generating Station in the portlands with the specific intent of proving Mayor David Miller wrong.
OPG opened up the Hearn yesterday to show why a new $700-million natural gas power plant can't go inside the huge old generator, as Miller has proposed.
Meanwhile, Toronto Hydro said yesterday OPG's way is not the only route and it will submit a bid to the Ontario Power Authority this week centred on building a power plant inside the Hearn.
STEEL SUPPORTS
Inside the vacant hulk of a plant, steel supports are holding up the walls. To make room for a steam generator quite a few of the supports would have to come out, said Jim Burpee, chairman of the Portlands Energy Centre, the planned power plant.
To remove the supports, the walls would have to be resecured or they'd fall down.
"It's doable," said Burpee, who is also a v-p at OPG.
"But when all the engineering consultants looked at it they said we can't tell you exactly what it will cost to do or how long it will take to do. You're far better off to do it outside. There's less risk."
WATERFRONT
Miller has said he doesn't believe the plant needs to be 550 megawatts or located on the site east of the old plant, taking up valuable waterfront.
Burpee said construction will be ready to start late this summer on the new plant, once the city gives them the building permits. All the other permits and assessments have been completed.
He contends the new plant will be state of the art, quiet enough to have condos overlooking it, and the pollutants won't even be noticeable.
Power play zaps Miller plan
OPG objects to using old plant
By ROB GRANATSTEIN, CITY HALL BUREAU
Ontario Power Generation brought the media out to the R.L. Hearn Generating Station in the portlands with the specific intent of proving Mayor David Miller wrong.
OPG opened up the Hearn yesterday to show why a new $700-million natural gas power plant can't go inside the huge old generator, as Miller has proposed.
Meanwhile, Toronto Hydro said yesterday OPG's way is not the only route and it will submit a bid to the Ontario Power Authority this week centred on building a power plant inside the Hearn.
STEEL SUPPORTS
Inside the vacant hulk of a plant, steel supports are holding up the walls. To make room for a steam generator quite a few of the supports would have to come out, said Jim Burpee, chairman of the Portlands Energy Centre, the planned power plant.
To remove the supports, the walls would have to be resecured or they'd fall down.
"It's doable," said Burpee, who is also a v-p at OPG.
"But when all the engineering consultants looked at it they said we can't tell you exactly what it will cost to do or how long it will take to do. You're far better off to do it outside. There's less risk."
WATERFRONT
Miller has said he doesn't believe the plant needs to be 550 megawatts or located on the site east of the old plant, taking up valuable waterfront.
Burpee said construction will be ready to start late this summer on the new plant, once the city gives them the building permits. All the other permits and assessments have been completed.
He contends the new plant will be state of the art, quiet enough to have condos overlooking it, and the pollutants won't even be noticeable.
B
billonlogan
Guest
He contends the new plant will be state of the art, quiet enough to have condos overlooking it, and the pollutants won't even be noticeable.
Hmmm, plans for condos on this site? imagine the views, to the south PEC, aggregrate yards and lake views. To the east, a view of the sewage plant ( I always wondered how those sewage pools look like).
B
billonlogan
Guest
Bitter power struggle
T.O. Hydro battles OPG in bid to build generating station
By ROB GRANATSTEIN
Toronto Hydro has upped the stakes in the bitter battle over building a new power plant on the portlands.
The Toronto Hydro bid, submitted yesterday to the Ontario Power Authority, is for a $325-million, 291-megawatt gas-powered generating station inside the old Hearn power plant.
There's an option to boost it to 582 megawatts, a $546-million project, if more energy is required. The plan is cheaper than the one already accepted by the province from Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and it also reuses the Hearn -- a massive, decommissioned energy station -- rather than building another facility next door.
"If there's going to be a plant stuffed down everyone's throat on the waterfront, then one stuffed inside the exist-ing plant, that isn't any bigger, and includes a $30-million energy centre would probably be the pill you'd choose," Councillor Paula Fletcher said.
But Energy Minister Donna Cansfield said Hydro's bid is a wasted effort because the government has directed the Ontario Power Authority to arrange for a plant to be built next to the Hearn.
Toronto Hydro's plan also calls for 200 megawatts in conservation to be achieved within two years.
"This bid would keep the lights on," Fletcher said
T.O. Hydro battles OPG in bid to build generating station
By ROB GRANATSTEIN
Toronto Hydro has upped the stakes in the bitter battle over building a new power plant on the portlands.
The Toronto Hydro bid, submitted yesterday to the Ontario Power Authority, is for a $325-million, 291-megawatt gas-powered generating station inside the old Hearn power plant.
There's an option to boost it to 582 megawatts, a $546-million project, if more energy is required. The plan is cheaper than the one already accepted by the province from Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and it also reuses the Hearn -- a massive, decommissioned energy station -- rather than building another facility next door.
"If there's going to be a plant stuffed down everyone's throat on the waterfront, then one stuffed inside the exist-ing plant, that isn't any bigger, and includes a $30-million energy centre would probably be the pill you'd choose," Councillor Paula Fletcher said.
But Energy Minister Donna Cansfield said Hydro's bid is a wasted effort because the government has directed the Ontario Power Authority to arrange for a plant to be built next to the Hearn.
Toronto Hydro's plan also calls for 200 megawatts in conservation to be achieved within two years.
"This bid would keep the lights on," Fletcher said
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
I still don't get this obsession with putting something into the Hearn, considering how much smaller the new plant would be comparatively. The Hearn site could then concievably be redeveloped in a more coherent manner.
AoD
AoD
U
unimaginative2
Guest
The possibilities for re-using the Hearn are endless. It could be one of the most spectacular spaces in the city.
O
Observer Walt
Guest
You would think so. Why put a new power plant in it when it could be done more cheaply and probably faster as a freestanding project. It's a bit of a shame that nothing has been done with the Hearn structure to date, given that it has not generated any power for over 20 years now. It seems to be typical of the lack of forward motion on anything concerning the waterfront east of Yonge Street.
B
billonlogan
Guest
Sparks fly over two plans for waterfront power station
JOHN BARBER
globenandmail.com
The provincial government took an unexpected pasting in the city's hottest propaganda battle last Friday when Toronto Hydro and its U.S. partner unveiled an unexpectedly strong proposal for an alternative to the giant power plant the McGuinty government is attempting to shove down the waterfront's throat.
Until this week, it looked as if any damage the government might suffer as a result of its decision to build the Portlands Energy Centre (PEC) would be confined to lefty Riverdale, which has never supported the provincial Liberals anyway. The government knew it was ruining the chances of former journalist Ben Chin, the Liberal candidate in the coming by-election in Toronto-Danforth, but so what? It wasn't likely to win the seat in the best circumstances.
This week, however, that complacent logic has collapsed.
On the face of it, the Toronto Hydro proposal answers every one of the objections cited by the government as reasons not to consider it. It promises all the required power at significantly lower cost than the favoured PEC without despoiling the waterfront -- all the while delivering $30-million in community benefits. And the question of why the government would reject that alternative in favour of the unpopular and expensive PEC is resonating far beyond the boundaries of Toronto-Danforth.
Yesterday, even Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory got into the act, accusing the government of having "seriously interfered with the bidding process" and demanding that it re-tender the power-plant contract in light of Toronto Hydro's unofficial bid.
Last week, the province and PEC said it was impossible to retrofit the abandoned Hearn plant to accommodate new generation, and even organized a media tour to dramatize the old plant's inadequacies and justify their desire to build a huge new one right next door.
But Toronto Hydro and its partner, Constellation Energy, a company with 12,000 megawatts of power-generating capacity in the United States, says that reusing the Hearn plant is no problem.
Last week, provincial sources warned that it would cost $20-million to $40-million to buy out the existing lease of the old plant. However, Toronto Hydro and Constellation revealed that they have "executed a definitive agreement" with the lessee to restore the plant for the purpose of generating electricity.
Last week, the cost of a 550-megawatt power plant on the waterfront was said (by the province) to be $700-million. It is now said (by Toronto Hydro and Constellation) to be $565-million.
Last week, the Toronto Hydro proposal centred on a smaller generator coupled with aggressive conservation initiatives to limit excess demand.
Now, the proposal includes the flexibility to install all 550 megawatts inside the Hearn plant if those initiatives -- which remain integral to the plan -- fail or fall short.
Last week, the latest proponents were hobbled by an earlier request they made to be released from the environmental-assessment process. But they say they will be able to meet the government's tight construction schedule while undergoing the full process.
The Toronto Hydro-Constellation proposal deserves consideration on the basis of physical design alone, which spares the industrial conversion of another 11.3 hectares of what should be prime waterfront real estate.
The PEC proposal not only gobbles up the extra land, it leaves the Hearn plant derelict, effectively doubling the new plant's footprint. This is why the normally quiescent waterfront corporation has come out against it.
But the proposal is also attractive because of its strong reliance on conservation and its declared sensitivity to local concerns.
By contrast, the PEC plan ignores the community, the waterfront and conservation in its pursuit of the most megawatts at any cost. And the cost differential between the two proposals is striking.
To its surprise, the province now finds itself gambling with far higher stakes than it ever intended to do. What's needed is a face-saving compromise that will allow it to reconsider the bet.
----------------------------------------------
As the city grows and demand for power increases, even with the most aggressive conservation methods, there will be a need for more power generation. I suspect the Hearn plant will be converted to 'clean coal burning' in the future as price for coal drops and natural gas goes up.
Coal may be in vogue again
Feb. 14, 2006
TYLER HAMILTON
BUSINESS REPORTER
thestar.com
Alberta's Energy Minister Greg Melchin believes coal, whether we like it or not, is poised to become the most important fuel in Canada's future.
And he's not reluctant to say that in Ontario, where the government has vowed to shut all coal-fired plants by 2009. And where the Ministry of Energy estimates nearly 700 people a year die from pollution caused by coal plants, and where more than 300,000 suffer illnesses.
"clean coal" — an umbrella term for a variety of technologies and power-plant designs that promise to take the dirtiest and most abundant fossil fuel on the continent, clean it up and turn it into low-emission electricity.
North America has roughly 250 billion tonnes of recoverable coal reserves, accounting for about a quarter of worldwide reserves. As global demand for energy skyrockets, boosted by spectacular economic growth in India and China, there's a growing movement to make coal a cheap, secure, domestic and environmentally acceptable alternative to nuclear power and increasingly expensive natural gas.
"The coal plants that appear in the next decade or so will be unrecognizable to those familiar with their ancestors," says The Thinking Companies Inc., a Maine-based energy-consulting firm that argues coal is back in fashion. Modern coal plants, based on designs from General Electric Co., ConocoPhillips Co. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, will be "clean, highly efficiently facilities able to produce electricity with perfect reliability at low cost," the report asserts.
Many challenge the claim, calling the term "clean coal" an oxymoron, but by all accounts the coal renaissance has begun:
Alberta Premier Ralph Klein told energy executives last month that he was a "coal guy" at heart. He hinted he will use his annual TV address to Albertans this month to outline a plan, involving clean-coal technologies, to unlock value from the province's massive reserves.
A group of coal producers and power generators called the Canadian Clean Power Coalition has plans to build a $1.5 billion clean-coal demonstration plant by 2012. And, George W. Bush's proposed 2007 budget has earmarked $285 million (U.S.) for research and development into coal technologies and another $54 million for FutureGen, an initiative to build the world's first zero-emission fossil-fuel plant based on coal.
Some American states, such as New York and Pennsylvania, have more aggressively embraced clean coal by setting up special investment funds, establishing incentives and offering low-cost loans to spur development of new technologies and power plants.
Meanwhile, French-based power equipment giant Alstom SA recently reported that the coal industry will account for the lion's share of its power generation equipment sales over the next 10 years, representing 40 per cent of the market compared with 35 per cent for natural gas and even less for nuclear.
Executives with the company said clean coal advancements are making the fuel more attractive to many countries, particularly China, which will need to build hundreds of new coal plants over the coming years and at the same time manage a worsening environmental crisis.
Ontario is moving in the opposite direction. The Lakeview Generation Station in Mississauga has been shut and three more coal-fired plants are to close next year. The massive 4,000-megawatt Nanticoke plant on Lake Erie is to be shut in 2009 if the government can stick with its schedule.
But even in Ontario, some observers say it's premature to write Old King Coal's obituary.
"Within a 20-year time horizon I suspect it could come back again," says Jan Carr, chief executive officer of the Ontario Power Authority. "What won't happen is setting fire to coal in boilers and making steam the way we do right now. The difficulty with coal is not that it's coal; it's that the particular way we're using it has a lot of very negative side effects."
Carr says the government's position is a wake-up call to an industry clinging to the status quo.
The Power Workers' Union, for example, argues that existing coal plants in Ontario can reduce smog-causing sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides, as well as mercury emissions, by retrofitting facilities with better catalytic and "scrubber" technologies wrapped under the "clean coal" banner. The union says the province could save $11 billion by going this route instead of building new natural gas plants.
But Carr says the approach, which the Ontario Clean Air Alliance claims would reduce emissions from the province's coal plants by only one-half of 1 per cent, isn't new and isn't really what clean coal is about. "They need to get their act together on their terminology."
In energy circles, clean coal is much more ambitious and involves an entirely new way of extracting energy from coal, as demonstrated by the handful of Integrated Gasification and Combined Cycle plants built in Europe, Japan and the United States in the past decade.
These modern facilities use high temperatures and extreme pressure to convert coal into a hydrogen-rich synthetic gas. Throughout this chemical bond-breaking process, a system of filters and scrubbers removes contaminants, while activated carbon is used to capture mercury. Carbon dioxide (C02) is also easily separated from the gas, which is eventually burned in a power-generating turbine, much like natural gas.
And like most advanced natural gas plants, clean-coal "gasification" plants operate on a more efficient combined cycle, meaning waste heat from the process is used in a steam turbine to produce even more electricity.
Ideally, the goal is to reduce coal-plant emissions enough to make them environmentally competitive with natural gas. In Ontario this is often referred to as the Witmer Standard — in reference to former environment minister Elizabeth Witmer, who said the criteria for letting a coal plant in the province stay open is that it must meet the emission standards of a natural-gas plant.
"The government should subject all proposals for so-called clean coal to the Witmer Standard," urges a recent report from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.
But even if the Witmer Standard can be met, clean coal isn't without its risks. For one, the technology is still relatively unproven and, while the power authority recognizes costs will fall 90 per cent as the design becomes more widespread, being a first mover comes at a significant financial penalty. This includes the kind of construction delays and cost overruns typically associated with nuclear.
Also, the appeal of a clean-coal facility is based on the assumption that coal will remain cheap and natural gas prices will continue to rise. But the cost of coal has more than doubled over the past two years, and while still much cheaper than natural gas and oil, some wonder whether the migration to clean coal will push prices much higher over the next decade.
JOHN BARBER
globenandmail.com
The provincial government took an unexpected pasting in the city's hottest propaganda battle last Friday when Toronto Hydro and its U.S. partner unveiled an unexpectedly strong proposal for an alternative to the giant power plant the McGuinty government is attempting to shove down the waterfront's throat.
Until this week, it looked as if any damage the government might suffer as a result of its decision to build the Portlands Energy Centre (PEC) would be confined to lefty Riverdale, which has never supported the provincial Liberals anyway. The government knew it was ruining the chances of former journalist Ben Chin, the Liberal candidate in the coming by-election in Toronto-Danforth, but so what? It wasn't likely to win the seat in the best circumstances.
This week, however, that complacent logic has collapsed.
On the face of it, the Toronto Hydro proposal answers every one of the objections cited by the government as reasons not to consider it. It promises all the required power at significantly lower cost than the favoured PEC without despoiling the waterfront -- all the while delivering $30-million in community benefits. And the question of why the government would reject that alternative in favour of the unpopular and expensive PEC is resonating far beyond the boundaries of Toronto-Danforth.
Yesterday, even Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory got into the act, accusing the government of having "seriously interfered with the bidding process" and demanding that it re-tender the power-plant contract in light of Toronto Hydro's unofficial bid.
Last week, the province and PEC said it was impossible to retrofit the abandoned Hearn plant to accommodate new generation, and even organized a media tour to dramatize the old plant's inadequacies and justify their desire to build a huge new one right next door.
But Toronto Hydro and its partner, Constellation Energy, a company with 12,000 megawatts of power-generating capacity in the United States, says that reusing the Hearn plant is no problem.
Last week, provincial sources warned that it would cost $20-million to $40-million to buy out the existing lease of the old plant. However, Toronto Hydro and Constellation revealed that they have "executed a definitive agreement" with the lessee to restore the plant for the purpose of generating electricity.
Last week, the cost of a 550-megawatt power plant on the waterfront was said (by the province) to be $700-million. It is now said (by Toronto Hydro and Constellation) to be $565-million.
Last week, the Toronto Hydro proposal centred on a smaller generator coupled with aggressive conservation initiatives to limit excess demand.
Now, the proposal includes the flexibility to install all 550 megawatts inside the Hearn plant if those initiatives -- which remain integral to the plan -- fail or fall short.
Last week, the latest proponents were hobbled by an earlier request they made to be released from the environmental-assessment process. But they say they will be able to meet the government's tight construction schedule while undergoing the full process.
The Toronto Hydro-Constellation proposal deserves consideration on the basis of physical design alone, which spares the industrial conversion of another 11.3 hectares of what should be prime waterfront real estate.
The PEC proposal not only gobbles up the extra land, it leaves the Hearn plant derelict, effectively doubling the new plant's footprint. This is why the normally quiescent waterfront corporation has come out against it.
But the proposal is also attractive because of its strong reliance on conservation and its declared sensitivity to local concerns.
By contrast, the PEC plan ignores the community, the waterfront and conservation in its pursuit of the most megawatts at any cost. And the cost differential between the two proposals is striking.
To its surprise, the province now finds itself gambling with far higher stakes than it ever intended to do. What's needed is a face-saving compromise that will allow it to reconsider the bet.
----------------------------------------------
As the city grows and demand for power increases, even with the most aggressive conservation methods, there will be a need for more power generation. I suspect the Hearn plant will be converted to 'clean coal burning' in the future as price for coal drops and natural gas goes up.
Coal may be in vogue again
Feb. 14, 2006
TYLER HAMILTON
BUSINESS REPORTER
thestar.com
Alberta's Energy Minister Greg Melchin believes coal, whether we like it or not, is poised to become the most important fuel in Canada's future.
And he's not reluctant to say that in Ontario, where the government has vowed to shut all coal-fired plants by 2009. And where the Ministry of Energy estimates nearly 700 people a year die from pollution caused by coal plants, and where more than 300,000 suffer illnesses.
"clean coal" — an umbrella term for a variety of technologies and power-plant designs that promise to take the dirtiest and most abundant fossil fuel on the continent, clean it up and turn it into low-emission electricity.
North America has roughly 250 billion tonnes of recoverable coal reserves, accounting for about a quarter of worldwide reserves. As global demand for energy skyrockets, boosted by spectacular economic growth in India and China, there's a growing movement to make coal a cheap, secure, domestic and environmentally acceptable alternative to nuclear power and increasingly expensive natural gas.
"The coal plants that appear in the next decade or so will be unrecognizable to those familiar with their ancestors," says The Thinking Companies Inc., a Maine-based energy-consulting firm that argues coal is back in fashion. Modern coal plants, based on designs from General Electric Co., ConocoPhillips Co. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, will be "clean, highly efficiently facilities able to produce electricity with perfect reliability at low cost," the report asserts.
Many challenge the claim, calling the term "clean coal" an oxymoron, but by all accounts the coal renaissance has begun:
Alberta Premier Ralph Klein told energy executives last month that he was a "coal guy" at heart. He hinted he will use his annual TV address to Albertans this month to outline a plan, involving clean-coal technologies, to unlock value from the province's massive reserves.
A group of coal producers and power generators called the Canadian Clean Power Coalition has plans to build a $1.5 billion clean-coal demonstration plant by 2012. And, George W. Bush's proposed 2007 budget has earmarked $285 million (U.S.) for research and development into coal technologies and another $54 million for FutureGen, an initiative to build the world's first zero-emission fossil-fuel plant based on coal.
Some American states, such as New York and Pennsylvania, have more aggressively embraced clean coal by setting up special investment funds, establishing incentives and offering low-cost loans to spur development of new technologies and power plants.
Meanwhile, French-based power equipment giant Alstom SA recently reported that the coal industry will account for the lion's share of its power generation equipment sales over the next 10 years, representing 40 per cent of the market compared with 35 per cent for natural gas and even less for nuclear.
Executives with the company said clean coal advancements are making the fuel more attractive to many countries, particularly China, which will need to build hundreds of new coal plants over the coming years and at the same time manage a worsening environmental crisis.
Ontario is moving in the opposite direction. The Lakeview Generation Station in Mississauga has been shut and three more coal-fired plants are to close next year. The massive 4,000-megawatt Nanticoke plant on Lake Erie is to be shut in 2009 if the government can stick with its schedule.
But even in Ontario, some observers say it's premature to write Old King Coal's obituary.
"Within a 20-year time horizon I suspect it could come back again," says Jan Carr, chief executive officer of the Ontario Power Authority. "What won't happen is setting fire to coal in boilers and making steam the way we do right now. The difficulty with coal is not that it's coal; it's that the particular way we're using it has a lot of very negative side effects."
Carr says the government's position is a wake-up call to an industry clinging to the status quo.
The Power Workers' Union, for example, argues that existing coal plants in Ontario can reduce smog-causing sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides, as well as mercury emissions, by retrofitting facilities with better catalytic and "scrubber" technologies wrapped under the "clean coal" banner. The union says the province could save $11 billion by going this route instead of building new natural gas plants.
But Carr says the approach, which the Ontario Clean Air Alliance claims would reduce emissions from the province's coal plants by only one-half of 1 per cent, isn't new and isn't really what clean coal is about. "They need to get their act together on their terminology."
In energy circles, clean coal is much more ambitious and involves an entirely new way of extracting energy from coal, as demonstrated by the handful of Integrated Gasification and Combined Cycle plants built in Europe, Japan and the United States in the past decade.
These modern facilities use high temperatures and extreme pressure to convert coal into a hydrogen-rich synthetic gas. Throughout this chemical bond-breaking process, a system of filters and scrubbers removes contaminants, while activated carbon is used to capture mercury. Carbon dioxide (C02) is also easily separated from the gas, which is eventually burned in a power-generating turbine, much like natural gas.
And like most advanced natural gas plants, clean-coal "gasification" plants operate on a more efficient combined cycle, meaning waste heat from the process is used in a steam turbine to produce even more electricity.
Ideally, the goal is to reduce coal-plant emissions enough to make them environmentally competitive with natural gas. In Ontario this is often referred to as the Witmer Standard — in reference to former environment minister Elizabeth Witmer, who said the criteria for letting a coal plant in the province stay open is that it must meet the emission standards of a natural-gas plant.
"The government should subject all proposals for so-called clean coal to the Witmer Standard," urges a recent report from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.
But even if the Witmer Standard can be met, clean coal isn't without its risks. For one, the technology is still relatively unproven and, while the power authority recognizes costs will fall 90 per cent as the design becomes more widespread, being a first mover comes at a significant financial penalty. This includes the kind of construction delays and cost overruns typically associated with nuclear.
Also, the appeal of a clean-coal facility is based on the assumption that coal will remain cheap and natural gas prices will continue to rise. But the cost of coal has more than doubled over the past two years, and while still much cheaper than natural gas and oil, some wonder whether the migration to clean coal will push prices much higher over the next decade.
B
billonlogan
Guest
Ontario to install millions of 'smart' meters
Millions of "smart" meters that help hydro consumers calculate their energy use will be installed in Ontario over the next few years.
The meters are included in new legislation that passed Monday night.
The provincial government says the meters are a key part of the power-starved province's strategy to persuade people to conserve electricity.
The meters are meant to help electricity users see just how much power they consume during various parts of the day. But critics assail the plan as one that doesn't do enough to encourage residents to conserve.
Millions of "smart" meters that help hydro consumers calculate their energy use will be installed in Ontario over the next few years.
The meters are included in new legislation that passed Monday night.
The provincial government says the meters are a key part of the power-starved province's strategy to persuade people to conserve electricity.
The meters are meant to help electricity users see just how much power they consume during various parts of the day. But critics assail the plan as one that doesn't do enough to encourage residents to conserve.