Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm from Ontario and all but one of my many siblings live there. Most don't have a good word to say for the process or the government so they must be doing a good job of making everyone feel the pain.


Tim

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/ontario-close-elimi...

Ontario close to eliminating coal as electric-power source, a first in North America

By Steve Mertl | Daily Brew – Tue, 15 Jan, 2013.


Word that Ontario is nearing its long-promised goal of eliminating coal-fired power plants has gotten a lot of play outside the province in scientific, environmental and power industry publications.

Premier Dalton McGuinty last week trumpeted the fact that by the end of this year the last two large-scale coal-fired generating plants will close, leaving only a small backup facility in Thunder Bay operating until the end of 2014.

...

The two units scheduled to close by the end of this year are the Lambton and Nanticoke generating stations, the latter one of the biggest coal-fired plants in the world, generating 4,000 megawatts of electricity, Scientific American noted.

... coal, which a decade ago accounted for a quarter of Ontario's electricity, now generates only 2.8 per cent of the total. It's now exceeded by wind power, which provides three per cent.

...

... Nuclear power provides more than half (56.4 per cent) of Ontario's electricity, followed by hydro at 22.3 per cent and natural gas at 14.6 per cent, the electricity agency said.

...

Pembina said greenhouse-gas emissions from Ontario's electricity sector have fallen from 40 million tons to 10 million ton in the last decade.

But the closures have been controversial.

"The electricity generated from these two plants is less than half the price of the average of the other (types of) generators," ...

...

The wind-turbine farms have also been controversial, with some residents living near them complaining of health problems from the hum of the whirling giant propellers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The electricity generated from these two plants is less than half the price of the average of the other (types of) generators," ...

===============================

So which one is the expensive culprit hydro, nuclear or natural gas?

Cheers,
jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<"The electricity generated from these two plants is less than half the price of the average of the other (types of) generators," ...

>>



As usual, left wing environmentalists don't care a fig about costs.



And I would imagine that reduced coal power production in Ontario translates into reduced electricty exports to the United States, which propbably means increased coal consumption in the United States to make up the deficit.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
As usual, left wing environmentalists don't care a fig about costs.

SP, well if it is any help the provincial government also pays the medical bills so we might call it a wash?


And I would imagine that reduced coal power production in Ontario translates into reduced electricty exports to the United States, which propbably means increased coal consumption in the United States to make up the deficit.

Highly unlikely as the vast majority of power exports to the US come from Quebec and would be from the massive Hydro projects there. Ontario has significantly added to power production by refurbishing some reactors at the Bruce power station (nuclear) bring them up to eight operating there.


Tim


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Statio...

The Bruce station is the largest nuclear facility the world (The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Japan is larger but is only operating at 48% due to earthquake damage and decommissioning),[3][4] comprising 8 CANDU nuclear reactors having a total output of 6,232 MW and 7,276 MW (net) when all units are online.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
How is it that Quebec's hydropower does not find its way to Ontario?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How is it that Quebec's hydropower does not find its way to Ontario?

Paul

That is a really obvious and very good question, unfortunately I haven't lived in Ontario since 1968. I could only guess at the answer and probably be only partially right.

Guess 1: At the time when the US was looking for power to buy Ontario didn't need any so the infrastructure wasn't built?

Guess 2: .... I'm out of ideas.

Power is very much a provincial thing and perhaps there is a bit of Texas in Ontario?

Lastly it is possible there is animosity at provincial government level?

I do recall that when the big power outage happened (2008?) (triggered in the US) Ontario was hit hard but Quebec wasn't.

I'll see if anyone has any ideas on Canada Gen?

Tim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
How is it that Quebec's hydropower does not find its way to Ontario?


It does, but only in small amounts, since we Quebeckers gobble up most of it, heating our houses and whatnot, so there's not much left to sell. One of the smart ways we would have of reducing our deficit, if the politics would work, would be to raise Quebec rates. That would prompt some Quebeckers, currently heating with electricity, to switch to heating with gas, at least where gas is available (3/4 of the province), and leave more to export to Ontario and the northern US. The end result would be less total waste, since gas is 95% efficient for heating but only 50% efficient for making electricity. So we would have Quebeckers using X kWh less energy for heating, and X kWh more in gas for heating, and Ontarians would import the X kWh of electricity, and use 2X less gas for making electricity, saving Canada X kWh of squandered gas.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The following links can provide some context on how much electricity moves between Canada and the US.

In 2010, a net 25.3 million megawatt-hours of energy were exported from Canada to the US. If this power flowed at a constant rate, it would be about 2900 megawatts, or the equivalent output from 2 or 3 nuclear reactors.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/table6.3.cfm

------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of dollar value, Canadian exports of crude oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels are much higher than electricity.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8910

----------------------------------------------------------
The following link has a chart showing the imports and exports from the several regions. British Columbia is actually a net importer of US power. New York and New England receive the most amount of Canadian power in the east.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8930

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Pete

Great stuff, the drop off in exports (imports for y'all) between 2008 and 2010 is shocking, power certainly takes a hit in recession. I suppose we are marginal sellers and only provide power when needed?

Tim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Forgot to add this quote from the first link:


Although most of Canada's power is shipped to the U.S., a number of provinces have been working to build connections within the country.

In 2010, Quebec and Ontario completed a 1,250-megawatt line, which doubled the exchange capacity between the two.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
totsubo,

From your first link we find:

"... Canada is one of the biggest power users in the world — due in large part to home heating demands ..."

-------------------------

Here in the USA we are energy conscious and making great strides to reduce wasteful energy usage and improve efficiency. However, Canada is the poster child of a country that squanders energy because it is cheap energy. Heating homes with electricity in the cold North is really something. They could become more efficient, add more transmission lines and become less dependent on construction of natural gas and nuclear power plants.

Cheers,
jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
<<Here in the USA we are energy conscious and making great strides to reduce wasteful energy usage and improve efficiency. However, Canada is the poster child of a country that squanders energy because it is cheap energy. Heating homes with electricity in the cold North is really something. They could become more efficient, add more transmission lines and become less dependent on construction of natural gas and nuclear power plants.

>>



Electricity ought to be cheap in at least some parts of the United States, notably in the Pacific Northwest. Indeed, it WAS very cheap for decades.

Environmentalists have been busily getting policies implemented that have resulted in large rate increases to consumers, most notably requiring heavy reliance on "renewable" power from solar or wind.

Of course, Washington, Oregon and Idaho have mostlt produced power from hydro, which has been very cheap to produce and which has always been "renewable." But environmentalists specifically EXCLUDED hydro as being a renewable power source when they mandated great increases in renewable power.

They wanted VERY EXPENSIVE wind and solar power developed --- not the already abundant renewable hydropower that already supplied most electricyt in the northwest.

Seattle, for example, usually has pretty much 100% hydropower, much of it from city dams built 60-80 years ago.

The only real affect of these environmentalist policies has been to increase the cost of power to consumers.

What a deal!



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top